Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with:
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| (US) 8/06 - bill AB 2097, Does anyone... |
|
| Author |
Message |
   
Michelle Smith Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Galfromcal
Post Number: 71 Registered: 11-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 1:11 am: |
|
I was wanting to know if there is any info/opinion on Ca Assembly Bill 2097. Here is what it covers; http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2097&sess=CUR&house=B &search_type=email Others have asked about it and I think it is a covering what is already law, but I would like someone elses opinion. Thanks Michelle |
   
Pat Vesely Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 253 Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 8:50 pm: |
|
I'm posting the text of the bill here to make it easier to comment on. It will take me a while to read the rest of the election code to see how this meshes with what's already on the books and how this bill might impact it if it's signed into law. I've seen at least 2 things that I'd like to see struck from it but, on the whole I tend to like it.
quote: BILL NUMBER: AB 2097 INTRODUCED BILL TEXT INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Goldberg FEBRUARY 17, 2006 An act to add Section 19213.5 to the Elections Code, relating to voting systems, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2097, as introduced, Goldberg Voting system certification: vendors. (1) Existing law prohibits the Secretary of State from approving any voting system or part of a voting system, unless it fulfills specified state law requirements and regulations. Existing law also requires the Secretary of State to study and adopt regulations governing the use of voting machines, voting devices, vote tabulating devices, and any software used for each. This bill would prohibit the Secretary of State, as of June 30, 2007, from approving a voting system for use in an election until its operation and specifications are publicly disclosed. The bill would also require a vendor applying for voting system certification, as of June 30, 2007, to comply with specified conditions and also require the Secretary of State to place specified information on his or her Web site by that date. (2) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) Current state law requires that the vote counting process be publicly observable. However, with the advent of computerized vote counting processes, the ability of the public to meaningfully observe tabulation is limited since details of these systems are secret. Public scrutiny is lacking. The people of California declare that every voter has the right to know that votes are accurately recorded and counted. (b) Vendors should be required to disclose all technical details when applying for state certification for a voting system. The Secretary of State should manage a process whereby citizens can obtain technical information free of charge, including computer source code, relevant to voting systems under review for certification as well as systems that have obtained state certification. SEC. 2. Section 19213.5 is added to the Elections Code, to read: 19213.5. (a) By June 30, 2007, the Secretary of State shall not approve a voting system for use in any election until all details of its operating system and specifications are publicly disclosed. (b) By June 30, 2007, an application for voting system certification in this state shall be subject to both of the following: (1) The voter's right to inspect and test the voting system, to retain test materials, test results, and to freely publish the same openly. (2) A promise to refrain from exerting any copyright, trade secret, or other rights that it may have to hinder any voter of the state from exercising the rights under paragraph (1) of this subdivision. (c) The Secretary of State shall require reasonable notice of public testing and that the tests be performed in a manner that does not burden the vendor with significant costs beyond those of making the voting system available. (d) The materials to be made freely available to the voting public include all of the following: (1) All voting system specific source code. (2) Detailed instructions for building the software, including compiler used, compilation scripts, and checksums. (3) Voting specific hardware, complete specifications, drawings and schematics. (4) General purpose COTS components described in detail, including versions and dates of manufacture. (e) By June 30, 2007, the Secretary of State shall establish and maintain a Web page on the Internet to provide all of the following: (1) Free download of materials pertaining to each voting system certified or under consideration for certification. (2) A system for acquiring and processing input from the voting public. (3) A reporting system to inform the public on findings, problems reported, problem resolution, and comments from the Secretary of State, the public, and vendors. (4) Standards used by the Secretary of State for evaluating voting systems, including test plans and specific test cases employed. (f) A public review process should be in place by June 30, 2007. In the event that a vendor of a system certified before June 30, 2007, refuses to comply with the disclosure requirements, his or her system shall be decertified. The Secretary of State shall ensure that a suitable replacement be available. (g) The Secretary of State shall utilize funds made available from the Voting Modernization Fund. The Secretary of State may not expend General Fund moneys for this purpose. (h) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) "COTS" means a common off-the-shelf component that is manufactured in large quantities and is widely available. (2) "General purpose COTS devices" means a COTS component intended for use in a variety of nonvoting systems. (3) "Voting specific" means hardware or software means a component manufactured specifically for use in a voting system. (4) "Vendor" means any person, partnership, corporation, or other entity that offers a voting system, whether for money or not, to the state, to any county, or city of the state, or to any governmental agency. (5) "Voting system" means any computerized machinery used in a public election to present one or more contests to voters, to obtain voter choices, to verify voter choices, to store voter choices, to communicate voter choices, to tabulate voter choices, or to present partial or full results of one or more contests. (6) "Source code" means computer instructions written by programmers. SEC. 3. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: In order to put in place a publicly disclosed voting system approval process by the next statewide general election, it is necessary that the bill go into immediate effect.
Pat A. Vesely ;-) |
   
