VOTING RIGHTS NEWS

CCP PA partner Marybeth Kuznik of VotePA provideed us with these reports on August 2, 2007, the latest documentation of concerns about electronic voting...

California Secretary of State 'Top to Bottom' Review of Voting Systems

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm

Implications for Pennsylvania -- we have all these systems in use in our state!

---

Study: Fla. voting machines still flawed

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/290761_tv02.html

This is a follow-up on the problems revealed by the Hursti Hack that affected the Diebold optical scanners.

Implications for Pennsylvania -- 1) we do not have any of the Diebold scanners in use (however this does not mean similar problems could not affect other companies or systems.) 2) KEY TALKING POINT -- No voting system is 100% reliable and that is why WE MUST HAVE ROUTINE AUDITS of all elections! Only systems such as optical scan (which produces a genuine voter-marked and voter-verified paper ballot) are truly and meaningfully auditable.

---

Brennan Center Releases Report on Audits of Elections

Release: http://www.brennancenter.org/press_detail.asp?key=51&subkey=50088

Report: http://www.brennancenter.org/dynamic/subpages/download_file_50089.pdf

Implications for Pennsylvania -- Pennsylvania and a number of our counties are mentioned prominently as having had inaccurate electronic vote tallies in this new report on auditing by the Brennan Center. A good read. Remember -- KEY TALKING POINT -- No voting system is 100% reliable and that is why WE MUST HAVE ROUTINE AUDITS of all elections!

---

November 8, 2006

• GOP official reports glitches

• Lancaster and Lebanon Counties - 2 Pa. counties extend voting due to machine glitches

• Lancaster County - Human error blamed for eScan problems

• Montgomery County - Some electronic voting machines not 'up to date'

• Westmoreland County - E-voting not easy in Westmoreland County

Allegheny scraps deal for new voting machines

Wednesday, April 05, 2006 By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

With just six weeks to go before the May primary, Allegheny County is scrapping a multi-million-dollar deal for electronic voting machines built by Sequoia Voting System and instead is purchasing 4,700 touch-screen machines from Nebraska-based Election Systems and Software Inc.

County Chief Executive Dan Onorato made the announcement today, saying Pennsylvania Secretary of State Pedro A. Cortes told him last week that Sequoia's system likely would not be certified because of critical software problems.

That information convinced county officials to fall back on an $11.9 million deal with ES&S for the company's iVotronic unit, which resembles a bank ATM and has already received both state and federal certification.

More than 20 Pennsylvania counties already have decided to purchase the iVotronic to satisfy the Help America Vote Act, a sweeping federal law that requires local governments nationwide to upgrade their voting equipment this year or face legal action from the Justice Department.

Because of the looming deadline, ES&S plans to supply each of the county's more than 1,300 voting precincts with at least one machine by the May 16 primary election, although they hope to have at least two per precinct. For the November general election, the company hopes to have all 4,700 machines in place.

As a backup in May, precincts with long lines will allow voters to use optical scan ballots. Those ballots, which resemble standardized tests, would be placed in secure boxes and taken to a central location for counting.

However, Mr. Onorato said, "we'll be using touch-screen machines going forward."

The first set of iVotronics likely will start arriving next week. At that point, the county will begin an "aggressive" educational campaign for voters and poll workers accustomed to using mechanical lever machines for more than four decades.

Mr. Onorato acknowledged the potential for difficulties.

"Are we going to have problems on election day? Every single county in Pennsylvania is going to have problems," he said.

The county's three-member elections board, which includes Mr. Onorato and County Council's two at-large members, still needs to approve the deal with ES&S. Mr. Onorato said the board would hold a public meeting Friday at 6 p.m. Full story...

(Jerome L. Sherman can be reached at jsherman@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1183.)


State high court clears way for electronic voting machines

Thursday, March 02, 2006 By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court today overturned a lower court's ruling that said Westmoreland County must hold a referendum before purchasing electronic voting machines.

The order now clears the way for two dozen counties, including Allegheny and Westmoreland, to replace their aging lever machines, a requirement of the federal Help America Vote Act.

