News Release - U.S. Election Assistance Commission Annual Report

U.S. Election Assistance Commission Annual Report

44 Page Report in PDF Format:
http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20Annual%20Report%20FY04%20pdf%20file%20for%20Printer.pdf

tonight but I will tomorrow.

Is it you basic "cover our asses, we done real good" kind of report?

So far, a nap would be more interesting.

Selected paragraphs from the PDF report:

What I find funny is how they continue referencing their "small, but dedicated staff" (they want more funding so they can be a bigger and less dedicated staff).

I did find interesting the resources given to the states, yet the elections were not properly managed or conducted. Maybe this will be helpful in civil litigation against the monsters? :shrug:

Looking at their website, it appears that they are trying to harass the California SOS.
01/27/05 - Sunshine Notice (Public Meeting)
They are apparently trying to help in the harassment of California’s Secretary of State since they considered “instituting special audits for California” regarding use of HAVA monies.
http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20-%20Sunshine%20Notice_%201-27-05%20meeting.pdf

We should pay attention to try to find out what happens at their meeting held today and tomorrow.
* 02/02/05 to 02/03/05 - Sunshine Notice: U.S. Election Assistance Commission Standards Board Meeting

==================

We need to file some Freedom of Information Act requests for public documents and obtain the Election Day Surveys that were to have been filed as of January 1, 2005.

* Letter To State Election Officials Regarding 2004 Election Day Survey
http://www.eac.gov/docs/Letter%20to%20SOS%20and%20SED%20re%20election%20day%20survey%20-%20electronic.pdf

* Election Day Survey - November 2, 2004
http://www.eac.gov/docs/Election%20Day%20Survey.pdf

and follow up on their meetings and reports to see if they are REALLY doing anything to help this situation, or if they're just marking time and making a pathetic stab at it here and there.

I'm serious about presenting them with the mass of material that has been collected on election of 2004, so that we will have registered our input and high expectations of them in 2005 (...assuming their statement of purpose can be taken as anything legitimate--I know, a BIG assumption, but taking them at face value). Would it make sense to give them our own "Exhibit A", and see what they do with it. Kind of like putting them on notice. If they're just no good and a complete sham, I think it would be useful to KNOW that. On the other hand, if they do have anything substantial to offer, we could support it (people in voting rights/reform groups would know instantly if they were being lied to). I'm not sure whether there's anything to work with there or not....but I think we should try to find out. EAC Watch.

One thing they SAID they did last year:

"initiated the process of developing updated voluntary voting systems standards for the security, accuracy, reliability, and auditability of election equipment, throught the work of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the TGDC." (Technical Guidelines Development Committee). And also they claim to have "...laid the groundwork for the development of a national testing program for voting systems..."

So what are these standards and what is the nature of this testing system?

were not tested. Does anyone else recall that?

"I want them to open up the machines," outgoing Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe told Gannett News Service and USA Today reporters. "If there's nothing wrong with the machines, we ought to be able to go in and take a look at them."

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x313787>

Great news, of course the naysayer are complaining that it is too little, too late, but I think it is wonderful.

;)

I may have to add that to my sig line! :hi:

And Dan Tokaji seems to think this EAC is God's gift to integrity in elections:

Thursday, January 27

More Bad News for Shelley
The Election Assistance Commission today voted unanimously to audit the State of California's use of HAVA funds, according to this story from the L.A. Times. A state audit last month found that he misused some of these funds, by using it to pay for employees and consultants to attend partisan events. This follows the California State Personnel Board's scathing report on Shelley's office earlier this week, noted here. Despite the unfavorable attention, Shelley insists he won't step down, even as six California newspapers call for his resignation.

Update: The EAC issued this press release on the audit:

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) voted unanimously today to conduct a special audit of California's use of federal funding for election reforms under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Specifically, the special audit will focus on approximately $27 million disbursed to California under Title I, Section 101 of the law that was managed by the California secretary of state's office. To date, the state has reported spending roughly $6.9 million of that amount.

"I am certain that Congress and the American voters expect EAC to conduct judicious review of state HAVA spending to ensure that these funds are being spent in full compliance with the law," said EAC Chair Gracia Hillman. "The California State Auditor's report of spending by the office of Secretary of State Kevin Shelley flagged a number of egregious issues that we felt need attention now rather than later."

EAC is authorized under HAVA to conduct special audits of how states spend their funding and request involvement of other federal entities in reviewing HAVA funding matters. Before taking today's vote on California, the Commissioners first adopted general policy for the conduct of special audits (to apply to all states). Special audits differ from regular audits in both their timing and scope.

