McPherson Blocks Vote-PAD in CA

[GuvWurld]

I just got the following message from Humboldt County Registrar Carolyn Crnich, pertaining to the agenda for this Thursday night's meeting of the citizens' Election Advisory Committee:

Elections Advisory Committee Members:

Prepare for some serious discussion this Thursday.

I have received word from the Secretary of State that the VotePad can not be used by any county in the upcoming election because it is not certified/approved.

The approval process, as described by the Secretary of State’s office includes a public hearing which, of course, requires 30 days notice.

As you can imagine, this puts a serious kink in our plans. I am counting on you to help the Elections Department work through this issue with your suggestions and ideas for reaching the disabled voters assisting them in any way we are able. Please think about this issue and help us develop a plan for election day that will not include VotePad.

I just took a very quick look at the Secretary's website but didn't immediately find anything about this.

[Wilms]

1. He's just now figuring out he's got a problem with Vote-PAD?

Yolo County announced months ago that they were going to use it.

But what was and is not clear to me is certification requirements, or lack thereof.

And Dave, I think DoJ assumes the states won't all be "HAVA Compliant" by 2006. Witness NY: http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1246&Itemid=113

[GuvWurld]

2. How Yolo can you go?

I think we can expect selective DoJ enforcement, perhaps with a discernible pattern but not necessarily. I have on several occasions advocated that Humboldt disregard HAVA if compliance would inhibit the implementation of conditions that would create a basis for confidence in reported results. When Vote-PAD was recently approved, the Registrar's report to the County Supes listed as alternatives first non-compliance and second Diebold TSx. I considered that a big win. We may just have to be out of compliance for the primary. I don't think it matters when put in context.

The thing about Vote-PAD is that it may be exempt from various certification requirements. This is likely different from state to state and unclear for CA. McPherson waiting until now to block Vote-PAD is just more of the same sabotage he has demonstrated with the affirmative certifications given to other vendors.

[Einsteinia]

3. Any CA county can use it anyway. . .

They can employ Section 19211 of the California Election Code which states that:

" The governing board, without formally adopting a system that it might lawfully adopt, may provide for its experimental use at an election in one or more precincts. Its use at the election is as valid for all purposes as if it were lawfully adopted."

[GuvWurld]

4. Great call, Einsteinia

I will point this out to Crnich.

[mmarcus]

5. He's wrong. Only voting MACHINES have to be certified

hand devices and devices that don't require a machine arent' suject to certification. Unless California has different rules.

[GuvWurld]

6. Mc"Fear"son makes his own rules

interpreter code is expressly forbidden, unless it is used in CA; public hearings must be held after equipment has been technically reviewed for certification, unless the hearings are held before the review; the federal testing labs must be used to do the review, unless the SoS can pay his own staff to do it first; the federal testing labs should be "independent" (ITA), unless Diebold funds their report.

sources

[Einsteinia]

7. EASY ACTION (& WHY IT"S SO IMPT!)

Vote Pad & Prepping for 2008


The Vote Assistive Device Issues -- Input Welcome

Nutshell Synopsis: The policy arm of the SoS’s office is now headed by a hardcore political partisan Susan Lapsley, who has replaced Brad Clark as Assistant SoS. Susan Lapsley met her husband when she was Deputy SoS of Nevada. Susan’s husband was formerly deputy SoS to California’s republican SoS Bill Jones. He then gained from the republican party the honor of serving as deputy ambassador to Spain. He now works with “New Majority” who were responsible for attaining $8 Million for Schwarzenegger’s campaign. Is California getting a partisan prepping for the 2008 election?


After reading the details below, it is important to express what YOU think?

We need at least 500 letters and it is important to mail all opinions directly to Bruce McPherson as follows:

Bruce McPherson,
California Secretary of State
1500 - 11th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
==========================================================
DETAILS:


SoS Developments - McPherson Refuses his Thumbs-Up for Vote Pad in CA (but that is NOT the last word):

Bruce McDannold is insisting that Vote Pad requires a NASED number, which is a number that can only be attained by ITA review. But the ITA tests computers and so this is not a legitimate demand. Yet, Vote Pad is NOT a voting machine and thereby does not require ITA approval.