Under the federal law, known as HAVA, local governments nationwide must upgrade their voting equipment this year. Pennsylvania counties face a deadline of the May 16 primary election to comply with HAVA, or they risk losing millions in federal aid.

Officials in Westmoreland County had planned to buy more than 700 touch-screen machines from Elections Systems and Software Inc. at a cost of $2 million. But a group of voting activists, including state Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, sued to block the purchase, citing a provision in the state Constitution that calls for referendums before counties shift to new voting technologies.

Last month, Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini ruled in favor of the activists and ordered the county to use paper ballots for federal elections until a referendum could be held. The county could continue to use lever machines for state and local elections.

Both sides argued before the Supreme Court yesterday, with a lawyer for the state warning that Judge Pellegrini's order could cause election day chaos in Pennsylvania that would rival Florida's problems during the 2000 presidential election. The lawyer, Mark Aronchick of Philadelphia, also argued that HAVA takes precedence over the state's referendum requirement.

The high court's decision today invalidates Judge Pellegrini's order. The court has not yet issued an opinion in the case.

The ruling also should reduce the likelihood of a federal lawsuit against Pennsylvania and Westmoreland County. Last week, the Justice Department threatened such action if the county and the state failed to move on voting machine purchases.

The federal government this week sued New York State because officials there have been slow to comply with HAVA. Full story...

(Jerome L. Sherman can be reached at jsherman@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1183.)


Allegheny County will buy Sequoia voting machines

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 By Mark Belko, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The Allegheny County Board of Elections voted 2-1 yesterday to award a contract to California-based Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. for 2,800 electronic voting machines despite last-minute protests by activists who favored a paper ballot system.

County Chief Executive Dan Onorato, who announced Friday that he wanted the county to purchase the Sequoia machines, teamed with county Councilman John DeFazio to endorse the $11.8 million contract.

Councilman David Fawcett, an at-large member like Mr. DeFazio, voted against the contract, saying he favored an optical scan system that utilizes fill-in-the-blank ballots. He said he feared that an electronic voting machine that malfunctions could be difficult to audit, possibly causing votes to be thrown out.

"That's a problem for me," he said. "I personally would not vote for [an electronic] machine without a paper audit trail." (Mark Belko can be reached at mbelko@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1262.)Full story...

Philly Columnist Slams HB 1318
A predatory bill that ought to die
By Tom Ferrick Jr.
Inquirer Columnist

Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Consider the case of Pennsylvania's House Bill 1318, titled the Voter Protection Act of 2006. It has the stated intent of ensuring voters the right to access to polls by eliminating fraud, intimidation and identity theft.

So many noble words, employed in an insidious cause.

HB1318 is, plain and simple, a mechanism to suppress voter turnout, particularly in big cities, especially among poor, minority and elderly voters. It seeks to make the act of voting more difficult than ever.

Who is behind this reform legislation, which steamed its way through the state House and Senate in recent weeks? A group with the innocuous tag of the American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR).

ACVR is a new creation, dating back to March 2005, but it smells like a GOP front group to me, with its principals closely connected to the Republican National Committee and the Bush reelection campaign. Studying the elections, ACVR detected massive voter fraud in Philadelphia and got this bill introduced as a curative. Similar bills are being advanced in other state legislatures across the country. At the heart of HB1318 is a requirement that all voters show identification before they cast their ballot. As drafted, it also would have forced Philadelphia to shut down several hundred polling places and shift them away from where voters live because it would have banned polling locations in private homes and some commercial establishments.

Home voting ACVR made much ado of the fact that a number of polling places are in private homes in Philly. But the number is small, about 110. Another 120 or so are in commercial establishments, such as barber and beauty shops or corner stores.

The remaining 1,460 are in public places: libraries, churches, synagogues, recreation centers, the lobbies of large apartment buildings, etc.

Why are there so many polling places? Because election officials have made a deliberate attempt to keep them within walking distance of voters. Why? Because many voters do not have cars.

As election official Bob Lee told me: They turn to private residences only when a public building is not nearby. The rent is $90 for one day.

