Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| Calif. Procedures for Approving, Cert... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 5375
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 6 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 3:00 pm: | 
|
Currently missing in action from the Calif. Sec. State Bruce McPherson's Web site: Here are the missing "Procedures for Approving, Certifying, Reviewing, Modifying, and Decertifying Voting Systems, Vote Tabulating Systems, Election Observer Panel Plans, and Auxiliary Equipment, Materials, and Procedures"
(You may want to look carefully at sections marked in RED)
This is the html version of the file http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vsp_procedures.pdf
(Don't know how long this will last): Link to Google version
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: vsp_procedures pdf
Page 1
Procedures for Approving, Certifying, Reviewing, Modifying, and DecertifyingVoting Systems, Vote Tabulating Systems, Election Observer Panel Plans, and Auxiliary Equipment, Materials, and Procedures
Table of Contents
Article 1. Introduction
Article 2. Jurisdiction
Article 3. Voting Systems and Procedures Panel, Advisory Committee, and Technical Consultants
Article 4. Application for Approval and Certification
Article 5. Evaluating Applications
Article 6. Criteria for Approval or Certification
Article 7. Examination and Testing
Article 8. Modifications and Re-Examination
Article 9. Public Hearing
Article 10. Decision of the Secretary of State
Article 11. Periodic Review of Voting Systems
Article 12. Decertification of Voting Systems and Vote Tabulating Systems
Article 13. Acceptance Testing
Article 14. Maintenance Logs
Article 15. Biennial Tests of Voting Equipment
Article 16. Adoption of Federal Election Commission standards
Article 17. Periodic Review of Election Observer Panel Plans
Article 18. Definitions
Exhibit 1. Certificate of Biennial Inspection
Exhibit 2. Certification by Accuracy and Program Verification Board
Detailed Analysis
Article 1. Introduction
101. General Authority
102. Approval and Certification Required
103. Conditions for Approval and Certification
104. Rationale of Certification Process
Article 2. Jurisdiction
201. Reservation of Powers
202. Certificates of Inspection
203. Delegation of Powers
Page 2
Article 3. Voting Systems and Procedures Panel, Advisory Committee, and Technical Consultants
301. Applicability of Procedure
302. Voting Systems and Procedures Panel
303. Composition of Voting Systems and Procedures Panel
304. Advisory Committee
305. Technical Consultants
306. Public Meetings
Article 4. Application for Approval and Certification
401. Who Can Apply For Approval And Certification
402. Time to Apply
403. Contents of Application
404. Application Complete Before Examination Begins
405. Voting Equipment to be Submitted
406.Demonstration of the Item Proposed for Approval or Certification
407. Deposit Required for Examination Costs
Article 5. Evaluating Applications
501. Completeness of Application
502. Statement of Impact
503. Administrative Review and Preliminary Evaluation of Applications
504. Elements to Be Considered in the Review of an application
505. Applications Which Require Approval by the Voting Systems Panel
506. Applications Which Do Not Require Approval by the Voting Systems Panel
507. Approval May Be Conditioned
508. Decision in Writing
509. Decision Incorporated into Procedures, Guidelines, Other Materials
510. Appeal of Administrative Decision
511. Period for Appeal
512. Form of Appeal
513. Circulation Prior to Voting Systems Panel Hearing
Article 6. Criteria for Approval or Certification
601. Examination and Approval Criteria
602. Procedures for Use of the Proposed Item
Article 7. Examination and Testing
701. Examination and Testing
702. Examination and Testing of Voting Equipment
703. Mock Elections
Page 3
Article 8. Modifications and Re-Examination
801. Re-Examination
802. Application Information for Examination
803. Contents of Application
Article 9. Public Hearing
901. Public Hearing
902. Time and Place of Hearing
903. Cost of the Hearing
904. Agenda
905. Transcripts
906. Witnesses
Article 10. Decision of the Secretary of State
1001. Postponement of Decision
1002. Decision
1003. Approval Required Before Use
1004. New Application Permitted
Article 11. Periodic Review of Voting Systems
1101. Periodic Review of Approved Voting Systems
1102. Reasons for Periodic Review
Article 12. Decertification of Voting Systems and Vote Tabulating Systems
1201. Decertification
1202. Notice of Rescission
1203. Request for Reconsideration
1204. Public Hearing on Reconsideration
Article 13. Acceptance Testing
1301. Acceptance Testing
1302. Certify Results of Acceptance Testing
1303. Requirement for Corrections to Improper or Faulty Equipment
1304. Suspension of Certification
Article 14. Maintenance Logs
1401. Maintenance Logs
1402. Format of Maintenance Logs
1403. Suspension of Voting System
1404. Reinstatement of Certification
Page 4
Article 15. Biennial Tests of Voting Equipment
1501. Biennial Testing
1502. Certificate of Biennial Inspection
1503. Test Requirements
1504. Test Preparation
1505. Local Elections Officials’ Responsibility
1506. Time of Submission of Certification
Article 16. Adoption of Federal Election Commission Standards
1601. FEC Standards Are Adopted
Article 17. Periodic Review of Election Observer Panel Plans
1701. Election Observer Panel Plan
1702. Periodic Review of Election Observer Panel Plans
1703. Model Election Observer Panel Plan
Article 18. Definitions
1801. Acceptance Test
1802. Accuracy
1803. Audit Trail
1804. Auditability
1805. Auxiliary Equipment
1806. Ballot
1807. Ballot Card
1808. Card Reader
1809. Certificate of Biennial Inspection
1810. Certification by Accuracy and Program Verification Board
1811. Certification Test Deck
1812. Certification Testing
1813. Contest
1814. County and City
1815. Data Accuracy
1816. Data Integrity
1817. Data Security
1818. Demonstrator
1819. Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Equipment
1820. Documentation
1821. Election
1822. Election Observer Panel Plan
1823. Elections Official
1824. Escrow
1825. Escrow Facility
Page 5
1826. Examination or Review
1827. Functional Test
1828. Hardware
1829. Log of Maintenance Performance
1830. Maintenance Log
1831. Mark Sense Voting System
1832. Modification
1833. Modified Existing Systems
1834. Modified New Systems
1835. Operation Manual
1836. Party
1837. Pre-Audited Group of Ballots
1838. Printout
1839. Punch Card or Mark Sense Ballot
1840. Punch Card Voting System
1841. Qualification Testing
1842. Re-Certification
1843. Reliability
1844. Software
1845. Source Code
1846. Special Election
1847. Specific Environmental Conditions
1848. Test Deck
1849. User-Friendly
1850. Validation
1851. Vendor
1852. Verification
1853. Vote Tabulating Device
1854. Vote Tabulating Program
1855. Voting Device
1856. Voting Machine
1857. Voting Position
1858. Voting System
Exhibit 1. Certificate of Biennial Inspection
Exhibit 2. Certification by Accuracy and Program Verification Board
Page 6
Procedures for Approving, Certifying, Reviewing, Modifying, and Decertifying Voting Systems, Vote Tabulating Systems, Election Observer Panel Plans, and Auxiliary Equipment, Materials, and Procedures
Article 1. Introduction
101. General Authority
The Secretary of State, in exercising his or her statutory authority, has the duty to approve, certify,review, and decertify voting systems and vote tabulating systems [system], including specific modelsof a system, and to adopt procedures governing the approval, certification, review, decertification,and use of a system in accordance with the provisions of Division 19 of the California ElectionsCode (§§ 19001 and following). In the furtherance of open elections at each phase of the automated process of tabulating ballots, the Secretary of State requires that each election jurisdiction (county,city, city and county, district, etc.) prepare and submit for approval its plan to provide access to thatportion of the elections process. These plans, called Election Observer Panel Plans, will be filedwith the Secretary of State prior to the first use of the system and updated each time the environmentin which they are used changes.
102. Approval and Certification Required
At any election, all or any portion of which is conducted under the authority of the Elections Code,votes shall be cast, registered, recorded, and counted by means of voting systems, procedures, andvote tabulating systems that have been approved and certified by the Secretary of State for use inCalifornia elections. Conversely, no voting system and no vote tabulating system, in whole or inpart, shall be used in any election conducted under California law, unless the Secretary of State has approved and certified that system.
