From: "David L. Dill" <dill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Robert Mcgrath" <mcgrath_mcnally@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Paperless electronic voting (FW: Maryland Refuses to
CountPaper Ballots) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:09:32 -0700
In the Wake County incident in 2002, the certified ES&S iVotronic
firmware lost 436 votes. The three redundant memories didn't help,
probably because the error occured before the vote record was stored
in any of the records.
If Gary or Faye would like to know more about what happened in Wake
County, I can direct them to the details.
Dave
> Gary,
>
> We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and thank you for
your
> response. I much appreciated Faye's offer on TV the other night, and
have
> always been impressed with the sincere dedication I have seen in the
folks I
> have met from her division already, including Susan.
>
> It is heartening to hear that you bring both desire and talent to your
> position at Jeffco; as a Jeffco resident I am pleased you are acting as
a
> steward of our election process.
>
> However, I also believe that it is possible that any county elections
group
> can benefit from careful consideration of eventualities that may not
have
> been in original plans when purchasing equipment from a DRE vendor.
While
> our group may not have the technical expertise to engage in a "Red Team"
> exercise designed to simulate an election environment and try to bring
it
> down, we can present some "what if" scenarios that we'd like you and
your
> staff to consider.
>
> As a non-partisan group, it is our hope that we might also invite
members of
> major political parties in Jefferson County (Republicans, Democrats,
Greens
> and Libertarians, or others if you know of any) to either participate in
a
> meeting with your office or to share in the results of our meeting.
>
> There are statements being made by election officials that are not quite
> accurate. For example, there are indeed systems certified for use that
> provide paper audit trails. There are systems that are certified or
will
> soon be certified that comply with ADA requirements for accessibility,
and
> that are more voter verifiable than present systems, ES&S included.
>
> For us to consider a cost comparison between use of existing ES&S
technology
> vs. reverting to an entirely paper-based process would require some more
> information from your office about numbers of ballot styles, estimated
> turnouts, and estimated numbers of ballot issues or races. Since
volunteer
> pledges have begun in various counties to commit to offer free hand
counting
> services to counties for this year's elections, it would necessitate
> applying the above estimates.
>
> Yes, we wish to engage with you and yes, we hope to affect this year's
> elections, and not wait for federal standards that may not occur until
after
> this November. It is our contention that Darrell Wold, former FEC
Chairman,
> got it right when he stated that HAVA requires voter verifiable paper
trails
> be included in the elections process, and we want to do whatever it
takes to
> make this a reality for this year.
>
> Finally, it is extremely heartening to see that Faye has stood up for a
> citizen's right to request and be given a paper ballot in case they have
any
> concerns over use of an electronic voting machine. Her leadership in
this
> area is admired and we will be glad to publicly acknowledge and lift up
her
> leadership to members of our county.
>
> Please let me know when would best fit your schedule to meet.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bob McGrath
> Director
> Coloradoans for Voting Integrity
> www.cfvi.org
> 303-460-1825 days
>
>
> >From: "Gary VanDeStouwe" <GVanDeSt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <pklammer@xxxxxxx>, "Faye Griffin" <FGriffin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >CC: "Susan Miller" <SMILLER@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<mcgrath_mcnally@xxxxxxx>
> >Subject: RE: Paperless electronic voting (FW: Maryland Refuses to
> >CountPaper Ballots)
> >Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:05:50 -0600
> >
> >Mr Klammer,
> >
> > Perhaps I can address your concern. First of all equating the mars
> >rover and NASA with voting equipment and election vendors is a rather
> >long stretch. The complexity of the two systems isn't even
> >realistically comparable. I do however understand your point, there
are
> >no perfect systems. Not NASA, not life support, not voting. Testing
> >can not prove the absence of errors, just the absence of discovered
> >errors.
> >
> > The triple redundancy that Faye referred to is the independent
> >storage of the audit and accumulator information on three physically
> >separate non volatile ram chips on the circuit board of each machine
> >itself. The protection that this provides is if one or even more of
> >these chips fails or malfunctions, a slight but possible occurrence,
all
> >election information can be retrieved from the remaining chips or chip.
> >Since our machines don't have hard drives, this storage is equivalent
to
> >storing all of the data on three separate hard drives. Sure a hard
> >drive can fail causing you to loose some or all of your data, so to
> >protect against this situation, a smart person would backup or mirror
> >that same information to another drive that gives you 2 copies of the
> >same data. We are taking that same concept one step further, we are
> >literally creating 3 independent copies. Why three copies, because we
> >hold vote information every bit as dear as you, and want to be able to
> >retrieve that data.
