Thursday, December 20, 2007
NY Judge Threatens To Jail NY Board of Elections (Was He Just Kidding?)
A quick search of Google News this morning just after 9am Humboldt Standard Time turned up this brief Newsday article posted just moments before (NOTE: the article currently at this link is an updated and much longer version):http://tinyurl.com/ynwtwo
That seems pretty heavy duty. Will members of the NY Board of Elections really be jailed? According to Election Defense Alliance attorney Jonathan Simon, who was in the Albany courtroom this morning, "the threat to jail the Board members was a rhetorical flourish, not a literal threat. It was more of the nature of, look, here is what my powers are, here is the scope of my options."
Judge says NY must comply with voting machine law by Jan. 4
12:03 PM EST, December 20, 2007
ALBANY, N.Y. - A federal judge is giving New York until Jan. 4 to comply with a federal election law to make voting more accurate and easier.
U.S. District Court Judge Gary Sharpe spent much of a court hearing Thursday expressing his disgust with the state for its failure to meet the requirements of the Help America Vote Act while every other state took action. He reminded officials several times he could jail members of the state Board of Elections for contempt of court.
If the state doesn't act by Jan. 4, Sharpe says he will consider establishing a "special master" _ perhaps Gov. Eliot Spitzer _ to force the state into compliance with the law, which was enacted after the contested 2000 presidential election.
Simon tells me the judge was clearly frustrated and angry and rejected the role of having to become involved in choosing voting systems. "The Judge wants a definitive plan as opposed to competing plans from the Republican and Democratic parties, which essentially become delay tactics. From the Judge's standpoint it is about getting it done and getting it done now. It is not about whether HAVA is good or bad or what other states are doing."
Was the hard work of the NY amici all for naught? It certainly doesn't appear to have influenced the Judge in our favor. But he didn't complete ignore us either. He took the time to slowly read the names of supporting organizations, "dealing with them in a formally respectful way," said Simon. Then adding, "but with a hint of derision."
Simon described "near-stroke" laughter from the Judge, "mocking California or Pennsylvania for trying to tell New York how it should run elections. What struck me," continued Simon, "was what he didn't get (and he had a lot on the ball) but what he didn't get was why everyone was weighing in, choosing not to acknowledge the national repercussions and why this transcended the timing or particulars of the state. To the judge it was cut and dry. He wants to see HAVA compliance and it appears and he was aligned with the DOJ argument."
Politics on the Hudson, a blog written by reporters and editors from Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties, as well as Albany and Washington, reports that Judge Sharpe "berated state elections officials" and "said the situation makes him 'embarrassed' to be a New Yorker." The PotH article concludes:In a speech tinged with hyperbole, Sharpe asked if he needed to do what the late President Dwight D. Eisenhower did in 1957—call out the National Guard to force compliance with a federal court order. In that case, the military was sent to Little Rock, Ark., to enforce school desegregation. Black students were being blocked from entering a high school there.
So what about the copious evidence of machine failure and NY's high standards for certifying voting systems? Forgive me, but, Simon says, "The Judge doesn't care that no systems jibe with state requirements. Federal law trumps state. Federal law is preemptive. The judge is prioritizing meeting federal requirements, no matter how poorly conceived, rather than trying to satisfy state certification requirements."
"We didn’t let Little Rock, Ark., thumb its nose at the country, and we're not going to let New York thumb its nose at the country," he said.
As for what to expect next, Simon reports the Judge made a potential concession and may allow rolling compliance to occur through 2008, provided a firm plan for full compliance is in place for after that. Simon added: "NY has to come back by January 4 with a definitive plan. Since the Democrats' plan is the plan that has the most definitive time table, there was a strong urging that the plan should be modeled after the Democrats' "Zalen" plan."
Aside from what sounds like the spectacle of it all, this outcome can't really come as too much of a surprise. But it isn't the end for the work of the NY amici. The combined effort in detailing and forecasting the logistics of hand-counting paper ballots across New York will serve the election integrity movement just as pivotal reports in the past have become oft-quoted sources (i.e. Hursti Hacks, Bowen's Top To Bottom Review, etc.).