Bruce Sims Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 748 Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 8:11 pm: |
|
IMHO, say YES! ANYTHING -sort of like anyone but Bush- that removes the lack of accountability by the SOS to the public (think of how the AG is the one who defends the SOS against any suit brought by a citizen against the SOS) is a very good thing. And the fact of urgency as a basis is good but it is also a bit of 'locking the door to the barn after the horses have left', meaning it does NOT address those systems already 'certified'. But this is the best that could be expected; what CA activists AND the general public (c'mon media, when are you going to act as journalists and not 'reporters'?) is that the REAL power and driving force in the CA SOS office is Bruce McDannold, NOT Bruce McPherson. And he, McDannold, is the one who needs to be taken out, along with all his 'cronies'. |
   
Jody Holder Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Holder
Post Number: 13 Registered: 11-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 10:51 pm: |
|
It does cover previously certified systems. It still needs cleaning up because of ambiguous or lax wording. Section 1(b) ..."as well as systems that have obtained state certification." Drction 2(f) (f) A public review process should be in place by June 30, 2007. In the event that a vendor of a system certified before June 30, 2007, refuses to comply with the disclosure requirements, his or her system shall be decertified. |
   
Michelle Smith Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Galfromcal
Post Number: 72 Registered: 11-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 1, 2006 - 9:51 am: |
|
Thank you, Pat, Bruce and Jody for your perspective on AB 2097! I will pass on your opinions. Sincerely, Michelle |
   
Bruce Sims Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 750 Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 1, 2006 - 10:33 am: |
|
Good catch Jody, missed that one. |
   
Pat Vesely Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 290 Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 1, 2006 - 10:52 am: |
|
Michelle, the two things I was referring to earlier boil down to this, first the definition of "COTS" in section H (1) should include language that indicates that it is to be used "as is" or "unmodified". Second, SEC.2, (b), (2), (c) The Secretary of State shall require reasonable notice of public testing and that the tests be performed in a manner that does not burden the vendor with significant costs beyond those of making the voting system available. The bolded section should be struck entirely, IMHO. If a car manufacturer has to pay for crash testing a vehicle before it can be approved as 'safe' by the DOT, why should a voting machine manufacturer not be held to the same standard when it comes to proving their equipment? What is a "significant" burden when protecting democracy and why should they be exempted from bearing it? Pat A. Vesely ;-) |
   