To see this practice, as ACVR does, as a prima facie case of voter fraud misses the mark.

It misses the mark more for ACVR to insist on voter ID because there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud involving identity theft. None.

In my experience, what fraud there is revolves around manipulation of absentee ballots, not phony voters showing up at the polls.

Help available By manipulation, I mean a committee person applying for an absentee ballot for Mrs. Migatz, and then voting for her - even though she died months before. Another method is to recruit marginal or immigrant voters to apply for absentee ballots and then "help" them fill them out.

How many cases in any given election? I cannot say for sure, but I doubt it is more than a handful. Keep in mind that in 2004, there were 675,000 votes cast in the city. John Kerry got 542,205. President Bush got 130,099.

You see why ACVR is so upset about Philadelphia. The city is guilty of voting Democratic.

Here's the bottom line when it comes to voting: You can restrict access to the polls and make it difficult to vote in order to eliminate all fraud. Or you can have a permissive system that makes it easy for people to vote, and accept that some will abuse it.

In modern times, America has embraced a permissive system, except in the South, when whites were seeking to deny voting rights to blacks. Now comes ACVR with a plan to make voting more restrictive and calling it an advance in "voters' rights." It is an Orwellian use of the language and despicable to boot.

On Monday, Gov. Rendell announced he planned to veto HB1318. I hope he goes through with that promise when the bill reaches his desk. Kill this wolf before it begins attacking innocent sheep.

Rendell announces veto of HB1318 at public events on Monday
Rendell vows veto of bill requiring voters to show ID Governor says plan would keep older people, poor from polls.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Gov. Ed Rendell yesterday promised to veto a bill that would require all Pennsylvania voters to show identification at the polls, calling it an unconstitutional government "encroachment" on the right to vote.

In Presidents Day appearances in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the governor warned of the possibility of widespread disenfranchisement of poor and elderly citizens in arguing against the bill, which cleared the state Legislature last week largely along party lines.

"If this bill had become law, some people would have been denied the right to vote," he told a large crowd at the Hill House in Pittsburgh's Hill District. "At a time in our nation's history when voter participation is dropping to alarming levels, we should be doing everything in our power to make it easier to vote."

The bill's supporters see it as a defense against voter fraud. It also has provisions that give military personnel stationed overseas more time to vote by absentee ballot.More...

New York Times Editorial Slams Pennsylvania Legislature on Regressive Pending Voter Legislation

Voting Rights Under Siege

EDITORIAL
Published: February 10, 2006

American laws that strip convicted felons of the right to vote, barring nearly five million from the polls in the last election, are the most punitive and regressive laws of their kind in the democratic world. Several states have recently softened or eliminated the voting bans, and many others are considering laws that could eventually establish voting as a basic American right that should never be curtailed in a way that bars a whole class of people from the polls.

This attitude is gaining traction even in the Deep South, which pioneered voting bans to disenfranchise black Americans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But the new trend toward fairness has somehow vaulted over Pennsylvania, where the Republican majority in the State House is pushing to pass one of the most odious felon-voting bans ever seen above the Mason-Dixon line.

Under current Pennsylvania law, people can vote once they leave prison. But a bill pending in the Legislature would disenfranchise those on parole or probation. The bill would go further and bar convicts from voting until the dates when their maximum sentences would expire — even if they had been fully released from the system much earlier.

Pennsylvania, a swing state that will hold some critical elections this fall, is being barraged by legislation, championed by Republican lawmakers, that would raise voting barriers, especially for groups that tend to be Democratic. One measure would institute one of the most restrictive voter-identification laws in the nation, in a state that currently requires only first-time voters to prove their identities. Pennsylvanians — who have been at the forefront of fairness in voting rights issues — should not allow partisanship to erase that legacy.

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

House backs stricter voter ID

If they cannot produce a proper card, even those who voted before would need a provisional ballot.
By Martha Raffaele Associated Press

HARRISBURG - The state House yesterday passed a bill that would force all voters to cast provisional ballots if they cannot produce identification at the polls, and bar paroled felons from voting.