This is also a national story with a big local hook here in Humboldt. Continuing the outreach I wrote about last night, this morning I left a message for the Journal's Hank Sims (and a second one at the end of the day) and another for James Faulk at the Times-Standard. A call to T-S editor Rich Sommerville then confirmed my hunch that Faulk wasn't the reporter I should be looking for. He referred me to Kimberly Wear, who I spoke with at the end of the day, only to learn that the VCC media advisory and press release had never crossed her desk. She asked that I e-mail same and we'll see about coverage in the next few days.
While nothing in the above paragraph should be construed as awesome progress, you may say what you will about this newscast (.mp3) this afternoon on KGOE. My next call after the newspapers was Tom Sebourn, who recorded me detailing the Newsday article, the amicus brief which creates the local angle here, and finally the plug for Friday's Peter B. Collins show on which both Humboldt Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich and I will be appearing between 5-6pm HST. Rather than paraphrasing what I called in to tell Sebourn, he actually broadcast a lot more of the news segment in my voice and words than I would have imagined. Score.
At noon, new Voter Confidence Committee webmaster(!) Paula Long and I met with some of the members of the Redwood ACLU. Their prepared agenda included discussing support for the VCC hand-count proposal. However, certain key people were not present. While those of us in the room did discuss at length much of what I hoped would be covered, ultimately revising their draft statement was tabled until their January 17 meeting.
At the end of the day I also called the Registrar, leaving her the second message in as many days offering to touch base with her prior to the Peter B. show in order to familiarize her with the updates to the hand-count forecast tool (.xls) created in front of her eyes and now used across the country. And so it grows. I have received adapted or spin-off versions of the spreadsheet from several people in recent weeks, most recently today from Brian Rothenberger who has done a tremendously detailed analysis of hand-count needs in Monterey County, CA. If he is making it publicly available I'll post a link here soon.
UPDATE/CORRECTION 12/25 4:25pm: Sincere apologies to Brian Rothenberger. His spreadsheet was developed completely independently of mine. He was not even aware of my work at the time he developed his model, which he has not made available online at this time. While our two spreadsheets are entirely different in approach, layout, and various other aspects, what they have in common with each other and several additional forecast spreadsheets circulating in the election integrity movement is the tactic of creating quantifiable projections for hand-counting paper ballots. Should Registrars everywhere be able to do this on their own? Of course. But have they done the work? It does not appear so, particularly here in Humboldt, which is why the VCC is intent on ultimately presenting forecasts based on our Registrar's assumptions. Thanks also to Brian for suggestions now included my hand-count forecast tool (it is permanently archived there with a record of revisions embedded in comments).
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/ny-judge-threatens-to-jail-ny-board-of.html
Labels: ACLU, Carolyn Crnich, Election Defense Alliance, Hank Sims, James Faulk, Jonathan Simon, Judge Gary Sharpe, Paula Long, Politics on the Hudson, Rich Sommerville, US v NY Board of Elections, VCC
Monday, December 17, 2007
PRESS RELEASE: VCC Joins Amicus Brief in Federal Election Lawsuit
PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Dave Berman, 707-845-3749 or info@VoterConfidenceCommittee.org
Election Integrity Advocates Urge Court To Order Hand Count In Next Presidential Election
12/17/07 - Humboldt County election watchdog group The Voter Confidence Committee (VCC), together with more than 30 other election integrity groups and advocates from coast to coast, have joined an amicus brief filed just prior to Friday's deadline in the case of US v NY State Board of Elections (Case # 1:06-cv-263). The Department of Justice is suing New York State to compel compliance with the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) passed in 2002.
