BBV: May 5 meeting of Election Assistance Commission in Washington

[gristy]

Hey, I'm reading some of these great BBV threads and waiting to see mention of the May 5 (next Wed) meeting of the Election Assistance Commission in Washington. I know that Avi Rubin will be there and so will Mary Kiffmeyer, the President of the National Association of Secretaries of State. Are the heavy BBV-hitters from DU going to Washington next week for this meeting? Should I go? If I do, I'll probably take the overnight train from Providence.

More good BBV reading in Time (little new for DUers, though): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040503-629410-1,00.html

The Vexations Of Voting Machines
Kinks in e-voting systems have given rise to a backlash. Are the machines reliable enough?
By VIVECA NOVAK/WASHINGTON

Monday, Apr. 26, 2004
Jeffrey Liss had finished making his selections on Maryland's Democratic-primary ballot and strolled out of the polling place at Chevy Chase Elementary School on the morning of March 2, Super Tuesday. On the sidewalk, he spied a campaign poster for Senator Barbara Mikulski, who is running for her fourth term. Funny, he thought, he didn't remember voting in the Senate race.

Liss went back inside to talk to an election official. And another, and another. He was told he must have overlooked the Senate race on the electronic touch-screen voting machine. But Liss, a lawyer, finally persuaded a technician to check the apparatus. Sure enough, it wasn't displaying the whole ballot.

According to voter complaints collected by Mikulski, who won in the primary, her race didn't appear on ballots in at least three Maryland counties.
<snip>
Most critics of e-voting have two complaints. One is that it's not possible to do a true recount with the systems because they produce nothing tangible when a vote is cast; a recount means pressing a button and coming up with the same results. Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the sleek new systems bought by 15 counties ? including those of hanging-chad fame like Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade ? are unconstitutional because votes can't truly be retallied there, as they can in the rest of the state.
<snip>
The other concern about evoting is that some of the nation's top computer scientists and code crackers believe the systems are too vulnerable to tampering or simple breakdowns. "If you believe, as I do, that voting is one of our critical infrastructures, then you have to defend it like you do your power grid, your water supply," says former National Security Agency code breaker Michael Wertheimer. "That's not happening anywhere." And with a closely split electorate marching toward another presidential showdown, shaky voter confidence in the results could lead to another huge outcry or keep more people from going to the polls. With voter participation at a paltry 51.3% in 2000, Americans hardly need another reason not to vote.

Lots more good stuf...

[ParanoidPat]

1. Looks like we've achieved 'critical mass' on the issue.....

.....but it's still not time to slow down yet. Everyone keep calling, writing and faxing your representatives.

No rest for the wicked! :evilgrin:

[eridani]

19. Guest columnist/ A simple way to make computer voting safer

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001918663_bevharris04.html
Guest columnist/ A simple way to make computer voting safer

By Bev Harris Special to The Times

Paperless touch-screen voting systems have triggered a controversy -invisible ballot systems may represent the biggest bamboozling in the history of voting. But even if we make vapor-ballot systems disappear, problems with computerized vote-counting will remain.

If we are going to use any form of computerized vote-tallying, we need to implement procedures to mitigate risks. One of the most important procedures, after a voter-verified paper ballot for auditing, is to post polling- place results.

In America, casting a vote is a private matter. The counting of the vote, however, has always been (and should remain) a public matter.

When we shifted from neighborhood-based to centralized counting, fewer eyes watched our votes. Then we privatized vote-counting altogether: Even when you vote on paper, your vote is counted by a computer, programmed by a private company, and your paper ballot is hardly ever examined. Instead, a computer interprets your vote. Our county officials are prohibited from examining the source code these
computers use, and it is the source code that tells the computer how to count your vote.

Even Washington's secretary of state does not examine source code. Nor does the state elections director. Instead, everyone in Washington relies on a small Alabama branch office of Ciber, Inc., where a motorcycle enthusiast named Shawn Southworth examines the source code.

Rather than direct examination, state and local officials rely on a ballot- sampling procedure called the "logic and accuracy" (L&A) test, saying it proves the machines count accurately. But we now know that at least 100 elections have been miscounted by these computers despite L&A tests.

