Definitions:
PBOS -- Paper Ballots, Optical Scanners.
PBOS systems work together with BMDs (see below).
disabilities or minority languages.
DREs -- Direct Recording Electronic touchscreen
or pushbutton computerized voting machines, also called Evote machines
BMDs -- Ballot Marking Devices - accessible
usually computerized devices that help voters with disabilities or
non-English languages or illiteracy to vote by marking a paper ballot
1.0. Announcements
Audit Procedure for 6210.18
June 22, 2009 version 8 of guidelines for auditing voting machines,
as required by NY Election Law §9-211 and 9 NYCRR §6210.18.
The State Board of Elections has not yet formally adopted 6210.18,
but this should occur at the July 15, 2009 meeting of the commissioners.
Judge Sharpe's order approving the State Board of Elections
"Pilot Program" to introduce ballot scanning this year and to delay until
2010 full replacement of the lever voting machines. June 4, 2009.
More info on 2009 'Pilot' Use of Uncertified Scanners
Timeline as of May, 2009
4/30/09 -- deadline for vendors to submit their final products (the first deadline was 9/30/05)
11/30/09 -- Final certification reports are due.
Transcript of Federal Court "In Chambers Conference",
March 27, 2009
SysTest, the certification testing lab, expects to complete testing on November 30, 2009.
1.01. NY: Keep the Lever Machines
With paper ballots and precinct-based optical scanners,
we will have 100% computerized vote counting,
followed by a 3% hand-count "audit" of ballots
that have been out of public observation for a week.
1.01a Why We Should Keep our Lever Voting Machines
1.01b Resolutions by Counties, etc.
1.01c Rebuttals to Opposition
1.01d Cost
1.01e Parts and Service
1.01f Law
1.01g Hearing, March 4, 2009
1.01h News and Opinion
1.01i What To Do
1.01j We don't NEED new voting machines, but we need...
1.01k Lever Machine History
1.01l Related Materials
1.01m 2009 'Pilot' Use of Uncertified Scanners
1.01a Why We Should Keep our Lever Voting Machines
Ballot-Scanner Voting System Failures, May 22, 2009
Legislative Memorandum, Keep Levers, June 15, 2009
FAQ: Why Keep Levers?, April 22, 2009
Why Keep the Lever Voting Machines?, Feb. 15, 2009
Vendors are Undermining the Structure of U.S. Elections, Aug. 16, 2008
Reasons to Keep Levers
1. They are easier to keep secure.
2. They are easier to manage.
3. They are less expensive to maintain and use than any other voting technology. The higher cost of computerized elections will take money away from other essential services that people's lives depend upon.
4. Voter-marked paper ballots can be secured after close of polls by being kept in public view and continuously observed--but this would require a change in state law and county practices as well as increased budgets, and would require recruitment of large numbers of election observers to watch them.
5. Proper audits of vote counting by scanners would be needed to confirm that these computers operated properly--but this would require a change in state law and county practices as well as increased budgets.
Obstacles to keeping levers
1. Our state election law, ERMA, requires levers to be replaced when the State Board of Elections finishes certification testing of optical scanners (assuming the scanners pass their tests). This law would have to be revised.
2. Our State Board of Elections agreed in federal court with the U.S. Department of Justice to implement our state law, ERMA, by replacing the levers. This agreement would have to be revised.
1.01b Resolutions by Counties, etc.
Westchester County Sends Letter to Gov. Paterson:
Keep our lever voting machines, June 11, 2009
District Council 37, AFSCME:
We Support Keeping New York's Lever Voting Machines, June 4, 2009
National Organization for Women, Brooklyn-Queens Chapter:
Resolution to keep the lever voting machines, June 6, 2009
New York StateWide Senior Action Council, NYC Chapter,
Resolution to Continue Using Our Current Lever Voting machines, June 8, 2009
United Hebrew Trades:
Statement in support of returning federal money for replacement of
lever voting machines, and keeping the lever voting machines, June 4, 2009
NY Communities Want Levers, map of counties and resolutions.
Fulton County Resolution 260 to Keep Lever Machines, June 10, 2009
Intercounty Legislative Committee of the Adirondacks Resolution 6 to Keep Lever Machines, May 15, 2009
Washington County Resolution 142 to Keep Lever Machines, May 15, 2009
Sullivan County Resolution 202 to Keep Lever Machines, May 15, 2009
Warren County Resolution 354 to Keep Lever Machines, May 15, 2009
Rensselaer County Resolution to wait till the OpScans are certified before using them, May 12, 2009
Essex County Resolution to Keep Lever Machines, May 4, 2009
Greene County Resolution to Keep Lever Machines, April 15, 2009
Schuyler County Resolution to Keep Lever Machines, Mar. 9, 2009
Schuyler vote machine conversion costs more,
Officials say new machines need up to $100,000 in software.