Congress created the four-member EAC under HAVA, which authorizes $3.9 billion for states to enact a variety of election reforms, including the replacement of outdated voting equipment, the creation of statewide voter registration systems, the use of provisional ballots to ensure that eligible voters are not turned away and improvements to poll worker training and voter education programs.

Based upon the outcome of today's decision on the California special audit, EAC will move forward immediately to contract with another federal agency or private firm to carry out the California special audit. Further details, including a timetable for the release of the special audit results and report, will be available when the contract is established.


- posted by Dan Tokaji @ 11:49 PM

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/

"election officials could validate the software used for the election. The State of Maryland used this capability for the 2004 election." The State of Maryland is being used as a role model, we
FLUNKED an audit of voting machines!!!!!!! The machine I voted on kept voting for Bush when I pressed the button for Kerry!!!!! Is this another example of our tax dollars at work.

You mean that we validated the voting machine software and we still did not pass the audit of the voting machines????

see snip of article from seattle and link below:
The audit follows similar reviews in Maryland and California, which found that some election offices had used unapproved elections software, lacked basic security training, and had a number of other "high-risk vulnerabilities."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/210734_vote04.html

Just in case you need to send comments directly to the EAC

From: Bryan Whitener bwhitener@eac.gov
> Date: 2/1/2005 2:08:22 PM
> Subject: FOR RELEASE: 2004 EAC ANNUAL REPORT
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
> (Posted to Web Site)
>
> U.S. Election Assistance Commission
> FISCAL YEAR 2004 ANNUAL REPORT
>
>
http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20Annual%20Report%20FY04%20pdf%20file%20for%20Printer.pdf
>
> Preparing America to Vote
>
> Contact: Bryan Whitener
> (202) 566-3100

"the important work of this new federal agency is...helping America vote—and ensuring every legitimate vote was counted while every opportunity to reduce fraud was considered—" (is this a sick joke?)

This pdf details what they DID in 2004 with only a budget of $1.2 million, and it might make sense for somebody to analyze the report--I'm wondering if any of the voting rights groups have done this and can give us a perspective on this report?

From the pdf: "The EAC is committed to gathering information on best practices and lessons learned and disseminating information in a timely and informative manner..."

Maybe a group of concerned citizens could deliver to them personally in Washington our analysis of "best practices and lessons learned." (If we send all our stuff by mail, they can always say they didn't get it). I think they need a little help like the avalanche of information since Nov2. And then I'm SURE ;-)they will respond, because after all, we voters definitely need some ASSISTANCE?!

thanks dzika for the post

provisional ballots from being counted IF the voter was registered but voted in the wrong precinct. In Hamilton County, Ohio alone 400 voters who cast provisional ballots at the right polling location but the wrong precinct did not have their votes counted. The difference? The wrong table. This happens because poll workers often do a poor job of directing voters.

I spoke to someone in person at the Hamilton County BoE and she told me that in previous elections Hamilton County was already using provisionals and provisionals were counted as long as they were in the right county.

This is an example of suppression. How do they know they are suppressing dems? Because the poor are much more likley to use provisional ballots.

just days before the election and in the same memo suggested that the BOE disqualify all voters on this list in a single action instead of qualifying each one individually. I have a copy of the memo in PDF if anyone needs it.

Voters that were disqualified were forced to use a provisional ballot if they didn't come to a BOE hearing the Monday prior to election day with the proper credentials. Of course, most of the disqualified voters didn't even get the notice for the hearing until after election day.

Where did Blackwell get the list of registered voters to be disqualified in each county?

I have video interviews of voters that waited in line for hours only to be told they had to go to the back of the line again before they could turn in the provisional ballot. Or they had to get in another line for a different precinct at the same BOE office before they could vote.

At some polling places, poll workers didn't seem to make any attempt to help voters find the correct line.

by sending registered letters to newly registered African American voters. Why might these registered letters not be accepted and signed for if the addressee is a legitimately registered voter? Because registered letters mean different things to different people and to the poor who are very often African American a registered letter is not a good thing. A registered letter might be an eviction notice, or from a bill collector. Some of the people who did not accept the registered letters stated they simply did not want to receive anything from the GOP.

employee and sent workers to political events.

RE. Electronic Voting Security

"... EAC responded to public concerns about the security and reliability of electronic touch-screen voting systems, popularly referred to as DREs. The Commission held a public hearing in May 2004 on the use, security, and reliability of electronic voting systems. Witnesses included computer security experts, academics, election officials, voting rights advocates, and voting system vendors. The Commission made voting system security and auditability a priority of its standards work."

Can we get a record of this Public Hearing MAY 2004?