103. Conditions for Approval and Certification
(a) For any voting machine, voting device, vote tabulating device, and any software used for each,including the programs and procedures for vote tabulating and testing, or any modification to anyof the above, to be certified for use in California elections, the criteria by which the Secretary ofState evaluates such machine, procedure, device, modification, or software shall include, but notbe limited to, the following:
(1) The machine or device and its software shall be suitable for the purpose for which it is intended;
(2) The system shall preserve the secrecy of the ballot;
(3) The system shall be safe from fraud or manipulation;
(4) The system shall be auditable for the purposes of an election recount or contest procedure;
(5) The system shall comply with all appropriate federal and California laws and regulations, and;
(6) The system shall have been certified, if applicable, by means of qualification testing by a Nationally Recognized Test Laboratory (NRTL) and shall meet or exceed the minimum requirements set forth in the Performance and Test Standards for Punch Card, Mark Sense,
Page 7
and Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems, or in any successor voluntary standarddocument, developed and promulgated by the Federal Election Commission.
(b) In addition to the requirements of subdivision (a) of this section, voting systems, procedures, and equipment approved and certified by the Secretary of State shall promote accessible voting opportunities for persons with physical disabilities.
104. Rationale of Certification Process
(a) Certification consists of three separate levels of testing: qualification, certification andacceptance.
(b) Certification tests shall include functional tests and qualitative assessment to ensure that thesystem operates in a manner that is acceptable under federal and state law and regulations.
(c) Certification tests shall enhance public confidence by assuring that the system protects thesecrecy of the ballot and the security of the voting process, and records and counts votesaccurately.
(d) Certification tests shall promote public confidence that the system is easy to use or ‘voterfriendly.’
(e) Certification testing shall demonstrate that the system creates an audit trail showing both that thevoter was able to vote for the candidate or for or against a measure of his or her choice and that the system correctly and consistently interpreted the voter’s votes.
Article 2. Jurisdiction
201. Reservation of Powers
The Secretary of State reserves the right to approve, disapprove, certify, and decertify, asappropriate:
(a) New or modified voting systems and vote tabulating devices;
(b) New or modified procedures and regulations required for the use of such approved voting systems and vote tabulating devices;
(c) New or modified Election Observer Panel Plans for each election jurisdiction conducting anelection at which approved voting systems and vote tabulating devices are used, and;
(d) The formats and specifications for ballots to be used with approved voting systems and votetabulating devices.
202. Certificates of Inspection
The Secretary of State shall receive:
(a) Not later than January 1 of every odd-numbered year:
(1) Certificates of Biennial Inspection from elections officials conducting any California election at which automated voting systems and vote tabulating devices are used. (See appendedcertificate);
Page 8
(2) Certificates of Biennial Inspection from vendors who lease to, rent to, or allow elections officials to use any automated voting system or vote tabulating device in any Californiaelection. (See appended certificate)
(b) Not less than seven days before any state election, including elections to fill vacancies,certificates from Accuracy and Program Verification Boards in each election jurisdiction inwhich automated voting systems are used. (See appended certificate)
Page 9
203. Delegation of Powers
The Secretary of State may delegate duties to the Voting Systems and Procedures Panel:
(a) To review periodically all approved voting systems, voting devices and vote tabulating devices,as well as the required regulations and procedures for their use, and to make recommendations tothe Secretary of State regarding their continued approval for use in California elections;
(b) To review periodically each election jurisdiction’s approved Election Observer Panel Plans;
(c) To review periodically all approved formats and specifications for ballots to be used withapproved voting systems and vote tabulating devices;
(d) To review and make recommendations on applications for new voting and vote tabulating systems, equipment, materials, and procedures, as well as modifications to existing voting andvote tabulating systems, equipment, materials, and procedures, and;
(e) To establish an agenda and to conduct a public meeting for the purpose of reviewing applicationsand making recommendations to the Secretary of State.
Article 3. Voting Systems and Procedures Panel, Advisory Committee, and Technical Consultants
301. Applicability of Procedure
This procedure shall apply to all voting systems, voting devices, vote tabulating systems, equipment,materials, and procedures.
302. Voting Systems and Procedures Panel
The Secretary of State may establish a Voting Systems and Procedures Panel [Panel] to review proposed voting and vote tabulating systems, procedures, materials, and equipment, includingproposed modifications, for certification and make recommendations to the Secretary of Stateregarding certification.
303. Composition of Voting Systems and Procedures Panel
The Secretary of State shall review the membership of the Panel, and may appoint members to it asneeded. The appointed members shall serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of State. Panel members shall not hold or exercise any direct or indirect financial interest(s) in voting systems, vote tabulating systems, or any other equipment used with such systems.
304. Advisory Committee
The Secretary of State may also appoint membership to an advisory committee to assist the Secretaryin evaluating voting systems, voting devices, vote tabulating systems, and any other issue or item tocome before the Panel. The appointed members serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of State.305. Technical ConsultantsThe Secretary of State may retain, as required, one or more technical consultants to conduct tests,review specifications, write reports, make recommendations, and otherwise assist the Secretary of
Page 10
State and the Panel. No consultant shall hold or exercise any direct or indirect financial interest(s) in voting systems, vote tabulating systems, or any other equipment used with such systems.
306. Public Meetings
The Secretary of State or his or her designee will convene panel meetings. The meetings shall beconducted publicly with appropriate notice and publication of the agenda. The Secretary of State'sElections Division will provide support staff.
Article 4. Application for Approval and Certification
401. Who Can Apply For Approval And Certification
Any person or corporation [applicant] owning or being interested in a voting system or a vote tabulating system, part of a system, equipment, materials or procedure may apply to the Secretary of State for approval or certification.
402. Time to Apply
The applicant may apply to the Secretary of State at any time.
403. Contents of Application
The application shall be in writing, on a form supplied by the Secretary of State, and shall include atleast the following information:
(a) Information about the applicant, including name, address, telephone number, and businessaddress, if applicable;
(b) Complete and detailed description of the item(s) or procedures to be approved or certified,including whether the application is for a new item or for modification of an existing item;
(c) Information about the product or procedure that is being reviewed, including, but not limited to,version numbers, release numbers, operating and maintenance manuals, training materials,technical and operational specifications, installed customer lists, photographs, promotionalmaterials, etc;
(d) Reports for all tests conducted on the item being reviewed for approval or certification by anyNationally Recognized Test Laboratory (NRTL);
(e) Documentation that the item meets the Federal Election Commission Voting Equipmentguidelines;
(f) The applicant is encouraged to include certification documents from other states that havecertified the equipment;
(g) A list of other states, counties, and municipalities where the system is presently in use;
(h) A list of other states, counties, and municipalities where the system has been used but is nolonger in use;
(i) A list of any other states where an application has been made for approval of the equipment, anda statement as to whether the equipment was approved, disapproved, or the application ispending;
Page 11
(j) Information describing any financial relationship between the applicant and the manufacturer,distributor, or retailer of the various components of the equipment for which approval is sought,and;
(k) Other information or materials the applicant wishes to provide;The Secretary of State may request additional information from the applicant.
404. Application Complete Before Examination Begins
Only after the Secretary of State has received a completed application from the applicant may anexamination begin. No application shall be deemed to be complete until all documentation and feesrequired by these procedures has been submitted to the Secretary of State or his or her designee.
405. Voting Equipment to be Submitted
(a) The applicant shall make a working model of the item under review available to the Secretary of State for the duration of the review.
(b) The Secretary of State may require the applicant to cover the expenses of one or moreNationally Recognized Test Laboratory (NRTL), laboratory, and/or technical experts to assist inexamining the item.
(c) The equipment for which approval is sought shall be made available for examination andcertification testing for a period of at least 30 days before the equipment’s public hearing by theVoting Systems and Procedures Panel.
(d) Any operating systems or programs accompanying the equipment shall be designed to countvotes accurately.
(e) The format of the test ballots presented with the equipment shall be for an actual primaryelection and an actual general election.
(f) The applicant shall provide necessary ballot cards and other pertinent materials and equipmentin sufficient quantity to test the equipment extensively.
