News item: Hoping your vote counts

[DrSmellThis]

February 10th, 2005 3:54 pm
No-Shows Annoy Group Probing 2004 Election
By Malia Rulon /

[

color=#0000ff]Associated Press[/color]

WASHINGTON - Starting on a sour note, lawmakers holding the first

congressional review of the 2004 vote were upset by the absence of top election officials from Ohio and Florida,

states with many balloting complaints.

The chairman of the House Administration Committee said he would hold

hearings away from Washington and continue to seek testimony from Ohio's secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell, and

Florida's Glenda Hood.

"I am disappointed that they are not here," said Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio. "We can have

disagreements, but you can't run and you can't hide."

Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald of California, the top

Democrat on the committee, said "the arrogance of these secretaries of state to not be here today is an affront."



Blackwell was in the capital, where he led a meeting of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute. He said he

already had agreed to attend that meeting before the House committee asked him to appear.

"I don't know why

there would be any hand wringing or foot stomping. The Ohio story is probably the most widely told story in the

country," Blackwell said. He pledged that someone from Ohio — though not necessarily him — would go before the

committee, which oversees election issues.

Hood had a previously scheduled speech before the British-American

Chamber of Commerce of Central Florida on Wednesday, which the committee was told about, spokeswoman Jenny Nash

said. Hood "welcomes any opportunity to discuss Florida's success during the 2004 election," Nash said.

The

hearing was intended to examine the successes and failures of a law passed after Florida's disputed voting in the

2000 presidential election. The law created the Election Assistance Commission to distribute money to states and

oversee election standards.

The commission found many successes from the past election, such as more voters

using provisional ballots and electronic voting machines. But it also says more money is needed to complete voter

databases, buy voting machines and perform other upgrades by 2006.

Secretaries of state from Indiana, Kansas,

New Mexico and Iowa said their states registered record numbers of voters, expanded voter education programs and

poll worker training, made more polling places accessible to the disabled and replaced old voting machines.



"Our system, certainly, is not perfect," said Kansas Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh, a Republican. "But,

overall, last November's election was successful. The reforms are working."

The officials took issue with

legislation that would standardize elections. Over the weekend, the National Association of Secretaries of State

passed a resolution over the weekend asking Congress to dissolve the new election commission after it finishes its

work.

"I was shocked, surprised, just because I didn't see it coming and don't agree with it," Ney said. "I

understand your motivation. It's a horrific balance."

Already, the commission has distributed $2.2 billion of

$3 billion set aside for states. The money helped some states install new electronic or optical scan machines before

the Nov. 2 election.

The hearing came as congressional investigators, responding to complaints from around the

country, look into the malfunctions of voting machines and handling of provisional ballots during last year's

Lawsuits over provisional voting were filed in at least five states, most notably Ohio, Michigan and Missouri.

[DrSmellThis]

February 10th, 2005 4:06

pm
FBI checking Clermont voting; Congressman claims tampering
By Reid Forgrave /

Cincin

nati Enquirer

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is interviewing members of the Clermont County

Board of Elections because of a Democratic Congressman's claim of vote-tampering during the presidential

election.

The allegations stem from white oval-shaped stickers, about the size of an M&M, placed on fewer than

100 ballots.

Poll workers used them on Election Day to correct mistaken votes and determine intent on the

optical scan ballots. Some voters, for example, marked their vote, but also etched a small mark in the space for

another candidate, which threw off the machines.

Michael Brooks, a spokesman with the FBI's office in

Cincinnati, confirmed Tuesday that the agency is conducting preliminary interviews with Clermont elections

officials. The bureau hasn't yet decided to open a formal investigation.

The FBI is responding to a letter from

Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., requesting an investigation "of vote-tampering if not outright fraud" based on

recount observers' statements.

Clermont Republicans, as well as the elections board director, dismissed the

allegations as a ploy by some Democrats to "muddy the waters" of President Bush's victory in Ohio - where a

118,599-vote victory over Sen. John Kerry sealed Bush's second term.

"It's a farce," said Tim Rudd, chair of

the Clermont County Republican Party and member of the bipartisan elections board. "I don't know what they're

trying to do here. What we did see (during the state-mandated recount) was a couple of white ovals used to correct

ballots for the voters' intent. What they didn't see was 50,000 adhesive ovals on these ballots."

Critics

admit the alleged discrepancy wouldn't affect the outcome, but they say every vote count is a matter of

principle.

"I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to say the election was stolen," said Bob Drake, a

University of Cincinnati professor and Green Party recount observer. "It has nothing to do with the outcome of the

election. We simply want the count to be accurate.

Board of Elections Director Dan Bare said elections are never

perfect. He denied that there was any election fraud and said he welcomed the FBI scrutiny of the counting process,

which includes one Republican and one Democrat through every step.

Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., sent a

letter dated Jan. 28 asking the FBI to open an investigation into election irregularities during the presidential

election in Ohio. A link to his letter is available at

www.house.gov/conyers.

[DrSmellThis]

WASHINGTON

([color=#

990000]Reuters[/color]) - Former President Jimmy Carter will lead a bipartisan commission to examine problems

with the U.S. election system, American University's Center for Democracy and Election Management said on Thursday.



Carter, a Democrat whose Carter Center has monitored more than 50 elections around the world, will co-chair the

private commission with Republican James Baker, who served as Secretary of State under President George H. W. Bush.



Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a Democrat who lost his seat in the 2004 election, will also

participate.

"I am concerned about the state of our electoral system and believe we need to improve it," Carter

said in a statement. He said the group will assess "issues of inclusion" in federal voting and propose

recommendations to improve the process.

"We will try to define an electoral system for the 21st century that

will make Americans proud again," he said.

Though disputes over recounts and voter eligibility marred the 2000

U.S. presidential election, international monitors in place in November 2004 reported the polls were mostly fair.



Still, concerns emerged about exceedingly long lines that kept voters from the polls in several states including

Ohio, whose 20 electoral college votes ultimately decided the election in President Bush's favor.

