GOP Urges Investigation of Voting Machine Performance

I’m a Democrat, and you folks presumably will want to flame me on that point alone. But if you would bear with me, perhaps we could avoid that. I need to talk about an issue that affects all of us, and I am not here to pick a fight. I need your help.

VerifiedVoting.org is NOT about conspiracy theory. We are NOT about screaming about “Wally O’Dell delivering the votes to GWB”, but I do have to admit that his remarks were about as ill-conceived as they might have possibly been, and have made it a lot easier to recruit activists to this issue from certain segments of our population. And we certainly are NOT about “one party or the other is trying to rig the machines or steal an election.”

What we ARE about is looking at this situation from a non-partisan, academic, computer-science perspective. Our goal is to see that legislation and procedures are established and enforced to make sure that elections are counted properly; them may the “real” winner prevail, and we can all rest assured that the win was indeed valid and fair.

OK, so let’s frame the situation: we have systems which run proprietary code that nobody gets to look at. At the certification stage there is no organized code review, at the development level there are no standards that have to be met. As such, the certification process appears to be completely lame. When I developed mission-critical applications for a major international retailer, we had team walkthroughs that senior members of the tech staff participated in. Each line of code was inspected, each module carefully discussed. So when you look at the observations of the Johns Hopkins study http://avirubin.com/vote/, along with other studies, it is clear that the Diebold code completely sucked but that it was not rejected by the ITA. (Sure, the code that was reviewed by Rubin was not current at the time of the review, but it was likely “current code” at an earlier point, and the certification process has NOT substantially improved since then.) Why did this get past the ITA? Because they (the ITA) don’t get to see the code – all they do is run some (undisclosed to the public) tests, give it a kiss and tell it “ya look pretty, have a nice day… See ya…” If I presented that crap to a senior manager in my former shop, I’d get canned – plain and simple. Boom, outta there, have a nice life…

So, we have these systems running secret application code that stores our votes, our precious and irreplaceable votes, without so much as an audit trail. Buy gas? Get a receipt. Buy food? Get a receipt. Get cash or make an ATM deposit? Damn right we get a receipt! Our vote is more valuable than any of those things, and do the machines print anything that allows verification of our votes? Nope, sorry – don’t think so… What? And with no audit trail, be that paper or whatever other technology might be is verifiable in the future, there is no means of verifying the results of an election. If the computer malfunctions, we can’t prove it. If a bug creeps in, we won’t know. Can we do a recount? Absolutely not – all we can do is re-print the same totals that were questioned in the first place.

A common arguement that frequently comes up is related to cost. My response is "what is the price of democracy". Also, if the vendors want the business, make them find a way to build that into the product at a reasonable price. They stand to sell tens (hundreds?) of thousands of these at around $5k-6k a pop. And in San Diego, CA one vendor already committed to throw them in for free. So as far as I'm concerned, forget the cost question - it just does not seem to apply.

Is this a partisan issue, from one side or the other? Not the last time I checked, although some would like to frame it that way… VerifiedVoting.org refuses to – it simply is NOT a partisan issue…

Has this caused problems in elections? Yes, for both parties, in recent state elections we have problems in (at least) Maryland, Virginia and (of all places) Broward County Florida...

Broward (just in the past week or so) is a total meltdown. They had a single race in which 7 Republicans were seeking a state legislative seat. 134 votes were not counted by the touchscreen machines. The race was won by 12 votes, well under the .25 percent level for a mandatory recount (state law). But you cannot recount the vote with paperless touchscreen systems. They are not designed for that.

A number of these instances are listed here: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article_text.asp?articleid=997

So that’s the issue – we have these machines running programs that are NOT REQUIRED to achieve the sort of levels of quality control expectations or scrutiny that any corporate mission-critical software application currently demands, the security on the systems appears to be TOTALLY out of control, yet this is how we are supposed to run our democracy. This just is not right!

It gets worse... We have procedures that are not being followed. How do we know? Because people made a big enough stink that California decided to audit Diebold in 17 counties. (In case you don’t know, all hardware / firmware / software needs to be certified at the Federal level, assigned a NASED number, then approved by the State.) So they run an audit and what percentage of the randomly selected systems are in compliance? NONE! ZIP! NADA! Whose fault? Not sure yet, we will start to determine this on January 15 when the VSP meets again – but it looks like Diebold breached the public trust by supplying (or installing) software that was not certified, and the counties allowed the installation of non-compliant code (or installed it and didn’t check to make sure it was good to go.) http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article_text.asp?articleid=978

So what do we do about it? Well, thousands of our fellow Americans have spent the past 6 months (or more) calling Congressmen and asking them to support HR2239. That bill is ok, could be stronger, but it will have to do for now – time is running out. Frankly it would be nice if there was a stronger automatic recount (right now it calls for .5 percent, and that really needs to go up, just to make sure these beasts aren’t hosed.) It would be nice to boost this in conference committee, assuming we get that far, and before the bills become law.