Michelle Smith Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Galfromcal
Post Number: 75 Registered: 11-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 11:35 am: |
|
First, I wanted to address Pat's concern in his last post. I see your concern with this part of the AB 2097, but I would submit that the wording would allow the counties or state to have more control over the testing by taking on the cost of testing. If our elected official are in control of where, what, and how the machines are tested. I presume, with Debbra Bowen as SOS, that those tests would be more legit. If the manufacture is in control of those tests than there is more likelihood of favoritism. Kind of like with the Ford "Nova" and it's gas tank. I am posting an update via information from Alan Dechart from OVC, "California Assembly Bill AB 2097 was put on suspense by the Appropriations committee this morning. In a brief hearing, Jackie Goldberg presented the bill to the committee." This does not mean this bill is dead. It is part of the process, however, it does give motivate me, besides giving me a more finite, reason to contact my county officials. First I must get the contract for "Hart Systems and ES & S[I believe those are the two systems]" with the county of Orange and find out what constraints to abiding to AB 2097 might be, (If anyone point me to this information it would speed up my action). Since I live in Orange County and my voting system is "Hart and ES & S" I can approach my county officials with a "What if AB 2097 passes the Senate?". What will be the cost to the county if they choose not to comply. Will the county stick to their guns, which could force these companies to comply, and tell these companies they will have to choose a different system? This is where I think we need to go. We need to stop whimping out! All of these companies need to do business with California. This is the way we could push this issue to the voters, "Open Source can bring competitive prices to our county onces again. No more monopolies leaving us with no fair choices." This, of course, is just the start of my "brainstorming". I need to get some other information to persuade the officials and other grassrooters, but before I started doing that I want you all's advice. Especially Catherine's. Don't get me wrong, I'm not adverse to others opinions, but I have a trust in Catherine. The reason why is because I feel like she know my intentions. Also she communicates in a why that I understand, and honestly that won't kill what motivation I have left to act on the issues. It is a lonely fight out here sometimes, and I need that support. Not so much a pat on the back, but just to know that someone else can relate to you helps a great deal. I know she will clarify what I need to understand, but she won't make me feel like an idiot when she does. I thought for a while before posting this here, why, because I did know if it would be received well. Communication is the best policy in my book, and I know some of you might think I am being harsh or pointing fingers. However, that is the last thing I want to come from this long post. I just want to keep fighting and not keep hitting brick walls. I have to climb all the walls that the opposition puts up, and that is tiring in it's self. Sooooo, Catherine?????? I have really put you in a spot Huh? Please don't be Sincerely, Michelle
 |
   
Bruce Sims Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 767 Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Michelle,don't you mean the Ford Pinto? Chevrolet made the 'Nova'. |
   
Kathleen Wynne Moderator Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 298 Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Michelle, No problem. Catherine is an excellent communicator and I can certainly understand your point in relying on her to relay critical information in a way that you can understand. So often, those individuals who have a background in technology forget that those of us who don't have a difficult time with the lingo and it can be very frustrating. Good luck and keep up the good fight, Michelle. Kathleen * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TRIPLE PROTECTION FOR ELECTION 2006 - STARTING NOW: (1) Use Freedom of Information, public records requests ("All American Paper Chase") (2) Try Dumpster Diving for Democracy (3) Candid America Project - Don't leave home without your camcorder HOW TO DO IT: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/6/6.html
|
   
Michelle Smith Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Galfromcal
Post Number: 76 Registered: 11-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Kathleen, Your comment is was Greatly anticipated, (so happy I did not offend you with my "In General" post), and Respectfully received! Most Sincerely, Michelle P.S. If you have an opinion on the subject please do post it. I hope that I did not put too much constraint on this post. It is just I did not want to much debate as I was looking more to figure out whether the idea could have teeth. Of course, I think it can via the great information stockpiled in the BBV forum or the minds of the many members of BBV. |
   
Michelle Smith Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Galfromcal
Post Number: 77 Registered: 11-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Bruce,
I am getting old. The "Nova" thing was in Mexico huh? "Nova" in Spanish means "No Go". (still laughing at myself) Thanks Michelle |
   
Michelle Smith Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Galfromcal
Post Number: 78 Registered: 11-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 1:26 pm: |
|
I got another question. If I wanted to get a copy of the contract with "Hart" where would I go? I have looked on the Orange County site, but don't know what department I would look to see if it is posted. Any idea???? Thanks Michelle |
   
Bruce Sims Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 769 Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Michelle, it probably will not be posted; do as I did with SD and Diebold and submit a prr to the orange county clerk's office. If you need assistance on the prr, either Jody or myself can provide such. |
   
Michelle Smith Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Galfromcal
Post Number: 79 Registered: 11-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Thanks Bruce! I think your right, because I looked on the Clerks site and did not see that posted. Okay, a "PRR" is a certain kind of request? I noticed in one of your other post you listed items. Is this what you are directing me to do, or is there a form? Nova/Pinto, they are all the same right Bruce?
Michelle |
   
