Black Box: Are states getting suckered by the feds? Maybe no $$$

[BevHarris]

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/080403nj1.htm

Will running off to buy these machines be just another unfunded mandate? The federal government was supposed to provide $3.9 billion to help states afford required new voting machines. Not likely, say those in the know.

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

HAVA: "Because the bill was not enacted until the fall of 2002, Bush had not included funding for it in the fiscal 2003 budget that he released in early 2002. Congress, however, came up short in meeting its commitment to election reform in the very first year of the program: The Help America Vote Act authorized $2.16 billion in fiscal 2003, but Congress appropriated only $1.5 billion."

"For fiscal 2004, the election-reform act authorized $1.05 billion, with $1 billion targeted to training poll workers, providing voter education, and generally improving the federal election system. But Bush requested only $500 million—half of what was authorized—for election-reform efforts in fiscal 2004. The House Appropriations Committee set aside $500 million in the fiscal 2004 Transportation-Treasury funding measure it approved on July 24; the Senate has not yet written its spending bill."

Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md: "Most of the states have to have the money," he said. "It means that we need the money now, or it's going to be another unfunded mandate."

"But Doug Chapin, director of the Election Reform Project, a nonprofit group funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts through the University of Richmond, said that states and localities have little chance of getting all the money that Washington promised. "The question is whether they will appropriate everything that is authorized," he said. "That's unlikely." Asked about the impact on state and local election officials who have to meet certain mandates, Chapin said, "If the federal government doesn't come through with the money, they have problems."

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

So, not such a good deal for state government, who is forced to buy machines but probably won't get the promised funds.

Definitely not a good deal for the voters, who are being rushed into voting on insecure, secret, and unauditable machines.

A very good deal for those receiving cushy lobbying funds, "incentives" and the like, and, according to Diebold in their webcast stockholder's meeting this morning, the next quarter should bring substantial money in from voting machines, primarily from planned sales to San Diego and the state of Ohio.

Bev Harris
http://www.blackboxvoting.org

[BevHarris]

1. MIchigan decides against touch screens

http://www.wotv.com/index.php?goto=story&RecordID=2707

"Optical scanners count votes electronically but are better than systems in which voters select candidates by touching a computer screen because the voters' paper ballots are kept and available for recounts, (Secretary of State Terri Lynn) Land said."

But these areas are pushing hard for touch screens:
Ohio (According to their webcast stockholder's meeting this morning, Diebold is trying to be the ONLY recommended system. Recommendations made by Aug 15, then counties have 30 days to pick a system from the recommended list.)

San Diego: Just ordered 10,000 Diebold touch screens. The order hasn't been consummated yet. Activists, get going.

Utah: Going toward statewide touch screens as of last report; hasn't said which vendor.

[Merlin]

14. Saving a paper copy of the voter's ballot is absolutely mandatory.

I'm a software developer, and I can tell you there is no way in the world we will ever safeguard these machines against secret portals which will permit manipulation. This is especially true since the machines must permit on-line access so results can be directed to a central location.

The only workable assurance we can hope to achieve is what I call a "Proofing Box" in which the voter deposits their print-out (in the case of touch-screen), or hand-marked ballot (in the case of a scanner).

The Proofing Box will serve as a threat to anybody seeking to manipulate the outcome. The paper ballots would only be counted in the event of a recount. So it will still be up to us to insist on exit polling as a check on the announced results to determine if a recount is worth it.

Incidentally, you can add Pennsylvania to the states that won't go Diebold. I spoke to Ed Rendell last week and gave him copies of both the NYT and WaPo articles. He said he would make sure no money went for these machines. (Of course, part of the reason, he said, is that we don't have and money :-)). Ed was fascinated with the idea that the Perdue election was the result of Diebolds.

[Zan_of_Texas]

21. not good enough

The Proofing Box will serve as a threat to anybody seeking to manipulate the outcome. The paper ballots would only be counted in the event of a recount. So it will still be up to us to insist on exit polling as a check on the announced results to determine if a recount is worth it.