The measure was approved, 106-95, over objections by Democrats, who argued that the identification requirement would create election day problems for senior citizens, minorities and the poor. The legislation also faces a likely veto from Gov. Rendell, who expressed disapproval over the additional identification requirements.

"Do we want to be a state that recognizes all people and treats them equally, or do we want to be a state that sets barriers?" asked Rep. Mark Cohen (D., Phila.).

Currently, only people voting in a polling place for the first time must show identification. Under the legislation, every voter would have to show election workers a form of identification such as a valid driver's license; U.S. passport; a student, employee or government ID; or a county voter-registration card.

One supporter, Rep. David Argall (R., Schuylkill), said the identification requirements were needed to combat voter fraud.

"People should be encouraged to vote, but only once, and they should not be registering on vacant lots and abandoned buildings," Argall said.

If the voter cannot produce identification, or if the identification is challenged by an election judge, the voter could cast a provisional ballot, which is typically used when an individual's name does not appear on voter rolls. Elections officials would later decide whether provisional ballots are valid.

State law already prohibits convicted felons from voting while they are imprisoned, and opponents of the bill said applying that restriction to probation or parole would amount to additional punishment.

"Right now, after they're released from jail, felons are allowed to vote, and there have been no apocalyptic consequences," said Rep. Greg Vitali (D., Delaware). "... It's hard enough to get non-felons to vote."

Rep. Stephen Barrar (R., Chester) said 38 states impose stricter voting restrictions on felons than those proposed in the bill.

"We could have been asking for a lifetime ban on felons voting. We're not," Barrar said.

The bill now returns to the Senate, which passed a version of it in December that included a wider array of eligible identification forms, such as a firearms permit or a current utility bill, but did not bar paroled felons from voting.

Rendell said he would have to consider the bill carefully, "but given the ID requirements I've seen... I would certainly veto it."

© 2006 Philadelphia Inquirer and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.philly.com

STATE SEN. JIM FERLO STEPS UP FOR VOTER RIGHTS IN WESTMORLAND COUNTY

Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo (D-38th District) has joined with voting rights activists for a court challenge to the machine selection process in Westmoreland County. Activists are challenging the constitutionality of a selection process that may leave voters in this key suburban Pittsburgh county without verifiable paper ballots. "This goes to the issue of having fair and accurate elections," said Mr. Ferlo, D-Highland Park, whose district covers a portion of Westmoreland County. "I really think there are serious concerns about this technology." http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06007/634104.stm


VOTERS ANNOUNCE 10-COUNTY CITIZENS’ COALITION FOR A VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT

Voters from Westmoreland, Allegheny, Butler, Washington, Beaver, Mercer, and other Western Pennsylvania counties announced the formation of 10-County Citizens’ Coalition For Voter Verified Paper Ballots at a press conference December 29, 2005 in the Westmoreland County Courthouse Square.

Westmoreland County is apparently the first county of the 10 to fall victim to the ES & S / William Penn Printing sales pitch, and today they are going to vote to buy paperless ES & S iVotronic touchscreens, despite all our efforts to the contrary. (And from the tone of the P-G article, Westmoreland County is going to attempt to make it look like local other citizens were asleep at the wheel by not making any efforts, which is hogwash.) http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05363/629373.stm

Westmoreland is the first to go for the paperless touchscreens but rest assured with the counties apparently in communication behind the scenes, YOUR county will fall in line soon if we do not make a good showing and speak out now.

The press conference and formation of the group is in response to a reported “10-County Coalition” of Western Pennsylvania election directors and county officials formed to purchase electronic voting machines with money available under the Help America Vote Act. The citizens' group wants to be sure that the money is spent wisely, and that any voting system chosen in any county has the ability to produce a high-quality, human readable and recountable voter verified paper record or ballot.