Following a blistering report from Johns Hopkins and Rice university researchers, Maryland and Ohio commissioned independent studies of Diebold's software and found it to be riddled with problems. This software is used in King, Chelan, San Juan and Klickitat counties in our state.

Ohio commissioned an independent study of Sequoia's system, which found several critical security flaws. Sequoia's central tally software, it turns out, is even easier to tamper with than Diebold's. Sequoia is used in Snohomish County.

Diebold announced that it fixed the flaws, but it turns out that they were not corrected: A document called "release notes" details each change made in upgraded software, and Diebold's release notes for the system used in King County show that the flaws weren't corrected. A second report commissioned by the state of Maryland confirms that flaws still exist.

Sequoia has promised to correct its flaws, but has yet to provide any release notes to show that it has done so.

Computer enthusiasts can now verify these flaws for themselves. The Diebold central tally program is posted on a Web site run by California computer programmer Jim March, and the Sequoia program is now available on BlackBoxVoting.org.

Here's a simple remedy: Post the polling-place tallies in public, before the electronic votes are sent to central count, and match polling-place reports with the central count. Amazingly, Washington state does not require this, but county officials have the authority to do so, and we should demand it.

We vote at local polling places. Our votes are collected on electronic "ballot boxes," in the form of memory cards and cartridges. The information on these electronic ballot boxes is transferred to the county's central tally program. If someone switches the electronic ballot box (about the size of a credit card), or takes advantage of tamper-friendly features in the central tally programs, your vote can easily be changed.

Posting the polling-place tapes will be quick, easy and cheap.Diebold machines have an internal printer. Sequoia touch-screen machines have a port to which a printer can be attached. Both systems can print results at the polling place. This takes about 60 seconds and costs almost nothing.

Elections officials say that polling-place tallies won't match central tallies because they like to mix in other kinds of votes at central count, like absentee, provisional or challenge ballots. But vote-counting is just bookkeeping. If election officials commingle the data, they need to correct their bookkeeping procedures.

In Washington, we spot-check results. But Diebold's program has a specific flaw that survives spot checks even when the totals are wrong: Diebold's tally system uses two different sets of books - which don't have to match. In Sequoia's program, you can paste in vote-shaving code that will pass a spot-check while changing totals.

Some states, like Alabama, already require polling-place tapes. California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley has also directedcounties to post polling- place tapes. We should insist on polling-place printouts in Washington state.

Bev Harris, based in Renton, runs BlackBoxVoting.org, a national watchdog group that promotes auditable and secure voting. Harris is the author of "Black Box Voting: Ballot- Tampering in the 21st Century" (Talion Publishing).

[RedEagle]

2. Can't travel on someone else's dime like some of the others

Getting coast to coast isn't cheap.

"Mary Kiffmeyer, the President of the National Association of Secretaries of State." - She's a problem. But in Minnesota, they've managed, with the help of a state legislator, to go to optical scan and the Vogue system that marks the optical scan ballot. Sounded like a fight to get auditing, but in a lot of ways, the people seem to be winning.

Does anyone know if the meeting is open to the public and if the public can speak, present papers?

[gristy]

7. I don't think Mary Kiffmeyer is a problem at all

And here's why:

Last summer I was just getting going on the BBV issue and found myself in contact with Richard Vogel, the founder and President of Vogue Election Systems, which, as you say, has a system which simply assists the blind and disabled in the printing of a paper ballot. When I learned about this system from him (he was really excited about it, and he was very anti-BBV), I emailed a summary of what I learned and Vogue's contact info to Secretary Kiffmeyer. I recall that she responded very positively to that email. The rest, apparently, is history...

Way to go Mary! :bounce:

Here's Vogue's web site: http://www.vogueelection.com/

Vogue Election Systems, LLC.

Vogue Election Systems is a developer of innovative election products. Our latest offering, the AutoMark Voter Assist Terminal is an exciting new product that provides voters with disabilities the ability to mark an optical scan paper ballot. Not only does this product open the election process to voters with disabilities as never before, but also it gives election jurisdictions HAVA compliance which protects their legacy optical scan systems and maintains a paper audit trail.

WOW! Richard Vogel :yourock:

[stellanoir]

3. gristy. . .

if you hail from Providence, check in on the R.I. thread on the State Forums when you have a moment. It's fairly lonely there. Would love to know of another BBV activist from the dinkiest state. Trying to do a head count. . .

