Monday, January 12, 2009
Funding Frozen For Proposed Humboldt Voting Machine Switch
According to the agenda, this Tuesday the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors will consider a proposal from Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich, who seeks approval for the purchase of Hart InterCivic eScan optical scanners to replace the similar Diebold/Premier equipment used to "count" votes here since 1995. Linked from the agenda is a 22 page .pdf called Voting Modernization Project Plan Phase II. From page two:Because of the current fiscal crisis in the State of California, the voting Modernization Bond funds designated to cover this project were frozen by the State Treasurer on December 19, 2008. We will return to your Board for change order and funding plan approval once the funding plan is developed and approved by the Secretary of State. The delay in obtaining these funds should not impact the approval of the concept of this plan.
As previously reported at WDNC, the Registrar has created a sense of urgency around this proposal (reinforced by quotes in a Eureka Times-Standard Sunday cover story that is oddly absent from the paper's website). But how can she expect the Supes to hurry up and approve a proposal for a purchase requiring funds that are not currently available and which would be based on a contract that has not been made public? Further calling this urgency into question, from page 6 of the same agenda attachment:Because there is currently no county-wide election scheduled until November 2009, full implementation of the system will be possible before the next election.
One other quick point about this implementation plan. On page 9 it calls for "sleepovers," a period of two days prior to the election when precinct inspectors will have the eScans in their private possession. This is despite myriad warnings, even in the California Secretary of State's own Top To Bottom Review of Hart voting systems. From that report:Conclusion (p.16):
No procedural mitigation defeats unfettered access to machines that can be undetectably manipulated. In addition, deletion of audit trails occurred in this past November's election, as revealed by the Election Transparency Project (ETP). Volunteer Parke Bostrom commented on this in a quote previously posted here at WDNC and also found in this December 8 article at Wired.com:
Although the Red Team did not have time to finish exploits for all of the vulnerabilities we discovered, nor to provide a complete evaluation of the Hart voting system (System 6.2.1 [now proposed for Humboldt]), we were able to discover attacks for the Hart system that could compromise the accuracy, secrecy, and availability of the voting systems and their auditing mechanisms. That is, the Red Team has developed exploits that – absent procedural mitigation strategies – can alter vote totals, violate the privacy of individual voters, make systems unavailable, and delete audit trails.This means the audit log is not truly a "log" in the classical computer program sense, but is rather a "re-imagining" of what GEMS would like the audit log to be, based on whatever information GEMS happens to remember at the end of the vote counting process.
Bostrom is referring to the Diebold central tabulation program responsible for the 197 secretly deleted ballots, though the point is the same with Hart's equipment. Beyond undetectable manipulation, the system can cover its tracks, destroying assurances of built-in memory redundancies and making a mockery of logic and accuracy testing.
The We Do Not Consent blog on Friday posted an announcement from the Humboldt County Republican Party that it has adopted a resolution in support of a public discussion process prior to a vote by the Supervisors on Crnich's proposal. In Sunday's (so far) print-only T-S article, Eureka City Councilman Larry Glass adds, "I think that's an issue that I'd like to see get some more public dialogue, and I'm going to try to make a point of contacting the supervisors and expressing that." Another member of the Council assured me he will attend Tuesday's Supes meeting to make this point in person.
The Voter Confidence Committee, which I co-founded nearly four years ago, distributed an e-mail newsletter on Sunday evening encouraging supporters to attend Tuesday's meeting, or at least to call Supervisors with some or all of the following messages:--We want and are entitled to have a choice and a say in how we count our votes;
There has been other recent media coverage of this developing story. In the third hour of Friday's Peter B. Collins show, I spoke with PBC and Brad Friedman about the day old announcement of a second discrepancy found by the ETP, showing 57 ballots were scanned twice into the official certified results.
--This plan calls for $600,000+ of public money to be spent, and any expense this size deserves careful public scrutiny;
--Prior to voting on the proposed plan, the responsible thing is for the Supervisors to invite the public to participate in the decision making process;
--In any case, there is no reason to rush this decision as the funds for this purchase have been frozen by the State Treasurer;
--The proposed replacement equipment are still secret corporate vote counting machines (a "false alternative");
--State-sponsored reviews of the proposed replacement machines have revealed many problems; we do not want to repeat the past mistake of investing in flawed technology despite knowing of the risks and warnings;
--The manufacturer of the replacement machines has withdrawn from the federal certification process, meaning no software or security updates of any kind will be possible, and no newer versions will be available.