(g) The applicant shall provide the Secretary of State with instruction information and all availablespecifications.406.Demonstration of the Item Proposed for Approval or CertificationThe Secretary of State shall require that the applicant demonstrate the proposed system, equipment,procedure, or materials to the Secretary of State or his or her designee.407. Deposit Required for Examination CostsThe Secretary of State may require the applicant submitting the equipment to deposit moneys into anAgency Trust Account sufficient to guarantee and reimburse the cost of any contract for consultation or any other costs associated with the examination of a proposed item.
Article 5. Evaluating Applications
501. Completeness of Application
Page 12
Upon receipt of an application, the Secretary of State shall examine the application for completeness.If the application is not complete, the Secretary of State shall notify the applicant of the informationrequired to complete the application. No application will be considered for approval or certificationunless it is complete, including all required fees.502. Statement of ImpactThe Secretary of State, based on the materials provided with the application, shall produce astatement summarizing the application and its impacts or effects on voting in California.
503. Administrative Review and Preliminary Evaluation of Applications
Once an application is complete, the Elections Division of the Secretary of State’s office shall, within 30 days, conduct an administrative review of the application and will provide recommendations to the Secretary of State as to whether the application requires a meeting of the Voting Systems Panel or if it can be approved or rejected administratively.
504. Elements to Be Considered in the Review of an application
Upon receipt of a completed application, the Secretary of State shall evaluate the application. Thisevaluation shall include, but is not necessarily limited to:
(a) A review of California Elections Code sections which address the application;
(b) A review of federal statutes or regulations which address the application;
(c) A copy of the approved Qualification Test results released directly to the Secretary of State by a Nationally Approved Test Laboratory (NRTL).
(d) A review, if applicable, of transcripts or other materials from prior meetings or hearings on the proposed system, procedure, or modification either in whole or in part;
(e) A review, if applicable, of any procedures manuals, guidelines or other materials adopted for use with the system addressed by the application;
(f) A review of any effect the application will have on the security of the election system;
(g) A review of any effect the application will have on the accuracy of the election system;
(h) A review of any effect the application will have on the ease and convenience with which votersuse the system;
(i) A review of any effect the application will have on the timeliness of vote reporting, and,
(j) A review of any effect the application will have on the overall efficiency of the election system.
(k) A Description of Deposit Materials showing that the Ballot Tally Software Source Code hasbeen deposited in Escrow with an Escrow Company approved pursuant to Chapter 6, Division 7,Title 2 of the California Administrative Code, beginning with Section 20630.
505. Applications That Require Approval by the Voting Systems Panel
The Voting Systems Panel shall review any application that is determined to affect materially thesecurity of elections, the accuracy of voting or vote counting, convenience to the voter, lawfulconduct of elections, the integrity of the elections process, or otherwise result in significantmodification to existing procedures.
Page 13
506. Applications That Do Not Require Approval by the Voting Systems Panel
Any application that the Secretary of State determines does not materially affect the lawful conduct,accuracy, or security of elections, or which does not materially affect the convenience to the voter ofthe elections process, may be approved administratively.
507. Approval May Be Conditioned
Any approval may contain additional requirements of one or more actions or procedures, asdetermined by the review of the application.
508. Decision in Writing
Any decision to approve, certify, decertify, modify, or otherwise respond to an application shall be in writing under signature of the Secretary of State and shall include a statement of reasons for thedecision with specific reference to each of the criteria identified in § 504 above.
509. Decision Incorporated into Procedures, Guidelines, Other Materials
Within 30 days the applicant shall incorporate and submit to the Secretary of State for approval all the recommendations required by the Secretary of State for certification for inclusion into all appropriate procedures, guidelines, and other materials affected by the application.
510. Appeal of Administrative Decision
An applicant may appeal any administrative decision to the Secretary of State within 30 days ofreceipt of the written decision. The appeal shall be made on a form provided by the Secretary ofState.
511. Circulation Prior to Voting Systems Panel Hearing
At least 30 days prior to a meeting of the Voting Systems Panel to consider an application, a noticeof the proposed changes shall be circulated to all interested parties.
Article 6. Criteria for Approval or Certification
601. Examination and Approval Criteria.
The Secretary of State shall not approve a proposed item without a finding that the item conforms to all applicable laws, procedures and regulations, including the right to a secret ballot, does not compromise the accuracy, security or integrity of the election process, nor interferes with the voter’s ease and convenience in voting.
602. Procedures for Use of the Proposed Item
Approval or certification of a proposed item by the Secretary of State shall not take effect until all applicable procedures for its use have been formulated, approved, and incorporated into the
Page 14
appropriate documentary records. Final approval or certification will include a condition that the contract of sale shall provide that the equipment will work properly under provisions of California election laws, rules and regulation and that the procedures formulated for its operation have been approved by the Secretary of State. A copy of the procedures shall be submitted by the applicant orvendor to a prospective purchaser.
Article 7. Examination and Testing
701. Examination and Testing
The Secretary of State shall conduct, as appropriate, tests and examinations of the proposed item to ensure that it meets the criteria for approval or certification. Examination and testing may consist of one or more functional application tests designed to ensure that the system or equipment meets allapplicable procedures, regulations, guidelines and laws, and may include examination or testing bytechnical experts, including an Nationally Recognized Test Laboratory (NRTL) or laboratory.
702. Examination and Testing of Voting Equipment
All equipment proposed to be used for elections in California shall be examined and tested to ensureproper and accurate operation. The examination and testing shall include, but not be limited to, theset-up and conduct of at least two mock elections. The applicant shall provide ballot materials andprogramming to create these elections.
703. Mock Elections
(a) The equipment shall be examined and tested by conducting a mock presidential primary, asdefined by California law, and shall to verify, among other things, the provisions for, and theresults of, each presidential primary election and the rotation of candidate names for partisanand non-partisan offices, as necessary.
(b) The equipment shall be examined and tested in conducting a mock gubernatorial generalelection in order to test the rotation of candidate names for any office, as well as the results of astate and two local recall elections.
(c) Both mock elections shall feature at least ten precincts with at least ten ballots in each precinct,representing ballots cast at the precinct. Five additional ballots shall represent absent voterballots.
(d) In the case of the mock primary election, each qualified political party eligible to participate in the primary shall be represented by at least ten ballots in each precinct. Five additional ballots for each eligible party shall represent absent voter ballots. At the time the equipment is presented for examination and approval, the applicant should verify the number and names ofthe qualified political parties and should ascertain and follow any laws affecting the counting of partisan ballots at primary, special and general elections, and the rules affecting recall elections. The requirements of this section may be modified to accommodate a “blanket” primary election,if necessary.
Page 15
Article 8. Modifications and Re-Examination
801. Re-Examination
Any modification, change, or other alteration to a voting or vote tabulating material, equipment,component or procedure shall require approval or certification before it may be used in Californiaelections.
802. Application Information for Examination
An applicant may apply to the Secretary of State for the review of a modification of an existing certified system at any time during the year. Evaluation of the need for re-certification or examination will occur at the convenience and judgment of the Secretary of State. Application, examination, and testing of proposed modifications shall be done according to the same proceduresas applications for new items.
803. Contents of Application
In addition to the information required in section 403, an application for modification of an existing voting or vote tabulating system, equipment, material, or procedure shall provide a description, incomplete operational and technical detail, of all differences between the originally certified equipment, material, procedure or system and the proposed modification.
Article 9. Public Hearing
901. Public Hearing
The Secretary of State shall schedule a public hearing for any item requiring Panel consideration.
The purpose of the hearing shall be to receive testimony and information on proposed systems, materials, equipment or procedures, as well as modification to systems, materials, equipment and procedures. At the hearing, the applicant may be expected to conduct a demonstration and explain the application, as well as to answer questions from the Panel. The applicant may be asked to submit answers in writing if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the completeness of answers given atthe hearing.
902. Time and Place of Hearing
Hearings will be scheduled from time to time by the Secretary of State. Unless otherwise announced, hearings will be held at the Secretary of State's Office, 1500 Eleventh Street, Sacramento, California 95814.
903. Cost of the Hearing
The cost of the hearing will be borne by the State.
904. Agenda
Page 16
A copy of the agenda, including any amendments, will be available to all persons in attendance, and will be provided to all interested parties not less than 30 days in advance of the hearing.