The amicus cites multiple legal precedents defining the right to vote as not only including the right to cast a ballot, but also to see the ballot fairly received and counted. Submitted with the brief is overwhelming evidence that electronic voting systems are not only error and manipulation-prone, but also unconstitutional in their secrecy of operation. The amicus argues hand-counting paper ballots is HAVA compliant, and urges the court to order the two federal races (President, and US Representative) on New York's ballot next November to be hand-counted.
New York Attorney Andrea Novick of Election Defense Alliance (EDA) filed the brief, tentatively scheduled to be argued in United States Federal Court in Albany, NY on December 20 by EDA Attorney Jonathan Simon. Simon called the brief "an opportunity to offer an alternative solution that moves away from disastrous experiences of other states’ use of secret, computerized electronic vote counting equipment."
The brief offers over 200 pages of supporting documentation -- including evidence and analysis of outcome-determinative electronic vote mistabulation, as well as guides, tools, and detailed instructions for hand counting -- prepared and submitted by election reformists from a broad spectrum of organizations. Novick saluted the "cooperation and enthusiasm displayed by our colleagues across the election integrity spectrum" in preparing these critically important documents for the court.
The VCC has been advocating hand-counting all ballots in Humboldt elections and created a forecast tool to project cost, time and labor needs. The forecast tool has received national attention with applicability for any jurisdiction willing to objectively judge the feasibility of hand-counting.
"Andrea Novick and other nationally known election integrity advocates such as Rady Ananda asked for my help," said VCC co-founder Dave Berman. "We're a world away here in Humboldt but our work is making a difference. The forecast tool shows it is possible for every legally compliant polling place in NY to hand-count two federal races on election night in the poll site with one team of four people in four hours or less."
The VCC is currently collecting names of Humboldt voters willing to hand-count ballots on election night in local precincts. For more information on the VCC's Humboldt hand-count campaign, visit www.VoterConfidenceCommittee.org.
For further information on the amicus brief and federal case, including updates on scheduling, please contact Sally Castleman at Sallyc@ElectionDefenseAlliance.org (781-454-8700) or Jonathan Simon at VerifiedVote2004@aol.com (617-538-6012). The amicus and related materials may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/2vjphf.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-vcc-joins-amicus-brief-in.html
Labels: amicus brief, Andi Novick, Election Defense Alliance, hand-counting paper ballots, HAVA, Jonathan Simon, Rady Ananda, Sally Castleman, US v NY Board of Elections, VCC
Saturday, December 15, 2007
I am Voter Hear Me Roar: Meet the New York Amici (Guest blogged by Rady Ananda)
This is a perfect companion piece to the one I published yesterday looking at highlights of the amicus brief. Here Rady show us the thinking of many of the minds behind it all. This piece was originally published at at OpEdNews.com. - DB This … federal takeover of a state election board … is 'bizarre and unworkable.' Secret vote counting is not only unconstitutional, but is un-American. All touch screen and optical scan voting machines … count the votes (in) secret... This is beyond absurd— from the sublime to the ridiculous. "New York's Constitution of 1777 makes the observation that a vote cast on a tangible ballot preserves democracy better than one cast in the air: And whereas an opinion hath long prevailed among divers of the good people of this State that voting at elections by ballot would tend more to preserve the liberty and equal freedom of the people than voting viva voce… Citing NY history (above) to make her point, Nancy Tobi of New Hampshire continues: With theadvent of computerized voting, a new form of voting viva voce has made its way into the nation's elections, with the lion's share of America's total ballots now being counted – and often cast – in the Ethernet. Author and four-time research award winner, Professor Steven Freeman states in his Declaration: There is little question but that elections using newer HAVA-indicated op-scan and Direct Record Electronic machines can be stolen. Indeed, it has been proven time and time again. Ulster County Legislator Gary Bischoff, who chairs the Efficiency, Reform and Intergovernmental Relations Committee, asserts: Our democracy depends on citizens to express their will and choices in a repeatable, fair and reliable election. Pokey Anderson of Houston's radio news show, The Monitor, writes to the Court: While there has always been manipulation in elections, the difference between stealing in a hand-counted paper ballot election and an electronic election is the