> >
> > I think you will find our office very proactive in addressing the
> >concerns of citizens of Jefferson County. For instance, a concern that
> >was voiced by Mr. Mcgrath was that the Clerks office just didn't have
> >the expertise to understand technology. I'm afraid that is again a
> >misconception. Prior to the 2000 primary, Faye relied on the very
large
> >amount of advice and research provided by the County IT staff of which
I
> >was a part. But she recognized the need for even more focused,
> >specialized knowledge. That's where I came in.
> >
> > I happen to be one of those "Computer Scientists" that keeps being
> >referred to as being adamantly against electronic voting. Nothing could
> >be further from the truth. I have the Computer Science degree, I've
> >have the knowledge, and I have the experience to throughly understand
> >the technology. But beyond that, I know elections. I have personally
> >been involved in counting every election that has been held in
Jefferson
> >County in the last 10 years. In August 2000 I was hired by Faye to
> >exclusively research, evaluate, and implement technology in the Clerk
> >and Recorders Office, a job I had been doing as part of the county IT
> >staff for the previous 6 years. Prior to that I was working as the lead
> >in-house Programmer/Analyst for a DTC based firm. I'm also an army
> >veteran, so I not only believe in this country, I volunteered to defend
> >and die for the freedoms that this country provides. So yes, I believe
> >in making sure every vote that can be counted, not only is counted, but
> >is counted correctly. To the reference that our staff is somehow ill
> >equipped to understand, all I can say is that you have never met me or
> >the others like me. Additionally the SOS office has several people
every
> >bit as qualified as myself, everyone of them capable, well informed,
and
> >dedicated to protecting the voting rights of every citizen of Colorado.
> >To imply otherwise is ill-informed.
> >
> > I'm not even sure what it is that you would like Faye to do. Here
> >are the things that she has publicly said that she supports:
> >1) Open source software.
> >2) Paper audit trail. (Once federal standards have been
> >established)
> >3) Increased participation by the general public.
> >4) Provide paper ballots to those who request one.
> >
> >Here is what she will not do:
> >1) Waste taxpayer money by refusing to use an existing, proven,
> >accurate, popular, and legal voting method.
> >2) Waste taxpayer money and break State and Federal laws by
> >implementing unproven, untested, and non standardized voting equipment.
> >
> > Your cause is not new or unexpected, the existing hardware was
> >purchased with full knowledge and the expectation that additional paper
> >trail information may need to be added in the future. Our equipment
> >manufacturer, ES&S, went so far as to provide a means to communicate
> >with a printer in their design. At this time they do not have a
> >production external audit solution available, but have indicated that
> >they are willing and able to add this functionality when and if
> >standards are established. And why wouldn't they? They stand to make
> >more money by selling additional equipment. So far, national standards
> >have not been established, nor have processes been developed that would
> >enable Jefferson County to expand the auditing capabilities of any
> >direct recording voting equipment. When such standards, processes, and
> >equipment exists, you will find that Jefferson County will once again
> >embrace, and be a national leader in the implementation of that
> >technology.
> >
> > If your cause is to simply remove all technology from voting on
the
> >assumption that humans are more accurate than computers at counting, I
> >believe you are fighting a lost cause.
> >
> > What is it that you continue to want Faye to change her mind
about?
> > As far as I can tell she supports any technology that enhances
> >security, verifiability, and access to voting. As an election official,
> >she must work within the laws of this Country, this State, and this
> >County. I know for a fact, that she would not personally violate those
> >laws, nor would she ask any of her staff to do so. So if you want
> >changes made in voting, you need to convince the law makers, not the
law
> >followers. It is like trying to convince the police officer that he
> >should not give you a ticket because you disagree with the speed limit.
> >The police officer doesn't have the power to change the speed limit,
> >whether he aggress with you or not.
> >
> > As Faye said, you are welcome to become more involved in the
> >election process, we wish more people would. If you would like to
learn
> >more about our current systems, the checks and balances that are
> >involved, both legally mandated and beyond, I offer my time. Please
> >understand, if your goal is simply to stop Jefferson County from
> >conducting elections on our existing equipment, you will be wasting
your
> >time and ours.