“Voters and pollworkers, who will be most affected by the purchase of these systems, have been completely left out of the process in many of our counties,” says Marybeth Kuznik, Westmoreland County Inspector of Elections and Founder of the grassroots alliance VotePA. “For example, in my own county a decision has apparently been made with no public display of machines, no public hearing, and no opportunity for any input from the average voter. In the meantime, taxpayer dollars have been spent for many months on a high-priced private consultant from Virginia to advise our Election Director and County Commissioners as to what voting machine we should be using. Something is just not right with this picture.”

Kuznik, who served as one of the nine regional coordinators for the Green Party Recount of the 2004 presidential vote in Ohio, has been traveling all over the United States to speak about the need for voter verified paper ballots with audits of all elections, and how people can help the process as the new HAVA-compliant voting systems come into use by serving as pollworkers.

“In all my travels, as I have met people from counties and states that have endured horrible election problems, I have always felt secure and proud that my own Westmoreland County had a strong Election Office and a great system. Now, with the announcement that our Commissioners have chosen one of the very systems with this long history of producing many of the nationwide problems, I feel as if a rug has been kicked out from under me.”

Activists in other Western Pennsylvania counties agree and have taken a strong stance to urge their own County Commissioners to proceed with caution. Citizens in Beaver and Mercer counties joined forces earlier this year to call for the decertification of the UniLect Patriot, a touchscreen which lost an estimated 10,000 votes in the November, 2004 election. Voters in Butler County recently called for the formation of a Citizens’ Advisory Council, and in November hundreds of people turned out for the Allegheny County Voting Machine Fair in Pittsburgh, with several dozen speaking at a County Council hearing to urge that voters be able to verify their choices on paper.

Both Allegheny County Council and Pittsburgh’s City Council have passed motions or resolutions in support of voter verified paper records and audits and for the bills HB 2000 / SB 977 currently pending in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The identical bills would require all voting systems in the state to produce a voter verified paper record or ballot, would make that paper the official record in case of discrepancy, audit or recount, and would require a 5% random audit of all elections. The bills have bi-partisan support with over a quarter of the PA House and Senate already signed on as co-sponsors.

In the meantime, groups such as VotePA and the new 10-County Citizens Coalition forge ahead, with more member groups and individuals becoming involved almost daily.

“People died for our right to vote,” says Kuznik, “Our vote is the core of our democracy. In the wake of several problematic elections our citizens are becoming more and more proactive with these new machines. The days of expecting us to vote on whatever the counties choose to put in front of us are over. We are paying attention.”

VOTING MACHINE SELECTION PROTECTION IN PENNSYLVANIA

CONTACTS

Pat Clark, [Jackson/Clark Partners](http://www.jacksonclark.net), 412-853-3211

Marybeth Kuznik, [VotePA](http://www.votePA.us), 724-744-3345

Paul O'Hanlon, [Disabilities Law Project](http://www.dlp-pa.org/), 412-391-5225 x2132

Richard King, [PA-VerfiedVoting.org](http://www.pa-verifiedvoting.org/), 412-400-3773

THE SITUATION

Activists work with Allegheny County on Voting Machine Evaluation Process
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandates that counties choose electronic voting machines by January 1, 2006, and that the voting technology “be accessible to individuals with disabilities in a way that provides the same opportunity for access and participation, including privacy and independence, as for other voters.”
This is an important selection process that has to occur within an extremely short timeframe. The result of the decisions around these machines will affect voting for decades to come.
Allegheny County had originally intended to present its final decision without public input but was induced by local community activists, particularly those representing the disability community, to allow those with disabilities, as well as the general public, to inspect and test machines prior to the County’s decision.
So, on Thursday, November 17, 2005, in response to HAVA, Allegheny County hosted three sessions to test new voting machines. The HAVA committee members attended a private session (8:30-10:30 am); the ADA and community activists attended a 10:30am-12:30pm session; and the general public attended the 1:00 – 9:00 pm session. We were committed to ensuring that valid, reliable, consistent data was collected at these sessions so that the County factored public input into its decisions.
We made a public voting machine inspection expo a reality here in Allegheny County -
and now we want to share this Do-It-Yourself model, so that you can insure that a transparent, public and effective voting machine selection process happens where you live, too.