905. Transcripts
Hearings will be stenographically recorded. Copies of the transcript may be purchased from the court reporter, or obtained from the Secretary of State, approximately three weeks after the hearing. The charge for the copy from the Secretary of State shall be in accord with statutory provisions ineffect at the time the request for the copy is made.
906. Witnesses
Applicants may arrange for witnesses and expert testimony in support of an application. Opponents of an application may also arrange for witnesses and expert testimony. Testimony or information may be provided in writing prior to or at the time of a hearing.
Article 10. Decision of the Secretary of State
1001. Decision
The decision of the Secretary of State, either approving, disapproving, or withholding approval of avoting machine, voting device, vote tabulating device, material, equipment, or procedure shall be made in writing, to the applicant, within 30 days of the hearing or provision of additional written materials as specified in Section 1002 (below). The decision shall state whether the system, equipment, material, or procedure so examined complies with the requirements of California election laws and regulations and can be safely used by voters at elections under the conditions prescribed in California election laws and regulations. The decision shall be filed with the Secretary of State, shall be reported to the Governor and Attorney General, shall be open to public inspection and, within 40 days from the date of the hearing, copies shall be sent to the county boards of supervisors, county and municipal elections officials, vendors of elections services and supplies, and interested parties.
1002. Postponement of Decision
The Secretary of State may postpone his or her decision, pending receipt of additional writteninformation, testimony, or examination of materials.
1003. Approval Required Before Use
No system, material, equipment, or procedure, in whole or part, may be used in elections in California unless it has received the approval of and been certified for use by the Secretary of State.
Page 17
1004. New Application Permitted
Denial of an application shall not prevent the applicant from submitting a new application to theSecretary of State.
Article 11. Periodic Review of Voting Systems
1101. Periodic Review of Approved Voting SystemsPursuant to Elections Code 19222, the Secretary of State shall periodically review voting systems todetermine whether they are defective, obsolete, or otherwise unacceptable. After such review, approval previously granted may be withdrawn. Six months notice must be given prior towithdrawing approval of any voting system unless the Secretary of State shows good cause for ashorter notification period. Any withdrawal by the Secretary of State of his or her approval of avoting system or part of a voting system shall not be effective as to any election conducted within sixmonths of that withdrawal.
1102. Reasons for Periodic Review
The periodic review shall examine certified voting systems and evaluate alternative systems to assurethat elections are conducted so as to:
(a) Protect the secrecy of the ballot;
(b) Protect the security of the voting process;
(c) Record and count votes accurately; and,
(d) Comply with all pertinent election laws, regulations, and procedures.
Article 12. Decertification of Voting Systems and Vote Tabulating Systems
1201. Decertification
If, at any time after the Secretary of State has certified a voting system, he or she determines that the voting system fails to meet the standards set forth in California election law, and upon consideration of the criteria required by the Examination Criteria section of these procedures, the Secretary of State shall notify any users and vendors of that particular voting system that the certification of that system for future use and sale in California is to be withdrawn.
1202. Notice of Rescission
The notice shall be in writing and shall specify the reasons why the certification of the system isbeing rescinded and the date on which the decertification is to become effective.
1203. Request for Reconsideration
An applicant or user of that voting system may request in writing that the Secretary of Statereconsider its decision to decertify the voting system.
1204. Public Hearing on Reconsideration
Page 18
Upon receipt of the request to reconsider, the Secretary of State shall hold a public hearing for thepurpose of reconsidering the decision to decertify the voting system. Any interested party shall be given the opportunity to submit testimony or documentation in support of, or in opposition to, the Secretary of State’s decision to decertify that particular voting system. Following the hearing, the Secretary of State may affirm or reverse his or her decision.
Article 13. Acceptance Testing
1301. Acceptance Testing
(a) Whenever an election jurisdiction acquires a new system or modifies an existing systempreviously certified by the Secretary of State, the election jurisdiction must perform acceptancetests of the equipment before it may be used to cast or count votes at any election. Theequipment must be operating correctly, pass all tests, and must be identical to the equipment certified by the Secretary of State.
(b) The vendor must provide all manuals and training necessary for the proper operation of thesystem.
(c) The election jurisdiction shall perform a series of functional and programming tests that will test all functions of the ballot counting system. This must include processing a substantial number of test ballots of various pre-punch or ballot codes, including split precincts, rotated races, multiple candidates, cumulative reports, precinct reports, canvass reports, and any other tests the election jurisdiction authority finds necessary.
1302. Certify Results of Acceptance Testing
The results of acceptance testing shall be certified to the Secretary of State.
1303. Requirement for Corrections to Improper or Faulty Equipment
If the acceptance test reveals any improper or faulty voting systems equipment, the applicant mustmake corrections to such improper or faulty equipment within 30 days from the date of such acceptance testing, or as otherwise provided for by contract.
1304. Suspension of Certification
The Secretary of State, upon his or her review of the acceptance testing of such equipment may, at his or her discretion, suspend certification of said equipment for future sales in the State of California, in accordance with the Rescission of Certification provisions of these procedures. Suchcertification may be reinstated after a complete review of further testing.
Page 19
Article 14. Maintenance Logs
1401. Maintenance Logs
Each election jurisdiction and voting supplies vendor which has purchased voting systems equipment shall keep a detailed log of maintenance, performance and testing procedures for each piece of such equipment in its inventory.
1402. Format of Maintenance Logs
Such logs shall be in a format specified by the Secretary of State, which shall be reviewed by the applicant, and which shall be available for periodic review and inspection by the Secretary of State.
1403. Suspension of Voting System
The Secretary of State may, after a hearing, suspend the use of any voting system or component thereof in any election jurisdiction in which proper maintenance procedures or proper servicing by the manufacturer have not been fully implemented.
1404. Reinstatement of Certification
The Secretary of State may reinstate the certification based upon review of these procedures and areview of the maintenance logs.
Article 15. Biennial Tests of Voting Equipment
1501. Biennial Testing
A biennial test of electronic or computerized voting equipment shall be conducted on each piece ofequipment under the jurisdiction of any elections official or vendor of election services.
1502. Certificate of Biennial Inspection
Certificate of Biennial Inspection means a certification, required by Elections Code § 19220, stating that all voting and vote counting equipment has been examined by the appropriate elections official before its use in an election and has been found to be operating correctly and accurately.
1503. Test RequirementsFor a centralized vote county system, biennial testing shall include, at a minimum, 800 votes.
1504. Test Preparation
Such tests shall be prepared by the local elections official or voting supplies vendor.
1505. Local Elections Officials Responsibility
Page 20
The local elections official shall certify to the Secretary of State that the testing of each piece of equipment within its jurisdiction has been completed. Such certification shall be on a form prescribed by and furnished by the Secretary of State.
1506. Time of Submission of Certification
The test certification shall be submitted to the Secretary of State not less than seven days before anelection.
Article 16. Adoption of Federal Election Commission Standards
1601. FEC Standards are Adopted
The Federal Election Commission standards concerning voting systems and software escrow are hereby included by reference, except where otherwise modified by federal and California laws and regulations.
Article 17. Periodic Review of Election Observer Panel Plans
1701. Election Observer Panel Plan
Each county election official shall prepare an Election Observer Panel Plan. This plan shall providefor meaningful public observation of the vote counting process, and shall be filed not later thanJanuary 15thof each even-numbered year with the Secretary of State.
1702. Periodic Review of Election Observer Panel Plans
The Secretary of State shall review Election Observer Panel Plans for each county and shall provide comment, as necessary, by February 15th of each even-numbered year.
1703. Model Election Observer Panel Plan
The Secretary of State shall develop, and distribute to each county election official, a model Election Observer Panel Plan.
Article 18. Definitions
1801. Acceptance Test means the examination of voting systems and their components by the purchasing election authority in a simulated use environment to validate performance of delivered units in accordance with procurement requirements; testing to validate performance may be less broad than that involved with qualification testing and successful performance for multiple units (precinct count systems) may be inferred from a sample test.
1802. Accuracy means precision in calculations and outputs.
1803. Audit Trail means a record of the manual and computing processes which have been applied to an election, showing each stage of processing and allowing the original data to be
Page 21
reconstituted. It permits verification of the integrity and reliability of the vote tabulating process as well as detection and correction of problems. A combination of manual and computer-generated documentation provides a record of each step taken in:
• defining and producing ballots and generating related software for specific elections;
• installing ballots and software;
• testing system readiness;
• casting and tabulating ballots; and,
• producing reports of vote totals.
