Thoughts from an advocate for the disabled

["Pete Klammer" <pklammer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

FYI ...
-----Original Message-----
From: Faith Gross [mailto:fgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 5:11 PM
To: 'pklammer@xxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: Language of LWV Shift in Position

Hi Pete,

Thanks for sending me information.  I do appreciate it, even though VVPT is 
one of those issues that we probably will have to agree to disagree on.  I, 
along with about 40 of my colleagues from across the country, had  the 
opportunity earlier this month to meet with half of the Election Assistance 
Commission (Soaries and Martinez) during our national association's annual 
conference in washington.  They are recommending the following to address 
the VVPT issue:

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN
Chairman Soaries' Remarks about Electronic Voting Security Strategy
for the November 2004 Presidential Election
The increased use of electronic voting devices has created security 
concerns that
the U.S. Election Assistance Commission must address. A priority of the EAC 
is to
address security needs related to the use of electronic voting devices.
The EAC has been in discussion with election administrators, computer
scientists, advocates, voters, scholars and other government and law 
enforcement
officials about electronic voting security. On May 5, 2004 the EAC held a 
public hearing
on the use, reliability and security of electronic voting devices. As 
Chairman, I will
recommend that the EAC initiate the following strategy to insure election 
integrity and
promote voter confidence in the administration of the 2004 federal 
election:
1. EAC should request that all voting software vendors allow election 
officials with
whom they have contracted to analyze the proprietary source codes of their
software and to protect that process by using appropriate nondisclosure and
confidentiality agreements. EAC should assist in the analysis when needed.
2. EAC should ask every election jurisdiction that uses electronic voting 
devices to
identify and implement enhanced security measures in November. Options
include paper verification, voice verification, cryptography, parallel 
monitoring,
chain of custody, testing practices, intergovernmental agreements for 
enhanced
management, etc. EAC will offer best practices and guidance on specific 
methods
and will assist in the identification and execution of security methods 
when
needed.
3. EAC should invite every voting software vendor to submit their certified 
software
to the National Software Reference Library (NSRL) at the National Institute 
of
Standards and Technology (NIST). This would facilitate the tracking of 
software
version usage. NSRL is designed to collect software from various sources 
and
incorporate file profiles computed from this software into a Reference Data 
Set
(RDS) of information. The RDS can be used by law enforcement, government, 
and
industry organizations to review files on a computer by matching file 
profiles in
the RDS. The NSRL was built to meet the needs of the law enforcement
community for rigorously verified data that can meet the exacting 
requirement of
the criminal justice system.
4. EAC should solicit information about suspicious electronic voting system 
activity
including software programming and should request aggressive investigative 
and
prosecutorial responses from the U. S. Department of Justice Elections 
Crimes
Branch in the Criminal Division.
5. EAC should document incidents and record data concerning electronic 
voting
equipment malfunctions in November. This information can be submitted to 
the
EAC Technical Guidelines Development Committee that will be creating the 
new
voluntary voting systems standards.


Also, here is the e mail message sent by Kay Maxwell to state and local LWV 
officials, clarifying their new position on VVPT.