After a commercial break (edited out of linked recording), we got into discussing Tuesday's upcoming Supes meeting and were then joined by a surprise phone call from Crnich. She has appeared on PBC's show many times before, and this is not the first time she has called in immediate response to my presence on the show. There was an unusually long and uninterrupted segment where Friedman challenges Crnich in ways that just have to be heard, including telling her flat out in the end that she should slow down and allow more public input. Overall, I come on the show at about 16:30 into the recording; Crnich joins around the 24 minute mark.
Finally, borrowed from the VCC newsletter, a summary of recent related links:
North Coast Journal, 12/4/08, Election Results: Wrong
http://ncjournal.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/election-results-wrong/#comments
Eureka Times-Standard, 12/5/08, Software glitch yields inaccurate election results
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11145349 (archive)
Eureka Times-Standard, 12/7/08, Local elections office commended
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11161383 (archive)
Eureka Times-Standard (editorial), 12/7/08, A glitch that should never have been
http://www.times-standard.com/editorials/ci_11161384 (archive)
Wired, 12/8/08, Serious Error in Diebold Voting Software Caused Lost Ballots in California County
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/unique-election.html
Wired, 12/8/08, Unique Transparency Program Uncovers Problems with Voting Software
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/unique-transpar.html
Eureka Times-Standard (Letter to the editor), 12/10/08, Who Dares Defend Diebold?
http://www.times-standard.com/letters/ci_11183863 (archive)
We Do Not Consent blog, 12/17/08, Humboldt's False Alternative to Diebold
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/12/humboldts-false-alternative-to-diebold.html
North Coast Journal (Letter to the editor), 12/18, Has Humboldt Hit a Tipping Point?
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/issues/2008/12/18/vote-smart/
Eureka Times-Standard, 12/22/08, Registrar of Voters considers dumping equipment
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11287543 (archive)
Eureka Times-Standard, 12/29/08, Federal election commission eyes Humboldt
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11328669 (archive)
We Do Not Consent blog, 12/6/09, Exclusive: Humboldt's Secret Hart Attack
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2009/01/exclusive-humboldts-secret-hart-attack.html
We Do Not Consent blog, 12/9/09, Humboldt Republicans Call For Public Discussion of Proposed Voting Machine Switch
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2009/01/humboldt-republicans-call-for-public.html
Eureka Times-Standard, 1/10/09, New error found in county election results
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11422921 (archive)
Eureka Times-Standard (Editorial), 1/11/09, Thank you, Humboldt County Transparency Project
http://www.times-standard.com/editorials/ci_11428478 (archive)
* * *
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2009/01/funding-frozen-for-proposed-humboldt.html
Labels: Board of Supervisors, Brad Friedman, Carolyn Crnich, Diebold, Hart Intercivic, Humboldt Republicans, Parke Bostrom, Peter B. Collins, Top To Bottom Review, Transparency Project
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Humboldt's False Alternative to Diebold
After missing several consecutive monthly meetings of the ad hoc volunteer Election Advisory Committee (EAC), convened by Humboldt County, CA Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich, on Tuesday night I rejoined the group to learn Crnich has at last given up on Diebold/Premier's optical scanners and GEMS central tabulator as our official vote counting method. After years of opposing Diebold, this might seem like a dream come true. But that's only the beginning of the story.
Crnich informed the group that we will continue to use paper ballots and precinct based scanning with Hart InterCivic's eScan system (complementing Hart's eSlate machines already in use for HAVA compliance). A distinction was made between Diebold's optical scanners and Hart's so-called digital scanners, though a similarity worth noting is that rather than counting the actual ballots both technically count the images of the ballots internally created within black box technology.
