CA SoS requests voting system contingency plans (should Diebold fail ITA)

[Wilms]

Bruce McPherson requests voting system contingency plans

by Shane Mizer

1/29/2006

Humboldt County election officials could see longer hours come election night if the Independent Testing Authority decides to issue an unfavorable review of a component found inside Diebold Inc.’s AccuVote-OS voting machine. In anticipation of the results, expected to be received by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson on Tuesday, local election officials are crossing their fingers.

“There’s always hand counts, but I don’t see that, (considering) the time involved, as a desirable alternative at all,” Humboldt County Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich said.

On Tuesday, the day after McPherson paid a visit to Humboldt County election officials and the Board of Supervisors, a memo from the secretary of state’s office was sent to all registrars of voters throughout the state with a questionnaire attached designed to gauge what sort of contingency plans counties will adopt if the ITA does not recommend certifying Diebold’s machine for the upcoming elections.

The request for a contingency plan came as a surprise to election officials, considering that the county is being forced to troubleshoot a problem that the federal and state guidelines have only recently created.

snip

Despite the secretary’s optimism, under the worse-case scenario for the upcoming June 6 primary election, if the entire Diebold system is decertified, the county’s election department could find itself relying on only three central counting machines at its Eureka office that will have to suffice for collecting all 60,000 ballots estimated to come in that night.

snip

http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=7944

[GuvWurld]

1. Kick and recommend

Eureka Reporter articles on elections tend to leave a few openings each time. A previous article prompted this GuvWurld letter to the editor called Area Voting Machines Discredited By Government Reports. That was published on 12/23.

Today's piece will result in another letter later tonight. Transparent processes and verifiably accurate results should be prioritized over how soon the results are available. Positively nobody can argue that they want results sooner *at the expense of accuracy*. This letter will write itself.

I invite others to send letters to the Eureka Reporter - I've noticed them publish a few from out of towners.

[e-mail]

[Wilms]

2. That's a great quote

"This letter will write itself."

I tell you though. Sometimes, I get a kick out of a paper just printing what the person said. In a way Carolyn Crnich says it all.


“There’s always hand counts..." Yes there are Ms. Crnich.

"...but I don’t see that, (considering) the time involved, as a desirable alternative at all.”

Desirable for whom, Ms. Crnich? :shrug:

[GuvWurld]

3. Here is my letter

I just sent this so it obviously has not been published (yet, I hope!).

Dear Editor:

Thank you for your recent reporting on voting machines. I have to wonder, though, if your January 29 article ("Bruce McPherson requests voting system contingency plans") accurately reflects the views and priorities of Humboldt County Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich?

According to the Reporter, Crnich said "There’s always hand counts, but I don’t see that, (considering) the time involved, as a desirable alternative at all."

Also: "That would be very late reporting,” Crnich said. “It would mean that we’d have to get the ballots in from Shelter Cove, Orleans and the farthest reaches of the county. The results that normally we have in between 9 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. would probably not be available until morning or mid-day on Wednesday."

Is Crnich suggesting that expediency is more important than verifiably accurate results? We shouldn't sacrifice accuracy for anything. Any other attitude is inappropriate in the elections department.

The truth is, hand counting paper ballots is a practical and cost effective way for Humboldt to conduct elections that will be transparent and verifiably accurate. We should happily trade a few extra hours of uncertainty for a provable outcome, as opposed to earlier returns coming from equipment with proprietary (secret) software that ensures permanent uncertainty about the true outcome.

Creating a basis for voter confidence and establishing proof of an election's outcome must trump the expediency of rapid returns. Anyone charged with the responsibility of conducting elections should be very clear about this. If the Reporter has misrepresented Crnich's position then she is owed an apology. On the other hand, if the Reporter has it right, Crnich's priorities as Registrar call into question her fitness for that office.

Dave Berman
Eureka, CA

[GuvWurld]

5. The Reporter just called to confirm authorship of the letter

it should run in the next few days...

[Wilms]

6. Brilliant way to handle it. n/t

[kster]

4. kick.nt

[Wilms]

7. California: Memo And Questionaire To Registrars of Voters

I'm not liking this a little bit. Below it seems to suggest that there will be no further testing or public comment taken on the Diebold software that the ITA currently has.




California: Memo And Questionaire To Registrars of Voters

By Bruce McDannold, CA Office of Voting Systems Technology Assessment

January 31, 2006

The following memo and questionaire were sent to Registrars of Voters in California counties on January 24, 2006 (although incorrectly dated 2006).


January 24, 2005

To: County Clerks/Registrars of Voters
From: Bruce McDannold, Interim Director, Office of Voting Systems Technology Assessment
Subject: Status of Voting Systems and Questionnaire

As we approach the June 2006 primary, it is critical that we maintain an open line of communication between the Office of the Secretary of State and each county elections official. In an effort to ensure that you are aware of the status of each voting system pending certification for use in California, we are providing you with the following voting system application status report.

As you know, the Office of the Secretary of State has given each voting system vendor a target date of January 20, 2006 for submission of a completed application, and January 31, 2006 for completion of federal testing. These target dates were provided to the voting system vendors in accordance with deadlines provided by each of you for placement of new systems prior to the June 2006 primary. We will continue to provide each of you with updates as the review and certification process for each system progresses. Additionally, for regular updates on the status of individual systems, please also check the Secretary of State's website. (PDF)

As of Friday, January 20, 2006, the following applications for certification have been received by the Secretary of State’s Office:

• DIEBOLD – GEMS/AV-OS/AV-TSX w/ AVPM
• ES&S - Unisyn/InkaVote PBC
• HART INTERCIVIC - System 6
• SEQUOIA VOTING SYSTEMS - AVC Edge Voting System Version 5.0
• POPULEX – Digital Paper Ballot Voting System

The current status of the above applications is as follows:

• SEQUOIA VOTING SYSTEMS - AVC Edge Voting System Version 5.0
Sequoia has not completed federal testing. Sequoia has advised the Secretary of State’s Office that they anticipate federal testing will be completed on or about January 31, 2006. Based upon this representation, we have tentatively scheduled Sequoia’s state and volume testing to begin February 6, 2006.

• DIEBOLD – GEMS/AV-OS/AV-TSX w/ AVPM
As you are aware, Diebold has successfully completed both state and volume testing, the public hearing has occurred, and public comment has been taken. However, we have required the memory card to be sent back to the ITA to review the AccuBasic code. We are also conducting our own independent source code review, with the assistance of the Voting Systems Technical Assistance Advisory Board. A determination on certification will be made once the reviews have been completed and the reports issued.

• ES&S - Unisyn/InkaVote PBC
The ES&S InkaVote system began state testing this week.

• HART INTERCIVIC - System 6
The HART system is currently scheduled to resume state testing on February 1, 2006, and volume testing to occur on February 20-21, 2006.

• POPULEX – Digital Paper Ballot Voting System
Populex has been asked for additional information to complete their application.

For your information, we have been informed by ES&S that they do not anticipate having their iVotronic DRE voting system certified for future use in California elections. However, they are planning to apply in February for a modified version of their optical scan system that includes the AutoMark.

Within the next few days you will be receiving a Notice of Public Hearing regarding each of these systems (excluding Diebold, which has already had a public hearing as indicated above). The tentative date for the public hearing is March 1, 2006.

We have been moving, and continue to move, as expeditiously as possible throughout this certification process.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=863&Itemid=113