StarGazette, Mar. 5, 2009
Columbia County Resolution to Keep Lever Machines, Feb. 12, 2009
Columbia County May Petition to Stick with Levers,
Register-Star, Feb. 2, 2009
Ulster County Resolution to Keep Lever Machines, Feb. 11, 2009
Ulster County Resolution to Keep Lever Machines on Ulster County web site
Dutchess County Resolution to Keep Lever Machines, Dec. 4, 2008
Dutchess County Voting Integrity Task Force Report, Jan. 26, 2009
Association of Towns Resolution to Keep Lever Machines,
Resolution 17 on page 12. February, 2009
Association of Towns Resolution to Keep Lever Machines, on the Association's website.
Association of Towns Resolution to Keep Lever Machines,
Resolution 17 on page 12. Legislative Program, Final version, February 18, 2009
Erie County Election Commissioner Mohr describes trouble with vendor, praises lever machines, Mar. 11, 2009
1.01c Rebuttals to Opposition against Levers
Open Letter to Vendors, by Wanda Warren Berry, Director, NYVV, April 15, 2009
Rebuttal, NYVV Asks Voting System Vendors for Announcements, Plans and Promises
, E-Voter Education Project, April 20, 2009
Leverage Against Levers, Wanda Warren Berry, Director, NYVV, March 12, 2009
Rebuttal, Back to Basics , Teresa Hommel, April 11, 2009
Lever Machines and HAVA, NYVV, Feb. 9, 2009
Rebuttal, Response To NYVV Fact Sheet, VotersUnite, Feb. 12, 2009
Do Lever Machines Provide a Better
Voting System for Democracy? NYVV and LWV NYS, Feb. 9, 2009
Rebuttal, National LWV standards were for e-vote systems, not lever machines, Teresa Hommel, Feb. 12, 2009
Barbara Simons rebuts LWV 2003 position which opposed
paper trails and the original version of the Holt bill, HR 2239.
EAC Advisory 2005-005: Lever Voting Machines and HAVA Section 301(a),
Sept. 8, 2005
U.S. Dept. of Justice Letter stating that one accessible voting device
per poll site would comply with HAVA. March 4, 2005.
U.S. Dept. of Justice letter also available at
www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/hava/msdisability.pdf.
The EAC Lied, Bradblog, by Andi Novick, March 2, 2009
The Pennsylvania Letter to the EAC, August 30, 2005
New York's Voting System Satisfies and Surpasses HAVA,
Andrea T. Novick, Esq. Feb. 24, 2009
Given that the EAC supports paperless touchscreen voting machines, for which
a "manual audit" consists of reprinting the tally report, their assertion
that lever voting machines lack "manual audit capacity" rings false. HAVA
says a voting system includes both the machines and the people.
With lever machines, the poll workers copy the tallies onto a tally sheet,
and these are later verified--a manual audit. The one thing that lever
machines lack is accessibility, but New York now owns accessible ballot
marking devices which are deployed in every poll site in the state to
provide accessibility for voters with disabilities or limited English
proficiency.
1.01d Cost of Keeping Lever Machines vs. Conversion to Optical Scanners
Mayor Bloomberg and New York City Council give Board of Elections $97.2 million for new optical scanners, because HAVA funds are not enough.
Fiscal 2010 Executive Budget for the Board of Elections,
Finance Division, New York City Council, May 18, 2009
Capital Budget Funding:
Sensing that the Board's HAVA money may be insufficient,
"the Mayor's Office of Management and Budget has budgeted an
additional $50 million in City tax-levy funds for the purchase
of new voting machines."
"The City's Capital Budget also includes an additional
sum of $47.2 million for other purposes, including outfitting of office
and warehouse space."
Lever Replacement Costs: New York City Case Study, May 6, 2009
Bottom Line:
1. City taxpayers will pay for all costs that are ineligible for HAVA funds starting in the first year.
2. HAVA funds will be depleted within four years and city taxpayers will bear all costs every year after that.
3. First year costs are estimated from $27 to $44 million.
4. Annual continuing costs after the first year are estimated at $5 to $16 million.
5. The City's share of HAVA funds is only $65 million for all purposes, with only $21 million earmarked for lever replacement.
6. The estimated costs are low because they omit costs for which information was not available.
Conclusion:
The cost of transition to new equipment, running electronic elections,
conducting audits, and handling associated lawsuits will pit elections
against other essential services that people's live depend upon.
Boards of Elections nationwide are
faltering
in the face of the
"spiraling costs"
of electronic elections and our nation's economic crisis.
New York should not blunder into this mess.
We can avoid it--just keep the levers.