The Center

for Democracy and Election Management, which will organize the work of Carter's commission, said the group would

hold two public hearings -- the first on April 18 at American University in Washington and the second at Houston's

Rice University in June. The Commission on Federal Election Reform aims to produce a report to Congress on its

findings by September.

[DrSmellThis]

This is good news. Apparently

consciousness has been raised to some extent -- not enough, but some is better than nothing.

My sincere hope is

that the bipartisan report will provide substantive recommendations and be taken seriously this September.

[Pancho1188]

Hey, I can go to the first

one! (not that I would...but I could!)

[DrSmellThis]

...and why wouldn't you?!



I stayed at American University one summer. Cool area, close to Georgetown and all the embassies. Are

you in that area?

[Pancho1188]

Yes...in fact my cell phone

reception is scrambled by the Russians. Bastards.

[DrSmellThis]

They have quite the embassy.

[DrSmellThis]

MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- The

elections chief of a key South Florida county has resigned amid revelations of voting problems in six

elections.

Miami-Dade Elections Supervisor Constance Kaplan resigned Thursday. Her chief deputy, Lester Sola,

will take over temporarily.

The veteran Chicago election official came on board in Miami in June 2003 to fix

problems from the 2000 presidential election.

The county was heavily criticized after 28,000 mostly punchcard

ballots went uncounted. President Bush won the state -- and thus the presidency -- by 537 votes.

County Manager

George Burgess said he questioned Kaplan about a special election on slot machines in which there were a high number

of ballots with no recorded votes -- known as undervotes.

Kaplan blamed a software fluke, he said.

Officials

later identified elections in West Miami, Bay Harbor Island, Surfside, Golden Beach and Cutler Ridge with high

undervotes.

Kaplan said the uncounted votes would not have changed any results, but pari-mutuel industry

officials -- who lost a bid to install slot machines at tracks and jai alai frontons -- have asked for a new

election.

Burgess said Kaplan's explanations for the problems were inadequate.

[Mtnjim]

The veteran

Chicago election official

Now does that tell us anything??

[DrSmellThis]

Now does that

tell us anything??

..........

[DrSmellThis]

Associated

Press

BOSTON, April 10 -- Many would-be voters in last year's presidential election were denied

access to the polls through trickery and intimidation, former Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry told

the Massachusetts League of Women Voters on Sunday.

Kerry cited examples of how people were duped into not

voting. "Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in

telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said. Kerry has never

disputed the outcome of the election, saying voting irregularities did not involve enough votes to change the

result. President Bush won the pivotal state of Ohio by 118,000 votes, giving him enough electoral votes to win

reelection.

[DrSmellThis]

Group says chance of exit polls being so wrong in '04 vote is one-in-959,000

By Stephen

Dyer / Akron Beacon Journal



There's a one-in-959,000 chance that exit polls could have been so wrong in predicting the outcome of the 2004

presidential election, according to a statistical analysis released Thursday.

Exit polls in the November

election showed Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., winning by 3 percent, but President George W. Bush won the vote count by

2.5 percent.

The explanation for the discrepancy that was offered by the exit polling firm -- that Kerry voters

were more likely to participate in the exit polling -- is an "implausible theory,'' according to the report issued

Thursday by US Count Votes, a group that claims it's made up of about two dozen statisticians.

Twelve --

including a Case Western Reserve University mathematics instructor -- signed the report.

Instead, the data

support the idea that "corruption of the vote count occurred more freely in districts that were overwhelmingly Bush

strongholds.''

The report dismisses chance and inaccurate exit polling as the reasons for their discrepancy

with the results.

They found that the one hypothesis that can't be ruled out is inaccurate election results.



"The hypothesis that the voters' intent was not accurately recorded or counted... needs further

investigation,'' it said.

The conclusion drew a yawn from Ohio election officials, who repeated that the

discrepancy issue was settled when the polling firms Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International disavowed its

polls because Kerry voters were more likely to answer exit polls -- the theory Thursday's report deemed

"implausible.''

Ohio has been at the center of a voter disenfranchisement debate since the election.



"What are you going to do except laugh at it?'' said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State J.

Kenneth Blackwell, who's responsible for administering Ohio's elections and is a Republican candidate for

governor. "We're not particularly interested in (the report's findings). We wish them luck, but hope they find

something more interesting to do.''

The statistical analysis, though, shows that the discrepancy between

polls and results was especially high in precincts that voted for Bush -- as high as a 10 percent difference.



The report says if the official explanation -- that Bush voters were more shy about filling out exit polls in

precincts with more Kerry voters -- is true, then the precincts with large Bush votes should be more accurate, not

less accurate as the data indicate.

The report also called into question new voting machine technologies.



"All voting equipment technologies except paper ballots were associated with large unexplained exit poll

discrepancies all favoring the same party, (which) certainly warrants further inquiry,'' the report concludes.



However, LoParo remained unimpressed. "These (Bush) voters have been much maligned by outside political forces who

didn't like the way they voted,'' he said. "The weather's turning nice. There are more interesting things to do

than beat a dead horse."

[DrSmellThis]

You

gotta love the arrogant and patronizing response from Blackwell's office!

This is the exact same type of

exit poll discrepancy that was taken by the international community to indicate election fraud in the Ukraine. That

election was subsequently overturned.

[DrSmellThis]

Check it out, folks! You have to admire all those patriots who waited in line for

several hours to vote.



http://www.commoncause.org/Nove

mber2ndVideo

[DrSmellThis]

I too am struck by Carter's

honesty. He's the president in my lifetime that I would invite to dinner (even though there was little to

distinguish him from a Republican by the end of his term).

He certainly knows elections, and knows the last two

were stolen. (This is not whining, as the right wingers characterize it. It is rather calling a spade a spade.)

[InternationalPlayboy]

and

in the opinion of many, the only honest President we've had in years!!!