Whatever the supposed relative merits may be for Hart compared to Diebold, this is the epitome of a false alternative, the appearance of choice in a no-win situation. We will still be using an accuracy-challenged proprietary and secret system found vulnerable to undetectable manipulation by California's Top To Bottom Review, Ohio's EVEREST study, and Colorado's Secretary of State.
Humboldt County has made news lately for its Election Transparency Project, which revealed a failure in GEMS that caused Crnich to certify inaccurate results from last month's election. Crnich later told Wired.com:Crnich told Threat Level the issue has made her question her confidence in the voting system because, even though the company provided officials with a workaround, the problem indicated a fundamental flaw in the company's programming. She said she'd heard a lot of stories from other election officials about problems with voting machines, but never thought they applied to California.
Crnich has been widely praised for working with citizen volunteers to create the audit mechanism that identified the problem, which was entirely the fault of Diebold and not at all of Crnich's doing. Certainly some credit is due there, though as I explained last week, this has been exaggerated in an unhelpful way that now will likely make it more difficult to challenge her decision to switch to eScan. Indeed, at the EAC meeting I was accused of "casting aspersions" for raising questions of timing and public input. Yet check out how this almost went down...
"I've always sort of listened to those anecdotal incidents with a jaundiced ear because California has some very stringent requirements of election systems that are in use here as well as some very strict security procedures and I didn't think those things affected us here," she said. "But this has sort of put a cloud over any confidence that I had in the Premier equipment that's been in this department since 1995."
At Tuesday's EAC meeting, Crnich said she has the sole authority to choose our vote counting method and had already done so. In fact, she had hoped to take delivery of nearly 80 new machines on Wednesday in order to get a $28,000 discount offered by Hart if the deal could be completed by year's end. The total cost is estimated to exceed $600,000 and would be paid entirely out of the County's unused HAVA and Proposition 41 funds. Procedurally, Crnich said she needs the County Board of Supervisors to approve her plan, and then approval of the CA Secretary of State for the use of funds.
Crnich said she attempted to get a spot on the agenda at Tuesday's Supes' meeting. An unusually long list of business items prevented that and has likely created a reprieve until January 6. However, that isn't guaranteed as Supervisor Jimmy Smith, in attendance at Tuesday's EAC meeting, suggested the possibility of a short-noticed special Supes meeting that could possibly occur this year if it would still allow the $28k savings.
Crnich told the EAC the next scheduled election is not until November 2009, though there is talk of a possible statewide special election as early as March. In that regard, she did not express urgency for the Hart transition to begin. If anything, she said she looked forward to having the time to evaluate candidates for an open position within the elections department. She lamented the delay between the announced opening in July and her recent receipt of the qualified applicant list.
The intent here is not to attack Crnich. These are the things she has done and said, which fairly raise the following questions.
There is an element of deja vu here. In 2005 I wrote about efforts to prevent Crnich's flirtation with going touchscreen, though it certainly wasn't presented as an argument for the status quo. Crnich periodically receives heaps of praise for nixing the switch, typically without reference to the public resistance.
I can only think to call this a bittersweet irony. After years of urging the immediate abandonment of Diebold equipment, now Humboldt County can't drop the hot potato fast enough. The glow of the Transparency Project is currently blinding and seems to shield the sense of embarrassment for not only certifying inaccurate results but also defending the continued use of equipment known to be flawed all along. Who else will make clear that one laudable achievement does not mean complete deference on important questions of public policy?
* * *p.11
Here are some key observations from Harri Hursti and others about Ohio's EVEREST study:
The Red Team, working in close conjunction with the 2007 TTBR Hart Source Code Team, discovered that the Hart EMS software implicitly trusts all communication coming from devices appearing to be Hart-branded and neither authenticates the devices nor performs adequate input validation on data transmitted to it by the devices. This allows for the possibility that a compromised device, such as an eScan that had been tampered with at a polling station, could infect the EMS systems. In particular, the Source Code Team discovered a weakness in the code that would allow an eScan to perform a buffer overflow attack and execute arbitrary code on the computer running SERVO.
...
The team was also able to access device-level menus that should be locked with passwords but were not. This access could allow an attacker a vector for altering configuration settings and/or executing a denial of service on the eScan.