Heya marions ghost <waves>
"I was looking for a transcript from your 5/5/04 public hearing.
If you could please send it to me via email, or point me to a link, it would be very appreciated"

After using their site map and coming up with no available documents, I made the direct request via email.
Don't get your hopes up, this Sorries character does not have a pretty past (from what I remember). I, for one, doubt the transcript will be made available. Which might indicate whether they are actually trying to help citizens to vote or not.

Will post it here, if I receive it.

yeah post it if u get it

I'm trying to get a handle on this group, which held such an (in theory) reasonable sounding public hearing.

I think we should try to see what they are about and whether there's anyone around there who's listening...if not, we'll know they are the biggest failure as an agency of voting "standards" and "reform" that ever was. But we can't just assume that without first trying to see what they're actually doing....if they are really doing something to help, wouldn't they want people to know that?

Let us know if you get the stonewall treatment. It's important to inquire anyway.

An article I came across
===========================C&P================================
"The lack of funding has forced the EAC to abandon or delay much of its intended mission. For example, it won't be able to develop a national system for testing voting machines, according to the report."
--snip--
"The labs may take a year or more to test voting equipment -- a bottleneck that may tempt manufacturers to install uncertified software in voting machines, Soaries said. "The minute I found out about this problem I started talking about it."

Shawn Southworth, who directs Ciber's voting software testing practice, said more labs would only add more confusion.
=================================================================
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894341"

Funnel billions to states to buy e-voting machines before you test them or come up with a rating criteria.
It would be nice if they did this before the states had to purchase for the 2004 election.
Just thought you might be interested.

Sorry, if I don't keep posting every 2 days I will lose the link.

they televised this hearing (which was really the EAC kissing up to the election machine vendors) on May 5, 2004.

Here's just a small piece I've seen transcribed from that "hearing"

Diebold continues their pattern of deception at the Election Assistance Commission Hearing, May 5, 2004 as follows
Comments of Mark Radke, Diebold Director of Marketing

"I have to applaud the State of Georgia because we did a statewide implementation deployment there for the 2002 gubenatorial election and they spent an additional, I think 4 to 4.5 million on voter outreach and because of that after the election they did a voter survey and found that 97-98% of all voters had absolutely no problem using the system...."
Transcribed from the video at cspan.org at the following link:
http://www.cspan.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&Page=4

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04050504_voting.rm

Just paste it into your browser and hit enter.
Realplay will do the rest.

Nice find Boredtodeath

He's got some provisions in his new legislation.

<http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/electionreformbill.pdf>

Advisory committee to EAC stacked with opponents of V-VPB

An open letter to the stopvotefraud group:

of CA SOS Shelley, while they let Blackwell get away with anything.

It certainly doesn't seem very non-partisan, which is what they are saying Shelley lacks. I wonder how much money Blackwell has received in HAVA funds? :grr:

January 28, 2005

Audit Adds to Troubles for Shelley
# U.S. panel will examine secretary of state's use of voting reform funds. Agency says it will seek reimbursement if money was misused.

By Esther Schrader and Tim Reiterman, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Heaping yet another problem onto beleaguered California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, a federal watchdog agency Thursday ordered a special audit of the state's handling of millions of dollars in voting reform funds.

The Election Assistance Commission agreed unanimously to examine whether Shelley's office improperly spent Help America Vote Act money, which Congress authorized to help avoid problems like those in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. It is the first such audit ordered by the bipartisan, four-member commission created to oversee state spending of voting act money.

Officials said that if the audit finds that California spent money for partisan purposes or other matters not authorized by the law, the agency will seek reimbursement. It could also refer the matter to the Justice Department for civil or criminal action.

The commission's vote was triggered by a scathing state audit in December that concluded that Shelley mismanaged $46 million in voting act money. Auditors found that some of the federal money was used to pay state consultants to attend partisan political events and to write speeches for Shelley.

"We believe serious questions were raised," commission Chairwoman Gracia Hillman said after Thursday's meeting.

Shelley's voting act coordinator, Tony Miller, said he was disappointed with the commission's decision and called it premature, noting that a new state audit of the federal grants was already underway. But Hillman said the federal audit would examine different issues.

Miller acknowledged that Shelley's office failed to properly account for voting act spending but added: "Never did we cross the line in terms of authorizing political activity of a partisan nature. There has been no evidence of breaking any law here."

The federal audit was expected to take several months and focus on $27 million in discretionary funds for reforms such as voter education, poll worker training and improving voter access. The commission said California reported spending $6.9 million of the money to date.

--snip

Edited to add: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-shelley28jan28,1,5505083.story?coll=la-headlines-california:grr: