Further Humboldt Implications of the GAO Elections Report

[GuvWurld]

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/11/further-humboldt-implications-of-gao.html

Further Humboldt Implications of the GAO Elections Report

For the past week and a half I've been studying the GAO report condemning the conditions under which our elections are held. Last Tuesday I posted this searing analysis of the report's implications on Humboldt County, which I also circulated as a Media Advisory to Humboldt press outlets. So far the Humboldt Advocate and Eureka Reporter have expressed interest in the story and I consider this very encouraging.

On the other hand, it is perplexing to have to tell of the response from the Eureka Times-Standard. Before issuing the Advisory I contacted editor Charles Winkler with a head's up just to check out the GAO report. He always seems pleasant enough in greeting me. Then comes the confounding factor. Winkler tried to tell me the GAO report was only about Ohio. Knowing that I could show him otherwise, I let it go. After receiving the actual Advisory, Winkler e-mailed saying "we don't have these machines here, as far as I know..." He copied that fantasy to Dave Rosso. I spoke with Rosso on Friday when he repeated the delusion that "we don't have these machines here." I asked then what software counts votes in Humboldt? Silence.

I want to say that I don't know what to make of this contrary behavior. But it is strikingly similar to what I've been describing recently in more abstract terms. And it is not isolated.

Three weeks ago, on the final Saturday night before California's Special Election, the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project had a forum with five speakers including Humboldt County Clerk-Recorder Carolyn Crnich. In the closing portion of the program I had the opportunity to ask Crnich a question from the audience.

(Me, paraphrased): Given that 30% of the national vote in November 2004 could not be recounted, and that a CalVoter.org press release says nine counties will be using paperless electronic voting machines in Tuesday's special election, I say in both cases there is no basis for confidence in the results reported. Humboldt notwithstanding, as a voter of California, do you have confidence in the results that will come from the upcoming Special Election, and if so, what is the basis for that confidence?

(Crnich, also paraphrased): California law requires a voter verifiable paper audit trail. There will be no paperless electronic voting on Tuesday.

After the forum, I caught up with Crnich milling in the audience. I pointed out to her that she hadn't answered my question because instead she disputed my premise. She again insisted that the VVPAT requirement was in effect. I knew this would be true after January 1, 2006 and offered to bring her proof. We also agreed to verify the issue of paperless machines for this election as a separate question. I haven't had a chance to get back together with her yet, but all the evidence is linked in this post. I'll be calling her for an appointment later today.

I asked Crnich one other thing. I wondered, if she realized there really would be paperless electronic machines in use, would she still have confidence in the results reported? Conceding not quite all the way to the language of the Voter Confidence Resolution, Crnich said: "I would say there is a basis for not having confidence." I thought this had to be close enough and slinked off with a smirk.

Over the past many months, members of the Voter Confidence Committee have met several times with Crnich. She has humbly admitted being unfamiliar with many of the concerns about our current election conditions. This is in contrast to County Elections Manager Lindsey McWilliams who both stands in denial of these problems and becomes hostile and defensive when confronted with them. Following a Board of Supervisors meeting this past April, I reported about Lindsey's vulgar public outburst when challenged about election standards:

McWilliams acknowledged on the one hand that we have a "monumentally fucked up system" in this country, but in the next breath he cast doubt on the breadth of the tens of thousands of "irregularities" reported from the 2004 general "election." He seems to honestly believe that election machines are not part of the problem.

This too was not a stand-alone incident. Upon reviewing my Parallel Election Wrap Up report, written early in the morning following California's recent Special Election, McWilliams zoomed in on this excerpt:

I may have botched the procedure here, missing my chance to get the totals by officially observing the closing of the official poll. If that wouldn't have given us the numbers then I was operating on a false assumption since I waited for the results to be posted outside. After a while I finally got the attention of someone inside (not clear what they were doing but they had locked themselves in City Hall) who told me the results wouldn't be posted there (are they not required to do this?). She said I should check at the police station. At the station they said they only receive ballots for temporary safekeeping and have nothing to do with the results. The elections department website hasn't been updated and going there is just out of the question.