Governor Paterson: Reduce Property Taxes through Mandate Reform,
April 27, 2009. "Now is the time for Albany to find ways to reduce costs to counties and to local governments all around this state. Now is the time to make the tough decisions, to stand up to the special interest groups"
NYC Board of Elections Budget Projection,
April 21, 2009
Costs of Purchasing and Maintaining Voting Equipment are Spiraling,
Coalition of State and Local Election Officials
and Civil and Disability Rights and Voter Advocacy Organizations,
Letter to Congress asking for Full Funding for HAVA.
March 17, 2009
NYC Board of Elections Budget Testimony,
March 12, 2009
Mayor Bloomberg's Budget Plan for the NYC BOE,
Jan. 30, 2009
Letter from NYC BOE to City Officials on BOE Budget Deficit,
Jan. 7, 2009
State and County Elections Offices Struggle with Economic Crisis,
Electionline.org, by M. Mindy Moretti, Feb. 20, 2009
State Board to Counties: Buy new equipment fast or face price increases!,
Feb. 26, 2009
The State Board of Elections sides with vendors, rather with the people
of New York State and our counties.
NYVV objects!, March 2, 2009
Contracts
OGS (Office of General Services) Procurement Services
OGS Full Text Search of Procurement Contracting
Sequoia Contract
Pricing
OGS Search Results
Cost of Voter Education
New York elections board selects Burson-Marsteller for voter education campaign,
PR Week, July 29, 2008
1.01e Parts and Service
Voting Machine Service Center ,
parts and service for AVM lever machines, Jan. 23, 2009
International Election Solutions
parts and service for Shoup lever machines, Mar. 18, 2009
1.01f Federal and State Law re Levers
NY Election Law, 2009,
Transcript of Federal Court "In Chambers Conference",
March 27, 2009
1. SysTest, the certification testing lab, expects to complete testing on November 30, 2009.
2. NYS will send the DOJ a revised timeline for replacing lever machines by April 10, 2009.
3. DOJ will respond by April 24, 2009.
4. If NYS and DOJ do not agree on a revised timeline, by May 8 the State Board of Elections will move the court to change the current schedule for replacement of lever machines. Then DOJ will respond to the State Board by May 15. Judge Sharpe will decide what to do soon after that: he could order compliance with HAVA by simply replacing lever machines by uncertified systems, or order the state to conduct paper ballot elections if no uncertified systems are actually available (if they have not been manufactured)
5. The state's proposed schedule may be discussed at the State Board of Elections meeting on April 7 in Albany.
Transcript, Court Session, Dec. 20, 2007
Oral Argument before the Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, U.S. District Court Judge
United States District Court, Northern District of New York
Order of Judge Sharpe, June 2, 2006
Synopsis of the Litigation:
Andrea Novick, Esq., legal theory why optical scanners are unconstitutional
under the New York State constitution.
Overview of legal requirements:
HAVA allows levers, and the NY State Constitution
does not allow electronic voting or vote counting.
Only a Transparent Vote-Counting System Can Protect Democracy,
Re-Media Election Transparency Coalition,
ERMA, Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005, with 45 comments.
1.01g Hearing, March 4, 2009
Photos
New York 1 Video and Report, March 5, 2009
NY Still Lagging in Voting Machine Upgrades, NY1, March 5, 2009
Testimony, Teresa Hommel
Testimony, Andrea Novick, Esq.,
Overview of legal requirements--it's not what you've been told.
Testimony, Howard Stanislevic, Patent drawing
showing how the Shoup lever machine provides voter verification.
Shoup Verification Drawing, GIF format
Testimony, Adele Bender
Testimony, Catherine Skopic
Statement of 44 New Yorkers to NYC Board of Elections
Please take all possible actions to keep the lever machines
and do NOT replace them with computerized equipment!
Now that we have accessible Ballot Marking Devices, we can have well-run,
cost-effective, trustworthy, and accessible elections.
Any HAVA money we might have to send back to the federal government
would not even begin to cover the cost of conversion and use of
optical scanners. Any available money in the Board's budget should be spent
to train poll workers on the BMDs, make poll sites as accessible as possible,
produce election materials in accessible formats, and provide
the routine maintenance that will keep the lever machines in
nearly-new condition.
Signs
Keep The Levers, Horizontal, 8.5x11 inches
Keep The Levers, Vertical, 8.5x11 inches
Rude Computer, 8.5x11 inches
1.01h News and Opinion
New Voting Machines Ready For Fall Elections,
Post-Journal, May 13, 2009
Keep old voting machines, Sullivan committee says,
Daily Freeman, May 9, 2009
Clear evidence: Lever voting works,
By Andrea Novick
Times Union, April 16, 2009
Lever voting machines touted in Woodstock ,
The Kingston Daily Freeman, March 18, 2009
Group rejects voting machine switch in county,
Change unwelcome, according to Citizens for Clean Elections.
Greene County, The Daily Mail, March 18, 2009
Voting advocate pushes for new system in Madison County,
She warns Madison County supervisors not to keep lever machines.