I think that's why Carter

failed as a President. He was too honest for the job.

[koolking1]

I'd take that kind of

failure right now if we could only have it.

[DrSmellThis]

I

think that's why Carter failed as a President. He was too honest for the job.

Maybe he was also too humble.

He really comes across as a great guy. Maybe he's perceived as weak, since he doesn't act like a stereotyical

"alpha". Right wing alpha wannabees sure love to beat on him for his "failed policies." Anyway, thanks for the post.

His opinion on elections means something.

[koolking1]

From Los

Angeles Times... [emphasis added]



Schwarzenegger Hits Snag at Polling Place

SACRAMENTO -- Gov.

Arnold Schwarzenegger showed up to his Brentwood neighborhood polling station today to cast his ballot in the

special election — and was told he had already voted.

Elections officials said a Los Angeles County poll

worker had entered Schwarzenegger's name into an electronic voting touch screen station in Pasadena on Oct. 25. The

worker, who was not identified, was testing the voting machine in preparation for early voting that began the next

day.
...
Schwarzenegger's aides were informed of the problem when they arrived this morning to survey the

governor's polling station. The poll worker told the governor's staff he would have to use a "provisional" ballot

that allows elections workers to verify if two votes were made by the same person. McCormack said the poll worker

did the correct thing.

The governor, however, was allowed to use a regular ballot.
...
"This is someone

who breached our protocol and was playing around in advance of the election," she said.

Tom Hiltachk, the

governor's attorney, said: "I have no reason to believe anything nefarious occurred.

But Kim Alexander,

president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the problem highlights the need for better

verification of electronic voting.

"If the governor is going to have a mix-up on his ballot," she said, "it

will make other voters wonder what is going to happen with their ballots."


(Thanks to John Gideon of

www.votersunite.org for alerting us about this one!)

[koolking1]

and if

you believe the author (I do) then your votes in the last two presidential elections didn't matter much other than

for your own sake.

from CounterPunch:

"
November 10, 2005

How Much Does Fitzgerald Really

Know?
Why Did Libby Lie?
By LAWRENCE R. VELVEL

In the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby case I shall assume that

the matter is as the indictment charges. As Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said, of course, perhaps Libby will be

found innocent of the charges [obstruction of justice, making false statements, perjury] at a trial. Or, perhaps

more likely, there could be the de facto equivalent of the Scotch verdict of "not proven," i.e., a jury might return

a "not guilty" verdict because, while it thinks Libby is guilty, it doesn't think this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Be all this as it may, it shall be assumed here that the charges are true. The grand jury testimony by Libby that

Fitzgerald quoted near the end of the indictment is a dramatic illustration that this assumption is not crazy. To

the contrary.

Assuming the truth of the indictment, the question immediately arises of why did Libby, vice

president Cheney's chief of staff, do it? Why did he invent an easily pierced cock and bull story, and why did he

think he could get away with it?

His reason for thinking he could get away with it could well be the supposed

existence of a reporter's privilege not to reveal confidential sources, and reporters' felt duty to protect their

sources. One would guess that Libby felt that the big shot reporters whom he told about Valerie Plame--Tim Russert

of NBC, Judith Miller of the Times, and Matthew Cooper of Time -- would never talk to the prosecutor because of the

presumed reporters' privilege. He may also have felt -- it would have been logical to feel -- that the prosecutor

would never take on these reporters about their invocation of privilege, especially because they were part of large

organizations which had the deep pockets necessary to fight the prosecutor in court and totally thwart or at least

lengthily delay him -- a scenario that eventually occurred.

But this does not answer all the questions. It

tells us only why Libby felt he could get away with his cock and bull story, either completely or, at minimum, for a

considerable period of time. But why did he do it in the first place? What motivated him?

The answers here

would seem to be fairly obvious. Libby is a sophisticated lawyer, it is said. If I remember correctly, he even

headed the Washington office of a significant national law firm for a while. For a guy like him to make up a cock

and bull story that could land one in jail for decades, the stakes had to be pretty high, high enough so that he

would risk falling on his sword. Sure, if the reporters never talked, he would be home scot free. But if they did

ultimately talk, he was in big trouble. Yet he took the risk, because the stakes were high.

The stakes must

at least have involved the continuing viability of Dick Cheney. Cheney's office was trying to smear and discredit

Joseph C. Wilson IV, whose report had itself discredited the story about Niger uranium. Lots of people in Cheney's

office were told of and were discussing Valerie Plame Wilson. Cheney himself knew about her early-on in the game.

There was also the mysterious airplane conversation about her among Cheney and his staff on the way back from

Norfolk -- a discussion whose contents are still publicly undisclosed. Cheney discussed her with Libby. And Cheney

supposedly did not know what was going on, did not know that his people were trying to discredit Joseph Wilson by

getting at his wife? Gimme a break. It's not as if Dick Cheney is a nice guy rather than a savage partisan, you

know.

So, at minimum, Libby, a guy who has thus far shown the uncompromising if totally misguided loyalty of

a Gordon Liddy, was protecting Dick Cheney. He may also have been protecting George Bush. Bush's name has not yet

figured much in the story. Conceivably it never will, unless much more becomes known than is currently public. The

man is very good at having others take the fall for what he must have known about and must have approved because he

thought it useful -- as the torture debacle proves in spades. Also, Bush and Cheney talk a lot (and Libby too was

part of Bush's close inner circle, was someone to whom Bush often talked). The idea that Bush knew from nothing

about all of this stuff that bore on his false justifications for war, and on the effort of Cheney's people to

prevent one of his false justifications from successfully being ripped apart, sounds just a little precious to me.

(It may sound that way to some others too, since one lengthy news report took the trouble to interject that, on

Friday, October 28, the day he announced the indictments, Fitzgerald had been seen outside the office of the

apparently secretive Washington lawyer whom Bush has hired to represent him in this matter, the mysterious James

Sharp.)