Currently, we’re looking at just under 100 Democrat cosponsors and 3 or 4 Republicans. I’m sorry, but I really don’t understand those numbers. I’m glad we have a few Republicans that have joined in agreeing that a fairly counted election really still is the core of America’s democracy. But we need more, and that’s why I am here. I need your help, and I need it pronto please…

How can you help? Call your Congressmen (ask for their support of HR2239) and Senators (ask for support of S1980 which is a duplicate of HR2239). Help us get organizations to endorse this important legislation. Here are organizations that already stand behind these important bills: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/endorsers_s1980.asp

There are other action items on our site. I beg you – in respect for what our forefathers left for us – please help us get this done and protect the core of our democracy.

Here is what your own people are saying:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Back in August, lelio said
“I'm more scared as Diebold's engineering staff sounds like a bunch of clowns. An MS Access database on Windows 98? Are they asking to be hacked into?” He referred to this story. I completely agree with him.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

And in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973667/posts, Timesink said:
There is little question, though, that we can never totally trust the results of any election conducted via computerized voting, and such machines should not be allowed to be used (and indeed, I give it less than ten years until they start being outlawed state by state as various scandals pop up, real or imagined). For all the mess that Florida 2000 turned out to be, at least we had actual physical ballots to deal with. The optimal solution, of course, would be going back to something along the lines of the old standards: Paper ballots in sealed boxes; monitors from both parties (and anyone else that wants to watch) at every precinct; multiple police officers riding along as ballot boxes are delivered to the county courthouse; all boxes opened and all votes counted in front of cameras from the news media, local government and any public citizens that wished to make their own records ... along with laws requiring proof of identity in order to vote
-------------------------------------------------------------

Whoever lelio and Timesink are, I’m with you 100 percent. How can we TOTALLY trust these systems, simply looking at it from the programming perspective? Programmers make mistakes, and with the current certification procedures, those mistakes will NOT all get caught. You would be amazed if you looked at the modification logs and bug lists for the Diebold stuff. These are NOT simple programs, and complicated programs are prone to error.

The only practical solution is to demand visibility into the programs, a verification procedure that allows each citizen to check their vote, and a robust automatic (random) recount to make certain that there is no program errors, and no fraud (on EITHER side).

Help us get this done – Please! Come to our site, have a look, and write to us if you have comments or questions.

Rep. Rush Holt Introduces Legislation to Require All Voting Machines To Produce A Voter-Verified Paper Trail

H.R.2239 Summary and Status

S.1980 Summary and Status

Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 2239 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2239

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy under title III of such Act, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 22, 2003

Mr. HOLT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy under title III of such Act, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TIME PROVIDED FOR STATES TO REQUEST PAYMENTS UNDER TITLE I.

(a) PAYMENTS FOR ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS- Section 101(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15301(a)) is amended by striking `not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act' and inserting `not later than the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November 2003'.

(b) PAYMENTS FOR REPLACEMENT OF PUNCH CARD OR LEVER VOTING MACHINES- Section 102(b)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15301(b)(1)) is amended by striking `not later than the date that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act' and inserting `not later than the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November 2003'.

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 104(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15304(a)) is amended by striking `$650,000,000' and inserting `an aggregate amount of $650,000,000 for fiscal years 2003 and 2004'.

(2) DATE FOR TRANSFER TO ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION OF UNOBLIGATED FUNDS- Section 104(c)(2)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15304(c)(2)(B)) is amended by striking `September 1, 2003' and inserting `January 1, 2004'.

(d) REQUIREMENT TO DEPLOY INTERIM MEASURE IF WAIVER REQUESTED- Section 102(a)(3)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15301(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the following: `, except that any State requesting any such waiver shall accept and implement a paper system for use on an interim basis as provided in section 5(b) of the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 in time for use in the November 2004 general election.'.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF EXEMPTION OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION FROM CERTAIN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 205 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15325) is amended by striking subsection (e).

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to contracts entered into by the Election Assistance Commission on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. PROMOTING ACCURACY, INTEGRITY, AND SECURITY THROUGH VOTER-VERIFIED PERMANENT RECORD OR HARD COPY.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 301(a)(2) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:

`(2) VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY-

`(A) VOTER-VERIFICATION IN GENERAL- The voting system shall produce a voter-verified paper record suitable for a manual audit equivalent or superior to that of a paper ballot box system, as further specified in subparagraph (B).

`(B) MANUAL AUDIT CAPACITY-

`(i) The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record, each individual paper record of which shall be made available for inspection and verification by the voter at the time the vote is cast, and preserved within the polling place in the manner in which all other paper ballots are preserved within the polling place on Election Day for later use in any manual audit.

`(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to correct any error made by the system before the permanent record is preserved for use in any manual audit.

`(iii) The voter verified paper record produced under subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall be available as an official record and shall be the official record used for any recount conducted with respect to any election in which the system is used.

`(C) SOFTWARE AND MODEMS-

`(i) No voting system shall at any time contain or use undisclosed software. Any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen.

`(ii) No voting system shall contain any wireless communication device at all.

`(iii) All software and hardware used in any electronic voting system shall be certified by laboratories accredited by the

Commission as meeting the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii).'.