McDannold on behalf of the SoS wants to set up review by Steve Freeman and Paul Craft to review it, which makes no sense because they are computer experts. There are no computer components in our systems. The Election Code explicitly says that the ITA review measures the compliance with the 2002 Voting System Standards, which are not applicable to a No. 2 pencil or the vote assistive devices, such as Vote Pad. There are requirements as to "hardware," but it is hardware as a shorthand for "computer hardware."

McDannold on behalf of the SoS also claims that the device needs a public hearing, which requires 30 days notice. The purchase of this device was more than several months ago, and yet they waited to notify Vote Pad until it was too late. Yet even as of last week, they still could could set up a special VSP hearing given the special circumstances under which they bungled the process (i.e. notifying counties of their failure to set up a VSP hearing in an untimely fashion.)

McDannold on behalf of the SoS claims that the application by Vote Pad is incomplete, but much of the info it asked for is info that Vote Pad is not privy to, i.e. the specifications of Yolo's voting systems. Many of the other alleged incomplete statements are set to a higher standard than that which is required of the Big-3 voting companies, i.e. specs for the adhesive tape. Do they require the gauge of screws or the weight of the plastic on the DRE machines? The truth is that if the SoS supported this inexpensive transparent alternative they could have offered help to make certain the application was complete. They have known of Yolo’s purchase for several months and this last minute bureaucratic refutation smacks of the ITA’s stonewalling. McPherson has stuck out is neck for the Big-3, but why so shy to give a transparent low-cost alternative a chance?


Primary Issues:

1. If you’ve ever seen Vote Pad, which is nothing more than a ballot tucked in a pocket of a spiral notebook along with some tactile bumps, you’d know that the Vote Pad is NOT a voting machine. Vote Pad is a voting device that is no more a voting machine than a No. 2 pencil. It does NOT fall under the ITA's purview, because there's nothing to test by computer experts. Perhaps Vote Pad should write Bruce McDannold and ask that he please cite the specific authority in the Election Code, as Vote Pad as any regulations by the Secretary of State, that requires a voting device to be subjected to an ITA type of review.

2. With that said, the Secretary of State DOES have it his discretion the right to review any system for it appropriateness for an intended use. Though if exercises this point of view, they’re in for a political battle because once again they’re siding with the Big-3 against transparent low-cost alternatives, which are saving cash-strapped counties millions of dollars that can be used for teachers, healthcare, etc. Also, the alternative will be that there is be NO accessibility for the disabled community. Also, it will leave these counties exposed to potential lawsuits from the DOJ of non-compliance of HAVA’s accessibility requirements.

3. Vote Pad as a voting device IS a component of a voting system. The California Election Code requires every county to get approval for every configuration of a voting system, i.e. does the voting device work properly with the tabulation system.


In the Meantime:

Any County can employ Section 19211 of the California Election Code which states that: "The governing board, without formally adopting a system that it might lawfully adopt, may provide for its experimental use at an election in one or more precincts. Its use at the election is as valid for all purposes as if it Vote Pad lawfully adopted."

Also, while McPherson can refuse to accept these Voting Systems, he cannot legally deny them without a court fight proving that they are unsuitable for voting by the disabled.

Interestingly, one motivation offered as an explanation for the SoS’s stance was that they simply do not want to accept any liability in a campaign year, and instead are saying by their actions that if a county chooses to use Vote Pad that they must accept legal responsibility for it. (This would make sense if it were not for the fact that McPherson’s previous decision to opt FOR Diebold was to accept a tremendous amount of legal liability, which will no doubt result in further burdening taxpayers once the lawsuit against Diebold concludes.)

Legal Definitions:

http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=00001-01000&file=300-362 ]


360. "Voting device" means any device used in conjunction with a
ballot card or cards to indicate the choice of the voter by marking,
punching, or slotting the ballot card.

361. "Voting machine" means any device upon which a voter may
register his or her vote, and which, by means of counters, embossing,
or printouts, furnishes a total of the number of votes cast for each
candidate or measure.

362. "Voting system" means any mechanical, electromechanical, or
electronic system and its software, or any combination of these used
to cast or tabulate votes, or both.