Election Reform, Fraud & News Wed 1/31/07 - I Want NOTHING To Come Between Me & My Ballot

Election Reform, Fraud & News Wed 1/31/07 I Want NOTHING To Come Between Me & My Ballot


There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part…
and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears…and you've got to make it stop.

Mario Savio, Leader of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement

Anything that comes between a voter and
his/her ballot is subject to corruption

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.

Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.

If you can:

1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.

2. Post stories using the "Election Fraud and Reform News Sources" listed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.

4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.

Please "Recommend" for the Greatest Page.

Olde Fashioned Legal Loopholes Allow Rigging of Hi-Tech Elections
By Howard Stanislevic and John Washburn
January 30, 2007
The following is a brief discussion of how election integrity can be compromised by taking advantage of loopholes in election reform legislation. The authors believe that any such legislation should be judged by its ability and intent to mitigate the risks discussed herein.

We will focus on four major loopholes:

Loophole #1 Internet connections NOT banned for Election Management Servers
Loophole #2 High failure rates are allowed for equipment; equipment allowed to remain in service
Loophole #3 No statistically meaningful audits
Loophole #4 No or inadequate instructions to direct voters to verify voter verifiable records

Each of the above loopholes provides a different set of possible effects which individually or together can alter the outcome of an election.

more at:
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2226&Itemid=26

Election Security in Virginia One Step Closer
By Joseph Waymack, Executive Director Southern Coalition for Secured Voting
January 30, 2007
State Senate Passes Bill That Would Prohibit Future Purchase of DREs

The citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia have spoken load and clear in their support for verified elections and the Virginia State Senate has listened. With an overwhelming vote of 36 in favor and only 4 in decent the Virginia State Senate has approved Senate Bill 840 introduced by Sen. Devolites-Davis. Now that 90% of the Senate has backed this important legislation it is up to House of Delegates to follow suit.

Senate Bill 840 provides necessary protections of our election system which are currently vulnerable to inaccuracy, malfunction, and fraud. The bill bans the use of wireless communication devices inside voting machines during election day. Wireless communication is used by the largest vendor of voting machines in Virginia and, according to computer security experts, represents a grave threat by rogue hackers or terrorists through disrupting our voting system.

Most importantly, Senate Bill 840 says no county or city shall purchase anymore Direct Record Electronics (DREs), or touchscreens, for their election needs. Instead, as machines break down, they shall phase them out and purchase an optical scan system where a voter marks a paper ballot that is then read by a tabulator, much like an SAT test.

To further safeguard the vote, Senate Bill 840 provides for mandatory random audits of the paper ballots to make sure the tabulator has not suffered any flaws or defects that cause it to miscount in any way the ballots cast by the voters of the Commonwealth.

Groups and citizens from across the Commonwealth of all political backgrounds have come together to support this critical legislation. Our Senators have responded and now responsibility on ensuring the security of our democratic-republic lies with the House of Delegates.

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2225&Itemid=113

This is another post about Christ's Decision in Florida - Cannonfire has their doubts - but I disagree that there is any reason to APPLAUD this as a positive development - he gets it right when he says "This is a new trick!" - kpete


Of course, I'm still suspicious. In fact, my first response was to say what Anthony Quinn says toward the end of Lawrence of Arabia (after Omar Sharif offers an unexpected apology): "This is a new trick!"

Indeed, even with the computers banished from the booths, much room for chicanery remains. What about the "mother machines," as Mrs. Kerry once put it -- that is, the machines which tabulate the optical scan ballots? A recount should -- theoretically -- display any differences between the paper vote and the tabulated vote, but a recount is triggered only when the election is extremely close. Even if one party pays for a recount, the system can be gamed, as we learned in Ohio.

The Ohio debacle (and the investigations of Greg Palast) have also taught us that optical scan ballots can be spoiled in Democratic-leaning districts. Scroll down for a chart showing the suspicious spoilage pattern in Cayuhoga County back in '04. Turning a Democratic ballot into an overvote is a simple matter: One need only thrust a needle through the right hole in a neat stack of ten-or-twenty ballots.

Still, when all is said and done, Crist's decision is great news. Florida's vote will be cleaner. Not clean enough; the fight continues. But we must applaud every positive development.

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/01/election-news-charlie-crist-superstar.html

January 29, 2007
Lawmakers want to phase out electronic voting machines

Virginians are just getting used to using them, but a bill moving through the legislature would phase out electronic voting machines.

Sponsors say Congress is about to pass its own legislation that would require voting machines to have paper trails.

Instead of plugging printers into every machine, some registrars say they prefer using optical scan machines.

