Follow this to the Progressive Democrats of America blog posting about voter registration problems that are likely to be in the center of controversy on November 4th.
States’ Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal
Posted using ShareThis
Showing posts with label Iowans for Voting Integrity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iowans for Voting Integrity. Show all posts
Sunday, October 12
Wednesday, April 16
At Least Six Good Reasons for Verifiable Voting
If a bill that is waylaid in congress is not passed to make it possible for states to verify the vote, about 30% of the nation's voters will use paperless electronic voting machines this November.
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2818&Itemid=26
Rep. Rush Holt today strongly criticized House members for blocking legislation – the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008 (H.R. 5036) – that would encourage states to conduct verifiable elections by converting to a paper ballot voting system, offering emergency paper ballots, and conducting hand-counted audits. Two weeks ago, the same legislation passed the House Administration Committee with bipartisan, unanimous support, including from some of those who voted to block the bill’s passage today.
H.R. 5036, as reported to the floor by the committee, would authorize funding to reimburse states with paperless jurisdictions that convert to paper-based voting systems in 2008 or provide emergency paper ballots that would be counted as regular ballots in the event of machine failure. The reimbursements would cover the cost of equipment conversion (from paperless touch screen machines to paper-based systems, such as optical scanners or computers with printers) and the cost of developing procedures for conducting hand-counted audits using independent, random selection of at least 2 percent of the precincts for audits under public observation.
If the bill does not pass or jurisdictions do not opt in, six complete states and some number of counties in 14 other states will be conducting completely unauditable elections in 2008. In addition, only about a dozen states will conduct audits.
Holt noted that the main objection to the bill was, according to Republicans, its projected $554 million cost.
“I’d like to ask the opponents how much spending is too much to have verifiable elections in the United States. I note that many people who opposed this legislation supported spending almost $330 million in recent years to provide election assistance in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. I would have hoped those who supported efforts to export democracy abroad would be equally committed to strengthening democracy here at home,” Holt said.
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2818&Itemid=26
Rep. Rush Holt today strongly criticized House members for blocking legislation – the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008 (H.R. 5036) – that would encourage states to conduct verifiable elections by converting to a paper ballot voting system, offering emergency paper ballots, and conducting hand-counted audits. Two weeks ago, the same legislation passed the House Administration Committee with bipartisan, unanimous support, including from some of those who voted to block the bill’s passage today.
H.R. 5036, as reported to the floor by the committee, would authorize funding to reimburse states with paperless jurisdictions that convert to paper-based voting systems in 2008 or provide emergency paper ballots that would be counted as regular ballots in the event of machine failure. The reimbursements would cover the cost of equipment conversion (from paperless touch screen machines to paper-based systems, such as optical scanners or computers with printers) and the cost of developing procedures for conducting hand-counted audits using independent, random selection of at least 2 percent of the precincts for audits under public observation.
If the bill does not pass or jurisdictions do not opt in, six complete states and some number of counties in 14 other states will be conducting completely unauditable elections in 2008. In addition, only about a dozen states will conduct audits.
Holt noted that the main objection to the bill was, according to Republicans, its projected $554 million cost.
“I’d like to ask the opponents how much spending is too much to have verifiable elections in the United States. I note that many people who opposed this legislation supported spending almost $330 million in recent years to provide election assistance in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. I would have hoped those who supported efforts to export democracy abroad would be equally committed to strengthening democracy here at home,” Holt said.
Friday, April 4
Chet Culver and Mike Mauro Do Iowa Voters a Solid
Touch-screen voting in Iowa is dead and that's a good thing. With a stroke of his pen, Gov. Chet Culver signed into law a new plan for the state to spend $4.6 million to bring the same voting technology to all 99 counties. The whole state would have voter-marked paper ballots that could be recounted by hand if necessary.
Not only will this save voters time, but greatly reduces the opportunity for voter fraud that touch-screen machines may allow. Although there was initial disagreement about providing a paper trail for every voter, the Governor and Secretary of State Mike Mauro were able to stand together on this important issue.
According to Sean Flaherty from Iowans for Voting Integrity, nationwide, about 30 percent of voters will use paperless touch-screen voting machines in November, including all voters in South Carolina and Georgia, and some voters in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tennessee and Texas.
Not only will this save voters time, but greatly reduces the opportunity for voter fraud that touch-screen machines may allow. Although there was initial disagreement about providing a paper trail for every voter, the Governor and Secretary of State Mike Mauro were able to stand together on this important issue.
According to Sean Flaherty from Iowans for Voting Integrity, nationwide, about 30 percent of voters will use paperless touch-screen voting machines in November, including all voters in South Carolina and Georgia, and some voters in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tennessee and Texas.
Thursday, February 28
Give Voting a Hand (Count)
Sean Flaherty from Iowans for Voting Integrity writes:
We are close to victory in the fight for paper ballot systems in Iowa, but we need your help on an equally important component of secure elections: random hand audits. Time is short, but there is still active discussion of audits this year.
Please call Secretary of State Michael Mauro and urge him to support legislation to require hand-count audits of the 2008 election Contact info: 515-281-0145 (Phone) 515-281-7142 (Fax) sos@sos.state.ia.us (E-mail) First Floor, Lucas Building 321 E. 12th St. Des Moines, IA 50319 .
Background
Voter-marked paper ballots are the foundation of a reliable voting system. But paper ballots offer security only if we use them to check the software that reads the ballots and tallies our votes. And the computer voting systems we use in elections have grave vulnerabilities. Don't take our word for it, though. Here is a sample of what software experts say about security and the need for audits:
University of Iowa professor Douglas Jones, one of the world's experts on voting technology, stated in an affidavit in Pennsylvania court this year that hand counted audits are the only defense against weaknessess found by recent security reviews: "..the only effective defenses against the weaknesses discovered by the California TTBR [top-to-bottom review] and the Ohio EVEREST studies is the defense mandated by Pennsylvania law 25 P.S. 3013.7, a recount of a random sample of the ballots cast in an election."1 The Ohio and California reviews included all of the voting systems used in Iowa, including paper ballot/optical scan systems.
The Brennan Center's Task Force on Voting System Security wrote in 2006: "The value of paper ballots without the Automatic Routine Audits is highly questionable, " (p. 83).
Secretary Mauro supports post-election audits; it's a matter of getting it done this year. Please be sure to thank him for his support of paper ballot systems, but let him know that an election with no check on the software counting our votes is not an option in 2008.
Thank you for all you do.
Monday, February 4
The Paper (Ballot) Chase
The Iowans for Voting Integrity are busy trying to convince the Governor that Michael Mauro's judgment is better than his (and in my estimation, either path is better than the road we are on--but I agree paper ballots are easiest to deal with in case of a recount). See below.
A citizen group voiced support for Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro's
request to the Assembly for full funding of a statewide system of optically
scanned paper ballots, and praised lawmakers in both parties for their
endorsement of the proposal. Secretary Mauro's proposal received extensive
coverage in Sunday's Des Moines Register.
“Secretary Mauro's proposal is
right on track. Voter-marked paper ballots offer the most reliable record of the
voter's intent,” said Sean Flaherty, co-chair of Iowans for Voting Integrity.
“The ballots are durable, and can be recounted easily by hand.”
To comply with Iowa's new law requiring a paper trail voting systems, counties that
use touch screen voting machines must either intall ATM-style printers to the
machines, which show voters a printout of their choices on a continuous roll, or
they can scrap the touch screens and purchase a paper ballot system, in which
voters mark individual paper ballots by hand or by using an assistive device for
voters with disabilities. The paper ballots are then read by an optical scanner
and can be recounted by hand.
The ATM-style printers for the touch
screens have come under criticism from all sides in recent years. They store
votes on a continuous roll, raising voter privacy concerns, and are prone to
printer jams, which can cause votes to be lost. Studies have shown that the
paper trail printout is not checked by a significant number of voters, and
expert security reports from Ohio and California showed that the paper roll is
easily damaged either maliciously or by accident.
The user-friendliness
of touch screens is also questionable. Last year members of Iowans for Voting
Integrity did a study of undervotes in the statewide races on the November 2006
ballot, and found that for all the contested statewide races, counties that used
only voter-marked paper ballots with optical scan had the lowest undervote,
counties that used a mix of paper ballots and touch screens had the
second-highest undervote, and counties that used only touch screens at the
polling place had the highest undervotes. An undervote is the difference between
the number of valid ballots cast in the election, and the number of votes
tallied for an office. Undervotes are considered by many voting experts to be
the single most reliable measure of a voting system's effectiveness and
usability. “When you see the undervote correlate with the equipment in all the
contested races, you have a good idea what the best system is,” said Flaherty.
After the state gets optical scan equipment, the next step in securing
the vote is mandating random hand counted audits after the election to check
electronic ballot tallies. Computer scientists who study voting systems have
called strongly for routine hand audits. Over a dozen states already plan to do
audits of the November 2008 election. “You can't just have the paper; you have
to use it for it to matter, “ Flaherty said.