[gristy]

5. I'm in Marlborough, MA

An easy drive up 495

[stellanoir]

6. oh. . .

you're a bleeping Puritan then!

(just kidding)

[ParanoidPat]

4. Here's what I could find out.....

.....http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Election_Assistance_Commission

On Edit: Yes it's an open meeting and they are soliciting public comment. :) Give 'em HELL! (Tell them the truth and they'll think it's hell!)

Election Assistance Commission

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) was created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and "charged with administering voluntary guidelines for election requirements under HAVA, maintaining a clearinghouse of information regarding election administration procedures including testing and certification of election equipment, and administering the Election Assistance and Help America Vote Programs," according to the EAC's April 27, 2004 press release. The EAC, made up of four members chosen by party leaders and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, held its inaugural meeting on March 23, 2004.

The EAC is also in charge of disbursing $2.7 billion in grants to U.S. states and territories to "upgrade election equipment." On May 5, 2004, the EAC will hold its first public meeting "to receive information on the use, security and reliability of electronic voting devices." Five "distinct and diverse panels of witnesses" will testify at the meeting, including "a Technology Panel, Vendor Panel, Election Administrator Panel, Research Panel and Advocacy Organization Panel."

Commission Members
According to The Washington Post, EAC commissioners make about $134,000 a year.

* DeForest Soaries Jr - Chair, Republican; a Baptist minister, former New Jersey Secretary of State under then-Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, who's claimed that critics are blowing problems with electronic voting machines out of proportion (as quoted by The Washington Post on February 17, 2004: "We have some flaws, but the truth is that the error rates are very small, with all technologies. Legislators are proposing solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. They're talking about 'What if?' scenarios.");
* Gracia Hillman - Vice-Chair, Democrat; former executive director of the League of Women Voters and former senior coordinator of international women's issues at the State Department;
* Raymundo Martinez III - Democrat; a lawyer from Austin, Texas, former presidential assistant for intergovernmental affairs and former and Department of Health and Human Services staff person, both with the Clinton administration; and
* Paul DeGregorio - Republican; an executive vice president of the pro-electronic voting International Foundation for Election Systems and former director of elections for St. Louis County, Missouri.

"We're a very diverse commission," Soaries told The Washington Post. "We have a Hispanic lawyer, an Italian administrator, an African American executive and a Baptist preacher."

Contact Information
http://fecweb1.fec.gov/hava/eac.htm

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
1225 New York Ave. NW – Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005

[RedEagle]

8. What is the forum for public comment?

Three minutes at the mic or can you submit papers?

[gristy]

12. Here's the meeting particulars.

Secretary Kiffmeyer emailed this info to me :)
She said there will be no oral public testimony. You have to submit in writing.

Sure would be nice to get some reporters into the meeting. Is Bev going?

DATE & TIME: Wednesday, May 5, 2004, at 9:00 AM

PLACE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Room 3000, Rachel L. Carson Great Hall
Ariel Rios North Building
Washington, D.C

(Metro Riders: Take the Orange or Blue Line to Federal Triangle Metro Stop)

STATUS: This Meeting Will Be Open To The Public.

NOTE: Early Arrival: Those Attending Are Advised To Arrive Early For Registration And Security Check

PURPOSE: To Conduct a Public Hearing on the Present Status of Computerized Electronic Voting Systems.

The Following Witness Panels Will Be Presented: Technology Panel, Vendor Panel, Election Administrator Panel, Research Panel and Advocacy Organization Panel

[RedEagle]

14. Thanks Gristy

That's what I found out just a few minutes ago too. Open to the public but no public testimony.

Wonder how/who choses the panelists? Can we influence that selection?

I would encourage EVERYBODY to write to the commission and make your views known.

Anyone who can attend and support voter verified paper ballots please try. Signs, pins, whatever is in order to show that paper is the only way to go.

It really irks me that people forget that democracy is a PEOPLE process and that unless people can count or recount the votes, democracy is taken away.

Computers have a place but no in lieu of human- citizen- participation.

[RedEagle]

9. Contact link- not

Using that link takes you to a descriptive page, but gives no contact information. That's OK, other sites link to the same address.

FEC contact:

1-800-424-9530

1-202-694-1100

Guess you can call the FEC and maybe connect to the Election Assistance Commission that way.