difference between successfully robbing a convenience store and successfully robbing Fort Knox. She goes on to quote others, starting with former National Security Agency code-breaker, Michael Wertheimer: If you believe, as I do, that voting is one of our critical infrastructures, then you have to defend it like you do your power grid, your water supply. And computer security professional Dr. David Dill: Think about it rationally. What are the assets being protected? If we're talking presidential elections or control of Congress, there aren't a lot of assets in this world in monetary terms that are worth more than that. You're talking about the whole US economy. And another computer security professional, Bruce O'Dell: The technology to invisibly compromise voting systems is mature and the rewards are essentially limitless. It's professionally irresponsible to not presume vulnerable extreme-high-value systems are already actively being exploited. Peacemakers of NY Schoharie County supports the proposition that Federal election ballots could be hand counted in 2008 (and Peacemakers) commits to participating in the hand counting of ballots. Wayne Stinson promises, "We will actively promote other citizens' engagement in the process." Parallel Elections use a hand-counted paper ballot system, and are run outside of an official polling site.PE organizer and national speaker, Judy Alter, then analyzes the difference between official results and voter reports of how they voted. She writes: We will continue to hold parallel elections and train others to do the same so that we can demonstrate the assault (computerized voting has) on our democracy. Karen Charman of the Ulster County Shandaken Democrat Club recognizes the precarious position in which computerized voting systems puts us: If the people lose control over the election process, they lose the right to govern themselves. The inalienable right of self-governance rests squarely on the integrity of our elections. We believe that only an observable Our organization will volunteer to assist our county in finding as many volunteers as we need to help hand count the elections should the Court order same. Susan Zimet writes in her amicus Declaration: As a County Legislator, I will not allow my constituents to be disenfranchised on unreliable and theft enabling machines. I am prepared to take whatever legal action is necessary for the voters of Ulster County to know that their vote was counted accurately. We have been looking for the most secure means to provide our constituents with … a transparent, accountable, fair and reliable electoral system. Hand counting of the Federal Elections is HAVA compliant. I will personally assist in organizing citizens in my county to be trained and available to hand count elections in my county should the Court order same. I know of many Ulster County residents that would gladly make themselves available to assure that we could successfully accomplish this endeavor. ARISE.org spokesperson Dennis Karius declares: Where there's a will there's a way and the people are willing to help our officials effect our will through the most secure, reliable, transparent electoral system that exists: hand-counted elections. ARISE is made up of thousands of active citizens thru congregations and community groups in the tri-county area of Albany, Rensselaer, and Schenectady in the CapitalDistrict. As part of this amici team, it stands for voters. So did Abraham Lincoln: Elections belong to the people. It is their decision. Abe is quoted by Mary Ann Gould (Voice of the Voters Radio) in her Declaration. Hand Count in 4 Hours Everyone involved in this team of amici assures New York that if the Court rules for hand-counting the two federal elections in NY's November 2008 election, they will bring enough people to get the job done in less than four hours. Dave Berman and I crunched the numbers that allowed us to conclude:
I am Voter Hear Me Roar: Meet the New York Amici
By Rady Ananda
December 15, 2007
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rady_ana_071215_i_am_voter_hear_me_r.htm
aka http://tinyurl.com/yrdqqg
Over 200 pages of legal documents from dozens of organizations, activists, election officials, and county legislators, representing tens of thousands of people, spoke on behalf of hand-counted paper ballots yesterday, through an amicus curiae brief (friend of the court), filed in USA vs. NY State Board of Elections.
In this federal case, the Dept. of Justice seeks to force New Yorkers to buy computerized voting systems, which have failed across the nation, election after election, and which the scientific community repeatedly condemns. Attorneys Andi Novick and Jonathan Simon, from Election Defense Alliance, head the cooperative effort. Novick saluted the "cooperation and enthusiasm displayed by our colleagues across the election integrity spectrum," noting that "it means a great deal in court, as well as in the court of public opinion, when so many groups and leaders pull together behind such a proposal."