In an e-mail forwarded to GuvWurld, McWilliams dispatched the following vitriol to Mark Konkler, Voter Confidence Committee liaison to the elections department:

So, Dave has you for a front man because there's no way he's coming to the Elections Office? Ignorant cowardice is disappointing. He doesn't know California election procedures but he's got a fix for them?

I'll take those charges in order. First, Konkler has long been the designated VCC point-person working with McWilliams and Crnich. Second, at midnight on Parallel Election Day, some of our volunteers were exhausted from working since 6:30am. Recognizing that we could achieve nothing different by obtaining the "official" results at that late hour or the following morning, the group's consensus was to call it a night. And finally, as I puzzled in my PE wrap up report, the precinct should not be locked to bar witnessing of the counting, and results are indeed required to be posted outside the polling place according to California Election Code:

<19380> During the reading of the result of votes cast, any candidate or watcher who may desire to be present shall be admitted to the polling place.

<19384> The precinct board shall, before it adjourns, post conspicuously on the outside of the polling place a copy of the result of the votes cast at the polling place.

So this brings us full circle to my GAO report analysis, which by the way, comments on only a tiny fraction of the improprieties discussed in the 107 page official GAO report, and omits mention of this additional illegal activity. I implore you again, GuvWurld readers, demand from our local media a thorough investigation and report. Equally important, notify the Board of Supervisors that this is entirely inadequate and inappropriate performance from our elections department.

What would be better, and what we have a right to expect, is reality-based public servants who recognize and acknowledge the extent of the problems with election conditions, and who are committed to improving those conditions. The Supes simply must rise to the occasion in their oversight capacity and help to define meaningful qualification criteria for new candidates for employment at the elections department. After all, Crnich is running (currently unopposed) for re-election in 2006 and McWilliams holds his position by appointment. If you are willing to run for one of these jobs, please contact me ([e-mail]) and I will gladly interview you and publish the transcript here in the GuvWurld blog.

[papau]

1. Thanks to Dave Berman on this - but I do not understand media avoiding

the truth - even when it comes from the GAO.

:-(

[Land Shark]

3. Media avoidance even in the face of bipartisan PR in favor of report!

[Land Shark]

2. Good post, I think people and especially journalists have a mental list

of reasons why they don't have to care, it's partially for self-preservation purposes. Those that have shorter such lists or otherwise have an experience of being affected by something are the population from which "activists" develop. The very name active-ist presupposes that the normal situation is inactivity to which the activist is directly opposed...

I'm kicking and nominating this post for the following reasons (1) it's direct contact with decisionmakers and journalists, after forethought and without excessive acrimony even though receiving some, asking for substantive coverage consideration (it's easy to do a simple version of this, like "Hey, I'd like to see some coverage of GuvWorld's ideas and responses thereto, since I haven't seen them in your paper and would like to be well informed!) (2) GuvWorld is right that there's no basis for confidence in elections, and we need to stay focused on that until people "get it", once they do get it, then they will be well prepared to design GOOD elections systems that DO HAVE A BASIS FOR CONFIDENCE, and we need not anticipate every single factual detail in advance and provide for it, such as when we advocate for paper trails or paper ballot trails -- this is a very context specific recommendation that loses force out of context in some cases (3) It's doing a good job of both teaching and asking questions regarding how to spread the word and increase the level of awareness.

[glitch]

7. second this. k&r Excellent reporting guv. nt

[Land Shark]

4. Per a prior discussion with Guv, there is no RATIONAL basis for confidence

in elections. One can irrationally simply trust or have faith that the elections are ok.

This powerful inference (rarely if ever directly stated but oftentimes there in the background) may in fact be the most powerful propaganda (whether intended as such or not):

********It is simply the inference that since we are a great country nothing could really be THAT wrong.*********

Except in New Orleans I guess.

