Activists Shut Out of CA Voting Summit

RAW STORY California voting summit shuts out voting reform advocates; Panels appear stacked with electronic voting proponents

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/California_voting_summit_shuts_out_voting_1201.html

or see: http://tinyurl.com/ds7qb

Miriam Raftery


A California summit on voting equipment, where many of the speakers had apparent conflicts of interests, barred entry to consumer groups calling for election reform, RAW STORY has discovered.

A nonpartisan coalition representing 25 California election integrity groups held a press conference Monday outside the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Sacramento, where the "Voting Systems Testing Summit" was convened by Republican California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson.

The State appears to have skewed presentations in favor of electronic voting, with advocates far outnumbering critics. Some panels contain exclusively vendors of electronic voting equipment and representatives of testing labs chosen by these vendors.

"This smacks of Dick Cheney meeting with the energy companies and locking out opposing interests of environmental groups," Sherry Healy, a member of the California Election Protection Network steering committee, told RAW STORY . "Diebold and other vendors selling electronic voting equipment have been invited to attend, along with all 400 members of the California Association of Election Officials," she said. "It costs one hundred and seventy five dollars a ticket and will be picked up by the state ."

PANELS STACKED IN FAVOR OF E-VOTING

Some of the conference's other panels are also weighted in favor of e-voting advocates. A presentation of state election officials titled "What Happens Now" includes Paul Craft, Nick Handy, Dr. Brit Williams, and Connie Schmidt.

Craft, an officer in the Florida Secretary of State's office, previously headed Florida's Bureau of Voting Systems Certification and was responsible for ensuring accuracy of new voting machines during the 2000 presidential election debacle.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/California_voting_summit_shuts_out_voting_1201.html
or see: http://tinyurl.com/ds7qb ]

It sounds like he's running from it!

I think we could swing it

n/t

the rest is optional

We cannot count on making any changes by vote!

Look at Ohio. The 2005 election was blatant (the ballot initiatives) in its fraud. So was the 2004 election (Hackett).

Ahnold is helping the fascists solidify their control. We must take back what we can of congress to get a nationalized system. If this goes any further...our loss of democracy will be irreversible.

that Conny McCormack and her Diebold buddies left in a huff. I also heard there was a pretty heavy indictment of the inadequacies of the current ITA, NASED, etc. labs reviews.

BUT, supposedly there's going to be a summary of these findings presented to the public (now that we put pressure on them to do so) that will be held in February.

1) I want to know who's interpretation of events will be presented. Who's going to summarize all the divergent views?

2) I'm not going to fall for any theatrics that Diebold and Conny may be foisting to get the dogs off their trail. Too much is at stake for them, and for us.

3) McPherson is out of his mind if he thinks presenting a "done deal" to the people in February is public inclusion.

you an invisibility cloak so you could transcribe what we really want to know!

This about-face with Diebold in North Carolina is a good warning to all who were seduced at the Voting Summit to believe what we want to believe--that we won.

I'm adopting a "I'll believe it when I see it," policy. In the meantime, my theory No. 2 below has just been bolstered.

P.S. About the CA Voting Summit Summit:

I heard from an attendee that LA County Clerk Conny McCormack and her Diebold buddies left in a huff. I also heard there was a pretty heavy indictment of the inadequacies of the current ITA, NASED, etc. labs reviews.

BUT, supposedly there's going to be a summary of these findings presented to the public (now that we put pressure on them to do so) that will be held in February.

1) I want to know whose interpretation of events will be presented. Who's going to summarize all the divergent views?

2) I'm not going to fall for any theatrics that Diebold and Conny may be foisting to get the dogs off their trail. Too much is at stake for them, and for us.

3) McPherson is out of his mind if he thinks presenting a "done deal" to the people in February is public inclusion.

I hadn't heard that. It's an interesting bit of news though.




I can confirm that one.




That's almost certainly going to be the secretary of state's staff.




A "done deal" about what? Bear in mind that the voting summit wasn't a meeting about whether to re-certify Diebold, it was a meeting to review and develop "best practices" for state-level certification of voting systems in general.

Neil

Diebold failed Hursti test, then it wouldn't be certified and that he would not be pressured into certifying anything before it was ready. Apparently within 1/2 hr of this announcement, Diebold packed up and left.

Hi Neil

I can't think of a single reason not to include the public, even as audience.

You'd think someone would be smart enough not to fan the distrust by setting up 30 chairs and by letting people listen. :shrug:

The caller had contacted the SoS about Election Reform Activists being shut-out and was told that the groups had been rude (or something to that effect).

Bowen said that meetings DO get emotional, as do demonstrations she witnessed and felt that it was improper to shut people out on that account.

Having said that, I can't help but wonder if we're shooting ourselves in the foot. Getting uninvited to the table is not helpful.

There are threads on this board claiming that the invited participants don't pass reform muster. But I wonder if that's accurate, especially given Diebold and Conny leaving in a huff. Unless that was staged, I'd say that something not pleasing to the Electronic Vote Apologists went down.

I don't know who the players are, but there was a lot of torches and pitchforks, as you know, when Shelley was forced out and McPherson was seated.