> >Sent:	Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:45 AM
> >Subject:	Citizen's Right to Vote Resolution
> >
> >
> >
> >June 22, 2004
> >
> >To:		State and Local League Presidents
> >From:		Kay J. Maxwell, LWVUS President
> >Subject:	Citizen's Right to Vote Resolution
> >Below is the full text of the motion adopted by delegates to our 46th
> >national convention.  The League has a long tradition of reaching
> >agreement through deliberative, democratic processes.  There was
> >disagreement with the LWVUS stance opposing a Voter-Verified Paper Trail
> >(VVPT).  At convention, by following League process, we arrived at a
> >revised interpretation of our "Citizen's Right to Vote" position.
> >The convention resolution substituted principles and criteria - "secure,
> >accurate, recountable, and accessible" - for the language that
> >previously took a stand on a type of technology, i.e., an individual
> >paper confirmation for each ballot, or voter-verified paper trail
> >(VVPT).  Thus the League has moved from taking a stand on types of
> >technology to taking a stand on the goals or principles any particular
> >technology must fulfill.   The criteria - "secure, accurate,
> >recountable, and accessible" - are not code words for VVPT or for any
> >other type of technology.
> >This revised stance, based on the "Citizen's Right to Vote" position,
> >means that:
> >*	The League neither supports nor opposes any type of technology
> >per se, such as Direct Recording Electronic voting machines (DREs),
> >VVPT, or optical scan.
> >*	Leagues may advocate for the four criteria, but it would not be
> >appropriate to advocate for or against a type of technology, as
> >indicated above, since that would be inflexible and would undermine
> >technological innovation.
> >*	Because election laws and current equipment are different in
> >each state, Leagues in each state may support particular voting systems
> >appropriate to them, including the management, operational and polling
> >place procedures associated with the equipment. But before lobbying for
> >or against a particular voting system, the system as a whole should be
> >evaluated against the criteria, and only those that meet all four
> >criteria may be supported.
> >We ask that Leagues consult with the LWVUS before taking action in order
> >to ensure that the League speaks with one voice in the application of
> >this revised interpretation of the "Citizen's Right to Vote" position.
> >The following is the text of the motion made by the President of the LWV
> >of Minnesota and passed by convention delegates:
> >		"Whereas there is strong disagreement among League
> >members on the interpretation of the position on 'Citizen's Right to
> >Vote' that the LWVUS has taken on whether a Voter Verified Paper Audit
> >Trail should be a requirement with Direct Recording Electronic Voting,
> >		Be it resolved that LWVUS remove the following wording
> >from its interpretation:  The LWVUS supports an individual audit
> >capacity for the purposes of recounts and authentication of elections
> >for all voting systems.  The LWVUS does not believe that an individual
> >paper confirmation for each ballot is required to achieve these goals.
> >An individual paper confirmation for each ballot would undermine
> >disability access requirements, raise costs and slow down the purchase
> >or lease of machines that might be used to replace machines that don't
> >work.  The experts that we have consulted say that there are many
> >safeguards other than an individual paper ballot confirmation that can
> >protect the sanctity of the ballot and that other issues are far more
> >important in safeguarding our election systems.
> >		The LWVUS interpretation of the position on 'Citizen's
> >Right to Vote' will now read:  In order to ensure integrity and voter
> >confidence in elections, the LWVUS supports the implementation of voting
> >systems and procedures that are secure, accurate, recountable, and
> >accessible."
> >The LWVUS Board is working through the application of this revised
> >stance and will send additional guidance.  In the interim this message
> >should provide an initial basis for a shared understanding among Leagues
> >of the action taken at convention.

Finaly, here is an article that  addresses some of the other areas of 
concern for this critical election.

Faith

Date:  Thu Jun 17, 2004  4:32 pm
Subject:  CongressDaily AM column: "Beware Those Provisional Ballots"

RULES OF THE GAME
Beware Those Provisional Ballots

     With Election Day just five months away, a growing number of election 
officials, civic groups and computer experts have zeroed in on voting 
machine problems as the most dangerous minefield ahead.

     Touch-screen voting machines, in particular, have come under fire as 
vulnerable to hackers, lacking a paper trail and subject to malfunctions 
and breakdowns. Many public officials argue these so-called Direct 
Recording Electronic systems should not be used unless they can produce a 
voter-verifiable paper trail.

     The rush to protect such machines against security breaches is 
certainly understandable. Legislation authored by Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., 
to require all voting machines to produce a paper record by Election Day 
has helped draw attention to serious problems with increasingly popular 
touch-screen technology.

     But voting machines may turn out to be the least of voters' worries on 
Election Day. Demanding all touch-screen machines be hastily hooked up to 
printers may cause more problems than it solves. These include paper jams, 
long waits and soaring costs. While the troubles with DREs must be 
addressed, there is growing evidence that other, more basic problems may 
prove more urgent.

     "Machines do not an election make," said Kay Maxwell, president of the 
League of Women Voters. The LWV, which has 84 years of experience in the 
trenches with voters, recently joined with several civil rights groups to 
sound the alarm on what they called the "Top Five Risks" facing eligible 
voters this fall. Significantly, the lack of a paper trail for touch-screen 
voting machines was not among them.

