NYT editorial: Electronic Voting Machines: Testing the Testers

Editorial
Testing the Testers
Published: January 8, 2007

There is by now no doubt that there are serious problems with electronic voting machines: they fail to record votes, and even flip votes from one candidate to another. Election officials like to defend the machines by noting that they have been certified by independent testing labs. But the certification process has long been deeply flawed, and last week there was even more disturbing news — that the leading testing lab has been unable to meet the federal government’s standards.

Since last summer, Ciber Inc., the largest tester of voting machine software, has been unable to meet federal quality standards that will take effect later this year.

It is disturbing that if Christopher Drew had not reported this in The Times, the public still would not know. The Election Assistance Commission, the agency that evaluates the labs, did not reveal that Ciber fell short, and is still not saying what is wrong. Ciber, which is still working on meeting the standards, did not return our phone call.

Many Americans are using electronic voting machines that were certified by Ciber. Were those certifications done properly? Did whatever deficiencies Ciber has now exist then? No one is saying....

Even before the news about Ciber, certification was a troubled process. The biggest problem is that the voting machine manufacturers pay the labs to do the examination and certification. This is a conflict of interest. If a lab raises too many concerns, it risks losing a client to a more compliant competitor....

Congress should pass legislation fixing the system....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/opinion/08mon1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

"Congress should pass legislation fixing the system" Goods luck with that, K&R.......

Testing Lab Failure Leads To Obfuscation By The Election Assistance Commission

By John Gideon, VotersUnite.org

January 06, 2007

snip

The action, or inaction, by the EAC leaves us with a lot of questions. Why did the EAC not tell us — the voters, the taxpayers, their bosses — that they had questions about one of the labs that certifies voting systems? I think we all would have liked to know about that. Though the document, "Interim Accreditation Program", inconspicuously posted on the EAC's website and dated August 2006, lists only the two ITAs that are presently accredited, Wyle and SysTest Labs, the EAC has done nothing else to inform either state election officials or us — the ones who pay for the accreditation process — of Ciber’s failure to comply with the required testing procedures.

The Associated Press quoted EAC Chairwoman Donnetta Davidson's response:

Davidson cautioned that federal testing of voting machines by labs like Ciber is just "one of three prongs" since most states and counties also conduct their own tests.

"There are a number of layers of testing," Davidson said. "I think it's very important voters do realize how secure the process is."

Ms. Davidson's comments demonstrate the disregard for facts that seems to be more and more typical of the EAC commissioners. Ms. Davidson came to the EAC from a position as Secretary of State of Colorado. She knows full well that most states rely on the national qualification process as the first and most important step to ensure that the voting systems they purchase are capable of doing the job they were built to do. The federal testing is not "one of three prongs". It is not a co-equal process with state and county testing. It is, instead, the first step required by law in most states. Those states cannot even examine new voting systems until they have assurance from the ITA that the systems meet federal standards. Most of those states do not look at the code. Instead they rely on the ITA process to ensure that source code, firmware, and hardware all meet federal standards.

snip

Meanwhile EAC Commissioner Gracia Hillman has also joined in the quest to diffuse this situation and to cover for Ciber. Part of the ITA Accreditation process is for an on-site inspection by a representative of the EAC. There are unconfirmed reports that this visit was accomplished last summer and that the resulting report and Ciber's response to that report are what has held up Ciber's accreditation. Yet, The Journal News (NY) reports the following:

New York officials said they read in a published report that the Election Assistance Commission has known since last summer that there were inadequacies with the way Ciber Inc. of Greenwood Village, Colo., was performing tests on machines and documenting results.

"At the present time, until we get that report in our hands and have a chance to review it, I can't comment myself that we are fully comfortable that all of those issues have been addressed," said Peter Kosinski, co-executive director of the state Board of Elections.

But Commissioner Gracia Hillman of the Election Assistance Commission said Thursday there is no such report.

No such report? If there is no report on the testing procedures used by Ciber, on what basis did the EAC refuse to accredit them?

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2162&Itemid=26

that there are serious problems with electronic voting machines: they fail to record votes, and even flip votes from one candidate to another"

I got an Idea, lets BEG the crooks that benefited by these machines to make a law that keeps these machines in place :rofl:

Great editorial.