Syracuse.Com, March 13, 2009
A Call to Continue Voting by Lever,
New York Times, March 11, 2009
A Love Affair With Lever Voting Machines,
New York Times, March 10, 2009
New York 1 Video and Report, March 5, 2009
NY Still Lagging in Voting Machine Upgrades, NY1, March 5, 2009
BlackBoxVoting.org supports Levers, March 17, 2009
. . .It is Black Box Voting's position that New York is better off keeping its lever machines than moving to less transparent software driven systems. The article below [
Voting advocate pushes for new system in Madison County]
puts a very strange spin on the facts; for one, stating that software-driven optical scan systems are more secure and have more integrity than lever machines. In fact, even the EAC's own people can't figure out the reports on computerized voting; this is transparency? By contrast, voting rights advocate Andi Novick's Re-Media Election Transparency Coalition is fighting to keep the lever machines; Wanda Berry, a verified voting advocate, warns officials not to do it.
. . .Note that the election reform movement has now split into two distinct camps: The voting rights camp and the verified voting camp. The voting rights advocates (Black Box Voting is in this group) are focusing on putting the "public" back into public elections. Federal legislation, if any, should shore up and work with the Voting Rights Act, and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) should be dismantled. "Verified voting" is only needed when you hide the counting of the vote; it advocates limiting public oversight to small amounts of circumstantial evidence. The verified voting movement wishes to expand HAVA.
Madison County - The Opposition's Argument,
Blog by Ruth Wahtera, March 14, 2009
Pro-lever Blog by Ruth Wahtera
New York -- Transparency vs. Certification: Fact & Friction,
Blog, Feb. 11, 2009
Only a Transparent Vote-Counting System Can Protect Democracy,
Re-Media Election Transparency Coalition, Feb. 11, 2009
Save NY's Lever Voting Machine, Blog, Jan. 23, 2009
1.01i What To Do--How to keep our levers
1. State Assembly
2. State Senate
3. Governor Paterson
4. New York City Council
5. President Obama
6. U.S. Senate
7. U.S. House of Representatives
8. Your Friends and Neighbors
Contact your elected officials and the leadership of each body.
Give them the messages indicated below.
Send an email to adminATwheresthepaper.org to report what they say.
Who are your elected officials?
State Board of Elections Finder
1. Fill in your address, city, and zip code.
2. Check all three boxes to find your
Assemblymember, State Senator, and Congressional Represenatative.
3. Click "Find".
**1. State Assembly**
Speaker of the Assembly Sheldon Silver
Legislative Office Building 932
Albany, NY 12248
Phone: 518-455-3791 or 212-312-1420
Email: speakerATassembly.state.ny.us
Sample letter to Speaker Silver
Find your State Assemblymember
State Board of Elections Finder, Check "Assemblymember"
Sample letter to your Assemblymember
Message to Speaker Silver and your Assemblymember:
Please rescind ERMA, the state law that requires replacement of our lever machines. Return the $50 million federal funds that we accepted for replacement of lever machines because it will cost us millions more of our own money to do it right, and the new equipment won't last more than 10 years. Then we will have no election equipment, and will have to spend more of our own money for new scanners!
**2. State Senate**
Democratic Majority Leader Senator Malcolm Smith
Legislative Office Building 909
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: 518-455-2701 or 718-528-4290
Fax: 518-455-2816 or 718-528-4898
masmithATsenate.state.ny.us
Sample letter to Majority Leader Smith
Find your State Senator
State Board of Elections Finder, Check "State Senate"
Sample letter to your State Senator
Message to Majority Leader Smith and your State Senator:
Please rescind ERMA, the state law that requires replacement of our lever machines. Return the $50 million federal funds that we accepted for replacement of lever machines because it will cost us millions more of our own money to do it right, and the new equipment won't last more than 10 years. Then we will have no election equipment, and will have to spend more of our own money for new scanners!
**3. Governor**
Governor David Paterson
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Phone: 518-474-8390
Sample letter to Governor Paterson
Message to Governor Paterson:
Please urge the State Assembly and Senate to rescind ERMA, the state law that requires replacement of our lever machines. Please urge our State Board of Elections to return the $50 million federal funds that we accepted for replacement of lever machines because it will cost us millions more of our own money to do it right, and the new equipment won't last more than 10 years. Then we will have no election equipment, and will have to spend more money for new scanners!
**4. New York City Council**
Speaker of the City Council Christine Quinn
City Hall
New York, New York 10007
Phone: 212-788-7210 or 212-564-7757
Fax: 212-564-7347
Sample letter to Speaker Quinn
Find your City Councilmember
City Council Finder
Sample letter to City Council Member
Message to Speaker Quinn and your New York City Council Member:
Please pass a resolution to keep the lever machines to support state and federal action.
**5. President Obama**
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Phone for Comments: 202-456-1111
Form for Email
Sample letter to President Obama
**6. United States Senate** and
**7. House of Representatives**
U.S. Senator Charles Schumer
Phone: 202-224-6542 or 212-486-4430
Fax: 202-228-3027 or 212-486-7693
Sample letter to U.S. Senator Schumer
U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
478 Russell Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-4451 or 212-688-6262
Fax: 202-228-0282 or 212-688-7444
Sample letter to U.S. Senator Gillibrand
Find your Congressional Representative
State Board of Elections Finder, Check "U.S. Congress"
Sample letter to Congressional Representative
Message to US Senators Schumer and Gillibrand and your Congressional Representative:
HAVA, the federal law that funded America's rush to electronic voting, has always allowed lever machines if supplemented by accessible voting equipment for voters with disabilities. Vendor lobbyists and political interests have confused everyone. Please pass a brief amendment to make this clear again!
**8. Your Friends and Neighbors**
Help inform your friends and neighbors--give them a copy of our
Frequently Asked Questions.
Print out the above letters, and ask friends and neighbors to sign.
Then send the letters for them.
Ask everyone to sign the petition to public officials.
Return them to the address noted on the bottom of the petition.
PDF Petition
1.01j We don't NEED new voting machines, but we need...
Fire Houses
4 FDNY companies doomed; Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta warns 12 more are severely threatened,
Daily News, May 13, 2009
Fire War Is Raging Over O.T.,
New York Post, May 13, 2009
Medical Care
City hospitals tighten their budget by $105M,
Crains, March 19, 2009
Libraries
Libraries: $peak Up!,
New York Post, May 11, 2009
Economy sets stage for service cuts, layoffs at NYC's library systems,
Daily News, March 18, 2009
Huge Budget Cuts Are Brooklyn Library Horror Story,
Daily News, March 18, 2009
Public Transportation
Bus ridership booming as transit officials eye route cuts,
Daily News, March 11, 2009
Bronx boro's bus & subway lines overloaded with new commuters - report,
Daily News, March 16, 2009
Small Businesses
More mom-and-pops forced to close doors,
New York Metro, March 17, 2009
1.01k Lever Machine History
See also,
Historical Documents
Click on the image to enlarge it.
Shoup Advertisement: $91,662.39 saved in Kansas City, Mo. in a single election!
Shoup Advertisement: Here's what impartial experts say
1.01l Related Materials
Web site: NY Communities Want Levers
Elections Committee, NY State Senate
New York State Board of Elections, Webcasts of Meetings,
Member County Web Sites
New York State Association of Counties,
Member County Web Sites
YouTube, how the lever machines work,
Voting Machine Technician at NYC Board of Elections shows all.
New York's Back Door to the Ballot Box,
Howard Stanislevic, Aug. 17, 2008, E-Voter Education Project
FBI Computer Crime Survey of 2005, Press Release,
Jan. 19, 2006. Can your Board of Elections beat the odds?
87% of companies had security incidents.
64% lost money (shows severity of incident).
44% had intrusions by insiders.
NY Election Audits: Is Three Percent Enough?,
New York Audit Graphs, by Howard Stanislevic, E-Voter Education Project
Stop-Gap Mitigations for Deployed Voting Systems,
Proceedings of EVT 2008, Usenix/ACCURATE, 2008.
By J. Alex Halderman, Princeton University;
Hovav Shacham, University of CA. San Diego;
Eric Rescorla, RTFM, Inc.;
David Wagner, University of CA. Berkeley.
Paper Trails: A Good Idea That Failed,
Teresa Hommel, May 26, 2009
1.01m 2009 'Pilot' Use of Uncertified Scanners
Criticism of the Pilot Plan
Civic Groups' Letter to DOJ, AG, and State Board of Elections with suggestions to improve the pilot, June 15, 2009.
Comments on the NY State Board of Elecctions Proposed 2009 Pilot Plan
By Bo Lipari, LWV/NYS Representative to the NY State Citizen Election
Modernization Advisory Committee. May 31, 2009
Press Release for Comments, June 3, 2009
New York's New Plan for Deploying Optical Scanners Is Dependent
on Historically Undependable Vendors and Proper Functioning of Their
Historically Defective Equipment,
Ellen Theisen, VotersUnite.Org, June 12, 2009
New York Rolls Out Uncertified Voting Systems for 2009 Elections,
Howard Stanislevic, May 22, 2009.
County Participation
County Participation as of June 5, 2009
County Participation as of May 17, 2009
Documents
Judge Sharpe's order approving the State Board of Elections
"Pilot Program" to introduce ballot scanning this year and to delay until
2010 full replacement of the lever voting machines.
June 4, 2009.