Given the torches and all the confusion, am I out of line suggesting that there is more heat than light being generated by some reformists?

There was a Raw Story article recently about the uninvitations that is being challenged by a report included on this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x403777

Go to the orginal of this report as it has a lot of links.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051201/1548203_F.shtml

Then, importantly, look at this reply to it.

http://www.techdirt.com/commentSubmit.pl?sid=20051201/1548203&pid=204

I am very concerned about California being Diebolded and I am no less concerned that some members of the reform community are having a negative effect on the reform effort.

Pardon me if I'm wrong.

CA Election Protection Network seems very close to BBV, and because I know Bev is an out of control crazy person, and because I wonder about the kind of people she attracts, the collaboration really concerns me.

And for anyone that knows this already, I apologize for rehashing and don't mean to take this into Bevland. But I stayed OUT of the whole conflict until Andy was very ill. And until Bev sat on right wing boards and discounted his illness. I then called her exactly 1 (one) time and barely started a sentence before she started screaming at me that Andy was a terrible person.

That was enough for me.

I see this woman continue to sabotage opportunities we have to build bridges, to grow relationships. It seems unwise in the extreme to have her or her outfit anywhere near this effort.

Then again, I'm on the periphery, looking in.

I don't know that they work for the bad guys, but working "for themselves" could be as bad. And then, too, they may get a few of them right. (Being on the periphery both requires and affords our ability to be discerning)

Let's separate out a few things, though:

1. BBV

a. The "hack test" hasn't been settled (if I got it right)

b. Hursti isn't BBV, (if I got it right)

2. Voting Systems Standards

a. This is apart from the Hack Test, though I don't know if BBV is involved in this process.

b. There is a pile of recommendations being made in this "staff report". And this was prior to the recent meeting that was reported to not go well for Diebold.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/diebold_2005_06_staffreport__final.pdf

See this post, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x401851

The thread died with only Einsteinia contributing. But everyone who has carried a torch or a pitchfork should have joined in.

3. The meeting last week was about Voting System, not Diebold Certification (though that would certainly be influenced by standards)

Here's a pdf of the agenda.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vstsummit/final_agenda.pdf


4. DRE's

a. Problem is, they're allowed. (Nice that they have to have VVPAT, but plenty of voters won't look at 'em.) Unless we can outlaw them (or talk the counties out of buying them), the best we can hope for is heavy certification requirements (both to protect the voters, and (tee-hee) to delay any given DRE type's deployment).

b. So far, McPherson has not let the Diebold TSx back in.

c. And we're about to miss the HAVA $$ deadline. (A lot of states are in a similar situation).

So I wonder: Can the People (ov Cahleefornyah) sue the Fed to NOT pay up HAVA $ because the deadline is passed???

5. Final Rant

Diebold is a lightning rod but I'm more concerned about "Ballot Definition Files" made for each election than the source code of any of the DRE's. THAT, I feel, is an overlooked danger.

That picking on Diebold is delaying DRE deployment in, for instance, LA County, is great, but if they picked Sequoia, I still would be concerned. And that LA's current paper ballot schema uses Diebold GEMS tabulation, which also have the Ballot Definition File vulnerabilities means the county is already in danger.

And, btw, I don't know or care if BBV is in cahoots. They do much more damage than good with their confrontational ways.

I will go read the links. Thank you! I'm not as up to speed as most of you seem to be, but am trying to catch up. CA is in the balance, I fear.

And agree. "Diebold" is now code for insecure systems.

Imho, if we push back on the certification requirements, we win. They cannot possibly be met, responsibly. On the other hand, this is Bushworld.

I'll go read. Thank you!

:rofl:

More like driving in a blizzard.

I'm just working off the links and the vibe on the forum.

But gee, now that you mention BBV's, "confrontational ways" it got me wondering. That, it's charged, is why some reformers weren't allowed at the recent meeting.

But then, too, what "Diebold" is to Electronic Voting Systems, "BBV" is to activism/reform...a shame.

I don't know how much HAVA $ CA is supposed to get but it's enough to cause grief, and more debate and delay.

I don't know that the certification can't be achieved, it just may take more time and money.

Which, now that I mention it may be a headache for Diebold. They have contracts to deliver this stuff to a few counties pending certification. If the price is fixed, they have to eat the cost.

to push on responsible certification.

Because it can't be done. ???

cR@P! It's so hard to keep up!

:)

someone got in to fight the good fight!

Rubin was there on Tuesday afternoon.

Neil

Let's send a big message with a big victory. Bruce McPherson is doing some cosmetology to put lipstick in the pig of the CA elections system but his real intent was made clear through this act.

The Democrats control both houses of the legislature. He should be removed for this and other reasons, NOW. If the CA Dems have the vision and initiative to do this (takes no courage, it would be well received), then the whole country gets the message and the tide can shift.

As a native son of the Golden State, noting would make me happier at those moment of our movement.

The CA activists have my deepest sympathy and greatest support as a result of this incredibly rude treatment by McPherson.

REMOVE MCPHERSON FROM OFFICE. NOW!