And then there is also the matter of the 2004 election, a point made by the columnist Tom Oliphant

(an unabashed Democratic partisan who nonetheless seems to have hit upon something here). Fitzgerald said -- one did

not take him literally, but the point probably is broadly true -- that were it not for Libby's lies, he would have

brought a case not in October 2005, but in October 2004. But a prosecution in September or October 2004 would have

been based on the substantive criminal act of outing Valerie Plame Wilson. Remember, we are assuming that Libby --

and nobody else either, I would add -- did not lie, so the prosecution would not have been one for perjury and false

statements, but one for the substantive crime of outing a CIA officer. This does not exactly comport with

Fitzgerald's failure to charge a substantive crime against Libby , but it was what Libby would have had to fear had

he not lied (and it could still happen, a point to which we return below).

A prosecution against members of

this administration for outing Plame Wilson -- a prosecution that possibly could have been against Cheney too, not

just against Libby, and possibly against Rove also, and maybe even against Bush as well -- would have been

disastrous for Bush's reelection campaign. It likely would have spelled defeat for Bush and victory for Kerry. This

result, Libby would have figured, had to be avoided at all costs. So he stonewalled by lying to the FBI and to the

grand jury. By stonewalling through lying, he would defeat even the possibility of a prosecutorial action, or at

least would delay any such possible action until long after the election, as occurred. The election, and the return

to office of Bush, Cheney and company, was indeed a stake worth falling on one's sword for. Moreover, even if Libby

were convicted long after the election, if Bush won there was always a possibility of a subsequent corrupt pardon

(ala Bill Clinton and ala Reagan's pardon of Casper Weinberger, who covered up for that Administration, including

the first George Bush). The possibility of such a pardon was hardly diminished when Bush spoke glowingly of Libby

after the indictment.

So, when one asks why Libby lied, what motivated him to make up his cock and bull

story, the likely answers do not seem so hard to fathom. Libby was covering up for Cheney, may well have been

covering up for Bush too (whose small inner circle he was a part of), and very likely was saving the election for

Bush, Cheney and company. These were stakes worth the candle. One should note, moreover, that if Libby lied in order

to ward off a Kerry victory, this would mean that Bush was elected the first time by the Supreme Court and the

second time because of lies and perjury. This would not speak well for our system, would it?

Which leads, of

course, to the question of what does Fitzgerald know about the underlying motivations behind what

happened.

Fitzgerald repeatedly said at his press conference that he was saying nothing and charging nothing

about the underlying crime (or not) of outing Valerie Plame Wilson. Yet, both at his press conference and in his

press release he kept stressing that, before charging a crime here (or anywhere, I take it), the prosecutor needs to

know why something was done, what was the purpose of it. Of course, one might say -- Fitzgerald would and in effect

did say -- that purpose is irrelevant to the charges of false statements and perjury; those acts are in and of

themselves culpable because, as Fitzgerald said, they prevent the prosecutor from learning the underlying purpose

behind the substantive acts.

Yet surely Fitzgerald knows something, must indeed know quite a bit, about such

underlying purpose -- the whole damn country understands the purpose of discrediting Joe Wilson by letting it be

known that his wife was a CIA officer and was behind his trip (a point I shall return to later) -- and as a citizen

Fitzgerald knows that much. Does he also know a lot more in his role as a prosecutor (though he refused to say)? His

people have conducted god know how many interviews (including interviews even with the vice president and

president), and have gotten documents. Did every administration interviewee stonewall? Did every one of them lie?

Did nobody concede that they had discussed how to discredit Joseph Wilson's report, and Joseph Wilson himself, and

that one way this was attempted was by trying to discredit Joe Wilson by outing his wife? Did no one concede they

were mad as hell at the CIA because of its refusal to give unqualified support to the Administration's phony

reasons for war, and were trying to discredit the CIA? A universal cover-up of this nature is an idea a little hard

to swallow.

So, unless there were some such universal cover-up, Fitzgerald must know a good deal, in his role

as a prosecutor, about what the underlying purpose of the outing was, what its basic motivation was. And now that

Libby has been indicted, the pressure will be on him to cut a deal to shorten his sentence, and possibly to avoid a

second indictment on the underlying substantive charge, by revealing more. There will also be pressure on other

Administration figures who are involved to cut a deal in order to avoid the possibility that they may be indicted

(or listed as unindicted co-conspirators). (One thinks of people like Rove, conceivably David Addington, who is

known to be ferociously savage to those who oppose his view, or conceivably John Hannah.) All of this remains in the

bosom of the future, of course. But if Fitzgerald was telling the truth about the need to learn underlying purposes

during an investigation -- and so far he has given the impression of being one of the few involved in high level

Washington matters who does not prevaricate or lie -- then there is bound to be more to come. As the reporters say,

stay tuned."

Lawrence R. Velvel is the Dean of Massachusetts School of Law. He can be reached at

velvel@mslaw.edu.

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002015.htm

[DrSmellThis]

New tests fuel doubts about

vote machines
A top election official and computer experts say computer hackers could easily change election

results, after they found numerous flaws with a state-approved voting-machine in Tallahassee.
BY MARC CAPUTO

AND GARY FINEOUT
mcaputo@herald.com
TALLAHASSEE - A

political operative with hacking skills could alter the results of any election on Diebold-made voting machines --

and possibly other new voting systems in Florida -- according to the state capital's election supervisor, who said

Diebold software has failed repeated tests.

Ion Sancho, Leon County's election chief, said tests by two

computer experts, completed this week, showed that an insider could surreptitiously change vote results and the

number of ballots cast on Diebold's optical-scan machines.

After receiving county commission approval Tuesday,

Sancho scrapped Diebold's system for one made by Elections Systems and Software, the same provider used by

Miami-Dade and Broward counties. The difference between the systems: Sancho's machines use a fill-in-the-blank

paper ballot that allows for after-the-fact manual recounts, while Broward and Miami-Dade use ATM-like touchscreens

that leave no paper trail.