Final Plan Narrative, May 12, 2009
Timeline, May 12, 2009
Authorizing Resolution, May 12, 2009
1.02. Voting Systems Certification
1.02a Certification, 2009
1.02b Certification, 2008
1.02c Certification, 2007
1.02d Certification, 2006
1.02e Certification, 2005
1.02a Certification, 2009
March 5, 2009, EAC Lifts Suspension of SysTest's Accreditation
The EAC yesterday lifted the suspension of the federal accreditation
of SysTest Labs Incorporated, allowing the lab to resume testing as an accredited EAC Voting System Test Laboratory (VSTL). This action came after NIST's National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) reinstated SysTest's accreditation in response to SysTest's correcting nonconformities identified during a NVLAP on-site assessment visit in March 2008, findings from the EAC, and observations made during an October 2008 monitoring visit.
Correspondence relating to the EAS's decision, including EAC's suspension of SysTest's accreditation in October 2008, approval of SysTest's remedial action plan in November, and decision March 5, 2009 to lift the suspension
SysTest Labs
216 16th Street Mall, Suite 700
Denver, CO 80202
Mark Phillips, Vice President, Compliances Services
Phone: 303/575-6881
SysTest Quality Assurance Letter
SysTest Accreditation Certificate
03/05/09 -- EAC Notice to SysTest Labs Lifting Suspension of Accreditation New
11/19/08 -- EAC Approval of SysTest Remedial Action Plan
10/31/08 -- EAC Suspension of Accreditation Notice to SysTest Labs
EAC's Overview of the testing and certification process with FAQs
1.02b Certification, 2008
1.02c Certification, 2007
New Testing Lab
Trascript of State Board Meeting, Nov 7, 2007, page 31-32.
Systest Labs appears to be selected as NY State's new testing authority.
New York State seeks Testing Company
OGS Notice for "Independent Testing Authority Services for Voting System
Examination and Certification Testing",
Bid Opening Date 10/9/07
Word is that iBeta SysTest, Infogard, Wyle Labs and several other vendors intend to bid on the contract.
A Chance to Make Votes Count,
Editorial, New York Times, Sept. 6, 2007
Channel 6 CBS news in Albany reported on April 26, 2007 that
New Electronic Voting Machines Will Not be in Place for '07 Elections.
The report said "New York State has already missed the 2006 election deadline to put in new electronic voting machines and the machines won’t be in place for the 2007 elections. Now a spokesman for the State Board Of Elections says they're not certain the replacements for the old lever machines will even make it in time for the 2008 Presidential elections. Board public information officer Lee Daghlian tells CBS 6 News that while the state is trying to comply with the Help America Vote Act by installing electronic voting machines. The testing and certification process is taking longer than hoped. Daghlian said it is possible the new machines might not be ready for the 2008 elections, but that the State is working to have the machines in place by then. Albany County Elections Commissioner John Graziano said he was not surprised by the prospect of missing the big election and that the board is a ‘nervous wreck’ over the prospect. Liberty Elections Systems of Albany is one of six companies being tested by the state this summer as possible choices for the new voting process. State officials say a decision could come by the end of this year."
Firm that tests voting machines not accredited; state cites inadequacies
The Journal News, Jan. 5, 2007
New York State May Suspend Tests of New Voting Machines
New York Times, Jan. 5, 2007
Ciber: Lab hired to certify NY voting equipment barred from approving new machines!
U.S. Bars Lab From Testing Electronic Voting,
New York Times, Jan. 4, 2007
NY State's Voting Machine Certification Process:
Issues, Status and Projections for Voting Machine Testing,
by Bo Lipari, Executive Director, NYVV.org
The Daily Voting News and Election Integrity News reported the problems in October, 2006:
Independent Review Reveals Flaws In Voting System Testing Process,
Key voting system standards missing from test plans.
By Howard Stanislevic, VoteTrustUSA, October 23, 2006
CIBER Security Master Test Plan Review By NYSTEC
(NY State Technology Enterprise Corp.),
Sept. 27, 2006
CIBER Chairman Sells Shares, Businessweek, Dec. 21, 2006.
What did he know and when did he know it?
Bradblog on Ciber, Jan. 4, 2007
From Alegra Dengler, a summary: Private voting machine manufacturers with political ties hired a private testing company with political ties to test their software in secret. Voting machines certified by this shady process are in use all over the country. Here in New York state, Ciber was hired to test machines but the State Board of Elections wisely hired another firm, NYSTEC (NY State Technology Enterprise Corp.), to review Ciber's work.
NYSTEC is the New York State Technical Enterprise Corp.,
a NYS equivalent of NIST.
NYSTEC (NY State Technology Enterprise Corp.) found many flaws, resulting in the delays we have had in the last few months in certifying new voting equipment.
Testing Lab Failure Leads To Obfuscation By The Election Assistance Commission,
By John Gideon, VotersUnite.org, Jan.6, 2007
Long wait times for voters can be predicted!