Some of the findings from previous studies on precinct count optical scanners were replicated on the eScan, and they allowed the Red Team to maliciously alter vote totals with the potential to affect the outcome of an election. These attacks were low-tech and required tools that could be found in a typical office.
The Red Team implemented an attack devised by the 2007 TTBR Hart Source Code Team that was able to extract election-sensitive information from the eScan and issue administrative commands to the eScan. The leaked information would allow an attacker the ability to execute further attacks, while administrative commands issued to the eScan could erase electronic vote totals and audit records from an eScan while putting it out of service for the remainder of the Election Day. For more details on these attacks, please see the 2007 TTBR Hart Source Code Team report.3.2 Insider Defenses
For more see this 2006 report from VotersUnite.org, the same site's Election Problem Log 2004 - Present, as well as BradBlog.com.
Attack Class 6: eScan Manipulation – We were able to exploit a number of vulnerabilities in the eScan that could give election insiders the ability to compromise election results and voter privacy. Some of these were a result of a lack of physical security. We were able to replace the eScan's internal flash memory card containing the eScan executable and configuration file with only a screwdriver in about 2 minutes. After replacing the card, we were able to boot the eScan into the Linux operating system. This simple attack gives a single poll worker with a few minutes of unobserved access to the eScan the ability to undermine all votes cast at a precinct (EVEREST 20.3.1).
While opening the eScan to replace the memory card, we broke three tamper evident seals. While such seals may prove that a machine was opened, a preventative measure is preferable. A poll worker may intentionally break these seals in order to cast doubt on election results. It has also been shown that tamper evident seals do not always correctly show that tampering occurred [14].
Insiders may also wish to use their access to ballots to determine voter choice. This can be done with the eScan due to the design of its ballot box (EVEREST 20.3.4). The eScan's scanner sits on top of its ballot box, which is essentially a plastic tub. When a ballot is scanned, it is subsequently dropped into the box. No measures are taken to disturb the order in which ballots fall, allowing a malicious poll worker to note the position in which certain votes are cast and then relay these positions to an election official with access to the ballots. We observed ten numbered ballots as they were cast with the eScan, and verified that the vote order was preserved.
...
Attack Class 14: Open Audit Interfaces – Both the Hart JBC and eScan have open interfaces that allow for the erasure of votes and audit log records. As detailed in Issue 3 of the CA TTBR, the eScan is managed through an accessible Ethernet port that listens for connections on TCP port 4600. This port is normally used for sending and receiving commands from SERVO, such as file transmission and reading images of the eScan's memory. No cryptographic tokens are required for these operations to occur.
We discovered that with a handheld device such as a Palm computer, an attacker with an Ethernet cable can mimic the actions of SERVO to the eScan during a live election, and cause the vote records and audit logs to be erased from both the eScan's internal memory and the MBB inserted into it (EVEREST 20.3.7). Any voting that had occurred on the eScan to that point would be erased, necessitating a manual recount.
...
Attack Class 19: Autovoting – A final example of unsafe features intentionally added to the Hart systems is the Ballot Now’s "Autovote" feature (EVEREST 20.7.2). Autovote allows for the creation of pre-filled-in paper ballots. Once again, this feature is enabled through Windows registry entries. Once these entries are enabled, Ballot Now displays the Autovote menu option when started.
The Autovote menu allows the Ballot Now user to choose the number of pre-filled-in ballots to print. The user has no control over the selected filled in entry for each contest, however, the selected entries are uniformly distributed. This allows an arbitrary number of ballots with the desired results to be printed with the overhead of some ballots with undesired results that may simply be discarded.
Paper ballots generated by Autovote initially say "Autovote" on the front and back, making them conspicuous and easy to detect in an audit or recount. We were able to overcome this by installing a PNG printer driver on the Ballot Now machine. This driver allows ballots to be printed to PNG image files as opposed to paper. We could then open the files in an image editor, remove the Autovote label and print them. Aside from the label, Autovote ballots are identical to regular ballots. We conducted a normal election and an election with Autovote ballots, and could not identify any differences in the eScan unofficial printout, the audit logs, or the cast vote records on the eScan's MBB.