Catherine Ansbro Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2365 Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Hi Michelle, You embarrass me! I can be like a bull in a china shop sometimes. Anytime you'd like suggestions about taking action related to your local situation (legislation, how to get information, etc.), post those in the 1-to-1 consulting area. That way the folks with the most expertise are more likely to see it sooner and respond quicker. (For example, there are other folks here who are much better informed about legislation and PRRs than I am.) I think you're absolutely right to question both existing and proposed legislation. How else can we move forward except by asking questions and listening to various points of view? Never be put off when different people here or elsewhere have differing points of view. That's inevitable. It can be helpful to talk to someone you disagree with and find out where they're coming from. It can lead to even better ideas or a deeper understanding of the problem. I'm sorry your toes were stepped on by a too-abrupt response here in the past. I know what that feels like. Research into close relationships shows that one "bad day" requires at least five "good days" to heal the damage done. Maybe that's one reason why both here & at BradBlog I tend to dislike unnecessarily aggressive and hurtful language. Some people may think, "that's just my personal style" but they don't always realize that it can really put off someone's desire to participate. I'm just as guilty as the next person about this. I can be brutally direct and that's not always the best approach. I try to tame this online but I don't always succeed. I always appreciate your posts and your thoughtfulness towards other people. You set a great example for me and I'm sure for a great many others. Thanks for hanging in there despite the war wounds.  |
   
Kathleen Wynne Moderator Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 300 Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 6:20 pm: |
|
Michelle, Your request for my input is respectfully received! If I can add anything that can help you, I will certainly do so. We're glad you have confidence in us and are taking advantage of the throves of information and evidence here at your disposal. Onward and upward together... Kathleen * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TRIPLE PROTECTION FOR ELECTION 2006 - STARTING NOW: (1) Use Freedom of Information, public records requests ("All American Paper Chase") (2) Try Dumpster Diving for Democracy (3) Candid America Project - Don't leave home without your camcorder HOW TO DO IT: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/6/6.html
|
   
Jim March Moderator Username: Jimmarch
Post Number: 179 Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:59 am: |
|
Short form: we want this bill or bills like it to pass across the nation. As the biggest customer of voting machines in the world (well, barring India) California would be a big step forward. That doesn't mean this bill is the whole solution. It's a necessary component of complete reform which needs to be centered on auditing. That said, wow would it be nice to lay hands on the source code for these critters . Be aware that Jackie Goldsmith in the Assembly and Bowen in the Senate are friends and allies, esp. on election reform issues. Both of them "get it" to a degree seldom matched among busy legislators. So while some of us may want "tweaks or changes" spliced in to this or other bills by those two, please approach them not only as legislators but as genuinely concerned citizens in their own right on election reform issues. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TRIPLE PROTECTION FOR ELECTION 2006 - STARTING NOW: (1) Use Freedom of Information, public records requests ("All American Paper Chase") (2) Try Dumpster Diving for Democracy (3) Candid America Project - Don't leave home without your camcorder HOW TO DO IT: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/6/6.html
|
   