Mauro's push for optical
scan puts Iowa on the same path as a number of other states. Last month,
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter announced an agreement with his state's lawmakers
to advance legislation requiring a statewide optical scan system by November,
and last week Maryland's governor announced funding for a statewide conversion
from touch screens to optical scan. Florida plans to convert all polling places
to optical scan by November.
Click here to sign Verified Voting's alert urging
Governor Culver and legislators to fund paper ballot voting systems, with
optical scanners and ballot-marking devices for voters with disabilities. Call
the Governor as well at 515-281-5211. Then please forward this on
Friday, January 18
Voting Discrepencies in New Hampshire: I Demand a Recount!
Most people don't know that there is a recount for the New Hampshire primary due to a disparity between hand-counted ballots and computer-counted ballots. Democrat Dennis Kucinich and little known Republican Albert Howard have ponied up the bucks to pursue the recount.
Meanwhile, Sean Flaherty sent this note:
Meanwhile, Sean Flaherty sent this note:
The Iowa General Assembly is discussing funding to put in place a statewide system of paper ballots and optical scanners by November 2008. U.S. Rep. Rush Holt's new bill, the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act, would reimburse Iowa for the cost of paper ballot voting systems.
That's a great deal for Iowa, and for all the states that depend on paperless systems and don't have the funds to purchase new equipment. Without new voting systems, tens of millions of votes could be decided by paperless systems this November.
Click here to tell Congress to pass the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act.
Wednesday, January 9
Help Fight for Reliable, Verifiable Voting
From Sean Flaherty at www.IowansForVotingIntegrity.org
Note: Ohio is now offering paper ballots for the March primary
Dear Friends,
In the wake of last weekend's extensive piece on electronic voting issues in the NewYork Times Magazine, MoveOn is circulating a petition with the simplest of messages: we need paper ballots and routine hand audits by November 2008. Please take a moment to sign, and pass it on:
http://pol.moveon.org/paper2008/o.pl?id=11873-7667739-DVYvNF&t=3
The petition will be delivered to local, state, and federal officials.
Best regards,
Sean Flaherty
Co-Chair, Iowans for Voting Integrity
www.IowansForVotingIntegrity.org
Note: Ohio is now offering paper ballots for the March primary
Monday, December 10
The Paper (Ballot) Chase
From Iowans for Voting Integrity's Sean Flaherty
A citizen group has urged Governor Culver to provide funding for paper ballot equipment in time for the November 2008 elections. The Governor has said that the state should consider a vote by mail system before funding new voting equipment, and there is discussion of a small vote by mail pilot project in 2008. This would leave many counties using touch screen voting machines in 2008.
“A vote by mail pilot should not distract the state from the urgent need to replace touch screen machines in time for the Presidential election,” said Sean Flaherty, co-chair of Iowans for Voting Integrity. “Even with paper trail printers, touch screen machines are not as reliable as precinct-based optical scan systems.” Paper trail printers can jam, are unchecked by many voters, and store votes on a continuous roll, making recounts cumbersome. Precinct-based optical scan, by contrast, is a proven and increasingly popular voting system.
Precinct-based optical scan systems are similar to many standardized tests. The voter marks a paper ballot with a pen or pencil, or by using an electronic aid for voters with disabilities, and the ballot is read by an optical scanner and can be recounted easily by hand. Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro advocates full funding for a statewide precinct-based optical scan system.
Touch screen voting is revealing itself to be a failed experiment, with the last few years seeing equipment failures and revelations of severe security vulnerabilities.[i] The same touch screen voting machines used in 78 Iowa counties are falling out of favor around the nation. California, even though its touch screens have a paper trail, will not allow the touch screens to be used as a primary voting system in its February 5 primary.[ii] Florida has also chosen to replace its touch screens with precinct-based optical scan rather than add paper-trail printers to its existing touch screens. And in Ohio, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has called for Cleveland-area Cuyahoga County to replace its touch screens with optical scan and paper ballots in time for Ohio's March primary.[iii] Cuyahoga County's paper trail printers failed disastrously in the November 2007 elections, with up to 20% of printouts unreadable.Vote by mail is also problematic. Recent scholarship has cast doubt on the claim the vote by mail increases turnout.[iv] Wisconsin and Minnesota, which have regular polling places and allow voters to register on election day, have higher voter participation than Oregon, the only state with a universal vote by mail system. Oregon's voter participation is not much higher than Iowa's.[v] And because the voting process takes place over a number of weeks, it is harder for citizens to observe the process.