The record incorporates system status and error messages generated during election processing, including a log of machine activities and routine and unusual intervention by authorized and unauthorized individuals. The audit trail also documents such items as ballots delivered andcollected, administrative procedures for system security, pre-election testing of voting systems, andmaintenance performed on voting equipment.
1804. Auditability means the ease of auditing the vote tabulating software, the ballots, and the canvass.
1805. Auxiliary Equipment means an independent component having a life of its own that isincorporated into the voting system, such as a card reader, printer or modem. It is not a permanent or enclosed part of the voting system.
1806. Ballot means a document on which the names of the candidates are printed for party positions or public office or contains ballot applications and on which the voter records his or her selection. A ballot may be comprised of two or more standard computer tabulating cards joined together which may be separated for the purpose of counting votes. (Cf. Elec C § 301)
1807. Ballot Card means the standard computer tabulating card produced when the stub has been removed from the ballot and when the full ballot, if necessary, has been separated into its sections. In these procedures, the term "ballot card" and "ballot" are sometimes usedinterchangeably. (Cf. Elec C § 302)
1808. Card Reader means a peripheral device for computers, used to read the data from ballot cards.
1809. Certificate of Biennial Inspection means a certification, required by § 19220, stating that allvoting and vote counting equipment has been examined by the appropriate elections official before its use in an election and has been found to be operating correctly and accurately. (See pended certificate)
1810. Certification by Accuracy and Program Verification Board, sometimes known as Logic and Accuracy Board, means a certification, adopted pursuant to Elections Code § 19205, whereby any county, city and county, city, or district which uses a vote tabulating device, certifies that they have conducted their pre-vote counting tests, and made any necessary corrections to the test materials, at least seven days before the day of the election. (See attached sample form)
Page 22
1811. Certification Test Deck means a pre-audited group of ballots voted with a pre-determinednumber of valid votes for each candidate, each write-in position and each voting position as a measure or proposition that appears on the ballot. It also includes one or more ballots that have been improperly voted or which are voted in excess of the number allowed by law in order to test the ability of the system to reject the votes, and one or more blank ballots.
1812. Certification Testing means the examination, and possibly testing, of a voting system to determine its compliance with state counting law and rules and any other state requirements for voting systems.
1813. Contest means the aggregate of candidates who run against each other or among themselves for a particular office. There must be a write-in voting square for each position to be filled in the contest. The positive and negative voting options of a ballot measure submitted to voters (Yes or No) also constitute a contest.
1814. County and City both include "city and county." (Elec C § 310)
1815. Data Accuracy means the system's ability to process voting data without errors generated by the system internally. It is distinguished from data integrity which encompasses errors introduced by an outside source.
1816. Data Integrity means the invulnerability of the system to accidental intervention or deliberate, fraudulent manipulation that would result in errors in the processing of voting data. It is distinguished from data accuracy which encompasses internal, system generated errors.
1817. Data Security means the various methods and procedures, such as the use of passwords and encryption, implemented to prevent unauthorized use, destruction, or disclosure of data, whether it is accidental or deliberate.
1818. Demonstrator means a model or facsimile of the voting device or the portion of the face of avoting machine that shows the voter how to operate the machine. (Elec C § 315)
1819. Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Equipment means an electronic voting machine (q.v.).
1820. Documentation means facts, manuals, notes, or instructions which are used to explain system functionality, software and hardware characteristics, and developmental testing.
1821. Election means any election including a primary that is provided for under the ElectionsCode. (Cf. Elec C § 318)
1822. Election Observer Panel Plan means a plan filed with the Secretary of State by any election jurisdiction (county, city and county, city, district) which counts its voted ballots at a place other than the precinct at which the ballots were cast, or uses a vote counting device to count and summarize its voted ballots. The purpose of the plan is to maintain the integrity of the public vote counting required by § 15054.
1823. Elections Official means any of the following:
Page 23
(a) A clerk or any person not covered by sub-section (b) who is charged with the duty ofconducting an election.
(b) A county clerk, registrar of voters, city clerk, elections supervisor, or governing board having jurisdiction over elections within any county, city, or district within the state. (Cf. Elec C §320)
1824. Escrow means the process by which a third party having no direct or indirect financial interest with a vendor holds, for safekeeping and possible verification, the voting system software source code, including all changes or modifications and new or amended versions. A financial interest would exist if the third party, for instance, included a vendor's stocks in its portfolio.
1825. Escrow Facility means the physical location in which the source code may be stored. No election jurisdiction may act as an escrow facility.
1826. Examination or Review means the inspection or analysis by a test authority, state certification authority, or local jurisdiction of the system hardware, software and other system documentation, test documentation, or documentation of modifications to as certain if the system complies with the standards, state code, or procurement contract requirements and to determine if further testing is required.
1827. Functional Test means an empirical test performed to verify or validate the accomplishmentof a function or a series of functions.
1828. Hardware means the mechanical, electrical and electronic assemblies, including materials and supplies, which are a part of the voting system, such as microprocessor (CPU), I/O devices, printer, circuit boards, integrated circuits, and power supply. Hardware includes the voting device on which individual voters cast their ballot, as well as the actual equipment which is used to program ballot software or central vote tabulation software.
1829. Log of Maintenance Performance means a written record which contains all information relating to performance of scheduled and non-scheduled maintenance requirements recommended by the vendor or manufacturer of such equipment and all service visits performed by vendor or manufacturer.
1830. Maintenance Log means a written record which contains all information relating to system testing, performance of scheduled and non-scheduled maintenance requirements recommended by the vendor or manufacturer of such equipment, and all service visits performed by vendor or manufacturer.
1831. Mark Sense Voting System means a system by which votes are recorded by means of marksmade in voting response fields designated on one or both faces of a ballot card or series of cards.
1832. Modification means any change in either software, firmware, hardware, or procedure for use that directly affects the operation of the voting system that will require reexamination of certified equipment by the Secretary of State.
Page 24
1833. Modified Existing Systems mean existing systems that have been modified to be in partial or full compliance with the performance and design standards.
1834. Modified New Systems mean voting systems previously developed tested in compliance with the standards and that are subsequently modified.
1835. Operation Manual means
(1) a manual of all procedures used to prepare the equipment and provide proper maintenance procedures, including the unpacking and storage procedures to be used by local elections officials, and
(2) a manual of election day set-up and election day operating procedures to be used by local elections officials.
1836. Party means a political party or organization that has qualified for participating in anyprimary election. (Elec C § 338)
1837. Pre-Audited Group of Ballots means a test deck whose contents are known.
1838. Printout means the printed copy of
(1) zero totals, candidate names and offices and other information produced by the counting equipment prior to the official canvass of the ballots and
(2) the ballots cast for each candidate and question, the names of candidates and the offices for each candidate and other information provided after the official ballot tabulation.
1839. Punch Card or Mark Sense Ballot means a tabulating card on which the voter may record his or her vote by punching or marking at designated locations on the card. (Cf. Elec C § 344)
1840. Punch Card Voting System means one where votes are recorded by means of punches made in voting response fields designated on one or both faces of a ballot card or series of cards.
1841. Qualification Testing means the examination and testing of a computerized voting system by an independent test authority using FEC test standards to determine if the system complies with the FEC performance and design standards. This process occurs before certification testing.
1842. Re-Certification means the examination, and possibly the retesting, of a voting system which was modified after having been certified for use in California elections. The object of this process is to determine if the modification still permits the system to function in accordance with state requirements.
1843. Reliability means the probability that an item will perform a required function, under stated conditions, for a stated period of time. Reliability is therefore the extension of quality into the time domain and may be paraphrased as 'the probability of non-failure in a given time.'
1844. Software means the application and operating system programs associated with a computer, as opposed to hardware that refers to the physical components of a computer system. Software means any and all codes for operation of the vote counting system including ballot tabulation system bootstrap, monitor and device controllers, operating system, ballot layout, system audit and report generation. Software includes all programs, voting devices, cards, ballot cards or papers, operating manuals or instructions, test procedures, printouts, and other non-mechanical or non-electrical items necessary to the operation of a voting system. (Cf. Elec C § 355)
Page 25
1845. Source Code means the specific language a programmer uses to program the electronic equipment or vote tabulating system. The source code of the computer language is then compiled, interpreted, or assembled into object code by the computer. The result is a machine language program in binary form which can be run by the computer.