Michelle Smith Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Galfromcal
Post Number: 90 Registered: 11-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 1:47 pm: |
|
I don't know any other way to post info I receive about this bill, but to paste the email I received from OpenVotingConsortium. I could not just post a link, because this is a news letter that I subscribe to, and it is not post on their site. There is a "PDF" link in this email from SOS McPherson that I thought everyone would be interested in reading. Why he opposes AB 2097. If you it is not acceptable please fill free to delete this post. I am just trying to get the info out. Sincerely Michelle Here it is; Dear Friends of Open Voting: I've received many emails and phone calls in response to what happened at the suspense hearing Thursday with respect to AB 2097. I want to provide a little more explanation of what went on, and let you know what we're planning. There have been a few developments since my announcement about it on Thursday afternoon. Although AB 2097 is dead, we are looking into restarting the bill on the Senate side. In this case, you'll see the same language will a different bill number. In order for this to be worth doing, several conditions will have to change in our favor. For starters, the ballgame will be different after June 6 (California primary). As written, I believe our bill would cost very little to implement if signed into law. It would require vendors to provide, for each product, a disclosure package suitable for public distribution over the Internet. The Secretary of State would make that package available for download and would provide a web page for the public to submit comments. We had to make a provision in the bill to allow for the possibility that one or more vendors refused to comply. In this case, there would be some costs to replace the secret software that would become decertified. Bills that have some unknown potential costs (costs that may exceed $150,000) are routinely put in a suspense file by the Appropriations Committee in order to better assess the financial impact of the proposed law. This means they won't get to a floor vote until they get passed in a suspense hearing. This is prudent, in some ways. At the beginning of Thursday's suspense hearing, the chair, Assembly Member Judy Chu said that if all the bills she had in the file passed it would cost the state $14 billion. The total she was allowing for all the bills was $155 million. It sounds like they are being fiscally responsible, but, in fact, this is mostly guesswork. Given the volume of bills and the time constraints, they can do little in the way of analysis. If you have a bill that would cost the state $200,000 next year but would save taxpayers $1 million over the next 3 years, they would say your bill costs $200,000. The limitations of this process are understood, and they will allow some bills through based on other factors so that bills can be more thoroughly debated, analyzed, and voted on. The decision to pass a bill or hold it in committee is made before the hearing. There is no vote. The determination is made by the chair with input from her staff, the author, and from other stake holders and leaders. Authors normally have many bills on suspense. The member presents a list of the bills, giving them a priority. Our author, Assemblymember Jackie Goldberg, gave AB 2097 a very high priority (it was number 2 out of 8 bills she had on suspense). Given our strong showing in the policy hearing (we passed the Elections Committee 5-0) and the high priority Jackie gave it, we were stunned that it was not passed. There was some heavy duty lobbying against our bill behind the scenes. We know that some of the opposition was led by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson. For example, he submitted this letter Wednesday afternoon. http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/ad/sos-opposition-letter524.pdf I wrote a response and faxed it Thursday morning. http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/ad/OVC2SOS-525.pdf So, what makes us think it could still be signed into law this year? Our bill declares that voters have the right to know exactly how their votes are processed. We believe this is a correct principle and, if properly aired and considered, it will be accepted. Here are the factors that will make the difference: 1) Democratic primary for Secretary of State ---------------------------------------------------- This is the largest single factor. If Bowen loses to Ortiz, we will probably drop the effort to get our bill passed and focus on obtaining private funding to get open voting products developed and certified. Ortiz is positioning herself as a friend of the registrars and the status quo. If Bowen wins the primary, we are very likely to revive our bill. We will get a big boost with a Bowen victory on June 6. As a reminder of her enthusiasm for open voting, review these links for example: She explained what open voting is about and why we need it at the Democratic convention a month ago: http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/ad/Bowen-excerpt.mp3 Here's her letter from February. http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/ad/bowen-296.pdf 2) County election officials ------------------------------------------ The registrars really really didn't like AB 2097. Having listened to them quite a bit about it in recent weeks, I think a lot of it has to do with fear of the unknown. They don't understand the proposal very well. We received no letters of support from the registrars. I have already started stepping up the effort here. I spoke with 3 registrars by phone yesterday including Conny McCormack of Los Angeles County, current president of their association (her term expires in July and Stephen Weir of Contra Costa County will be taking this position http://www.calelections.org/ ). Freddie Oakley of Yolo County (http://www.yoloelections.org ) told me she will write a letter in support of the new bill as soon as we have a new bill number. We don't have to get them all in favor of it. But we need to get at least some of them in favor of it, and we need to get them to understand it better. I think we can do this. 3) Local government officials (other than election officials), county boards of supervisors, city council people, mayors, etc. ------------------------------------- We have made some progress talking with these people but have not yet received and support letters. How many do we need? I don't know exactly but I think we need some. 4) Support letters from nongovernmental groups and individuals. -------------------------------------------------------- We received some letters from groups and a few hundred from individuals (counting the form letters). I would prefer one personalized letter from an individual over 10 form letters. But we'll still take the form letters. Several groups that promised letters have not yet sent them. We have work to do here. The more we can get the better. 5) Key leaders in the Assembly and the Senate ------------------------------------------------------- I feel pretty good about leadership in the Senate. However, I also felt we were in good shape with leadership in the Assembly. We can't take any of them for granted. It's a challenge to get quality face time with these busy leaders, but we have to find a way to do it. I will devote a significant portion of my time and energy over the next few months doing that. If things go well, our bill will be back in the Assembly in August. However, if we haven't made progress with Assembly leaders by then, we are likely to see a similar fate as we saw on Thursday. We have to make some good progress with them. I think we can do that. We expect that open voting will get a nice boost in July. We plan to do some organizing around the DemocracyFest event in San Diego, July 14-16. I have been invited to be on a panel about election reform. Debra Bowen is also scheduled to be on the panel. Here are some links about that. I hope to see many of you there! http://www.sdfd.org/democracyfest/bios http://www.sdfd.org/democracyfest http://www.sdfd.org/democracyfest/daytwo You can expect to hear about our go/no-go decision on our reincarnated bill soon after June 6 (like maybe June 7). In the mean time, supporters of open voting should do everything possible to help Debra Bowen win the Democratic nomination for Secretary of State. A lot of you wrote to say keep going, we'll get there. I am doing that. Thanks for your support! Alan Dechert http://openvoting.org |
   
