‘Daily Voting News’ For May 15, 2007

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

According to reporter Ian Hoffman there will be a delay in the California voting machine inspections and tests. Los Angeles County is regarded as a vendor by the state because its voting system is unique and custom-made. The county and several vendors are concerned about the extent of the review that will be accomplished. According to the article the vendors are concerned about the scope of testing on security. Only Sequoia has turned over their system to the state but the rest are sure to follow suit. It would look bad for them if they just walked away from this project and the state….

  • NAtional: ACM Applauds Committee Vote on E-Voting Reform Legislation LINK
  • AR: Sebastian County – Election Panel Joins Polling Sites LINK
  • CA: E-vote machine test delayed by talks with L.A., vendors LINK
  • CA: Riverside County – Electronic voting system whistleblower to talk LINK
  • FL: Elections chief opposes new bill LINK
  • FL: Voters face touch-screen primary
    Half of state’s voters will have paperless primary in January LINK
  • MA: Haverhill – City may have to count votes by hand; Old machines break down, new ones to arrive late LINK
  • MD: Montgomery County – Local Governments Conduct All Elections in US LINK
  • MS: Jackson Co. Election Commission To Help In Primaries LINK
  • MS: Jackson County – Vote favors pay for primary help LINK
  • NY: Troy Township – Citizen Poll Watching Effort Banned by Troy City School Board LINK
  • NY: York County – Convicts deliver voting booths
    Officials said it’s a practice that has gone on for more than a decade with no problems. LINK
  • OH: Cuyahoga County – You’re out, Judge (New ruling on county election workers case) LINK
  • OH: Tuscarawas County – Elections board discusses money issues LINK
  • PA: Officials: Electronic voting may be more costly LINK
  • PA: Blair County – Early machine problems plague Blair Twp. voters; early turnout light LINK
  • PA: Centre County – County reports few problems at polls; paper ballots used for time at Foxdale LINK
  • PA: Luzerne County – Chronicling the past and present of the Election Day voting system LINK
  • PA: Philadelphia – Voters Hit the Polls
    Some Machines Causing Problems LINK
  • PA: Westmoreland County – Paper ballots return to polls, but only as a backup LINK
  • SC: St. George – Judge orders town council not to meet
    Mayoral candidate sought injunction; hearing Tuesday LINK
  • TX: Denton County – Flower Mound voting results delayed by hours
    County’s electronic machines didn’t give totals for town races LINK
  • UT: November Election Will Be Costly for Cities, Counties LINK

    • **”Daily Voting News” is meant as a comprehensive listing of reports each day concerning issues related to election and voting news around the country regardless of quality or political slant. Therefore, items listed in “Daily Voting News” may not reflect the opinions of VotersUnite.Org or BradBlog.Com**

    5 Responses

    1. Hmmmm … when an athlete fails to turn up for drug testing that athlete can’t play.

      One reason they may not want to be tested is that they have steroids in their system.

      The Senate Bill S 559 has language that makes the source code subject to public scrutiny.

      The steroids will show up if they take the test, under that Bill, so expect a no show.

      Only the honest need apply for election duty if that Bill becomes law.

    2. H.R. 811 got a lot better in committee; almost all of the loopholes were taken out. That is so cool.

      While it’s still theoretically possible for DREs to be used under the H.R.811 regime, they will be *so* much more expensive that hopefully very few places will consider them. Notably, the requirement that paper ballots be available for all voters who ask for them will destroy the “don’t need to print ballots therefore cheaper” claim. The absolute requirement that the machine allow voters to correct any errors made by the machine should prevent all current systems (“behind glass” paper trails) from qualifying.

      The only hole I see is that 80% number: no audits if the machines say 80% victory. No serious election has been won by that much in a long time (the biggest blowouts I’ve ever seen, such as Hillary’s Senate primary, were less than that); hopefully if someone steals an election that way, it will be obvious enough to force recounts *politically*.

    3. Actually, no.

      While source code disclosure is needed, source code disclosure will not fix the problems with e-voting, nor will it prevent the systems from being gamed to the max. That’s because current e-voting systems were not designed with security in mind.

      And even Open Source cannot solve the fatal flaws in e-voting.

      And just as source code disclosure has already been deliberately thrown out of the campanion bill, hr 811, so it will also be thrown out of s 559… thus making this particular argument moot.

      “Holt II” = No Meaningful Disclosure Allowed.

    4. … Nathanael Nerode said hopefully…

      “H.R. 811 got a lot better in committee; almost all of the loopholes were taken out. That is so cool.”

      That’s funny… the text of the bill passed out of committee is still strangely unavailable to the public…

      And even the text of the Lofgren amendment alone has serious issues.