1846. Special Election is an election, the specific time for the holding of which is not prescribed by law. (Elec C § 356)
1847. Specific Environmental Conditions means and shall include the effect of natural environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity and dust, and induced environmental conditions such as handling, storage or transportation which may affect the operation of the equipment.
1848. Test Deck means a pre-audited group of ballots voted with a pre-determined number of valid votes for each candidate, each write-in position and each voting option on a question or proposition that appears on the ballot. It also includes one or more ballots that have been improperly voted or which are voted in excess of the number allowed by law in order to test the ability of the system to reject those votes, one or more blank ballots, and one or more ballots onwhich two or more votes are cast for a candidate whose name appears on the ballot more than once for the same office, in order to test the ability of the system to count only the first of such votes for the candidate.
1849. User-Friendly means a process or system which is easy to use and difficult to misuse.
1850. Validation means a test to find errors by executing a program in a real environment (i.e.,during acceptance tests).
1851. Vendor means any manufacturer, company, or individual who seeks to sell, or sells, a voting system or a vote tabulating system for use in California elections.
1852. Verification means a test to find errors by executing a program in a simulated environment(i.e., during system qualification testing).
1853. Vote Tabulating Device means any piece of equipment, other than a voting machine, that compiles a total of votes cast by means of ballot card sorting, ballot card reading or scanning, paper ballot scanning, electronic data processing, or a combination of such equipment. (Elec C §358) Examples: Documation (IBM, Data General, etc.) Card Reader, PROM-PAK, etc.
1854. Vote Tabulating Program means the computer programs used for counting of votes cast on Ballots. It includes both any and all vendor software, and the coding programs specific to eachelection.
1855. Voting Device means any device used in conjunction with a ballot card or cards to indicate the choice of the voter by marking, punching, or slotting the ballot card. (Elec C § 360) Examples: Vote Recorder, Stylus.
Page 26
1856. Voting Machine means any device upon which a voter may register his or her vote, andwhich, by means of counters, embossing, or printouts, furnishes a total of the number of votescast for each candidate or measure. (Elec C § 361) Examples: Automatic (AVM), Shoup.1857. Voting Position or Voting Square means an area or square or defined location on the ballotto the right of the candidate’s name or ballot measure in which a punch or mark can be made toindicate a valid vote.1858. Voting System means any mechanical, electro-mechanical, or electronic system and itssoftware, or any combination of such used to cast or to tabulate votes, or both. (Elec C § 362)Examples: DataVote, Mark-a-Vote, Votomatic; Pollstar, Optech, etc.
Page 27
(Form Date is January 1997)Certificate of Biennial InspectionState of California )(City and) County of )I, , Registrar of Voters/County Clerk of the (City and) County of, dohereby certify that in the normal course of pre-election hardware maintenance and testing of our votingand vote tabulating equipment for the forthcoming election on, I find that thevoting and vote tabulating equipment used in said (City and) County is operating correctly andaccurately. This Certificate is issued pursuant to Elections Code section 19220.Dated: (date)Signed: (name and title)[Seal]
Page 28
(Form Date is January 1997)
Certification by Accuracy and Program Verification Board State of California )(City and) County of )We, the undersigned members of the Accuracy and Program Verification Board, having been duly appointed by, the Registrar of Voters/County Clerk of the (City and) County of , for theelection to be held on , to verify the logic and accuracy test ballots as required by the Procedures for theuse of the System, adopted pursuant to Elections Code section 19205, do hereby certify through theRegistrar of Voters/County Clerk to the Secretary of State:THAT the pre-vote counting tests, as defined in the above-mentioned procedures, have been performed;THAT the pre-vote counting test results have been compared with the predetermined correct totals for each office andballot measure;THAT the cause of any discrepancy was found and corrected; and,THAT the logic and accuracy test programs, the logic and accuracy test ballot cards, and the logic and accuracy testprinted output which were certified as correct by the Accuracy and Program Verification Board were delivered into thecustody of the Registrar of Voters/County Clerk.We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
_____________________________________________ ___________________
SIGNATURE of First Board Member Date_____________________________________________PRINTED Name of First Board Member
_____________________________________________ ___________________
SIGNATURE of Second Board Member
Date_____________________________________________
PRINTED Name of Second Board Member
_____________________________________________ __________________
SIGNATURE of Third Board Member
Date_____________________________________________PRINTED Name of Third Board Member(Use as many
signature blocks as there are board members)
* * * * *
"We're counting the votes. Get over it."
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Mike Myhre
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_myhre
Post Number: 97
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 3:10 pm: |
|
I love the google cache system! I have caught people so many times who think once the pull a document off a website, that it is gone from the web instantly. All it does is show their intent to hide it. |
Tom Courbat
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Leftisbest
Post Number: 6
Registered: 06-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 12:38 am: |
|
Thank you for saving this for us. Seems like from here on out, we'd better copy Web-based items to our own hard drives to make certain the information stays around.
I noticed in their latest list (as of June 6) the SoS failed to differentiate between counties with Sequoia Edge I machines (Shasta, Tehama and Napa) and those with Edge IIs. Since there are millions of dollars of difference in the two, it seems a significant enough distinction to warrant identifying separately. I wrote to the SoS to inquire as to why no distinction, but I've heard nothing back. |
Tom Courbat
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Leftisbest
Post Number: 7
Registered: 06-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 1:43 am: |
|
Here is another provision of the now "disappeared" directive that is ignored in any number of CA counties. It only happened in Riverside due to efforts of local activists who demanded it be created. None the less, the RoV in RivCo gave only token acknowledgement to the requirements of "meaningful observation".
I wonder if this would be grounds for disqualifying a system, since it is one of the requirements for any DRE system. - Ideas anyone?
Article 17. Periodic Review of Election Observer Panel Plans
1701. Election Observer Panel Plan
Each county election official shall prepare an Election Observer Panel Plan. This plan shall providefor meaningful public observation of the vote counting process, and shall be filed not later thanJanuary 15thof each even-numbered year with the Secretary of State.
1702. Periodic Review of Election Observer Panel Plans
The Secretary of State shall review Election Observer Panel Plans for each county and shall provide comment, as necessary, by February 15th of each even-numbered year.
1703. Model Election Observer Panel Plan
The Secretary of State shall develop, and distribute to each county election official, a model Election Observer Panel Plan. |
Chuck Garner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Chuck_garner
Post Number: 1
Registered: 06-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 6:24 am: |
|
This is really getting to be scary; it's not enough to have paper ballots hand-counted at each precinct if the tabulations are then sent to a central tabulator. That central tabulator can be hacked also, so tight control must be maintained- meaning that all results must be publicly posted, both the precinct totals and the county totals. The latest action of the SoS may render all this moot anyway, because when there are no longer any rules governing elections what's left is Fascism. |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 442
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 7:17 am: |
|
Chuck,
It's already scarier than I could have ever imagined. What's worse is it's only going to get scarier, if citizens don't get involved in the election process.
Such arrogance displayed by the Cal. SOS in his dropping certain procedures in the election process, which he is mandated by the citizens of Cal. to follow without question, is a great whiff of fascism for sure. It outrages me even more that he obviously thinks he can get away with it.
It is because of such actions as this that BBV is urging all citizens to join us in the greatest gathering of evidence by citizens between now and election day. Here's a link explaining various things citizens can do:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/30499.html
We believe that it will be through obtaining hard evidence which shows election officials flaunting proper procedures, ignoring election laws, and keeping track of all machine failures experienced during the election that we will be able to turn this runaway train around and get back on track.
Back on track meaning citizens demanding, not asking, to be put back in charge of overseeing and managing our own elections based on the evidence. It's quite obvious that because of the excellent work done by citizens, Jody Holder, Bruce Sims and Dan Ashby in California in bringing forth evidence of McPhereson's dereliction of duty that Californians will now be in a position to reinstate these procedures and perhaps, add a few more stringent ones holding any CA SOS accountable for the blatant disregard for the law McPhereson exhibited (you know, the same kind of accountability slapped on citizens when they don't follow the law!) Meaningful citizen oversight is the missing ingredient for fair and honest elections and we can't compromise in getting it back.