“With vote by mail, it's very hard for citizens to observe the chain of custody of ballots,” said Flaherty. “Iowa has great laws that allow candidates' workers and citizens to watch polling places and election night tabulation, but it really isn't possible watch the chain of custody over many weeks of voting.” The same is true for Iowa's early voting and absentee ballot process, but making this system universal would only compound the problem. The University of Iowa's world-renowned voting systems expert Douglas Jones has opposed vote by mail for this and other reasons: vote by mail may pose a long-term threat to the secret ballot, and ballots counted at a central location are not counted as reliably as ballots counted at the polling place.[vi]
The cost of precinct-based optical scan equipment could run from $8-10 million, which may have motivated the Governor to look at vote by mail. Flaherty said, “We understand the Governor's desire to cut costs, but on the scale of Iowa's $6 billion-plus budget, $8-10 million is a bargain for democracy's machinery.”
[i] http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1680451,00.html
[ii] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070813/ai_n19476126
[iii] http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1197019941287340.xml&coll=2
[iv] http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070419/news_lz7e19kousser.html
[v] http://www.iowansforvotingintegrity.org/Voter Participation Oregon vs. EDRStates.doc
[vi] http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/colorado_postal.pdf
A citizen group has urged Governor Culver to provide funding for paper ballot equipment in time for the November 2008 elections. The Governor has said that the state should consider a vote by mail system before funding new voting equipment, and there is discussion of a small vote by mail pilot project in 2008. This would leave many counties using touch screen voting machines in 2008.
“A vote by mail pilot should not distract the state from the urgent need to replace touch screen machines in time for the Presidential election,” said Sean Flaherty, co-chair of Iowans for Voting Integrity. “Even with paper trail printers, touch screen machines are not as reliable as precinct-based optical scan systems.” Paper trail printers can jam, are unchecked by many voters, and store votes on a continuous roll, making recounts cumbersome. Precinct-based optical scan, by contrast, is a proven and increasingly popular voting system.
Precinct-based optical scan systems are similar to many standardized tests. The voter marks a paper ballot with a pen or pencil, or by using an electronic aid for voters with disabilities, and the ballot is read by an optical scanner and can be recounted easily by hand. Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro advocates full funding for a statewide precinct-based optical scan system.
Touch screen voting is revealing itself to be a failed experiment, with the last few years seeing equipment failures and revelations of severe security vulnerabilities.[i] The same touch screen voting machines used in 78 Iowa counties are falling out of favor around the nation. California, even though its touch screens have a paper trail, will not allow the touch screens to be used as a primary voting system in its February 5 primary.[ii] Florida has also chosen to replace its touch screens with precinct-based optical scan rather than add paper-trail printers to its existing touch screens. And in Ohio, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has called for Cleveland-area Cuyahoga County to replace its touch screens with optical scan and paper ballots in time for Ohio's March primary.[iii] Cuyahoga County's paper trail printers failed disastrously in the November 2007 elections, with up to 20% of printouts unreadable.Vote by mail is also problematic. Recent scholarship has cast doubt on the claim the vote by mail increases turnout.[iv] Wisconsin and Minnesota, which have regular polling places and allow voters to register on election day, have higher voter participation than Oregon, the only state with a universal vote by mail system. Oregon's voter participation is not much higher than Iowa's.[v] And because the voting process takes place over a number of weeks, it is harder for citizens to observe the process.
“With vote by mail, it's very hard for citizens to observe the chain of custody of ballots,” said Flaherty. “Iowa has great laws that allow candidates' workers and citizens to watch polling places and election night tabulation, but it really isn't possible watch the chain of custody over many weeks of voting.” The same is true for Iowa's early voting and absentee ballot process, but making this system universal would only compound the problem. The University of Iowa's world-renowned voting systems expert Douglas Jones has opposed vote by mail for this and other reasons: vote by mail may pose a long-term threat to the secret ballot, and ballots counted at a central location are not counted as reliably as ballots counted at the polling place.[vi]
The cost of precinct-based optical scan equipment could run from $8-10 million, which may have motivated the Governor to look at vote by mail. Flaherty said, “We understand the Governor's desire to cut costs, but on the scale of Iowa's $6 billion-plus budget, $8-10 million is a bargain for democracy's machinery.”
[i] http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1680451,00.html
[ii] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070813/ai_n19476126
[iii] http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1197019941287340.xml&coll=2
[iv] http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070419/news_lz7e19kousser.html
[v] http://www.iowansforvotingintegrity.org/Voter Participation Oregon vs. EDRStates.doc
[vi] http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/colorado_postal.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)