The bill that passed the Senate today requires the machines be replaced when they wear out.

Senators also passed a bill that would allow voters to cast absentee ballots in person without providing an excuse.

Some fear the change would make it easier to commit voter fraud. Those voting absentee by mail would still have to provide an excuse for doing so.

Both bills will now be considered by the House of Delegates.

http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=6006409&nav=S6aK

Sale on eBay exposes vote security flaw
Encoders, access cards auctioned

By CARLOS CAMPOS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 01/30/07

Some key components of one of Georgia's most sacred institutions — that had been discovered in discarded office furniture — were recently auctioned on eBay.

About 40 voter access cards and three electronic ballot encoders belonging to DeKalb County were purchased earlier this month on the auction Web site, according to Secretary of State Karen Handel. Another seven supervisor's cards, used to activate the encoders, also were up for bid.

All of the cards and encoders have been recovered, Handel said. The cards apparently had been used only for training in mock elections, and the encoders are obsolete; Georgia now uses electronic poll books to load voter access cards with the proper ballots.

But the discovery exposed a flaw in the security of electronic voting, which is already under fire over fears of hacking.

more at:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/01/29/0130metvoter.html

January 30, 2007 at 22:08:28
HAVA- The road to the boondoggle was paved with good intentions
by Bev Harris

HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT (HAVA) LOBBYIST LIST

Question: What happens if you lobby a lawmaker for $4 billion in expenditures for touch-screen (DRE) voting machines and go back to that same lawmaker two years later asking to dump DREs?

Answer: You lose credibility. It might be hard to lobby for other things. It's politically embarrassing. And your members, or funders, might have a few questions to ask about the prudence of your lobbying expenditures.

BUT HOW COULD ANYONE HAVE KNOWN?

The road to voting computers was paved with good intentions. No one knew that some of the programmers for voting computers would turn out to be convicted
embezzlers.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/14318.html

No one realized that the main sponsor of the HAVA bill -- Rep. Bob Ney -- would end up going to jail on corruption charges.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/46466.html

Few realized that the federal testing labs, Ciber and Wyle, weren't doing their jobs and their overseers -- NASED and now the EAC -- failed to check their work.

Wyle failures (Bowen Hearing): http://www.blackboxvoting.org/itahearing.pdf
Ciber failures: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/46428.html

HAVA bought a lemon.

WHO BIT INTO IT?

Progressive public interest groups. Labor unions. Civil rights groups.

more at:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_bev_harr_070130_hava__the_road_to_th.htm

Not I.

Of course, the reason so was that this Bev Harris character was talking that shit over three years ago, right here on DU, so I had a damn good idea about what was going down... she wasn't biting and because of her, neither did I.

Thank you, Bev.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_kathleen_070130_the_story_behind_the.htm
January 30, 2007 at 21:28:19
The Story Behind The Story of the Cuyahoga County Recount Trial
by Kathleen Wynne


The Trial

I had just returned from Cleveland back to Texas in the wee hours of Jan. 20th. I immediately wrote about what I observed as a witness at the trial in Cuyahoga County, Ohio of three election employees, who were indicted for not handling ballots correctly during the 2004 Recount.


..................

More Indictments?

This trial may not be the last we see of this recount, though. Baxter mentioned that there may be more indictments. He wouldn't say any more than that, but I'm hopeful that everyone responsible for helping to facilitate this kind of corrupt environment in an elections department, and for such a long period of time without detection, will be put on trial and held accountable. Otherwise, neither justice nor the truth will have been served in the end.


The Story Behind The Story

What's been the most disappointing aspect of the story about this trial is that the public has not been told the real story behind the story. Unfortunately, that story has been totally overlooked by the media (except OpEdNews!), Internet blogs and by some in the election reform community itself. That story being, this case would never have been brought to trial without the citizens who were observers at that recount gathering evidence and reporting it to the proper authorities, including getting the videotaped evidence, which, according to Baxter, clinched the final outcome of the trial. It was a victory for citizen oversight all the way and that is what makes this story important. This is the time to focus on citizens and for them to take a bow and recognize their own power by reclaiming their rightful role as managers of their own elections. To celebrate what we always knew was possible but had never really proved -- that with transparency, proper access, and meaningful citizen oversight, it required no experts, audits, stats or public records requests to make the case for wrongdoing by election officals and to ultimately, hold them accountable.