So, please join us in the fight to take back our elections.
Kathleen
(Message edited by admin_ii on July 11, 2006)
* * * * *
"We're counting the votes. Get over it."
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3030
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 7:32 am: |
|
If state officials can have citizens arrested (like when they arrested Jim March for trying to observe vote-counting, which he was legally allowed to do), why can't citizens have state officials arrested who are blatantly flouting the law?
The breaches of the law by state officials are very serious, since the very fabric of our democracy is at stake. Has anyone ever tried to get them arrested? It would be interesting to videotape their response to such a request. |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 443
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 8:54 am: |
|
Catherine,
Doesn't the law allow for a "citizens arrest" when they observe a law being broken and they choose to intervene? So, why can't a citizen arrest a state elections official or any election official, for that matter, if a citizen observes them not following the law? Of course, lawmakers will complain that this would open the door for an onslaught of citizens' arrests of election officials all over the country and would clog up the jails!
That's a video moment I wouldn't want to miss!
Kathleen
* * * * *
"We're counting the votes. Get over it."
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Bruce Sims
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 845
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 10:00 am: |
|
Catherine ,another answer more to the point; In CA the 'Evidence Code has a 'presumption' that the public official does the job properly.
"664. It is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed. This presumption does not apply on an issue as to the lawfulness of an arrest if it is found or otherwise established that the arrest was made without a warrant."
CA Courts are loathe to question a publkic official's actions UNLESS the 'preponderance of evidence' would lead a judge to issue a warrant due to 'just cause'. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3034
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 11:33 am: |
|
Bruce, does this mean that if a citizen makes a citizen's arrest of a public official because the public official was breaking the law, since the arrest was made without a warrant the usual presumption of the official's having performed their duty properly does not apply?
Or is this the case only if the police make the warrant-less arrest?
If a citizen is "armed" with the relevant state regulations or statutes, wouldn't it be pretty easy to demonstrate in court that a law was being broken? Would they try to claim it was frivolous? What are the potential downsides of making a good-faith citizen's arrest?
How does one make a citizen's arrest, anyways? |
Mike Myhre
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_myhre
Post Number: 105
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Here is a link to a web page on Citizens arrests:
http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm
I am learning here too, but my take on it is that a citizens arrest is necessary when it is required to prevent a further crime from being committed or flight of the perpetrator. In elections, it is not likely the perpetrator will flee, but the crime may continue unless something is done. As I see it, the sequence of events would be:
1) try to stop the crime: "What you are doing is a felony per statute xxx.yyy. If you don't correct your actions, I will need to take action".
2) If they don't stop, and there is an officer available, ask the officer to arrest the person based on the specific offense.
3) If an officer is not available, inform the person that you are making a citizens arrest based on the following statute and call for an officer to assist. Since minimal force is necessary and you must first act to stop the crime, you may be able to find a legal way to stop the crime without physically attacking the person while waiting for an officer.
Of course, to make this stick, it must all be recorded so you can replay the logical way in which you conducted yourself and tried to stop the crime from taking place.
Any legal people here care to comment? |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 5395
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 1:08 pm: |
|
First step has to be identifying each of the acts which constitute criminal behavior, as opposed to civil issues.
For example, "massaging the votes" as Scott Konopasek admitted to doing might be a felony. Is it a criminal act for a public official to violate civil rights? I don't know, I'd guess that is civil.
I think this line of discussion could be productive, but needs to start with finding applications of failure to follow the law that carry criminal, rather than civil penalties.
And while I'm commenting -- this doesn't really fit here, but it doesn't fit anywhere else either -- I'm reading some e-mails from citizens right now. These are citizens who began to get involved with cleaning up elections, did the right things, have had many encounters with their local elections officials, have been pounding heads against the wall for awhile. Here's what happens when citizens get involved -- they can't believe what they are seeing.
One wrote "Is it just me, or are our elections officials smoking some doobs on the job or something...?"
Another wrote, "Well, it seems like a few elections officials here and there are starting to come out of their hypnotic state...."
This is why it's good to get more citizens involved. As many as possible. Because for many of us, it hits us in the face pretty quick that we've got a real problem on our hands.
* * * * *
"We're counting the votes. Get over it."
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3035
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Bev, thanks for pointing out the need to distinguish between criminal offenses as opposed to civil offenses. I hope others will post more about what sets the two categories apart, and to what extent this might vary from state to state.
Would it be worth moving this to a special thread relating to Citizen's Arrest as a possible response to criminal acts? |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 444
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Catherine,
I think we should have a special thread for "Citizens Arrest", as I believe we should research the matter more thoroughly in order to see what recourses are available to citizens in this area.
This knowledge could very well come in handy come November. It has the potential to be another way of empowering citizens by giving them an avenue in which to confront and challenge any wrongdoing being perpetrated by election officials before, during and after elections. The importance lies in being able to take action at the time any wrongdoing is being done by an elections official, rather than waiting until after the election to try to deal with it through legal channels.
IMO, the potential for using the law in such a way could prove to be a powerful tool for citizens that will put election officials on notice that we mean business about citizen oversight and election official accountability.
Kathleen
* * * * *
"We're counting the votes. Get over it."
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3037
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Why wait till November? If we can put this to good use before then, it could mean that officials behave differently in November. It certainly might help some of them get better informed regarding their legal obligations. |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 445
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Catherine, I agree. However, we need to make certain we understand the law, as it pertains to citizens conducting such an arrest. This would require us to make certain that "citizen arrest" laws are basically the same in every state and then be able to provide the correct guidelines for citizens to follow (accompanied by any appropriate warnings).
Plus, as Mike suggested (and I think this is key) that any citizen taking such an action should make certain they can videotape the experience. The chances of actually having an election official arrested are pretty slim but getting an election official's reaction to such an act on film would be priceless and would make the point being made by such an act --Citizen empowerment, election official accountability and adherence to the law and reclaiming our elections.
In any event, we want to take every precaution to make certain this act doesn't backfire on the citizen making the arrest.
Kathleen
* * * * *
"We're counting the votes. Get over it."
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3038
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 4:53 pm: |
|
I agree we need to be informed about the law first. I just wouldn't assume that it will take until November to find out what we need to know. If we have the necessary information by August, then we shouldn't wait to use it till November, if there is an appropriate occasion before then. Or maybe no public official will break any criminal laws at all and all this will be moot. . .
(I guess we can forget about the public official currently mentioned on BradBlog.com who has many pending indictments. If there are already indictments then there's no need for a citizen's arrest, I assume.) |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 446
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Catherine,
Since Jody Holder has such an excellent grasp of election law and its interpretation, I thought I'd check in with him for some guidance on this matter. Following is Jody's response to my request for help:
The idea is good but I am afraid the law related to how an election is conducted is ambiguous. Where the law is oriented towards criminal charges is more related to interference with an election official or altering the vote or similar attacks on the results themselves.
It appears that most legislation has been written or tailored towards the needs of election officials. We need wholesale reform at the statutory level. I would hope that Debra Bowen would lead out in that area.
What is becoming apparent is the fact that local election officials appear to have a free-hand to interpret and implement the law as they choose. The stories I am receiving from throughout the state are outrageous. There is flagrant violations of both the spirit and letter of the law and Procedures for Use. The SoS is responsible for enforcement. That is why I think formal complaints to the Secretary are in order.
I will have to think and deal with this later.
Jody's points are well taken. Obviously, there is little to no chance a citizen can actually arrest an election official, unless they catch them in the act of stealing votes. However, I don't see why we couldn't figure out a way to make this a symbolic gesture on the part of citizens that we are fed up with election officials who violate procedures and election laws without fear of accountability.
We'll just have to put our heads together to figure out a way around these obstacles.
Kathleen
* * * * *
"We're counting the votes. Get over it."
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 681
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Interfering with an elections official when he's working is likely to get you arrested. I don't know, but I suspect that Jody is exactly right in that all law favors the officials. Look at it this way Kathleen: You film the 'citizen's arrest', they arrest you and take you to the pokey, what's become of your videocamera?