Okay, put on your black hat, Merlin, and pretend you're gonna steal an election.

Do you infiltrate the exit poll people? (Hmmmm. For the answer, do a 5 minute google research on Voter News Service.)

Do you make sure your results are at least 55% to 45% -- or more -- to make SURE there's no recount? Of course.


To make the paper trails worthwhile, there MUST be random hand counts all across a region. Every election. Count whole precincts by hand. Especially ones that traditionally go high percentages in a particular direction. To keep these things honest. NOT just once in a blue moon, if it's real close or whatever.

And, every reported precinct must match up with a real one -- no ghost precinct "glitches" like are reported on www.blackboxvoting.com.

[w4rma]

27. Touch screen prints out a voter verifiable ballot. That ballot is placed

into a ballot box. The ballots are then counted.

Then one only has to worry about securing the ballot box.

[Upfront]

28. What Was Learned Hear

helped save Michigan from touch machines. Michigan is one victory for you Bev. People high in the state goverment on the democratic side of the table were informed of the problem very early. The republican Sec. Of State had people looking over her back. She may have made the decision for the right reason, but I know that people were informed. No one who wants an honest vote can ever thank you enough Bev. :)

[ParanoidPat]

2. Michigan, North Dakota, Iowa moving to 'de-certify', California.....

.....decided not to use them for the recall! Great work Bev! :) :thumbsup:
Is there a thread on the Black Box Voting.org Discussion Forums to list the successes and keep track of latest developments?
I know it's a great place for people to post their information gathered from their state and local elections officials to share with other activists!
(Shameless plug for Bev's site) :evilgrin:

[dusty64]

30. Cool, before now

I thought EVERYONE was rushing into these things. At least there is some progress in a rather hopeless situation.

[Junkdrawer]

3. Has anyone tried to contact Doug Chapin ???

Here's his website:

http://www.electionline.org/index.jsp

Looks like a mixed bag - trending our way due to recent news

[ParanoidPat]

4. Excellent link!

Thanks! :)

[Junkdrawer]

5. This one year old editorial I found on the site...

goes a long way to explain the Common Cause/LCCR/PFAW support for touch screen machines:

Equipped For Democracy

By Steny Hoyer And John Conyers
Monday, July 15, 2002; Page A17

Some 6 million Americans who went to the polls in November 2000 failed to have their votes counted. They were, in effect, disenfranchised. The resulting public outrage, as well as our deep commitment to democracy, compelled action, and Congress responded. Last December the House passed bipartisan election reform by a vote of 362 to 63; the Senate followed suit in April by a vote of 99 to 1.

But now, with only two weeks remaining before the August recess, the competing versions of this legislation are mired in a congressional conference committee, and it is becoming clear that unless Congress acts without delay it may miss this rare opportunity to revolutionize our election system. More fundamentally, it risks failing the American people and perpetuating discontent with democracy. We must not allow that to happen.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4583-2002Jul14¬Found=true

[ParanoidPat]

9. 6 million Americans disenfranchised at the polls in November 2000.....

.....according to an article in the Washington Post! Great attention getter. :)
I wonder how many were disenfranchised in 2002? I also wonder how many people never heard this figure? We need a 1 page list of raw numbers like this to put the problem in perspective for the average person to arm themselves with while confronting their elected representatives. :evilgrin:

Thanks again! :kick:

[Junkdrawer]

11. Prior to the Nov 2002 elections, only a very few people...

understood the dangers of the new technologies. It seems most insiders (like John Conyers, a man I have great respect for) thought it was a have vs. have-not issue with the haves getting the latest computerized voting equipment.

The idea that the machines they fought so hard for may represent a greater danger than what they replace is a bitter pill that is going to take some time to swallow. I wonder how Conyers sees the Rush Holt bill?

[girlphoenix]

6. I feel so helpless in Maryland

We've already bought and taken delivery of these systems...I don't see how we'll be able to convince the state not to use them now.

All I can do is work on pushing the paper receipt option. But if the state's gotten the short end of the funding stick from the federal government already, that's going to be a very difficult sell.

Argh!