Dave Berman's HCPB Forecast Tool provides the Court with a simple and effective means of calculating what it would cost New York to hire a 4-person hand-counting team per precinct (Election District) should the court allow it.
Also on December 14th, Ohio released the results of its "Project Everest," but not in time to be included in the annotated bibliography of expert reports submitted in the New York case. Ohio's team looked at Hart InterCivic, ES&S and Premier (fka Diebold), and all systems are still hackable. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner insists Cuyahoga County will switch to a computerized, networked system that uses centralized tabulation, a process wholly condemned in the scientific literature.
But, ignoring that absurdity for now, have a bowl or a glass of wine (or for those who can relax without chemical assistance, sit back) and quietly contemplate these gems of wisdom from people who stand for government by the people:
Friend of the court, Joel Tyner, NY Dutchess County Legislator, continues:
transparent count of the votes can protect our elections and our sovereignty.
In most of the counties studied only one team of four will be needed per (Election District of 1,150 registered voters) to complete hand-counting in four hours or less.
Oral Hearing Next Thursday
Jonathan Simon will appear for oral arguments being heard on Thursday, December 20th at 9 AM, at the US District Court, Albany, NY 12207.
He explains, "It is a lot less likely that I will be called upon to give an oral presentation per se; more likely that, if the court sees merit in or takes an interest in our brief, I may be asked questions about areas we have covered." He's confident in the merits of the HCPB position, "which I hope will prick the interest of the court.
"I think the sheer number of groups and individuals who have signed on will help in that regard… But a lot of it will be determined by the interests of the court and the parties."
The brief (p.14) points out the most important interest - that the public be able to "see" the vote count:
Electronic voting machines have caused citizens to lose their ability to observe and oversee the voting process. For this reason the use of computers destroys the basis for legitimacy of elections and the elected government.
The loss of these integral aspects of the right to vote is in direct violation of the repeated pronouncements of the highest court in New York that the constitutional right to vote includes the right to "see " that one's vote was "given full force and effect." Deister v Wintermute, supra at 108.
Given the millions of voters whose interests are represented by the HCPB amicus team, a democratic election run by the people will again have its day in court.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-am-voter-hear-me-roar-meet-new-york_15.html
Labels: amicus brief, Andi Novick, Election Defense Alliance, Gary Bischoff, Joel Tyner, Jonathan Simon, Judy Alter, Nancy Tobi, Pokey Anderson, Rady Ananda, Steven Freeman, US v NY Board of Elections
Hand-Counting Paper Ballots Proposed In NY District Court
In March 2006, the US Department of Justice began legal proceedings ostensibly aimed at bringing the state of NY into compliance with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). As of today, NY is still the only state that hasn't been bullied into outsourcing its election administration to the secret counting of a private corporation. Arguments will be heard in Case No. 06-CV-0263(GLS), US v NY State Board of Elections, starting next Thursday, December 20.
Yesterday was a big day in the long arc of this story. Attorney Andrea Novick filed a Memorandum of Law of Proposed Amici Curiae, also called an amicus brief or a friend of the court brief, on behalf of 33 election integrity advocates and organizations proposing to hand-count the two federal races on the November 2008 ballot. While it was Novick who filed the brief, it will be Jonathon Simon who will be in the courtroom with the possibility of a rare and extraordinary opportunity to make oral arguments.
There are many documents related to this case and I have started collecting some of them in a new folder in the GuvWurld News Archive. In particular, there are some very impressive declarations filed to provide the credentials of those involved in crafting the brief. You can now also see the projections for 15 NY counties developed using Rady Ananda's voter turnout projections and the hand-count forecast tool I built. Our methods are detailed in our declarations and the brief. It's all in that new folder.