Catherine Ansbro Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2668 Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Hi Michelle, Thanks very much for passing this on. It is useful on many levels. This was the first time I've heard someone describe the implications of the Suspense f File for the Appropriations Committee and the ways decisions are made. It also shows how important it is to find out what lobbying might be going on behind the scenes. While I don't know how that could be done, at the very least one must assume that behind-the-scenes negotiations are taking place. |
   
Michelle Smith Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Galfromcal
Post Number: 91 Registered: 11-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Catherine, Did you read that letter from SOS McPherson to Judy Chu? It shows their "Fear" tactics they will use to keep people from wanting to pass such a bill. They will present it as an extreme cost without even having the numbers to back up such a statement. This works to kill most issues especially when it comes to political or public support. I would like to see a study that show how many times "Fear" of cost has swade other benefitial movements or issues. I would bet you $100.00 that it would turn out to be 99% of the time. "Fear" seems to be a profitable thing these days. I wonder where the settlers, who came to this country for a new life, would be now? Still in their country of origin or dead. Catherine, all I think we can do is keep talking until "Fear" weighs less on people than true justice. Thanks as always for your comments. Sincerely, Michelle |
   
Michelle Smith Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Galfromcal
Post Number: 92 Registered: 11-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 12:33 am: |
|
I thought I would post this here, because it remindes me (everytime I watch it) why I am fighting for all Americans the right for their vote to be counted! This is a link to the video, "Unprecedented" about the Florida 2000 vote and prior voting fiascos. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5278.htm |
   
Bruce Sims Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 803 Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Michelle,truly appreciate the postings and sentiments. I do wish Alan had explained "We had to make a provision in the bill to allow for the possibility that one or more vendors refused to comply." Truly ironic Mcpherson indicating the need for more staff to certify systems when the current staff can't do such properly. Besides Alan's rebuttal, do you need others to rebut via sending letters? The 'system replacement costs' are a bad joke given HAVA monies which were the driving force behind replacing 'systems' instead of providing the disabled access mandated(San Diego had to do a 'system' due to SOS ruling in response to a lawsuit brought by Common Cause re minorities and lever systems.) Anyway, doesn't paper ballots, hand marked and hand counted almost completely resolve this difficulty ? Given voting precinct sizes of 1,000 max, an incredible voting turnout of 70%(700 voters), and 30% of votes being 'early/absentee'(210 voters), only 490 ballots would need to counted at a precinct. Doesn't sound to hard to me.
 |
   