     "It seems like an easy answer," Maxwell said of the push to require 
DREs to produce a voter-verified paper trail. However, she added, there are 
no standards yet for how to retrofit existing touch screen machines to 
produce a paper trail. "This is not a time to be requiring something like 
this," she cautioned.

     The LWV is not the only leading civic group with reservations about 
the paper trail stampede. People for the American Way, while acknowledging 
security concerns, has stopped short of calling for a voter-verified paper 
trail. Instead, the group has recommended what it calls a voter-verifiable 
audit trail. Non-paper options, which are still in development, could 
include a machine-readable card, for example.

     Paper trails are no silver bullet, in part because the percentage of 
the electorate that will be casting ballots on DREs this fall is relatively 
small. Now that California has imposed strict new security standards for 
touch-screen machines, the nationwide percentage of voters expected to vote 
with DREs has dropped from about 30 percent to perhaps 15 percent.

     Meanwhile, a host of other pitfalls remain, regardless of what 
machines voters use, the LWV and its allies warn. These include confusion 
around the new identification requirement imposed by the 2002 Help America 
Vote Act, erroneous purging of voters from the rolls, voter registration 
problems, poorly functioning machines and failure to count provisional 
ballots.

     Of these, the provisional ballot issue could easily prove the most 
problematic. The Help America Vote Act requires that any voter whose 
eligibility is in doubt must be allowed to cast a provisional ballot. If 
election officials later determine that the voter was eligible, the vote 
must be counted. It seems simple enough, but not all states have uniform 
standards yet for how to issue and count provisional ballots.

     "Provisional ballots are more important than ever, because there will 
be a tidal wave of new voter registrations," said Ralph Neas, president of 
People for the American Way. With the number of first-time voters expected 
to be in the millions, he added, "there's a tremendous potential for a 
backup in updating the voter registration rolls."

     Droves of voters also could forget to bring a Social Security number 
or proper identification to the polls, or find themselves improperly purged 
from the rolls. Many first-time voters also may land at the wrong polling 
place. All of these voters technically will have the right to a provisional 
ballot. But it is not clear that voters will understand the new rules, or 
that poll workers will carry them out.

     Better poll worker training and voter education are possible fixes. 
The League of Women Voters, People for the American Way and others are also 
calling on states to provide a "federal" provisional ballot. This would 
ensure that an eligible voter who turns up in the wrong precinct, for 
example, is at least given the chance to vote in the presidential, House 
and Senate races. Additionally, voters who are purged from the rolls should 
be notified well in advance so there is time to correct mistakes.

     By some estimates, between 1.5 million and 3 million voters were 
unable to cast ballots because of registration problems in 2000. This 
should be reason aplenty for election officials to look beyond touch-screen 
controversies to more basic voting policies and practices, particularly 
when it comes to provisional voting. Noted Maxwell: "In some of these swing 
states, where things may be close, it could be that a race is going to be 
decided by provisional ballots."     By Eliza Newlin Carney


"Voting is the right from which all other rights spring."  Thomas Paine

Register to vote and then VOTE!


Faith Gross
The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People
455 Sherman St.  Suite  130
Denver, CO  80203
303-722-0300 (V)
303-722-3619 (TTY)
1-800-288-1376


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail transmission is intended only for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
  contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient,
you
  are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
this transmittal or the information it contains is strictly prohibited.
  Misdelivery of this transmittal does not constitute waiver of any
applicable privilege.  If you have received this transmission in error,
please
  immediately notify the sender and delete the original transmission and
its attachments.


-----Original Message-----
From:	Pete Klammer [SMTP:pklammer@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:	Thursday, June 24, 2004 5:00 PM
To:	'Citizens for Verifiable Voting'; moe.keller.senate@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
cheri.jahn.house@xxxxxxxxxxx; Alice Madden
Cc:	'Faye Griffin'; Faith Gross
Subject:	Language of LWV Shift in Position

From: Joseph Holder
 Subject: [Fwd: [voterweststeering] Language of LWV Shift in Position]


The following came from another list. I like the fact that the national
league has given the individual states the freedom to take a position on
particular voting systems for their individual states. It is also important
they are saying that the four criteria required shall be the benchmark by
which to make evaluations. Now it is important that local leagues work with
their local election officials and make sure that every voting system is
"secure, accurate, recountable, and accessible". That would include:
That any voting system and the procedures for its use is secure from
manipulation, fraud, mistakes, and bias.
That any voting system adopted is accurate in both recording and counting,
and audited to confirm accuracy.
That any voting system provide a means for a manual recount capable of
showing the original intent of the voter.
That any voting system be accessible to every voter so they may vote in
secret.
Jody

Dear Fellow League Members,


  A majority of the delegates representing local leagues at national
convention


voted to change the national leagues position which had opposed voter
verified paper trails as a solution of concerns about the security of the
ballot in touch screen voting systems.