More documents will surely be added in the days and weeks ahead. As of this hour, I am withholding my declaration as corrections are being made. It is uncertain whether an amended declaration can be filed, but when the update is complete you can at least locate it as described above. This is so unfortunate because we all spent ridiculous amounts of time this week, only to get snagged by document version control.
Here are some of the highlights of the brief:p.7 of the brief - crux of our "proposal":
I have immense respect and admiration for all the people working on this project, many of whom I haven't named and some of whom I may not even realize are on the team. I believe that everyone understands what a long shot this is but I have seen nothing but positivity toward the project. We know that regardless of the outcome of the case, in which we are neither plaintiff nor defendant, we have created a new body of work that advances the election integrity movement and will serve as a future reference countless times. In this way, I again cite confluence with the Voter Confidence Committee's Humboldt hand-count campaign. In Thursday's media advisory, we did not just request public information from the Registrar, we made a leap in our framing. Months ago, when our Report on Election Conditions in Humboldt County was first released, we postured "Hand-Counting Paper Ballots Is On The Table - Let The Community Dialog Begin!" Like the District Court in NY, with enough information to demonstrate the time, cost, labor and other logistical concerns, the Humboldt community shall now be asked to judge the viability of our proposal.
As the United States' memorandum has made clear, HAVA recognizes the State's right to hand count paper ballots, as long as Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) are provided in every polling place, producing a paper ballot identical to the paper ballots marked by able voters. Thus, were the Court to direct a hand count of the two Federal races, the defendants would not have to choose between purchasing failed computerized systems or remaining in violation of a federal statute, thereby subjecting the State to this Court's directing an outside party to decide how New York's elections will be held in 2008.
p.11 - closing of the summary section; features some points made previously by Paul Lehto and here at WDNC:
Amici Curia respectfully urge the Court to act as the judiciary has and must when government's potential conflict of interest, in having the authority to determine the means by which it may be re-elected, would so regulate the people's elections as to thwart the full exercise of the franchise as secured by the Constitution. The right to choose our representatives means nothing if the people cannot know - not merely trust - that their will has been accurately reflected by the results of our elections. That right was not granted to the people, but rather was deemed "unalienable," by nothing less than our Declaration of Independence. Governments' role is to secure that right. There is nothing secure about voting on computerized systems which have shown themselves time and again to be readily corruptible while defying detection. We implore the Court to protect the citizens' means to observe and secure our elections so that we may see, not trust, that our consent to the outcome was respected.
page 16 - from the core of the argument, a fine distillation of a point this country should have seen about five years ago as "Do not pass go, do not collect $200":
Not only have the essential democratic safeguards been obliterated by oblique computerized processes, but all of the voting systems sold by these voting vendors have been revealed to be seriously vulnerable to attacks that can change the outcome of entire elections. As demonstrated below and in the declarations of Lukacher, Anderson, Simon and Freeman, computerized voting offers by far and away the greatest opportunity for theft this nation has ever seen. After 200 years of successive legislative efforts to protect the integrity of our elections by minimizing the opportunities for tampering, we are witnessing a complete reversal wherein the opportunities for tampering are massively multiplied, enabled solely by the introduction of computers into our electoral process. Such action is in direct conflict with our Constitution.
pages 23-24 - another part of the main argument, and another point we have tried to make here in Humboldt about how unsavory (really how unthinkable) it is now to do business with Diebold/Premier:
New York's Procurement Laws prohibit the State from entering into contracts with "non-responsible" vendors26. The voting vendors who sell America's computerized voting systems share a history of multiple infractions of "non-responsible" conduct as defined in New York's laws -- including, in addition to failed performance and unethical conduct, criminal indictments and convictions, bid rigging, computer-aided embezzlement, money laundering, tax evasion, bribery and kick-back scandals to name a few -- any one of which would render them ineligible to do business in New York.26 http://www.wheresthepaper.org/Memo1NYSvendorsProhibited.pdf, http://www.wheresthepaper.org/UpdatedProcurementVendorIrresponsibility070822.pdf,
Two memorandums (amici's exhibits "B" and "C") containing 80 pages of documented reports of vendors disqualifying "not-responsible" conduct were submitted to the SBOE and various agencies within the Governor's office. The defendants ignored the evidence, avoiding their affirmative obligation to investigate these vendors.
http://www.votersunite.org/info/IrresponsibleVendors.pdf and see Lukacher Declaration.