Michelle Smith Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Galfromcal
Post Number: 93 Registered: 11-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 7:23 pm: |
|
Bruce, "I do wish Alan had explained "We had to make a provision in the bill to allow for the possibility that one or more vendors refused to comply." He did explain this to me and I am sorry I did not convey that in the posting. In fact, I think what I understood, the provision was also based on the contract the the country had sign with the vender. If, in the contract, it was stipulated that the vender would comply with any legislative steps that could be enacted than we have no problem. However, I still do not have that information from my district. I email an inquiry to the registrar office about our contract with "Hart" and I have not heard back from them. I would be that "Hart" stipulated that they are not responsible for any such legislative chances. I know that is pretty presumptious of me, but I just don't see any of these companies being interested in fair voting systems. Let alone a system that is upgradeable. I will let you know on the subject of contacting state representatives. It will be after the primaries that such a bill would go to the CA Senate. I would say that these people Cry-Wolf all the time. Especially using "Fear" to make their cries louder. On the other topic of representation, just because I am too lazy to go to that thread/plus I have your attention now , what you added about Georgia and California is very interesting. My husband the mathwizard, said that means for every 1 Georgia voter represented there is 10 California voters represented. That is quite a disparity! His comment was that why would a state like Georgia accept any change to this obvious advantage, let alone, what representative would even look at sharing their power. Damn what a Democracy we have here huh? Thanks again for your great insight Bruce! I think we all need to get together for a drink (it doesn't have to be alcohol), or at least a good laugh. Sincerely Michelle (the poster who likes to use the "Happy Faces")
 |
   
Bruce Sims Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 808 Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 9:32 am: |
|
Michelle,I have the contract and addendums for San Diego and Diebold from a prr I sent and a new prr for the same info in for the time period after the inital prr was responded to with the contracts and addendums; I'll look thru them for "If, in the contract, it was stipulated that the vendor would comply with any legislative steps that could be enacted than we have no problem.". I do remember something similar but have to review to be certain what was written. I'm also going to see if the ACLU would be interested in doing a case re representation and the one person,one vote standard the Supreme's are on record about. Others 'ought' to see if their ACLU chapters would be interested in such a case. Oh, and re your husband's comment about why Georgia would want it any other way; NOT their choice or decision to make; it's the Constitution (and personally, if Georgia wants to secede, let them). (Message edited by ubetchaiam on May 31, 2006) |
   