''That's kind of scary. If there's no paper trail, you have to rely solely on

electronic results. And now we know that they can be manipulated under the right conditions, without a person even

leaving a fingerprint,'' said Sancho, who once headed the state's elections supervisors association.

The

Leon County test results are likely to further fuel suspicions that the new electronic voting systems in Florida, in

place since the 2002 elections, are susceptible to manipulation.

When the debate hit fever pitch before last

year's presidential election, many conservatives said questions about the machinery were a liberal ploy to

undermine confidence in the voting system.

Elections chiefs in Broward and Miami-Dade said Wednesday they have

good security and are not particularly concerned -- though both have had ''glitches'' that have been tough to

explain.

Sancho agrees that good security is key, but said he's not sure he won't also have problems with the

$1.3 million ES&S system, which he'll also test.

DIEBOLD USERS

Twenty-nine counties, including

Monroe, use different versions of paper-ballot voting systems manufactured by Diebold, a leading manufacturer of

security systems and voting machines. One county uses Diebold touchscreens.

A spokesman for Diebold Election

Systems Inc. could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Sancho said Diebold isn't the only one to blame for

hacker-prone equipment. The Florida secretary of state's office should have caught these problems early on, he

said, and the Legislature should scrap a law severely restricting recounts on touch-screen machines and equip them

with the means of producing a paper trail.

A spokeswoman for the secretary of state's office said any faults

Sancho found were between him and Diebold.

''If Ion Sancho has security concerns with his system, he needs to

discuss them with Diebold,'' spokeswoman Jenny Nash said.

Sancho first clashed with Diebold in May, when he

teamed up with a nonprofit election-monitoring group called BlackBoxVoting.org, which has made a crusade of showing

that electronic voting machines are subject to fraud. BlackBox hired Herbert Thompson, a computer-science professor

and strategist at Security Innovation, which tests software for companies such as Google and Microsoft.



Thompson couldn't hack into the system from the outside. So Sancho gave him access to the central machine that

tabulates votes and to the last school election at Leon County High.

Thompson told The Herald he was

''shocked'' at how easy it was to get in, make the loser the winner and leave without a trace. The machine asked

for a user name and password, but didn't require it, he said. That meant it had not just a ''front door, but a

back door as big as a garage,'' Thompson said.

From there, Thompson said, he typed five lines of computer

code -- and switched 5,000 votes from one candidate to another.

''I am positive an eighth grader could do

this,'' Thompson said.

After BlackBox and Sancho announced the results, Diebold's senior lawyer, Michael

Lindroos, wrote Sancho, Leon County and the state of Florida questioning the results and calling the test ''a very

foolish and irresponsible act'' that may have violated licensing agreements.

Over the past few months,

computer expert Harri Hursti tried to manipulate election results with the memory card inserted into each Diebold

voting machine. The card records votes during an election, then at the end of the day is taken to a central location

where results are totaled.

Hursti figured out how to hack into the memory card by using an agricultural

scanning device easily available on the Internet, said BlackBox founder Bev Harris. He learned how to hide votes,

make losers out of winners and leave no trace, she said.

Hursti couldn't be reached for comment.

With

some variation, both Miami-Dade and Broward use these cartridge-like cards to record votes and report election

results. Experts like Thompson say they believe the counties could be subject to electronic ballot-rigging -- which

would be hard to detect and correct without a paper trail.

FINAL TEST

Sancho said he tried to

discuss the problems with Diebold, but met with resistance. On Monday, he did one final test with Hursti at the Leon

County supervisor's office, Hursti hacked the memory card to spit out seven ''yes'' votes on an issue and one

''no'' vote.

Then, six ''no'' votes and two ''yes'' votes were cast into the machine the same way

voters would. Those results didn't show up in the final tally -- just the ones hacked into the card.

Officials

for ES&S, which makes the systems used in Miami-Dade and Broward counties, couldn't be reached for comment

Wednesday.

Seth Kaplan, a spokesman for the Miami-Dade elections office, said officials continually monitor the

quality and security of their machines.

''The problem of election fraud predates current technology by

hundreds of years. We have people we trust and in our case we have checks to reconcile the results,'' Kaplan

said.

But Broward's election supervisor, Brenda Snipes, said she's at least intrigued. She, too, vouches for

her office's security, but says there's a need to remain vigilant.

''Is hacking possible? We think we have

a secure system. With technology, those people who have that level of expertise, I guess that could be possible,''

Snipes said. ``We need to see what Ion did. He tries a lot of things. He's always analyzing things.''

But

Sancho said the time for passive monitoring is over. The Diebold problems show that simple tests haven't been done

on at least one major voting system, he said.

''These were sold as safe systems. They passed tests as safe

systems,'' Sancho said. ``But even in the so-called safe system, if you don't follow the paper ballots, there is

a way to rig the election. Except it's not a bunch of guys stuffing ballots in a precinct. It's possibly one

person acting in secret changing thousands of votes in a second.'

[Mtnjim]

From:GTC California Report - Special

05.12.16


States and Localities Prepare for Jan. 1 HAVA and Electronic Voting Deadline
December 2, 2005

By Wayne Hanson
Last year Washington state experienced what State Elections Director Nick Handy termed "the mother

of all recounts," during the closest governor's race in U.S. history. "2.8 million people voted and we counted the

ballots three times," he said. Thirty-eight of the state's 39 counties had been tallied, and the state waited,

electrified, for the final county's results. The reason? The candidates were only eight votes apart.

Nick

Handy

While such a narrow margin between candidates may be unusual, it points out the importance of accuracy in

the process and confidence by the public that voting -- the very heart of any democracy -- works as it is intended.

That confidence was severely tested in the 2000 presidential election which came down to a few hundred votes in

Florida amid charges of irregularities in vote counting. Finally, the Supreme Court stopped the recounts and George

W. Bush was declared president. In an essentially adversarial political environment, that is a complete recipe for

discontent and suspicion.