How Long Will Each Voter Have to Wait
to Vote on a DRE during Peak Voting Hours?,
Jan. 3, 2007
Study findings:
With 200 pollsite voters per DRE and 60% peak hour voters, average peak hour wait times will be 35.25 minutes, the longest wait will be 70.5 minutes, and 58% of peak time voters will wait 30 or more minutes.
With 200 pollsite voters per DRE and 50% peak hour voters, average peak hour wait times will be 19.5 minutes, the longest wait will be 39 minutes, and 25% of peak time voters will wait 30 or more minutes.
The State Board's
AIR Study, page 26, recommends these numbers of pollsite voters per DRE:
Avante DRE - from 218 to 247
Sequoia DRE - from 207 to 243
Liberty DRE - from 295 to 342 (The system used in AIR's Study did not have a final voter-verifiable printout of candidates selected, and not all test voters were instructed to verify their votes on this system.)
The AIR Study recommends these numbers of pollsite voters per OpScan:
Diebold OpScan - 1588 to 2571
ES&S OpScan - 1931 to 2571
Jurisdictions with many thousands of voters per OpScan report no waiting lines.
1.02d Certification, 2006
Nassau County Motion to Intervene in DOJ-NYS lawsuit,
Dec. 21, 2006
Voting machine resistance,
Nassau and Suffolk take aim at state's deadline to replace
lever machines by September primaries. Newsday, Dec. 22, 2006
State to miss federal deadline, Times Union, Dec. 19, 2006
Press Release from
the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, League of Women Voters of New York State, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG).
These organizations say that State Board of Elections must consider all factors when determining voting machine capacity, but their study fails to consider peak voting times, machine failures and other critical factors. The study will be one factor in a decision to be made in January determining the minimum number of new voting machines needed to be purchased for each election district or polling place across the state.
The study, which cost NYS $283,000:
Timing Study by AIR, how many minutes per voter on DREs and OpScans
2-minute YouTube movie--test voters were not told to verify the VVPAT on DREs, by filmmaker Bob Millman
To comment on the AIR Study, email your remarks to to Bob Brehm,
with the subject line "Comments on the AIR Timing Study".
rbrehm at elections.state.ny.us
You can also send hard copy to:
New York State Board of Elections
40 Steuben St.
Albany, NY 12207
The State Board will vote on the "number of voters per machine"
at their next meeting in January, 2007, expected on Jan. 4,
so send your comments ASAP, hopefully no later than Friday, 12/29/06.
NYVV's criticism of the current certification effort, Dec. 11, 2006
New York State’s Voting Machine Certification Process
By Bo Lipari, NYVV, December 15, 2006
NY Times, Dec. 4, 2006
What's Wrong With My Voting Machine?,
New York Times Editorial, Dec. 4, 2006
Dec. 5, 2006: Revised schedule -- counties must choose new equipment by 3/6/07
State Board announcment, key lines are 106 (State Board will fax the list
of certified machines to counties on Feb. 21, 2007)
and 119 (State Board will create a list of counties
that have not made their choices on March 7, 2007).
One problem with this schedule is that vendors are still sending in changes
to their software. In a professional environment this would mean that all tests
must be re-run from the beginning.
State Board announcment, key lines are 106 (State Board will fax the list
of certified machines to counties on Feb. 21, 2007)
and 119 (State Board will create a list of counties
that have not made their choices on March 7, 2007).
One problem with this schedule is that vendors are still sending in changes
to their software. In a professional environment this would mean that all tests
must be re-run from the beginning.
As of Nov. 3, 2006:
Deadline for selection of new machines changes to Feburary or March, 2007
. . . The deadline for counties to select new machines has been deferred
till February or March, 2007, due to delays in certification.
The delays are related to the need to revise the Security Test Plan
to make it acceptably rigorous.
Letter from State Board to Counties explaining the delay,
Nov. 4, 2006.
NYSTEC explains the delay to the State Board, with call for completion of
security analysis of new voting equipment by Feb. 12, 2006.
Nov. 2, 2006.
EAC prepares for its Voting System Testing and Certification Program,
Oct. 26, 2006.
The two articles here report different dates.
More state delay possible on new voting machines,
Newsday, Oct. 31, 2006.
Voting Machine Schedule Changed,
Post-Standard, Nov. 2, 2006.
. . . Further delays are related to failure of vendors to submit
all software source code for escrow, as required by New York State
certification regulations. Vendors say they can not provide all COTS
(Commercial Off The Shelf) software -- neither for DREs nor scanners.
This is one reason why no vendor is in full compliance with our
requirements, and cannot be certified at this time.
. . . WheresThePaper.org opposes the State Board of Elections making a
compromise to accept equipment without all software. Once we make
excuses and exceptions for not following the law and regulations,
vendors will be in full control.
EAC letter to NY State Board of Elections re federal funds we may lose
Sept. 28 letter
Oct. 12, Systems Submitted for Certification
State Board of Elections reports that 5 systems have qualified for
certification testing.