(b) VOTER VERIFICATION OF RESULTS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES- Section 301(a)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(3) is amended--

(1) in the heading, by inserting `AND VOTER-VERIFICATION OF RESULTS' after `ACCESSIBILITY';

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking `; and' and inserting the following: `, and such voting system shall provide a mechanism for voter-verification of results which separates the function of vote generation from the function of vote casting in a manner analogous to that described in section 4 with respect to the separation of paper ballot generation and paper ballot verification and preservation, but does not require the use of paper.';

(3) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:

`(C) The equipment deployed in accordance with subparagraph (B) shall meet the voting system standards for disability access and voter-verification of results as outlined in this paragraph in accordance with the deadline set forth in section 5(a), provided that if it does not and an interim paper system is deployed in accordance with section 5(b), disabled voters shall have the option of using the interim paper system with the assistance of an aide of the voter's personal selection or using the voting system otherwise put in place for use by disabled voters at the time in question in accordance with the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as in effect prior to the enactment of this Act, except that the deadline set forth in section 301(a)(3)(C) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(3)(C)) is moved forward from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2006.'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(D) Election officials shall be instructed in the rights of the disabled to vote with the assistance of an aide of their selection under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.'.

(c) SPECIFIC, DELINEATED REQUIREMENT OF STUDY, TESTING, AND DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES- In addition to any other requirements under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, the Election Assistance Commission shall study, test, and develop best practices to enhance accessibility and voter-verification mechanisms for disabled voters.

SEC. 5. CHANGE IN DEADLINE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 301(d) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(d)) is amended by striking `on and after January 1, 2006' and inserting `in time for elections for Federal office beginning with the regularly scheduled general election to be held in November 2004'.

(b) INTERIM PAPER SYSTEM- Each State and jurisdiction that certifies in the manner described in section 102(a)(3)(B) that it shall be unable to comply with the requirements of section 301 in time for the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office to be held in November 2004 shall receive a paper voting system, based on paper systems in use in the jurisdiction, if any, at the expense of the Commission that shall be deemed compliant with section 301 by the Commission for use in the November 2004 general elections.

SEC. 6. REQUIREMENT FOR FEDERAL CERTIFICATION OF TECHNOLOGICAL SECURITY OF VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS.

Section 303(a)(3) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(a)(3)) is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the following: `, as certified by the Commission.'.

SEC. 7. REQUIREMENT FOR MANDATORY RECOUNTS.

The Election Assistance Commission shall conduct manual mandatory surprise recounts of the voter-verified records of each election for Federal office (and, at the option of the State or jurisdiction involved, of elections for State and local office) in .5 percent of the jurisdictions in each State and .5 percent of the overseas jurisdictions in which voter-verified records are preserved in accordance with this section immediately following each general election for Federal office, and shall promptly publish the results of those recounts. The treatment of the results of the recount shall be governed by applicable Federal, State, or local law, except that any individual who is a citizen of the jurisdiction involved may file an appeal with the Commission if the individual believes that such law does not provide a fair remedy.

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as provided in section 3(b), the amendments made by this Act shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

I took the time to read some of the posters who you may be referring to. I agree, it was not presented well by some who visited in the past. This issue DEMANDS a non-partisan approach, and that is the manner in which we operate VerifiedVoting.org, and we will offer no less.

I took some time to think about how I wished to approach this, as I sincerely wish the support of those that engage in discussion here, and I DID NOT want to come over here and start a fight. If we fight, and don't win this issue together, then corrupt politics wins the day and we citizens lose.

I completely agree with you, and that is why I am here, that honest people must challenge election violations. We have all seen that, and much greater corruption, and I feel it is time that we make all such criminals accountable - and force all members of our government to comply with the laws that they expect us to observe. Nobody is above the law, and it is time that we all make a stand for what is right. I am sick and tired of corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle.

A good example is that case in Broward County that I referenced. I have no dog in that fight. It was a race between 7 Republicans. The win was by 12 votes, 134 votes were lost (plus a few more because the scanned ballot software failed) and now the county is out of legal compliance since they have no way to conduct the legally mandated recount since the touchscreen systems cannot do that.

So I will emphasize once again, because I'm about to spend the rest of the evening doing some other work, that we need your support. If I have presented my case fairly, if you feel there is grounds on this issue by which we can agree, please come help us. We want you.

How to help? There are action items on the front page of VerifiedVoting.org. We need groups to go see your legislators and DEMAND passage of HR2238 and S1980. We already have bipartisan support, and we need a LOT MORE.

We need groups and organizations to endorse the bills. This list needs to grow significantly before Congress returns to session http://www.verifiedvoting.org/endorsers_s1980.asp By growing that list, in a bipartisan manner, our respective leadership will understand that there is universal concensus and demand for passage of the bills.

If you are in Texas, and can talk to DeLay, please do it right away.

If you are in Ohio, and can talk to Ney, bless your heart. He heads the House Administration Committee, and we need to get HR2239 out of there, onto the House floor, and passed into law.

And if you have ideas to help us, please write to our site so we can speak on the telephone and work together. We are simply a group of concerned citizens, mostly of a technical inclination in terms of our careers (geeks), and we need all the help we can muster.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.