WHO WE ARE

County officials referred to our group as the “ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and other community activists,” and incorporated our initiative as a part of their machine evaluation process. Paul O’Hanlon led our movement on behalf of the Disabilities Law Project. The other "community activists" include Richard King, of PA-VerfiedVoting.org; Marybeth Kuznik of VotePA; Pat Clark of Center for Civic Participation and Everybody VOTE; Celeste Taylor of Pittsburghers For Open Government; Tim Stevens of B-PEP / Black Political Empowerment Project; Sue Broughton of the League of Women Voters of Greater Pittsburgh, Joni Rabinowitz of Just Harvest / Just Vote; and Rachel Freund of the Mental Health Association of Allegheny County. We teamed up with evaluative scientists Edmond Lopresti, Ph.D. and Julie Downs, Ph.D. to develop and perform an informative, unbiased and accurate testing process.

WHAT WE'VE DONE

Given the success of this process, we’ve spent time planning and documenting it so that other counties can replicate it. Knowing that other counties will have to select machines before the HAVA deadline of the beginning of January, we want to make this specific process readily available to voting rights activists, organizations, governments, and elected officials throughout Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

HOW IT WORKED

We developed 12 test teams, each composed of 5 people. Test teams included: people with vision impairments, people with limited use of different limbs, people with cognitive disabilities, seniors with no computer experience, and first time voters. We anticipated individuals from the same team arriving at different times throughout the two hour time slot. Upon arrival, team members were assigned a specific sequence in which to use the machines; this randomized order was factored in when evaluating the survey responses. Team members also received a script specifying who to vote for so researchers could test for machine accuracy by matching scripts with ballot counts.
Thirty minutes before the session, Volunteers were provided with an overview of the process, including a summary sheet, voting scripts and the evaluation tool. The goal was to have informed and unbiased volunteers assisting with this process and providing support to testing teams. For example, volunteers assisted those with visual impairments to travel from machine to machine and also served as scribes to complete the survey.

THE SURVEY

To test which machines were the most Secure, Accurate, Re-Countable, and Accessible, our researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and from the University of Pittsburgh created a survey for the ADA and community activists session. We hoped the County would adopt and utilize this survey during the general public session. The County provided index-sized paper for citizens to write their thoughts about the machines and then place into a comments box. To our delight, many people were relieved that someone was collecting data scientifically and asked to complete our surveys instead of the County’s small feedback form.

THE RESULTS

Several dozen people attended the community activists session, 400 attended the general public session, and many completed our survey. Survey results will be published here, along with a report template, as soon as they are compiled by our analysts.

WHAT WE WISH WE HAD KNOWN/SUGGESTIONS FOR OTHER COUNTIES

• Work closely with County officials prior to the event. Get them to agree to utilize this survey (or an adapted one) and to factor the data into their decision. Ensure that the room is big enough for all the machines and people (our room was too small and made it difficult to access machines and to move around the room).
  
  
• To control for variables, insist that each company use the same ballot. Some companies used an Allegheny County General Election ballot, some used a primary ballot, and some created non-political ballots asking for favorite car and musical artist. One suggestion is to have a ballot a little shorter than the primary ballot and to use imaginary names and parties. This will aid in volunteer’s objectivity and in their ability to follow a voting script. Following a script enables researchers to test the accuracy of the machine by matching scripts to ballot counts.
  
  
• A further, immediate goal is to consolitate, publish and promote the detailed plan and tools for this public process on the CCP website, so that any activist, organization, government or election official wishing to conduct a similar review program may follow this simple and effective Pittsburgh model. Look for those materials here no later than 11/28/05.
  
  

TOOLS FOR YOUR COMMUNITY

Any community activist can - and should take the lead in ensuring that their local officials conduct a transparent, public and effective evaluation of voting machines needed to comply with HAVA requirements by January 1, 2006. We did it - you can too. Here's how;

VOTING MACHINE EXPO TOOLKIT

-- How-To-Do-It Voting Machine Expo - Downloadable Video PodCast Summary
NOTE - Big file (65megs) so make sure you've got broadband!