This coming January, as the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) goes into effect, and

states and counties transition to computerized voting systems, the need for absolute accuracy is paramount to regain

the public's trust and confidence.





Handy, however, is more concerned about human error than voting

system glitches or fraud. As he explained in Sacramento earlier this week at the Voting Systems Testing Summit,

about 80 percent of Washington's voters vote by mail, and the voting systems are selected by the counties and

certified by the state. The state has "a very active recount process," said Handy. Machine and manual recounts are

done randomly in the state's six yearly elections, and there is a state requirement that allows any political party

to request a manual recount of a certain number of precincts.

"These recounts were 99.99 percent accurate," said

Handy. The inaccuracies, he said, were due to human error in interpreting the voter's intent: "instead of filling

in the oval, they put a little note that says 'I like this guy here,' or put a circle around the oval, or an X in

the oval." Also, he said, election workers in the past have sometimes failed to account for all the ballots.

As

a result, said Handy, he would suggest putting more attention on training of voters and poll workers, "and not as

much energy on the actual voting system devices and workings of hardware and software."

California's Best

Practices Blueprint

Bruce McPherson

"We are entering a new era of voting systems technology," said California

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson in his introductory remarks at his summit in Sacramento. Among the challenges

facing voting officials, he explained are the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) as well as building voter confidence and

accessibility.

HAVA, said McPherson, requires voting systems that are free of "hanging chads" and that remove

barriers of disability and language. HAVA came into being because of "conditions that raised questions" in voting,

and now, the voting process is on everyone's radar. This is not a bad thing, said McPherson, as states are now

beginning to share experiences and pool resources. Conference attendees included representatives from 23 states and

18 California counties and showed the extent of interest in collaboration.

The conference is part of a process

to develop a "Best Practices Blueprint for state testing of voting systems," said McPherson. Last month, the

Secretary of State's Office created the Office of Voting System Technology Assessment for voting system testing and

certification. "For the first time," said McPherson, "California will have a strict and clearly articulated list of

benchmarks that voting systems and their manufacturers will need to meet in order to be certificated for use in

California. Those requirements will be codified into state regulations, not simply be implied or arbitrary,

scattered among memos and outdated written procedures."

McPherson said that interested parties are encouraged to

offer written comments and reports until Mid-December. Prior to the final blueprint, McPherson will hold a public

meeting on the summit's recommendations, most likely in February.

The Federal View

Paul DeGregorio

HAVA,

the Help America Vote Act, will take effect Jan. 1, said Paul DeGregorio, of the federal Election Assistance

Commission (EAC) which was created by HAVA. The purpose of HAVA, says the Act, is: "To establish a program to

provide funds to states to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to

assist in the administration of federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of

certain federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration standards for states and

units of local government with responsibility for the administration of federal elections, and for other

purposes."

HAVA, said DeGregorio, will take voting accessibility requirements "to a new level," and will carry

new requirements that include provisional voting, complaint procedures, and statewide voter registration lists. $3.1

billion in federal equipment funds have been distributed to states, territories and to Washington, D.C., he

said.

The first set of voting system guidelines, said DeGregorio, were developed in 1990 by the Federal Elections

Commission. In 2002 the guidelines were updated to include some new technologies, such as direct electronic

recording machines. Under HAVA, he said, EAC has a mandate to update the guidelines again, and although states can

decide whether to adopt them or not, most will probably do so.

The National Association of State Elections

Directors (NASED) had a voluntary voting system qualifications procedure, said DeGregorio, and under HAVA, the EAC

will take over this function. A note on the NASED Web site directs inquiries about "previously or currently

certified equipment or the testing process to Brian Hancock at bhancock@eac.gov or (866)

747-1471."

What the federal government is doing has implications beyond the United States, said DeGregorio. "I

was in Moscow last week, and testing and guidelines have international implications. People are following what we

are doing. India and Brazil are using e-voting, and European countries are moving toward it."

State View

Sandy

Steinbach

Sandy Steinbach, chair of the NASED Voting Systems Board, and director of elections for the Iowa

Secretary of State, said voting systems qualification is not a new process. "We've had computerized voting since

the 1960s and 70s," she said, "including computerized voting machines, punch cards, optical scan, and optical scan

central count." But voting system failures create tension, she said. Back in 1975, a National Bureau of Standards

(now NIST) report said that lack of technical skill at state and local levels were the primary cause of computer

related problems. Congress responded in 1984 -- nine years later -- to develop voluntary national standards, and six

years later, in 1990, the FEC issued the performance and test standards for punchcard, marksense, and direct

recording systems. Then in 2002, the FEC issued the revised standards currently in effect, which are the basic

standards incorporated into HAVA, explained Steinbach. "They are in effect until they are replaced by the

EAC."

State certification varies greatly state to state, said Steinbach. "Some have no standards, some have

rigorous standards." She said the biggest difference is likely to be the redefinition of what a voting system is.

Instead of "a box to put your ballot in that counted it," the definition now includes everything, from a definition

of ballots to the record-keeping process, instructions, forms and more.

Some states feel that the new guidelines

will make everything obsolete, said Steinbach, but that's not necessarily true. The standards are voluntary, and

state legislatures will make the decision whether to act on them or not.

Paul Craft

Paul Craft of the Florida

Secretary of State's Office, said the Florida Legislature decided to set standards without waiting for the new

federal standards to come out. He said that standards should be clear, understandable, consistent and reasonable,

and not "include stuff that hasn't been invented yet."

"We provide a third-tier technical assistance to counties

for acceptance testing, and system integrity, or if a system is challenged in court ... We require each county to

use approved security and operational procedures, and those must be filed with the state office and approved." Last

session, said Craft, ballot accounting rules were upgraded, since during the 2004 elections the state discovered

some counties were not doing ballot accounting.

Florida also requires a "conduct of election" report, said

Craft, so that problems that occur comes to the state's attention, and a solution can be worked out with vendors.