As a result of this citizen oversight victory, the hand counted paper ballot advocates should utilize the leverage they now have by quickly pointing out that we were right in demanding this kind of citizen oversight in our elections and we want it back. If we don't take action now, I have no doubt, as sure as God made little green apples, the legislatures across the country will begin passing laws (and they already have in some states) that will specifically prohibit, restrict and/or obstruct the ability for citizens to have the kind of access and oversight I had during the 2004 recount in Cuyahoga County, Ohio not only in recounts but, particularly, in our elections, where this kind of oversight is curiously missing. One thing is for certain, if we continue to let any machine count our votes, that will make this virtually impossible.

I only wish that every person could experience the kind of citizen empowerment I, and the other citizens who testified during this trial, did. As for me, I'm hooked. Anything less in our elections is totally unacceptable.

much, much more at:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_kathleen_070130_the_story_behind_the.htm
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_kathleen_070130_the_story_behind_the.htm

Digital rights group slams e-voting
David Meyer ZDNet UK

Published: 31 Jan 2007 13:15 GMT

Digital rights activists have attacked the UK government over its plan to trial e-voting in the upcoming local elections.

According to the Open Rights Group (ORG), the technology "threatens the integrity of our elections". In a statement issued on Tuesday, the group claimed that e-voting "does not allow for meaningful vote audits and recounts", suggesting that it would make fraud easier to perpetrate.

The government announced on Monday that it would be trialling several forms of e-voting in May's local elections. Although no equivalent of the US' Diebold machines — which have been the subject of several security problems — will be used, methods to be tested include electronic scanning to count ballots and electronic voting using the internet and/or telephone.

"E-voting is a black box," ORG's Jason Kitcat told ZDNet UK on Tuesday, explaining that "you can't see what the software is doing" and suggesting that this secrecy was deliberate on the part of the companies selling the software to the government.

more at:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39285713,00.htm

Ex-mayor sentenced to 2 years on election fraud conviction
By Laurence Hammack

WISE -- The man who personified both power and corruption in the tiny coal town of Appalachia was sentenced today to two years in jail for stealing an election.

Ben Cooper, the town's former mayor and acting town manager, received the sentence from Wise County Circuit Judge Tammy McElyea.

Prosecutors have said that Cooper, motivated by his desire for total control of a town of about 1,800, directed a scheme in which he and 13 others consipred to steal absentee ballots from the mail and cast them for a slate of candidates who later took control of the town council. Other votes were bought with cigarettes and beer, according to an indictment returned by a grand jury last year.

The sentencing of Cooper and three other defendants today marked the apparent end of a case that has been called the state's largest election fraud in the past half century.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/102548

The Cost per Vote
The National Journa
l's Patrick Ottenhoff has an interesting piece analyzing how much candidates spent in 2006 for each vote ultimately cast for them.

"By taking the total disbursements of each candidate, according the Federal Election Commission, and dividing each sum by the amount of votes he or she received, one can determine how much money each candidate spent per vote. These numbers do not take into account the millions of dollars per race spent by outside interest groups, but they provide a good picture of how much each candidate was willing -- or able -- to dish out to compete in his or her district."

In last year's U.S. Senate races, Richard Tarrant (R-VT) spent by far the most money on each vote ($85), while fellow self-funders Pete Ricketts (R-NE) and Ned Lamont (D-CT) came in second ($63) and third ($45), respectively. All three lost their races.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/01/31/the_cost_per_vote.html

Why So Many Undervotes in Sarasota?
Tuesday January 30, 2007 by Ed Felten

The big e-voting story from November’s election was in Sarasota, Florida, where a congressional race was decided by about 400 votes, with 18,412 undervotes. That’s 18,412 voters who cast votes in other races but not, according to the official results, in that congressional race. Among voters who used the ES&S iVotronic machines — that is, non-absentee voters in Sarasota County — the undervote rate was about 14%. Something went very wrong. But what?

Since the election there have been many press releases, op-eds, and blog posts about the undervotes, not to mention some lawsuits and scholarly studies. I want to spend the rest of the week dissecting the Sarasota situation, which I have been following closely. I’m doing this now for two reasons: (1) enough time has passed for the dust to settle a bit, and (2) I’m giving a joint talk on the topic next week and I want to work through some thoughts.