The evidence of the disaster of computerized voting presented herein is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. In urging that New York become HAVA-compliant by purchasing this equipment, the United States' motion fails to mention that none of this equipment can provide a secure, reliable or accurate election result. The United States cannot justifiably compel the purchase of equipment that would disenfranchise millions by virtue of these machines' unacceptably high security vulnerabilities and documented failures.
New York should be free to abide by its rich democratic history in which the rights of citizens to oversee and monitor their elections has historically and progressively been recognized, respected and upheld as constitutionally required. This would be impossible if New York State were forced to purchase these machines, as the United States is urging this Court to direct.
pages 26-27
To satisfy the United States' motion that the State become HAVA-compliant for the federal election (since that is the only election relevant to the federal statute), the State only has to hand count the two Federal races in 2008, providing BMDs in every polling place so that disabled voters could create the same paper ballots as abled voters. Amici have gone to great lengths to assist New York by determining what would be required to hand count these two races, demonstrating as well how simple and feasible it would be for New York to return to a hand count for 2008's Federal election.
Rady Ananda and Dave Berman have analyzed the official data for each New York county and, using a forecast tool designed by Mr. Berman expressly for this purpose, have demonstrated that New [sic] will require only four citizen-counters in each polling place to be able to count the two races in less than four hours.2929The forecast tool is based on the procedures as explained to Mr. Berman by New Hampshire's Assistant Secretary of State, Anthony Stevens. Forty-five percent of New Hampshire's polling places still hand count their ballots and, as explained in greater detail in the Tobi declaration, New Hampshire's ballots are far more complex, and their precincts larger, than New York's. [WDNC: Note that the first part of this footnote is among the points of clarification in my declaration. I did not attend Assistant Secretary Stevens' presentation or ever meet or speak with him. The forecast tool was inspired by a .pdf of Stevens' presentation on the website of Democracy For New Hampshire.]
page 29 - arguing that lever machines are HAVA compliant, and that failing to approve HCPB, all levers would still be preferable to anything electronic:
Lever machines do produce a permanent paper record. Some lever machines imprint the total number of votes cast onto a piece of paper. At the close of the election, poll workers remove the paper from the lever machine and use it to create another paper record of the tallies. Other lever machines don't produce an imprinted piece of paper with the tallies, but the poll workers perform the same function, taking the voting tallies off the lever machines and writing them down on a piece of paper, thus satisfying HAVA's requirement for a permanent paper record.
The United States' argument that the lever machine doesn't produce a permanent paper record with manual audit capacity presumably ignores the human being's role as part of the "voting system". However, just as with a hand count, a human being is very much a part of the voting system, and in the case of lever machines a human being is producing the permanent paper record required by HAVA.2929 It is worth observing that there are voting systems which the United States considers HAVA-compliant that clearly do not "produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity" as required by the statute. Certainly no paperless DRE can be said to produce a permanent record, but the United States is not suing those states with paperless DREs to compel their compliance with HAVA. Moreover the paper produced by DREs with printers attached to them, creating so-called voter verified paper audit trails (VVPATs), have been shown unreliable for auditing purposes in that they have been known to have as high as 20% unreadability, and as corroborated in the recent reports from California, can be rigged to correspond to the electronic tally, neither equating with the machine's official tally.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/hand-counting-paper-ballots-proposed-in.html
Labels: amicus brief, Andi Novick, Anthony Stevens, DOJ, GuvWurld News Archive, HAVA, hcpb, Jonathan Simon, Nancy Tobi, Rady Ananda, US v NY Board of Elections, Voter Confidence Committee