"There's no good reward for reporting problems," he said. "You made a choice of systems, and then if you admit a

problem exists, it hits the papers, and you are likely to be attacked for it." The press, the public, and the

marketing people from competing vendors all jump in, he said.

And finally, said Craft, beginning in January,

distribution of uncertified systems is a felony in Florida.

Brit Williams

"Texas is the only state that has

more counties than we have," said Dr. Brit Williams of Georgia. "I'm not sure that's anything to brag about." He,

like Washington's Nick Handy, said that errors in vote tallying were because of human error. "We had 4,000 ballot

scanners for the 2002 election, and not a single glitch was attributed to the voting system."

Williams said that

initially, there was concern about elderly voters using the technology, but said it didn't cause a problem. "But we

liked the system," he joked. He said that DeKalb and Fulton counties were the first in the country to use computers

for voting. But if changes are necessary, it takes four months to get to all 159 counties and costs millions of

dollars.

Of all the security threats, said Williams -- attempted election fraud, intentional or accidental

disruptions -- accidental disruption is most common, as when a lightning strike cut the power. However, he said,

from time to time, there were some people who thought they could use the absentee ballot procedure to alter a local

election.

Williams said that no extraneous software is allowed on the servers which are locked up and have no

network connectivity of any kind. A simple-to-use hash program checks for any alterations in the code.

Local

Concerns

Connie Schmidt

Connie Schmidt, former election commissioner of Johnson County Kansas, said many small

counties don't even have computers, and rely on vendors to set up for elections. "There may be no budgets for them

to attend conferences like this," said Schmidt, "how do we even know what is certified? Do we know what we received

is the certified version? Should we perform our own testing? How do we stay informed about new version releases? How

do we educate our voters and election officials?

Some counties in Western Kansas, she explained, have 3x5 cards

for voter lists, no optical scans, everything is paper-based. "They need our help," she said, "to go to such things

as a statewide computerized database."

Vendors need to routinely notify their customers of current decertified

software and hardware, and communicate regarding new version releases, said Schmidt. "States should maintain a list

of all state-certified systems, including specific software and hardware components." She said Electionline.org is

helpful, but only after the news hits the media.

Standard operating procedure, she said, should include

distribution of all test lab operating procedures and reports, and vendor requests for state certification should

routinely include distribution of such reports. State certification reports should be communicated to local

elections officials.

Voting is like banking, said Schmidt. "Votes are like dollar bills -- you don't want to

lose any, and the books have to balance." There are lots of security concerns, but the systems should be simple and

straightforward "like a big bank vault," because elections won't wait. And the bottom line, she said, is "if people

don't trust the system, they won't vote."

[belgareth]

19 States to Miss Fair Vote Law Deadline Wed Dec 21,

2005



WASHINGTON -

Nineteen states will miss the Jan. 1 deadline for complying with the federal law ensuring accurate and honest

elections, but most should be ready when votes are cast in 2006.

The

National Association of Secretaries of State surveyed the states on compliance with the 2002 law that helps or

requires states to replace outdated voting equipment, establish statewide voter registration databases, require

better voter identification and provide provisional ballots so qualified voters can make their

choices.

The association received responses from 43 states and

released the results Wednesday. The organization provided only numbers and did not identify the specific states,

part of the agreement to ensure that states participated in the survey.

However, during a conference call with reporters, association officials said California and Illinois won't

have voter registration databases ready for the elections. Vermont would be in compliance; Washington would miss the

Jan. 1 deadline but be ready for voting.

Sam Reed, Washington's

secretary of state and the president of the association, said the states that will miss the deadline are working

closely with the Justice Department. He added, "I know of no state in the country that the Department of Justice

is planning to sue over noncompliance."

The association found that 24

states will be in compliance with the Help America Vote Act, the law that emerged from the disputed 2000

presidential election, which was marked by hanging chads, butterfly ballots and accusations of uncounted

votes.

The 19 states that will miss the Jan. 1 deadline cited

problems completing the voter registration database or getting voting equipment in place, or

both.

Congress has provided some $3.9 billion for states to comply

with the law.

[Mtnjim]

From the SANS Newsbites newsletter:
"--California Sec. of State Refuses to

Approve Diebold Electronic Voting
Machines, Asks Company to Submit Code for Federal Review
(21 December

2005)
California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson has refused to approve the
use of thousands of touch-screen

and optical scanning electronic voting
machines. There are "unresolved significant security concerns" with
memory

cards that store votes in the machines. McPherson's office has
asked that Diebold, the maker of the voting

machines in question, submit
the machines' source code to the Federal Independent Testing Authorities
for review.

Dave Byrd, Diebold VP of business operations, said the
company is happy to comply with the

request.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...br /> ory.jsp
http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-6004...=st.util.print
[Editor's Note (Schultz):

Diebold's up-front cooperation with the state
of California represents a major shift in Diebold's

posture--a
much-welcomed change for the better when it comes to assuring integrity
in eVoting systems.]"

[DrSmellThis]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_g

o_ot/election_reforms

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press WriterTue Feb 7, 5:11 PM ET



With the midterm elections just nine months away, many states are lagging

behind in meeting requirements under a 2002 election reform law that they modernize voting machines, create voter

databases and establish ID systems, according to a report released Tuesday.

Controversies over the need for

paper trails and the legality of ID requirements were among the reasons that states missed the Jan. 1 deadline for

complying with the Help America Vote Act, said Electionline.org., a nonpartisan project that does analysis of

election reform.

"The lack of progress in nearly half of the states throws into doubt whether HAVA goals can be

achieved in time for the November 2006 election," the project's president, Doug Chapin, said in a statement.



HAVA was enacted in response to the disputed 2000 presidential election, and Chapin said that despite the glitches,

the election system is undergoing significant change. Two years ago voters had never heard of voter-verified paper

audit trails; now states are deciding whether to use them in recounts, and states that once debated the need for IDs

are now debating whether IDs should be issued free of charge, he said.