[ParanoidPat]

10. Sorry! I noticed that just minutes before you posted......

.....but too late to change it! That comes straight from their site. :evilfrown:
Sorry, I'm a little busy here at the moment with computer problems. :(

From what I was able to find out, this is their first public meeting seeking comment. I haven't had the time to look up the specifics of getting on the official agenda. I'm a little behind in my work right now, too much to do and not enough time to get it all done. I can't believe they call that "contact Information". There's something definitely wrong when Federal agencies hide the information on how to participate in public debate on an issue in a public meeting this important and stack the committee responsible for making decisions with such partisan people.
Is it just me? :shrug: :evilgrin:

[RedEagle]

11. No Problem

As I noted in my post, other sites also send you to the same link, not your fault at all.

I'll try to call on Monday, if I can work it in.

And yes, looks to me like the committee is "loaded."

[RedEagle]

13. Kick!

[dusty64]

15. Kick!

:kick:

[gristy]

16. Andy Stephenson will be a panelist testifying in front of the commission

Way to go Andy! Any DUers who can make it into Washington for the meeting, post here.

[RedEagle]

17. Information from my post on how to contact the EAC

BBV: EAC Panel- Paper advocates outgunned 3 to 1


Received additional information from Susan Marie Weber. Then I called the EAC (202-566-3100) and talked to Brian Whitener. He says the commission picked the panel to give different perspectives- ....right.......

The commission will take papers and asks that they be submitted by 4pm, May 5. I would suggest email with a hard copy follow up to the DC address given below. Address the hard copy with ATT: Testimony Enclosed. Email: [e-mail]

I think the commission needs to receive a LOT of input, don't you?


Each panel member will be given 7 minutes to sumarize.

Anyone who can attend to show support for voter verified paper ballots is encouraged to do so. However, it appears that only the 'invited' panel members will be allowed to address the commission.

Information follows including a summary of the panel members position by another person. (Not me or Weber, I'll make my comments in parentheses)- RE


U.S. Election Assistance Commission
1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME:
Wednesday, May 5, 2004, at 9 a.m.

PLACE:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Room 3000, Rachel L. Carson Great Hall
Ariel Rios North Building, Washington, DC
(Metro Riders: Take the Orange or Blue Line to Federal Triangle Metro Stop).

STATUS:
This meeting will be open to the public.

NOTE:
Early Arrival: Those attending are advised to arrive early for registration and security check.

PURPOSE:
To conduct a public hearing on the present status of computerized electronic voting systems.

The Following Witness Panels Will Be Presented:
Technology Panel, Vendor Panel, Election Administrator Panel, Research Panel and Advocacy Organization Panel.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bryan Whitener, Telephone: [phone].

DeForest B. Soaries, Jr.,
Chairman, U.S. Election Assistance
Commission.



-------

U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Public Hearing Agenda

(Unless otherwise indicated, the listed witnesses have been confirmed)

Public Hearing on the use Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting System

9:00 - 9:15 Opening remarks by Commission members

9:15 - 9:35 Overview of Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Voting
Kim Brace, President, Election Data Services, Inc.

9: 40 - 10:40 Technology Panel
Dr. Avi Rubin, Johns Hopkins University, Information Security Institute
Stephen Berger, IEEE
Dr. Ted Selker, MIT
Dr. Brit Williams, Kennesaw University, Georgia

(I'm not sure about Berger, Selker and Williams defintely against voter verified paper ballots. Selker and Shamos have been the non-paper computer scientists- and about the only ones- that the industry and LWV use for quotes. Selker and Shamos are not security experts)

10:45 - 11:45 Vendor Panel
Hart Intercivic
Diebold
Avante
Election Systems and Software
Sequoia

(Does it get any more self evident? The ONLY voter verified paper ballot proponent on here is Avante- outgunned 4 to 1. Balanced perspective? Where are Accupoll and TruVote?)