> >
> > Your cause seems nobel, your associates seem well educated, dare I
> >suggest that your enthusiasm and knowledge be harnessed to provide us
> >with workable solutions and alternatives, rather than criticisms of
> >things that we can not control. Personally I would love to see a low
> >cost, open source, secure and verifiable voting method that is
> >infallible and incorruptible. But until that system exists we must use
> >the best systems that are available today.
> >
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Gary Van De Stouwe
> >Technical Director
> >Jefferson County
> >Clerk & Recorders Office
> >gvandest@xxxxxxxxx
> >(303) 271-8169
> >
> >
> > >>> pklammer@xxxxxxxxxxx Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:51:24 PM >>>
> >Dear Faye -
> >
> >your performance on Channel 12 this evening was a severe
> >disappointment.
> >Instead of answering the questions, you dodged them.
> >
> >Q: "What if the memory system fails; how will you recover votes with
> >no
> >paper backup?" (Paraphrased quote).
> >
> >A: There isn't one memory, there's three. I don't think it's flash
> >memory
> >in the touchscreen, anyway. The machines are drop-tested to see if
> >they can
> >get the votes out after that.
> >
> >You, nor Donetta, didn't answer the question: what if the memory
> >system
> >FAILS??? Even NASA experience failure! You don't think NASA did drop
> >tests
> >(try 30 G's crashing onto Mars with airbags!). You don't think NASA
> >has
> >triplicate redundancies? You don't think NASA tested and tested and
> >tested?
> >You don't think NASA programmers didn't put in safety features that
> >DRE
> >vendors can't even afford?
> >
> >You asserted, "but they won't fail."
> >
> >I'm demanding an answer to the question: What If They Do?"
> >
> >The answer is obvious: you have no answer.
> >
> >So you and Donetta have no choice, but to assert and deny and dissemble
> >and
> >obfuscate: "they won't fail, they're tested, they're redundant, they
> >can't
> >fail."
> >
> >But what if they do fail?
> >
> >--
> >Pete Klammer, P.E. / ACM(1970), IEEE, ICCP(CCP), NSPE(PE), NACSE(NSNE)
> > 3200 Routt Street / Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033-5452
> > (303)233-9485 / Fax:(303)274-6182 / Mailto:PKlammer@xxxxxxx
> > "Either Be Good, or Else Be Careful, but Do Have Fun! "
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >From: Pete Klammer [mailto:pklammer@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 10:53 AM
> >To: 'Faye Griffin'
> >Cc: 'Gary VanDeStouwe'; 'Susan Miller'; 'Robert Mcgrath'
> >Subject: re: Paperless electronic voting (FW: Maryland Refuses to
> >Count
> >Paper Ballots)
> >
> >
> >Dear Jefferson County Election Directors -
> >
> >can Jefferson County do what the story below reports from Maryland?
> >Can you
> >affirm that you will not?
> >--
> >Pete Klammer, P.E. / ACM(1970), IEEE, ICCP(CCP), NSPE(PE), NACSE(NSNE)
> > 3200 Routt Street / Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033-5452
> > (303)233-9485 / Fax:(303)274-6182 / Mailto:PKlammer@xxxxxxx
> > "Either Be Good, or Else Be Careful, but Do Have Fun! "
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >From: Joseph Holder [mailto:conquip@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 1:42 AM
> >To: undisclosed-recipients:
> >Subject: Maryland Refuses to Count Paper Ballots
> >
> >
> >I found this act by elections officials in Maryland to be beyond
> >comprehension. I would suggest that their actions were not only
> >morally
> >reprehensible, ethically dispicable, but also a possibly astate and
> >federal
> >crime. I hope they explore their legal options. They were willfully
> >disenfranchised by the very state and local officials whose duty it is
> >to
> >ensure their vote.
> >Jody
> >
> >Discarded paper ballot draws ire of voter
> >04/22/04
> >By Pete Pichaske
> >
> >
> >original
>
><http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?pnpID=573&NewsID=542565&CategoryI
> >
> >D=742&show=localnews&om=1> story
> >
> >
> >Helen Kolbe of Columbia said she has been a faithful voter for more
> >than
> >five decades. So the news that Howard County elections officials had
> >tossed
> >out her vote in last month's primary election angered her.
> >
> >
> >"I don't like the idea of being disenfranchised," Kolbe, 76, said.
> >"Voting
> >is our last bastion of democracy, and if we can't know with confidence
> >that
> >our votes will count, where is our democracy?"
> >
> >
> >Kolbe was one of 22 people in Howard County who filled out a paper
> >ballot in
> >the March 2 primary election rather than use the new touch-screen
> >voting
> >machines, and whose votes were thrown out.