Among the findings:

_Most punch-card

and lever voting machines are being replaced, but electronic machines deployed in Florida, North Carolina, Indiana,

Maryland and California have been plagued with certification, security and other problems, including questions about

the reliability and accuracy of paperless ballots.

_More than one-third of states haven't met the requirement

that each polling place have at least one machine available for people with disabilities.

_In 2000, only 11

states required all voters to show IDs. In 2006, the number had doubled to 22. The law says that all first-time

voters who register by mail must show one of a number of forms of ID at their polling place. Georgia's law, which

requires a state-issued photo ID, has been blocked by a federal judge.

_As of Jan. 1, more than 20 percent of

states do not yet have compliant voter registration databases. The report quoted New York state officials as saying

that its databases won't be ready until mid-2007, and noted that the Justice Department is considering suing the

state for noncompliance.

_Before 2000, 18 states, including Florida, the epicenter of the Bush-Gore dispute, had

no recourse for voters turned away at the polls. Under HAVA almost every state has provisional ballots available at

federal elections.

The report concluded that the center of gravity for carrying out reform has shifted to the

states. But two of the key authors of HAVA, Reps. Bob Ney, R-Ohio and Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the federal

government also needs to do more.

Under the act, Washington approved spending of $3.9 billion to upgrade the

election system, but so far it has allotted only $3 billion. Ney said Congress has approved $5 billion to build

democracies overseas, so it's only fair that it grant the full $3.9 bill here at home. "That's what we promised to

do."

Hoyer, in a statement, said he was disappointed that President Bush's budget proposal for 2007 didn't

come through with the money to meet HAVA's obligations. The remaining funds are essential, he said in a statement,

if states are to "successfully implement HAVA in what promises to be the most significant midterm election in over a

decade."

[DrSmellThis]

Watchdog Group Questions

2004 Fla. Vote

By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press WriterThu Feb 23, 3:53 PM ET



An examination of Palm Beach County's electronic voting machine

records from the 2004 election found possible tampering and tens of thousands of malfunctions and errors, a watchdog

group said Thursday.

Bev Harris, founder of BlackBoxVoting.org, said the findings call into question the outcome

of the presidential race. But county officials and the maker of the electronic voting machines strongly disputed

that and took issue with the findings.

Voting problems would have had to have been widespread across the state

to make a difference. President Bush won Florida — and its 27 electoral votes — by 381,000 votes in 2004. Overall,

he defeated John Kerry by 286 to 252 electoral votes, with 270 needed for victory.

BlackBoxVoting.org, which

describes itself as a nonpartisan, nonprofit citizens group, said it found 70,000 instances in Palm Beach County of

cards getting stuck in the paperless ATM-like machines and that the computers logged about 100,000 errors, including

memory failures.

Also, the hard drives crashed on some of the machines made by Oakland, Calif.-based Sequoia

Voting Systems, some machines apparently had to be rebooted over and over, and 1,475 re-calibrations were performed

on Election Day on more than 4,300 units, Harris said. Re-calibrations are done when a machine is malfunctioning,

she said.

"I actually think there's enough votes in play in Florida that it's anybody's guess who actually

won the presidential race," Harris added. "But with that said, there's no way to tell who the votes should have

gone to."

Palm Beach County and other parts of the country switched to electronic equipment after the turbulent

2000 presidential election, when the county's butterfly ballot confused some voters and led them to cast their

votes for third-party candidate Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore. The Supreme Court halted a recount after 36 days

and handed a 537-vote victory to Bush.

Palm Beach County election officials said the BlackBoxVoting.com findings

are flawed, and they blamed most of the errors on voters not following proper procedures.

"Their results are

noteworthy for consideration, but in a majority of instances they can be explained," said Arthur Anderson, the

county's elections supervisor. "All of these circumstances are valid reasons for concern, but they do not on face

value substantiate that the machines are not reliable."

Sequoia spokeswoman Michelle Shafer disputed the

findings, saying the company's machines worked properly. Sequoia's machines are used in five Florida counties and

in 21 states.

"There was a fine election in November 2004," Shafer said.

She said many of the errors in the

computer logs could have resulted from voters improperly inserting their user cards into the machines. The remaining

errors would not affect the vote results because each unit has a backup system, she said.

Jenny Nash, a

spokeswoman for the Florida Department of State, which oversees elections, said she was not aware of the report and

had no comment.

Harris said one machine showed that 112 votes were cast on Oct. 16, two days before the start of

early voting, a possible sign of tampering. She said the group found evidence of tampering on more than 30 machines

in the county.

However, Harris said it was impossible to determine what information was altered or if votes

were shifted among candidates.

On the Net:
BlackBoxVoting:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org

[DrSmellThis]

For those of

you who want to keep abreast of citizen voting rights, blackbox.org has

come a long way in the past year. Check it out, and you'll never view our elections in the same way again!

Bev

Harris and crew have been working tirelessly since the 2004 election, auditing election results in many of the fifty

States. Their website now has tons of enlightening articles on various important happenings across the country.



It really is the preeminent website for voter rights issues in the country, a true friend of Democracy.

[Mtnjim]

From Thursday's "Risks" digest (From the ACM):

Court-at-law recount

suspended; Electronic machines not providing all info
Paul A. Anthony, 21 Mar 2006

On orders from the Texas

Secretary of State's office, the recount for the
Tom Green County Court-at-Law No. 2 race has been suspended

midway through
its second day. About 1:30 p.m. today, county Republican Chairman Dennis
McKerley stopped the

recount after workers found discrepancies of as much as
20 percent between what was counted Monday and what was

reported Election
Night. "We're having some trouble with the electronic equipment," McKerley
said. Apparently,

McKerley said, new electronic voting machines provided by
vendor Hart InterCivic are not printing ballots for every

vote cast on the
machines. During recounts, which must be done by hand, the machines are
designed to print out

separate ballots for every

vote.
http://www.sanangelostandardtimes.co...559073,00.html