Better to narrate all that you see while video-recording it and mentioning the statutes violated on camera. Then send copies of it to various MSM and internet press agencies and the SOS and the attorney general. |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 447
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Brant,
I thought I made it clear in my previous posts that we had to research this further, understand the laws involved in order to figure out what approaches might get the best results in showing election officials disregarding procedures and/or laws while administering our elections. This is why I posted Jody's response to my request for assistance in researching this matter further. I certainly am not suggesting "interference" with an election official by a citizen.
Since I presented the idea of the possibility of a "citizens arrest" of an election official violating election law only yesterday, I think it's fair to say we haven't had time to research all the options, before coming to any conclusions about how we should go about it or even "if" we should.
Also, I don't think a videotape of someone narrating what's going on during an election would achieve the desired result. The focus should be on the election officials themselves and what they are doing that is in violation of the law. I can't imagine that a citizen would get taken to the pokey by simply pointing out a violation of election law directly to an election official and then film their response! How could that be viewed as "interfering"?
Of course, the key to this being a successful venture would be the compilation of dozens or even hundreds of videotapes showing election officials being allerted to a violation of law they are committing by a citizen.
The main goal here is to motivate citizen involvement in overseeing their elections and making certain election officials are doing their jobs, as required by law. That election officials are being put on notice that citizens are watching and we won't stand silently by while they ignore the law. It's also about citizen empowerment and sending a message to election officials, vendors and politicians alike that we are not compromising any longer on the integrity of our elections.
Considering the arrogance in flaunting the law, as shown by SOS McPhereson of California and Blackwell of Ohio (just to name 2 of the worse case scenarios), all citizens should be mad as hell and not take this kind of behavior any more.
Kathleen
(Message edited by admin_ii on July 12, 2006)
* * * * *
"We're counting the votes. Get over it."
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 684
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 5:09 am: |
|
I'm sorry, Kathleen, apparantly I wasn't clear enough, I meant film the transgression while saying what has been done in contravention of the law to immediately document what is seen as having been done wrong.
You also said: "I can't imagine that a citizen would get taken to the pokey by simply pointing out a violation of election law directly to an election official and then film their response! How could that be viewed as "interfering"? " I suggested nothing of the kind, I said : "Interfering with an elections official when he's working is likely to get you arrested. I don't know, but I suspect that Jody is exactly right in that all law favors the officials.". If you are only saying what the official(s) has/have done and ask for their comment(s) you are not making an arrest. If you do nothing to prevent continuation or resumption of the action you aren't making an arrest. You seem to have switched strategies.
Here are the definitions of arrest (from dictionary.com):
1. To stop; check: a brake that automatically arrests motion; arrested the growth of the tumor.
2. To seize and hold under the authority of law.
3. To capture and hold briefly (the attention, for example); engage.
I should hope we are both referring to definition 2. How 'symbolic' can an arrest be? It sounds like a symbolic pregnancy. |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 449
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 8:39 am: |
|
Brant,
I haven't switched strategies because, as I said in previous posts, I haven't researched all the potential alternatives that might be available in order to come up with a strategy. I just presented the "idea" of a citizens arrest and then made certain that any possibility of proceeding with the idea was contingent upon not breaking any laws in the process.
So, please don't put words in my mouth and please read more carefully what I've written before drawing conclusions about what I'm suggesting or whether you've been clear or not.
Kathleen
* * * * *
"We're counting the votes. Get over it."
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 685
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Kathleen, you said "So, please don't put words in my mouth and please read more carefully what I've written before drawing conclusions about what I'm suggesting or whether you've been clear or not."
Since you had said in your previous post:"Also, I don't think a videotape of someone narrating what's going on during an election would achieve the desired result. The focus should be on the election officials themselves and what they are doing that is in violation of the law." Since my correction was that the filming would be of the elections official with narration, I don't feel it was unfair to say that perhaps I hadn't been clear enough. And (reading between the lines) your strategy seems to have changed from 'citizen's arrest with evidentiary filming' to 'citizen's challenge with documentary filming', at least in the post that we are discussing (6/12/2006. 1:45). Perhaps you haven't been clear. |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 451
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 7:54 am: |
|
Brant,
Perhaps we both haven't been clear.
The important thing here is that we work together to find an effective, yet safe way, for a citizen to go about conducting a "citizens arrest" during an election. The whole point of this exercise is to to conclude that whatever steps we finally suggest to be taken must be well thought out and viewed from every angle. We can't afford to advise citizens to try this exercise and not prepare them adequately.
Imagine. Citizens obtaining documented evidence of election laws being violated would be an enormously effective tool in pointing out why citizen oversight is absolutely necessary in every phase of the election process. I envision this exercise to help citizens not only get involved but also to help them see for themselves the sad state of affairs our elections process is in. Until they understand how bad it is, we will not be able to build the criticial mass of citizen outrage necessary to push forward real change. And that's going to take a heapin' helpin' of citizen outrage!
So, the next step would be is to figure out the most effective way to utilize such evidence after the election.
Any ideas on that, Brant?
Kathleen
* * * * *
"We're counting the votes. Get over it."
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Tom Courbat
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Leftisbest
Post Number: 10
Registered: 06-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 9:52 am: |
|
Please, please - let's keep this discussion on a positve keel. We have enough issues to deal with in addressing the Registrars of Voters (RoVs) without having bickering about "he said, she said" within our own ranks.
Ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ~ James Madison
"The degree of willingness of a government to open itself up to public scrutiny and public audit fortells the quality and integrity of that government." – Tom Courbat |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 452
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 10:36 am: |
|
Tom,
Thanks for your concern, but I think we are. Brant and I are simply making certain we are on the same page!
Any ideas about how to conduct an effective "citizens arrest"?
Kathleen
* * * * *
"We're counting the votes. Get over it."
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 687
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:48 am: |
|
I think whether it's legal or not you're going to have a heap of trouble resulting for the citizen from the citizen's arrest (whether you've scrupulously obeyed the law or not).
Unless a highly prepped (and nimble)lawyer is the one to do this, I think you're on significantly safer ground with the 'challenge and video-document the errors'. This needs to have several people involved in it at one time (to testify to the taping).
Here's a thought, maybe we can get candidates (since they're the only ones with 'standing') to pledge in writing before the elections that they will challenge for recount on the basis of any reasonable evidence of elections misfeasance (deliberate or otherwise (perhaps even to include whether they're winning or not!). This can be wrapped in a lot of patriotic boilerplate that also happens to be true.("Voting participation and oversight are fundamental to democracy and being certain that the people are served by the candidates that were honestly selected is vital to the republic.")
The 'in writing' protects the candidate as well, as it shows that he was obligated to get the recount for the sake of fair elections and isn't just a troublemaker.
I think this is going to make useful evidence in court, above and beyond its use to sway public opinion or get converts to the voting reform movement. I also think winning a few court cases will drastically affect public opinion, if it overturns an election. How can they keep that out of the papers? |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 688
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
|
Also Katherine, I think you download the video to a laptop (don't give anyone you're not sure of the prime copy of your evidence) and show the film to the first cop you can find (preferably in the presence of one or several reporters) and ask him to arrest the official / poll worker in question.
To do this, you need:
your witnesses (better be plural),
your evidence,
copies of the statute, gotten/printed in such a way that they clearly are the statutes,
and an honest, gutsy cop.
Even if you can't get the cop to make the arrest or intervene, it's evidence that you made all efforts not to take the law into your own hands, and may then (in the company of a lawyer, if at all possible) be forced into executing a 'citizen's arrest'. It's better if a lawyer does it, though, as they're 'officers of the court' and are obliged to do everything reasonably possible to support the law. |
Tom Courbat
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Leftisbest
Post Number: 11
Registered: 06-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
This is getting better and better! I can see a strategy emerging! |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 690
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 12:08 pm: |
|
I'm thinking a world of possibilities opens up once you have the evidence. |
Steven Lewis
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: 1776blues
Post Number: 1
Registered: 07-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 8:00 pm: |
|
The page is now gone from the Secretary's website! Amazing, I sent him a mesage, informing him of this and that it may be time for the citizens to take controll of what systems are approved, by putting it on the ballot! |
|
|
California procedures backup copy