[BevHarris]

8. Just tell them to put paper in the printer

There is already a printer in the machine. Just tell them to put paper in it! Lessee here, the costs are: about 3,000 sheets of paper for an average size precinct, and about 7 secure ballot boxes per precinct (based on average # of machines.)

Last I checked, you can get a ream of paper (500 sheets) for $2.49.

Okay, I know that, being that it's the government, they can make it more complicated and more expensive, but we aren't talking about robbing Fort Knox here.

Just tell them that.

Or, suggest that they ask for a refund. By the way, according to the Diebold meeting this morning, about $30 million was for the machines and initial setup, and the other $25 is for "ongoing services." That's what I was afraid of. And just wait for the Microsoft-style "you need to buy a whole upgraded system" costs!

Bev

[girlphoenix]

12. Heck, if that's all that's needed...

I can't imagine there are that many people who will vote in Maryland...

In 2000 there were less than 2 million voters who cast ballots in Maryland. That's 4000 reams of paper if it's one sheet per voter. At $3 a ream, it's only $12,000 to fund paper ballots for my state. I can't imagine that would be too hard a number to come up with...

Thinking....this could work.

[dragonlady]

18. Sue Diebold to rescind the contract

With the information that is coming out now, a government attorney should
be able to sue Diebold on the theory that the goods did not conform to the contract (that is, equipment that will accurately count votes in conformity with HAVA). Let them take back their crummy machines and give the state a refund. That wouldn't be easy, of course, but I think there's a legal basis for it. Wouldn't the evidence look good coming out in open court?

[BevHarris]

19. According to one attorney I consulted, you have a product liability suit

I think Maryland citizens will be able to prove that Diebold made representations in its sales presentation that are not true.

I have the Diebold sales presentation for Georgia. It contains material misstatements. By filing a records request with Maryland to get their sales proposal AND the minutes of the sales (and follow up) meetings and the Power Point sales presentation file they used.

Then, the representations made by Diebold can be examined and I will be happy to have someone help you identify any material misstatements, which will open the door for product liability lawsuits.

Bev

[alfredo]

7. sooner or later the states are going to rebel against all these

unfunded mandates.

[DEMActivist]

10. Oh, GREAT! So our $300mil budget deficit in Georgia...

just gets worse, while these unuseable machines sit in a warehouse representing $49 million dollars of taxpayer money spent on an unfunded mandate!!! While the Governor who took office thanks to fraud on these machines asks for a 2.5% cut in services across the board.....

State agencies face cuts from the get-go
Officials told to choose 2.5 percent for reduction

By JAMES SALZER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

State agencies are being ordered to prepare for another round of budget cuts only a month into the new fiscal year.

Agency officials were told late Monday to pick out 2.5 percent of this year's budget for "probable reduction" and to identify another 5 percent for the next fiscal year, according to a memo from Timothy Connell, the governor's budget director.

"The state and national economy, while showing signs of recovery, are improving more slowly than anticipated," Connell said in the memo. "Reduced revenue collections are already impacting the 2004 budget."

Tax collection figures for July, the first month of fiscal 2004, are not expected to be out until later this week. But state officials say they expect to see another decline in revenue.

The state ended fiscal 2003 on June 30 with annual tax collections off 2.6 percent, or $340 million. It marked the second consecutive fiscal year of declining tax revenue for the state, which has been hurt, as has the rest of the country, by the slow economy.

A 2.5 percent cut for the current year would amount to another spending reduction of $350 million to $400 million, although some areas, such as schools, might be exempt.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0803/05budgetcuts.html
---------------------------
Secretary Cox: Georgia Receives First $5 Million Installment of Federal Funds to Reimburse Georgia’s Election Reform Costs; Millions in Additional Funding Expected Under Help America Vote Act (HAVA)


ATLANTA … Secretary of State Cathy Cox announced today that Georgia has received the first $5 million installment in federal payments to reimburse the state’s 2002 investment in election reform. In addition to the $5 million now in hand, Secretary Cox said Georgia is on track to receive over $31 million in federal funds during the coming state budget year under the provisions of the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA.)

http://www.sos.state.ga.us/pressrel/041503.htm

[sam sarrha]

13. I was going to say "another lie'... but then how many lies are there in

this article????