The LWVUS interpretation of the position on 'Citizen's Right to Vote' will
now read:


 In order to ensure integrity and voter confidence in elections, the LWVUS
supports the implementation of voting systems and procedures that are
secure, accurate, recountable, and accessible."


You can read the details of the report from the president of the LWVUS Kay
Maxwell below.


Yours,
Nancy Bickel
Outgoing president


June 22, 2004


To:             State and Local League Presidents


From:           Kay J. Maxwell, LWVUS President


Subject:        Citizen's Right to Vote Resolution


Below is the full text of the motion adopted by delegates to our 46th
national convention.  The League has a long tradition of reaching agreement
through deliberative, democratic processes.  There was disagreement with 
the
LWVUS stance opposing a Voter-Verified Paper Trail (VVPT).  At convention,
by following League process, we arrived at a revised interpretation of our
"Citizen's Right to Vote" position.


The convention resolution substituted principles and criteria - "secure,
accurate, recountable, and accessible" - for the language that previously
took a stand on a type of technology, i.e., an individual paper 
confirmation
for each ballot, or voter-verified paper trail (VVPT).  Thus the League has
moved from taking a stand on types of technology to taking a stand on the
goals or principles any particular technology must fulfill.   The criteria 
-
"secure, accurate, recountable, and accessible" - are not code words for
VVPT or for any other type of technology.


This revised stance, based on the "Citizen's Right to Vote" position, means
that:


O       The League neither supports nor opposes any type of technology per
se, such as Direct Recording Electronic voting machines (DREs), VVPT, or
optical scan.


O       Leagues may advocate for the four criteria, but it would not be
appropriate to advocate for or against a type of technology, as indicated
above, since that would be inflexible and would undermine technological
innovation.


O       Because election laws and current equipment are different in each
state, Leagues in each state may support particular voting systems
appropriate to them, including the management, operational and polling 
place
procedures associated with the equipment. But before lobbying for or 
against
a particular voting system, the system as a whole should be evaluated
against the criteria, and only those that meet all four criteria may be
supported.


We ask that Leagues consult with the LWVUS before taking action in order to
ensure that the League speaks with one voice in the application of this
revised interpretation of the "Citizen's Right to Vote" position.


The following is the text of the motion made by the President of the LWV of
Minnesota and passed by convention delegates:


    "Whereas there is strong disagreement among League members on the
interpretation of the position on 'Citizen's Right to Vote' that the LWVUS
has taken on whether a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail should be a
requirement with Direct Recording Electronic Voting,


    Be it resolved that LWVUS remove the following wording from its
interpretation:  The LWVUS supports an individual audit capacity for the
purposes of recounts and authentication of elections for all voting 
systems.
The LWVUS does not believe that an individual paper confirmation for each
ballot is required to achieve these goals. An individual paper confirmation
for each ballot would undermine disability access requirements, raise costs
and slow down the purchase or lease of machines that might be used to
replace machines that don't work.  The experts that we have consulted say
that there are many safeguards other than an individual paper ballot
confirmation that can protect the sanctity of the ballot and that other
issues are far more important in safeguarding our election systems.


    The LWVUS interpretation of the position on 'Citizen's Right to Vote'
will now read:  In order to ensure integrity and voter confidence in
elections, the LWVUS supports the implementation of voting systems and
procedures that are secure, accurate, recountable, and accessible."


The LWVUS Board is working through the application of this revised stance
and will send additional guidance.  In the interim this message should
provide an initial basis for a shared understanding among Leagues of the
action taken at convention.

 use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.

 << File: ATT00027.htm >>