Autovote could be used in tandem with the eScan's duplicate ballot feature to perform a ballot stuffing attack. Using Autovote ballots is advantageous over using photocopies, as each Autovote ballot has a unique serial number, and thus cannot be differentiated from legitimate votes in an audit.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/12/humboldts-false-alternative-to-diebold.html
Labels: Carolyn Crnich, Diebold, Election Advisory Committee, eScan, EVEREST, false alternative, Hart Intercivic, Jimmy Smith, Top To Bottom Review, Transparency Project
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Eureka Times-Standard OpEd: Hand-counting ballots can work
As promised last night, below is the My Word opinion column I wrote, published in today's Eureka Times-Standard, though oddly not yet on the paper's website (I picked up a hard copy and found the piece on page A4, including a picture of me from at least three years ago).
UPDATE: 1/3/08 12:20pm -- The T-S website now has my column. It occurred to me over the past few hours that the headline it was given, while certainly a positive statement, doesn't really reflect what this essay is about. I've been saying hand-counting can work for years now. This piece says the T-S is abdicating its responsibility to foster community dialog about whether hand-counting is superior to Diebold opscans, even as the Voter Confidence Committee creates the very means by which the community can make objective comparisons. A more apt headline would have been: "Election Watchdogs Dog Newspaper For More Detailed Dialog on Election Conditions."
(archive)
Hand-counting ballots can work
My Word, by Dave Berman
1/3/07
Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich said hand-counting paper ballots is "not a practical solution" ("As primary fast approaches, election offices are in turmoil," 12/24/07) and she's not convinced it would be more reliable than continuing to use secret vote counting machines repeatedly discredited in actual elections and academic studies, including CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen's Top To Bottom Review.
It is certainly reasonable for the Times-Standard to publish the Registrar's opinion. But did the T-S ever ask her for data comparing counting methods for accuracy, cost or any other measure? The Voter Confidence Committee (VCC) has requested such information, repeatedly, and the Registrar has not only confessed to having no such information, she has failed to deliver on her promise to obtain it and make it available.
Setting the Registrar's unsubstantiated opinion aside, the bigger issue is false balance, which the T-S created by pairing the Registrar's view with superficial mention of the VCC report recommending hand-counting, noting also that we're documenting community support for the idea.
Not mentioned is the VCC hand-count forecast tool (a spreadsheet), used to create projections and plan for the requirements of hand-counting in precincts on election night. This allows the public to objectively judge whether hand-counting is indeed preferable.
In fact, this was our contribution to the federal lawsuit mentioned in the "turmoil" article, and it was previously described in the T-S on August 16.
When this becomes part of the story, an unsubstantiated opinion no longer stands in true balance, instead reflecting false balance. "He-said/she-said" can not truly balance all news articles. The community can and should discuss the relative merits of hand-counting in tangible terms, made possible by the VCC but shunned by the T-S.
Yes, shunned.
Readers should know the T-S editorial board met with VCC members on August 14. Not only was the forecast tool presented at that time, the VCC also reiterated concerns stated in our report about the Registrar's so-called "Transparency Project."
Our critique has appeared elsewhere in local media, but its absence from the "turmoil" article falsely suggested universal support for the project.
Worse still, the article cited Bev Harris as a Project supporter. In response, Harris posted a statement online saying she was misquoted and does not support the Project: "The concept of providing ballot images to the public after running them through an intermediary program developed by David Dill (or anyone else!) is absurd and misses the point entirely. What is it about these guys that they just cannot RESIST inserting "An Expert" in between "The People" and "Our Ballots"?"
To be clear, VCC objections to the Transparency Project are as follows:
Going from ridiculous to sublime, another expert was cited as a Project supporter, Harri Hursti, "who famously hacked into Diebold voting machines." Not just Diebold machines, but the exact equipment used here in Humboldt (as well as other models).
Additionally, certification is the Registrar's oath to the accuracy of the results, which should come after, not before, all checks for accuracy are completed.
The T-S might have mentioned that while bending over backwards to once again congratulate the Registrar for a decision made nearly four years ago. Forgoing touch screen machines in favor of optical scanners was a false alternative. Both types of machines have been repeatedly discredited, and both types count in secret, requiring the public's blind trust without providing any rational basis for confidence in reported results. The Registrar's devotion to casting paper ballots is hollow if counting accuracy is not verifiable.