So after (1) "no rational basis for confidence", then i say (2) except for faith or trust, preferring the word trust so as not to confuse some people's religious sensibilities or positive correlations with the word "faith" which should, anyway, only be restricted to higher thigns, and finally I point out that (3) our system was designed by Founders NOT to be based on trust but on CHECKS AND BALANCES, the very thing electronic machines love to eliminate, (while claiming bogus new Checks of "testing" as a de facto replacement)

[Febble]

8. One important principle

of checks and balances is that the audits should be independent, and there seems to be an ingrained culture within your BoEs of keeping the public's nose out of their own audit of their own work.

One of the many beauties of hand-counted paper ballots is that the process is so intrinsically simple (a child in Grade 1 could do it) that is can easily be scrutinised by the bipartisan scrutineers and indeed members of the public, as it is in the UK, Canada, and elsewhere. As soon as you making something complicated always makes it less transparent.

See pics here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=402217&mesg_id=402757

[Land Shark]

12. yes, the word 'scrutineer' should be popularized in US usage

it's not a well known term here, but good in canada and the UK

good turn of phrase from above:
"...there seems to be an ingrained culture within your of keeping the public's nose out of audit of work."

My dad was a government worker and i've always respected that. (A feared on I suppose, an IRS auditor). But the above reminds of the disdain some have when they remark "Good enough for guv'mint work".

[Amaryllis]

5. K and R

[Angry Girl]

6. kick & rec

[autorank]

9. "Reality based public servants" -- amazing!

Here we have Humbouldt County, of which Arcata is part, brushing off GAO. Then they display a lack of understanding of the issues. In a very real sense, Arcata is a special "customer" of Humbouldt County. Of course, all citizens should be treated as 'customers' and 'owners' too but they're not. A city, however, is a different case. Arcata is treated as you are which is to say as a nuissance.

Wonderful world of election reform. I suggest anyone who gets overwhelmed just meditate on the spinning globes. It's relaxing and will relieve the strange condition dealing with our "public servants" induces. Keep up your great work. You're the straw that breaks the camel's back!

[understandinglife]

10. K&R.

Peace.

[mod mom]

11. Thanks for your efforts. k+r.

[Time for change]

13. Great work

[GuvWurld]

14. Thanks + NEW IDEA!!

I really appreciate all the support and encouragement. Land Shark, I think you should explain your rationale for every K&R you give, maybe add a score along with it (this OP is really groovy, I give it a 95 and a K&R) ;-)

So check this out. Working through all this and talking to locals here, I would say our beef has been narrowed down to this: the GAO report represents irrefutable proof that election conditions guarantee inconclusive outcomes. The only acceptable attitude from people in the elections department is proactive determination to improve the election conditions. The people we have now apologize for and defend these conditions. They must go.

This same exact logic and approach can be used in the 16 other CA Diebold counties. I'm just realizing this could be a whole statewide campaign to shake up election boards (those controlling our election conditions). Even if we're not immediately getting these people replaced, we can raise the profile of our issues and totally frame the qualifications for any potential replacement candidates. And if we really do this in enough places at the same time and get even one legal proceeding going, perhaps this (and the "test hack") could finally snap the national spell of denial and lead to a tipping point.

BTW, here is what I wrote in my original GAO analysis about "the crime" mentioned above:

The GAO report cites an April 2004 CA Secretary of State Staff Report on the investigation of Diebold Election Systems, Inc.:

(T)he VSPP (Voting Systems and Procedures Panel) initiated an audit of all 17 California counties using Diebold voting systems. The audit discovered that Diebold had, in fact, installed uncertified software in all its client counties without notifying the Secretary of State as required by law, and that the software was not federally qualified in three client counties. Diebold eventually acknowledged that it had failed to notify the Secretary of State of its proposed system modifications, and that its failure to obtain certification for those modifications violated state law.

Who allowed Humboldt's voting machines to have uncertified software installed in them? Was someone in the Humboldt County elections department complicit in this crime or merely negligent? Is this person still employed by the elections department, and if so, why? Humboldt voters deserve answers and local media that will pursue accountability.

[rumpel]

15. Kick