State Tells Counties to Establish Paper Trail on Electronic Voting (CA/BBV

[Bushfire]

By Allison Hoffman and Tim Reiterman, Times Staff Writers

Secretary of State Kevin Shelley is expected to announce today that as of 2006, all electronic voting machines in California must be able to produce a paper printout that voters can check to make sure their votes are properly recorded.

Late Thursday evening, Shelley placed calls to county elections officials around the state to tell them that any voting system that is currently in use or that is purchased before Jan. 1, 2006, must be modified or replaced to produce a paper trail. After that date, no county will be allowed to buy machines that can't make printouts.

None of the electronic voting systems currently in use in the state can make such a record. Voters who cast ballots using touch-screens, the most common type of electronic voting machine, are prompted to review their choices on a confirmation screen, but they have no way of knowing that those selections are recorded correctly in the microchip "ballot box."

Voter registrars around the state reacted with surprise and anger to the news.

"I am shocked," said Mischelle Townsend, Riverside County's registrar and a member of the task force Shelley convened last summer to discuss electronic voting. "You're talking about millions of dollars of added expense at a time when we have a fiscal crisis."

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-shelley21nov21,1,847438.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Hey Mischelle Townsend, Tough Bananas!!!!!!!!! How do you think the voters feel where their vote doesn't count due to faulty machines?!?

[dfong63]

1. does this help?

of course it's a good thing for the individual voter to be able to verify that the machine recorded her/his vote correctly - but i don't see how this feature will help election officials or independent auditors to verify that everyone's votes were recorded correctly.

if the printout goes to the voter - that still doesn't establish a paper trail for the auditors.

wtf?

[Bushfire]

2. We need to see the wording of his proposal

in insure a paper "ballot", not a paper "trail".

Since he went around the "California Assn. of Clerks and Elections Officials" it could be very good news as they are probably bought off by voting machine manufacturers.

"Six weeks ago, officers of the California Assn. of Clerks and Elections Officials requested a meeting with Shelley to discuss the question. Conny McCormack, the Los Angeles County registrar and the vice president of the organization, said Shelley refused to meet with the group."

[ahimsa]

8. printout that voters can check..

..not take home. This looks good but Gov. S will probably have his orders to prevent it from being implemented. After all, $60 mil is a <sarcasm>huge</sarcasm> chunk of the $4 bil he just gave back via the car "tax" cut

[creativelcro]

3. So, what do people do with the paper copy they get ?

if there is no way of recounting those paper copies, then there is NO point at all!!! It is easy easy to print out a fake thing as it is to display it on a screen!!... -CV

[Bushfire]

4. Waiting for someone on the inside to explain this

There is a thread on GD that said there would be BIG news today, and if they know that much they might explain Shelley's decision. Let's hope for an end round before Terminator can do anything to screw with this.

[hunter]

7. There's not much wiggle room for Shelley here.

A lot of people are watching this.

But until the 2006 "deadline" things could get very messy, and the input of local activists and election watchdogs at the county level will be very important.

Oh yeah, it's busting out all over, in New Mexico too...

"Los Alamos county, which boasts the highest geek PhD per capita in the world and considerable clout in secure computing, has voted to rescind its previous plans to purchase Touch Screen voting systems and will ask the New Mexico's secretary of state to address its concerns regarding an imminent state-wide purchase."

That's off the front page of Slashdot today.

http://www.slashdot.org

[Galley_Queen]

10. Paper Ballots

would be given to the voter, who could then verify that it is correct. That paper ballot then goes into a lock box, as paper ballots do now. That would give the ability for a recount of hard copy ballots as opposed to relying on the inner workings of a machine.

At least that's how I understand it works.

[54anickel]

5. Uhm, 2006???

[DUreader]

6. Yeah, day late and dollar short as usual

[hunter]

9. Politics...

It shifts some of the pressure from the Secretery of State to local officials.

Heh.

Now you say to them, "Hey wait a minute, if these machines are not good enough for our elections in 2006, how come they are good enough for this election?"