Please visit www.VoterConfidenceCommittee.org for links to recent media coverage of election integrity issues as well as our report on local election conditions, the forecast tool, and the sign-up form that will allow us to demonstrate there are enough local voters willing to hand-count to get the job done on election night.
Opinions expressed in My Word pieces do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/01/eureka-times-standard-oped-hand.html
Labels: Bev Harris, Carolyn Crnich, Debra Bowen, Eureka Times-Standard, False Balance, hand-counting paper ballots, Harri Hursti, My Word, spreadsheet tool, Top To Bottom Review, Voter Confidence Committee
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Eureka Times-Standard: As primary fast approaches, election offices are in turmoil
Monday's Eureka Times-Standard has a front page story that continues on the back page called "As primary fast approaches, election offices are in turmoil" (archive).
This article describes some of the fallout experienced by elections departments throughout CA in the wake of Secretary of State Debra Bowen's Top To Bottom Review. Humboldt is depicted as being on relatively stable footing, and though that may be the case, no mention is made that there has still been no Election Manager named to replace Lindsey McWilliams, who left in June. The last hiring update I got was at the Nov. 20 Election Advisory Committee meeting when Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich told us she was checking references on three candidates and didn't have a time frame for making a decision. She also emphasized that she was not feeling desperate because current staff is performing great. So none of that was in the article.
T-S reporter Thadeus Greenson does paint a very favorable picture of the Humboldt Transparency Project, including referencing David Dill, Bev Harris, and Harri Hursti. There was not even a hint of irony in describing Hursti "who famously hacked into Diebold voting machines." Excuse me, but it wasn't just Diebold voting machines, it included the exact equipment we use here in Humboldt. No criticisms of the Transparency Project were included, though I have detailed several on many occasions, as recently as Saturday. That may get recycled into the letter to the editor or My Word column this will prompt me to write.
As with many previous T-S articles, this one contains false balance. This is probably the biggest issue I have with this story. While there are no quotes from VCC members our group is mentioned:Still, some feel Bowen's decision didn't go far enough and the optical scan vote counting machines are also inaccurate and susceptible to hacking.
This is false balance because the Registrar offers an opinion with nothing to back it up. How do I know? Because the VCC has asked, repeatedly, and the Registrar does not have data comparing hand-counting and optical scan counting for cost, accuracy or anything else. Yet her dismissive opinion is supposed to balance the VCC recommendations, which come backed by our report (and many others), and tangible projections that will allow the community to judge what is practical. Naturally our ability to take the discussion out of the range of "he said/she said" was left out of the article.
The Voter Confidence Committee of Humboldt County released a report on voting conditions in the county that called for a complete transition to hand counting for all ballots. While Crnich said this would put a tremendous strain on poll workers and the election office, she isn't convinced it would be any more reliable than the machine counts and hand-count audits are in place.
"It's just not a practical solution," Crnich said.
But Humboldt's committee is far from the only ones calling for hand counting, which they say is both practical and more accurate than machines counting.
Earlier this month, the committee and 30 other election integrity groups joined an amicus brief in the suit brought against New York State by the Department of Justice. The brief argues hand counting paper ballots is compliant with the Help America Vote Act, and asks the court to order the two federal races on the state's next ballot to be hand counted.
Meanwhile, the Humboldt Committee is busy recruiting Humboldt voters willing to hand count ballots come election day. But Crnich said no such hand counting will take place. She said the procedures are simply not in place, but visitors are welcome to observe election-night happenings according to Bowen's guidelines.
One more bone to pick. This article refers to a lawsuit brought by San Diego County to push back against Bowen's new guidelines. But it does not mention the memory cards that disappeared from a FedEx shipment last week en route from Sacramento to San Diego. If its balance ye want, I'm just sayin'...
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/eureka-times-standard-as-primary-fast.html
Labels: Carolyn Crnich, Debra Bowen, Election Advisory Committee, Eureka Times-Standard, Harri Hursti, Report on Election Conditions, Thadeus Greenson, Top To Bottom Review, Transparency Project, VCC