[ParanoidPat]

15. And how many more yet to be proved?

:evilgrin: It just keeps getting better!

:kick:

[Junkdrawer]

16. Kick

:kick:

[hedda_foil]

17. kick!

[Robbien]

20. Kick and a article on the Ohio blackbox voting debate

From the article, it appears they are asking the right questions about both fraud and funding.

Voting by touch has weakness, experts say

Hope they come to the right conclusions

[RedEagle]

22. SAIC and Evaluations

Whew, I've talked a lot on the phone today.

Some good input.

Extremely unlikely, even if we thought the SAIC review was above board, that they would come down hard on Diebold. Companies just don't do that to each other, according to one source. Not going to go the whole way in a review no matter who they are.

Has to be another independent review, university types.

Gee, I wonder if VoteHere is going to have an answer to Diebold's security problems just like they do for Sequoia? That was another thought ventured out today.

I've talked to a few staff of senators and representatives from my state today. They are "aware" of the problem, "looking into it." Flat out told them to get off the fence and give us some help here.

And I told them I thought a full blown Congressional investigation was in order with a concurrent Independent investigation, of the national certification process in this country. Begin with The Election Center and it's relationship to NASED and certain committtees of NASED. (Not the whole group, obviously) When you have an organization like the Election center, that is also "helping" states write election law, that's a problem.

Another source said getting the Elections Administration Committee from HAVA funded, which could get the technical standards group going so that NIST can actually get going on writing new standards- which I hope will then channel this to another organization besides NASED and The Election Center for actually doing the certification. Does NIST have its own labs?

Finally, that one of the definitions of due process, which any computer voting system that does not produce tangible evidence of the vote may be in violation of:

2. a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual--called also substantive due process.

That, it is a violation of due process not to have tangible evidence of the voter's ballot that the voter does not interact with. With every other system, the voter interacts with the ballot, fills out circles, punches out dots, whatever. By taking the ballot out of the voter's hands, by creating an electronic record- BUT NOT A BALLOT, that is not seen and verified by the voter, denies them due process in the creation of their ballot. The voter cannot interact with the ballot in any way that allows them ownership of it, and deprives them of the civil right to have their vote counted in the manner they wish.

Did any of that make any sense? I've got to walk away from the computer for a while....

[ParanoidPat]

24. Perfect sense!

To do nothing would make no sense at all! :toast: :evilgrin:

Anyone who wants to write, call, fax or e-mail their Secretary of State or State Elections officials need only click here! and scroll down to your state for current contact information. :)

Click on the name of the state to visit the Secretary of State home page.

[BevHarris]

32. Whew! That was worth the read.

The due process argument is interesting. Good for you, telling the officials to get off the fence and pitch in!

Bev

[realFedUp]

23. I'll kick

coz I am so tired of the Ahhhnold posts...

[quam]

25. Voting System Manufacturers

insecure, secret, and unauditable machines.

While the insecurity and questionable performace of Diebold's voting systems has received much attention recently, remember Diebold is not the only manufacturer of such voting systems. A couple of competitors, one notably, are known for opposite qualities.

[Eloriel]

26. It's a thrill to see SOME movement here

Nowhere where we need to be, but so far from where we were! Congratulations, Bev and all. And thanks.

Eloriel

[madfloridian]

29. Florida allocated some $55 million for new voting machines.

I will have to look up the article. This was just recently.

[dusty64]

31. Kick.

x

[RedEagle]

33. Keeping this up front...

Kick

[madfloridian]

34. Anyone know much about Jeb's plan for buying?

There is not much about it. What company, is it done already by our powerful Sec. of State, Glenda the Hood?

I want to contact my legislators, but I don't have enough info on what is going on in Florida. I just heard they allocated $55 mil for them.

I just need to know how to find out what companies, what machines they are going to buy. I have seen nothing in our news here. Any Floridians know more?