It makes a good letter to the local paper, doesn't it?

And it is very, very true.

[BevHarris]

11. This is relatively huge -- timeline screws it up.

Yes, this is the "big news" and they are talking about something we put in a ballot box.

Here is the good part: We can use California very effectively to do two things -- mandate HR 2239 and get more Republicans on board with it, because this decision makes it safer, and we can immediately leverage this decision with our own states.

I'm grinning, because we have one county auditor, Bob Terwilliger of Snohomish County, who promised to get a paper ballot if California does. I'm sure at the time he thought it would never happen. Everyone, Bob's contact info is on the Washington State forum in the blackboxvoting.org forums, so I urge you to email him and get him to stick to his promise.

This can be made a tiny bit huger because Wisconsin just mandated something similar, and Michigan has come out the same way (except someone warn Michigan that Internet voting is not an answer either).

So, use this decision to leverage your own state into a paper ballot requirement.

In the mean time, we need more lawyers, and I'm not calling them. You help me with this. Find one who will call me. We need lots -- dozens -- and the response is good but I want more. We need to SPEED UP THIS TIMELINE. Emergency measures, like, for the next primary, paper hand-counted would be prudent.

These machines have been miscounting. If you have any doubt at all, download this: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BBV_chapter-2.pdf and look at a hundred documented examples of machines miscounting, often flipping elections the wrong way even when it isn't close.

If certification and L&A tests worked, this chapter could not have been written.

If your state is not up yet at the blackboxvoting.org forums, email me at [e-mail] and I'll get you your own activism forum.

Let's roll.

Bev Harris
http://www.blackboxvoting.org

[hunter]

13. More leverage, yes...

This is a kick.

[7th_Sephiroth]

17. BobTerwilliger?

is that a joke, cause thats the name os Sideshow Bob on the simpsons

[Noordam]

12. Well Mischelle were you thinking COSTS in the first place.

I know Hillsborough(Tampa)Stupidvisor of Elections wasn't. She pushed the wiz bang touchscreens without a paper trail OVER optical scanning........ OK as I remember here was the cost....

3 Million for all the Optical Scanning equipment.....
OR
14 Million for the Touchscreens................

So OUR SOE did not care about cost from the start so why worry now...

[BevHarris]

14. Re: Cost: Avante, with paper ballot, costs one-half as much for MD

When they factor all the "extras" that Diebold padded the bill with, Avante figured they could come in at half what Diebold did, which would save Maryland $28 million.

[Rev. Day-Bu]

15. Wired has good coverage of it (as usual)

Wired has good coverage here.

E-Votes Must Leave a Paper Trail
By Kim Zetter
03:25 PM Nov. 21, 2003 PT

SAN FRANCISCO -- California will become the first state requiring all electronic voting machines produce a voter-verifiable paper receipt.

The requirement, announced Friday by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, applies to all electronic voting systems already in use as well as those currently being purchased. The machines must be retrofitted with printers to produce a receipt by 2006.

With a receipt, voters will be able to verify that their ballots have been properly cast. However, they will not be allowed to keep the receipts, which will be stored at voting precincts and used for a recount if any voting irregularities arise.

(snip)

[Selwynn]

16. It's a start, but it doesn't help much - biggest fix for e-voting is:

all electronic voting systems must be developed in a non-proprietary, open-source manner and not for profit. As far as I understand this is how Austrailia does it. They have e-voting, but the code for the systems is all open source, meaning it is subject to public reveiw, the public can see exactly how the machines are going to work. There is an independant review board that must view all code and any changes prior to an election, etc.

making the software open source is really the only way to protect against fraud. If you get a reciept for your vote, that tells you NOTHING. For all you know, the code has been rigged so that you select the Dem candidates face, and get a reciept saying you voted for the Dem candidate, and yet the code of the voting system says to report that 67% of total votes be for Bush and 30% be for Dem candidate and 3% for others. The only way you will know is if there is an open and non-proprietary review of the code.