> >
> >
> >Under the touch-screen system, those 22 paper votes didn't count,
> >county
> >elections officials said.
> >
> >
> >Kolbe, who voted at Bryant Woods Elementary School in Columbia, said
> >she
> >requested a paper ballot on election day because she did not trust the
> >electronic system.
> >
> >
> >Although an elections official handed her a paper ballot, told her how
> >to
> >fill it out, and even placed her finished ballot in an
> >official-looking
> >"lockbox," nobody told her that the ballot didn't count, Kolbe said.
> >
> >
> >"I did not vote with the intention of not voting," she added.
> >
> >
> >Kolbe has appealed the decision to discount her vote to the state board
> >of
> >elections.
> >
> >
> >Elections officials said they allowed people to use the paper ballots
> >because they wanted to ensure that everyone who wanted to cast a ballot
> >did
> >so. However, state regulations barred them from counting those votes,
> >the
> >officials said.
> >
> >
> >"We wanted to make sure that nobody leaves a voting precinct without
> >voting," Howard County Board of Elections chairman Guy Harriman said.
> >"But
> >we could not count them. We really had no choice."
> >
> >
> >In some cases, officials counted paper or "provisional" ballots,
> >Harriman
> >said. Those cases included, for example, the vote of a person who
> >showed up
> >at the wrong precinct and therefore had no access to the voting
> >machine. But
> >if a person had access to a touch-screen machine, he or she had to use
> >it.
> >
> >
> >Election officials counted 97 legal paper ballots, not including
> >absentee
> >ballots, which also were paper.
> >
> >
> >However the board sent 22 voters who had access to touch-screen
> >machines but
> >decided to use paper ballots, letters explaining that their votes did
> >not
> >count, Harriman said, adding that the letters went out a week or two
> >after
> >the election.
> >
> >
> >He and other election officials said the voters requesting paper
> >ballots
> >should have been told when they voted that their vote didn't count.
> >
> >
> >"That may not have been made clear to people by the election judges,"
> >said
> >Evelyn Purcell, acting supervisor of elections board. "And maybe the
> >people
> >didn't understand what they were told."
> >
> >
> >No paper trail
> >
> >
> >The touch-screen voting machines were used throughout most of Maryland
> >for
> >the first time in the March 2 primary and will be used again in the
> >November
> >general election.
> >
> >
> >Although the machines proved popular with most voters, who found them
> >easy
> >to use, critics have pointed out that the machines provide no back-up
> >"paper
> >trail" of the vote, leaving them vulnerable to tampering. The Maryland
> >General Assembly this year rejected legislation requiring that the
> >machines
> >provide a paper tally.
> >
> >
> >Critics of the system urged voters to protest the new system by
> >demanding
> >paper ballots during the primary election, a suggestion hundreds of
> >voters
> >throughout the state followed.
> >
> >
> >While it is unclear whether other counties followed Howard's policy of
> >accepting paper ballots at polling places, election officials
> >throughout
> >Maryland refused to count the protest ballots.
> >
> >
> >"There are reasons people were allowed to vote with a provisional
> >ballot,
> >but fear of touch-screen voting machines is not one of them," said
> >Mary
> >Wagner of the state board of elections.
> >
> >
> >The officials' refusal to accept paper ballots has outraged critics of
> >electronic voting.
> >
> >
> >"This happened to people throughout the state," said Linda Schade of
> >True
> >Vote Maryland, an organization founded last year to lobby for changes
> >to the
> >touch-screen system used in Maryland. "They didn't have to do that.
> >They
> >didn't have to disenfranchise people."
> >
> >
> >Ann Balcerzak, an alternate to the county elections board, said she
> >sympathized with some of the paper-ballot users and lobbied the board
> >unsuccessfully to have at least some of the ballots counted.
> >
> >
> >"In Helen's case, in particular, I thought there was an expectation
> >that the
> >ballot would've been counted," Balcerzak said of Kolbe's experience.
> >
> >
> >The board would have to resolve such snafus before the general
> >election, she
> >added.
> >
> >
> >"This was a real shakedown cruise for us," Balcerzak said of the
> >primary
> >election. "This is the type of thing the board will be looking at very
> >closely. When you realize how close elections can be, you can't have
> >this
> >happening."
> >
> >
> >E-mail Pete Pichaske at ppichaske@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now!
> http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>