There’s no doubt that something about the iVotronic caused the undervotes. Undervote rates differed so starkly in the same race between iVotronic and non-iVotronic voters that the machines must be involved somehow. (For example, absentee voters had a 2.5% undervote rate in the congressional race, compared to 14% for iVotronic voters.) Several explanations have been proposed, but only two are at all plausible: ballot design and machine malfunction.

more at:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1115

Lawyers' Committee Applauds Obama and Schumer Bill to Prevent Voter Intimidation and Deceptive Practices



WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights announces their support for the Deceptive
Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007, and applauds the
efforts of Senators Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer who introduced the bill.
Forty years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, Americans
continue to be targets of deceptive practices and intimidation as they
attempt to cast a ballot. Since 2004, the Lawyers' Committee, the lead
legal organization in the Election Protection Coalition, has collected
reports of deceptive practices or voter intimidation from more than 30
states.
"It is outrageous that in 2007 Americans continue to be the subject of
intimidation and deception as they attempt to exercise their most
fundamental right. These attempts prevent the will of the voters from
determining election outcomes and undermine the greatness of our democratic
process," said Barbara R. Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyers'
Committee. "This bill is a critically important step towards ridding the
country of these despicable practices that threaten the integrity of our
election system."
The counsel and experience of the Lawyers' Committee's National
Campaign for Fair Elections and the Election Protection Coalition were
critical to demonstrating the compelling need for this important bill and
for shaping the most effective response to this essential challenge.
For more information, please visit
http://www.nationalcampaignforfairelections.org.
The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights
organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to
provide legal services to address racial discrimination.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/01-31-2007/0004517246&EDATE=WED+Jan+31+2007,+11:58+AM

EAC secret reports reveal sloppy, incomplete and non-existent testing by Ciber test lab

Michael Richardson
http://electionfraudnews.com/News/Richardson.htm

Hours after our earlier report on threatened subpoenas against the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and its banned voting machine test laboratory, Ciber, Inc. by the New York State Board of Elections, the company supplied information concerning its lack of accreditation to New York officials. Commissioner Doug Kellner called the secret reports “soiled laundry” that both the company and EAC were trying to hide.

Yesterday, the EAC reacted to the disclosure by Ciber of confidential EAC documents by releasing the assessment reports upon which last summer’s non-accreditation decision was based. The documents, kept secret by the EAC for half a year, reveal a shocking level of incompetence and negligence by the “independent testing authority” (ITA) which tested electronic voting machines used by 68.5% of the registered voters in the November 2006 election.

The EAC assessment report from July 2006 of the Ciber test lab in Huntsville, Alabama found, “critical processes were not implemented nor procedures followed.” The EAC inspector wrote, “CIBER is unable to follow their own defined processes and procedures to ensure the quality of their work.”

As previously reported, Ciber made a merger with Wyle Laboratories, another test lab in Huntsville, in a bid to shore up its deficient operation and save lucrative testing contracts. Both companies were examined for quality assurance compliance. “CIBER’s reports provide limited or no descriptions of the testing performed so a reader or reviewer can not tell if all the testing was completed. Cross checking between CIBER and Wyle reports has revealed at times that neither ITA has performed certain tests, expecting that the test was done by the other.”

for stopping by, kp

“CIBER’s reports provide limited or no descriptions of the testing performed so a reader or reviewer can not tell if all the testing was completed. Cross checking between CIBER and Wyle reports has revealed at times that neither ITA has performed certain tests, expecting that the test was done by the other.”

But under Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Gonzales, isn't CROSS non-testing just as good as testing?

I mean, it was non-tested not once but TWICE!

If it's good enough for foreign policy (First failure in Iraq, now failure in Iran) then
it's good enough for election machine-testing protocols too!

Delph, you must have cleaned up on the Miller's Analogies Test!!!

That's a pattern for sure...consistent sloppy thinking. Cross checks, what cross checks,
we don't need no stinking cross checks!

Oh yeah, Bev Harris was talking about the Huntsville groups and the sloppy testing they were doing on the black boxes, oh, about three years ago, I do believe. Three years ago, and the government is just now catching up with her.

Wonder where our leaders were when this little factoid slipped out?

Learn how voting systems work, from paper ballots to e-voting.

By Bill Poovey
Updated: 1:39 p.m. ET Aug 23, 2004

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. - The three companies that certify the nation's voting technologies operate in secrecy, and refuse to discuss flaws in the ATM-like machines to be used by nearly one in three voters in November.

Despite concerns over whether the so-called touchscreen machines can be trusted, the testing companies won't say publicly if they have encountered shoddy workmanship.

They say they are committed to secrecy in their contracts with the voting machines' makers — even though tax money ultimately buys or leases the machines.

snip

Virtually no oversight

Although up to 50 million Americans are expected to vote on touchscreen machines on Nov. 2, federal regulators have virtually no oversight over testing of the technology. The certification process, in part because the voting machine companies pay for it, is described as obsolete by those charged with overseeing it.

The testing firms — CIBER and Wyle Laboratories in Huntsville and SysTest Labs in Denver — are also inadequately equipped, some critics contend.