Patrick J. Kobly Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Pkobly
Post Number: 20 Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 9:32 am: |
|
Bruce, re: paper ballots vis accessibility: The arguments that I have seen on this issue tend to focus on two things (and we need to address the accessibility issues head on, rather than brushing them off): 1) Minority language ballots. Where a jurisdiction needs to / wants to support multiple linguistic minorities, the cheapest way to do this is with DREs or Op-Scans that require a key to interpret (i.e. don't have ballot positions printed directly on the ballot paper). As a result of not having to print multiple languages of ballot papers, you don't have to print extras in each of the multiple languages. Incidentally, there's another related argument here, that these types of systems allow for ballot-rotation to be done cheaply as well for the same reason. IMHO, the advantages of ballot rotation are _vastly_ overstated, but... 2) Accessibility for the blind. This has been a key selling point for a number of the DRE manufacturers. This goes along with a few arguments. Firstly, because the blind are a small, identifiable group, it is important that their ballots be indistinguishable from the rest of the population (so no separate braille ballots, no requirement for early / absentee balloting, etc). Secondly, only a very limited proportion of the blind are capable of reading using braille or other tactile systems (thus reducing the usefulness of braille ballots, braille ballot templates, etc.). Thirdly, if we are capable of doing so, we must accomodate the blind to allow them the same expectation of secrecy and privacy afforded to the sighted wrt their vote. DREs are capable of providing audio instructions, and taking input in a manner that is not dependant on sight. The conclusion is thus that DREs are the only extant technology that allows the blind to vote in private (without assistance). --- Now, taking these in reverse order: Accessibility to the blind: The blind make up a significant, but not large, proportion of the population. 1994-1995 stats cite prevalence of legal blindness at 5/1,000 in the U.S. (http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=15&DocumentID=1367#prev) however, 80% of this number have "some useful vision," and may potentially be aided by other visual methods. Further, a significant proportion of the blind are in demographics that vote at a lesser rate than the sighted for other reasons. The blind are disproportionately more likely to be elderly or to experience poverty. This is not to say that because the blind constitute a small proportion of the voting population, we ought not consider their needs. Rather, we need to consider accomodation of their needs in an appropriate context. We need to ensure that in addressing the interests of the blind, we don't eviscerate the interests of the voting public at large. Now, consider what support is actually provided by the DRE manufacturers for the blind. I have not seen any significant user-interface studies examining the effectiveness of the various methods of interaction in accomodating the blind. In fact, a number of reports have identified the current crop of offerings as inferior, in terms of accessibility, to alternatives such as tactile ballot templates (c.f. http://www.votersunite.org/info%5CKellyPierceReport3-05.htm - systems from Sequoia, Hart, Avante and Diebold). Further, where studies have been undertaken (as in the above cited example), the participants have been atypical of the blind population (in the above example, all but one had PC experience, and all were well-educated - while the blind population generally has less education and computer experience than the general public). One can only include that the majority of manufacturers are merely paying lip service to accessibility in order to get their equipment accepted. Are there other options? Tactile ballot templates with paper ballots, combined with audio recordings have served well in addressing accessibility in other countries. The Vote Pad (http://www.vote-pad.us/) provides an interesting, low-tech solution that seems to be fairly well tested. Linguistic minority ballots: In my view, this is a bit more difficult to dispense with. That said, it has been dealt with fairly well in a number of jurisdictions. Canada prints both official languages on the ballot. A number of nations with low literacy rates have addressed this issue with pictorial representations accompanying the text. Very small linguistic minorities can be accomodated with audio recordings associated with the paper ballots. |
   
Bruce Sims Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 809 Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 9:43 am: |
|
Hi Patrick; please do not think that I do not concern myself with the disabled voter; that is an area where something like the OVC comes into play BUT the usage of machines for the general populace is a mistake from the git-go. What is sad about HAVA,etc. is that it is so reflective of a uniquely US. perspective that problems can be solved by throwing money at the problem. Do you have data to support "the cheapest way to do this is with DREs or Op-Scans that require a key to interpret (i.e. don't have ballot positions printed directly on the ballot paper)."? If so, please post it; until then,I remain skeptical that machines are cheaper than paper and printing(especially if the various gummints in the U.S. ever gets their heads out of their rectums regarding the cultivation of hemp). |
   
Patrick J. Kobly Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Pkobly
Post Number: 21 Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Bruce, Don't get me wrong. I was putting forward arguments that I don't agree with. When I dispensed with the arguments later, I didn't take on that particular cost issue. The thing is, yes, the marginal cost per additional language is less with DREs and OpScan with a key device than for separate ballot paper per language. However, the failure in the argument is that total system cost is still likely to be less with paper. |
   
Michelle Smith Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Galfromcal
Post Number: 109 Registered: 11-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Just for Information purposes I thought I would post this information. There will be a TownHall meeting on Redistricting in Long Beach, Ca tomorrow night. Go to this site for info http://lb4change.org/xoops/html/modules/eguide/event.php?eid=9 I thought some at this forum would be interested. Thanks Michelle |
   
Catherine Ansbro Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3161 Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Great stuff, Michelle. Thanks as always for the heads-up. If you're there, let us know how things went. |
   
Michelle Smith Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Galfromcal
Post Number: 110 Registered: 11-2005

Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Catherine, I am a League of Women Voters member in Long Beach, Ca. My resposibility is to collect the question from the audience. I hope people show for this one. It is really important. I wrote, (not very well), a little blerb about the Townhall meeting at this site http://www.calitics.com/frontPage.do Under the "Recent Diaries" section. It is the one by "GalfromCal". If you have time go and read my plea to the people to attend. Thanks for you continued supporting words! You just can not understand how much I appreciate your cheers. Hugs Michelle :-) |
|
|