11:45 - 12:30 Break for Lunch

12:45 - 2:00 Election Administrator Panel
Kevin Shelly, Secretary of State of California (invited)
Kathy Rogers, State Election Director, Georgia
Conny McCormack, Los Angles County, CA, County Clerk and Registrar
Denise Lamb, Director of Elections, New Mexico

(Shelly is the only one one here and it looks like his direct participation may not be confirmed. The rest speak for themselves)

2:00 - 2:30 Research / Human Interaction Factors Panel
Dr. Sharon Laskowski, National Institute of Standards and Technology Study
Alice Miller, Executive Director of D.C. Board of Elections (invited)
Dana DeBeauvoir, County Clerk, Austin Texas

(I can't speak to this panel. Maybe others have more information)

2:35 - 4:10 Advocacy Organization Panel
Wade Henderson, President, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (invited)
Jim Dickson, Vice President for Governmental Affairs American Association of People with Disabilities
Kay Maxwell, President League of Women Voters of the U.S.
Angela Arboleda, National Council of La Raza
Melanie Campbell, Voices of the Electorate (invited)
Chellie Pingree, President, Common Cause

(Dickson and Maxwell are against paper. I'm not sure about Henderson or where Common Cause is currently falling on the issue. But if this is supposed to be an advocacy panel, where is Bev? People from TrueMajority? People from TrueVote Maryland? Rush Holt? Bob Graham? Dennis Kucinich?)

4:10 - 4:25 Closing remarks


(Another view of the panels)

Talk about stacking the deck. With the possible exception of the Research panel, I belive the pro-VVPT position is outnumbered by a factor of at least 3 to 1 on every panel in this hearing.
Here's my head count for each of the panels:

Technology panel:
Anti-VVPT: 3
Pro-VVPT: 1

Vendor panel:
Anti-VVPT: 4
Pro-VVPT: 1

Elections official panel:
Anti-VVPT: 3
Pro-VVPT: 1

Research/Human Factors panel: I don't where these folks stand
Anti-VVPT: ?
Pro-VVPT: ?
Unknown Position: 3

Advocacy Organization panel:
Anti-VVPT: 3
Pro-VVPT: 1
` Unknown Position: 2

[RedEagle]

20. Andy will not be a panelist

Great letter below, by the way, Gristy.

A friend thought they had the EAC's attention and misunderstood that the EAC only wanted the written input.

Andy may or may not be there, anyway. Haven't heard.

[gristy]

18. HERE'S MY LETTER - FELLOW DUERS, PLEASE WRITE ONE TOO!

Send it to [e-mail] and then :kick: this thread!

Here's mine:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission
1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
4 May 2004

Dear Commissioners:

It is with heavy heart that I find I must write to this commission and also travel from Boston to Washington tonight so as to attend your first public meeting tomorrow. I am finishing my day here at work as a technologist for a major U.S. semiconductor manufacturer, and neither my employer nor I am particularly happy that I must spend my valuable time addressing Black Box Voting in the United States.

I am -- years old, I have a BSEE from ---, an MSEE from ---, am an accomplished circuit designer and programmer, am the holder of 24 issued United States Patents, am familiar with ISO 9001 2000 standards and of the fact that Diebold is NOT certified in this regard, and have read many of the internal Diebold emails.

In those emails I find the banter between engineers, management, and field personnel to be absolutely typical of that of too many high tech companies which too frequently attempt to roll out a product in too short a period of time, with too few engineers, and with insufficient quality and documentation controls in place.

But the difference is we are trusting our democracy to systems made by Diebold and others, as well as the people who control and program these systems, because with these systems, NO paper record of the individual vote exists. Their security and their "certification" is just a very bad joke, as has been well argued by others, including Bev Harris and Washington SOS candidate Andy Stephenson.

I have met and spoken with MN Secretary of State (and NASS President) Mary Kiffmeyer. Last summer I spoke with her about a new system in development which would assist the blind and disabled in producing a paper ballot and thereby dovetail very nicely with Minnesota's existing paper-based/optical-scan voting systems while still supporting the requirements of the disabled AND costing far, far less than any other viable option which meets HAVA requirements. I applaud Secretary Kiffmeyer's ingenuity and resourcefulness in adopting this approach. I encourage other states to do likewise.

For the record, I simply cannot understand the anti-VVPB position of the LWV. They have not and, indeed, cannot justify their position.

To have corporations in the business of counting our votes is simply incompatible with our democracy. I implore you to exercise your responsibility as members of the EAC Commission, and that you recommend no less than the use of voter-verified paper ballots as the ballots of record.

Regards,