The two DREs on the list are favored by many officials.
Three scanners made the list. The letter reveals that no system
was in full compliance with NY requirements (they only
"substantially" complied).
Round 1 certification testing:
. . .Sequoia Advantage L (DRE)
. . .Liberty Vote (DRE) (not a contender in NYC because it doesn't have Korean and Chinese ballots)
. . .Diebold Accuvote OS (OpScan)
. . .ES&S M100 and Automark (OpScan)
. . .Sequoia Optech Eagle (OpScan)
These systems did not make the cut for Round 1 due to incomplete submissions:
. . . Avante Optical Vote Trakker
. . . Precise Voting Touch Tone (DRE)
. . . Populex Digital Paper Ballot (Ballot Marker)
. . . Open Voting Solutions Open Scan (Opscan)
Administrative Complaint Procedure
Proposed Regulations for NY's HAVA Administrative Complaint Procedure
Public comments should be received by close of business Monday, October
23, 2006 and directed to:
William J. McCann, Jr., Special Deputy Counsel
New York State Board of Elections
40 Steuben Street
Albany, NY 12207-2108
or to Mr. McCann at: info@elections.state.ny.us
Draft Security Test Plan
http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/hava/NYSVotingSecurityRequirementsDRAFT.pdf
NYSTEC is the NY State Technology Enterprise Corporation. They are involved
as an independent contractor. Although they lack experience with voting systems,
they have military experience, and are associated with the Rome Air Force
Base Information Directorate, which makes them well qualified to examine
any computer technology.
Systems submitted as of Oct. 4, 2006:
Vendors seeking Certification, and what systems they submitted
Note that Sequoia's old-style Advantage pushbutton DRE has been withdrawn!
This is the DRE used in Saratoga County for some years,
which has been favored by commissioners. Now Sequoia is offering only their
new touchscreen Edge. This may improve Liberty's chances,
as many commissioners seem uncomfortable with touchscreens,
and believe the pushbutton models are more familiar.
Nedap voting systems (known as "Liberty" in New York) hacked in Holland
NEDAP (Liberty Systems) Voting Machines Hacked
By Warren Stewart, Oct. 5, 2006.
Concerns about the security of this system were shown to be well-founded when a group of Dutch IT Specialists, using documentation obtained from the Irish Department of the Environment, demonstrated that the NEDAP e-voting machines could be secretly hacked, made to record inaccurate voting preferences, and could even be secretly reprogrammed to run a chess program.
In New York, Liberty claims that their machine can't be hacked because
it isn't a computer!
As of Sept. 29, 2006:
Current plan:
Nov. 13 -- timing studies completed to determine how many voters can use each type of machine per election day. This is needed for the counties to determine the number of machines of each type they would need, and hence the cost.
Dec. 4 -- functional testing completed.
Dec. 12 -- security testing completed.
Jan. 5 -- County orders completed and submitted to the OGS (Office of General Services), the state agency that will handle the purchase orders for the counties.
Jan. 31 -- OGS issues purchase orders to vendors.
(1) New York counties and New York City will be asked to choose equipment to
replace our mechanical lever voting machines at some time in December.
(2) No machines have been certified yet, but the following have been submitted.
(The deadline of Sept. 29 for submission of systems has been extended to Friday October 6.)
. . . . . Diebold, DRE touchscreen
. . . . . ES&S, OpScan and DRE touchscreen
. . . . . Avante
. . . . . Liberty, DRE with paper overlay
. . . . . Open Voting Solutions, Scanner but no printer (unknown whether the system is BMD)
(3) In some counties the commissioners have already made up their minds
about what equipment they want. NYC and some other counties are in the process of
creating a list, in order of preference, of what equipment they would
like to have IF it is certified. If their first choice is certified, that
is what they will buy. If their first choice is not certified but their
second choice is certified, they will buy their second choice, and so on.
(4) Timing studies to determine how long it will take
for an average mix of voters to vote on the new systems
may be held as follows (subject to change)
. . . . . Monroe County Oct 12-13
. . . . . Brooklyn Oct 17-19
. . . . . Schenectady after that
. . . The State Board wants 150-300 test voters at each location. There may be a $30 payment to test voters.
. . . They want a suitable number of test voters who regularly use sip&puff or rocker paddles due to mobility issues, and audio due to blindness/visual issues, for the test, and are wary of people who are not familiar with those devices to be test voters using them, since the amount of time needed by a person who is not familiar with the device would not be representative.
. . . They want test voters who will use non-English languages.
. . . They received a suggestion that they use non-computer-literate test voters in the same proportion of non-computer-literate in the general voting population.
. . . To be a test voter, send your name and contact info to Bob Brehm at the State Board.
. . . They want to schedule the test voters to come to the testing center at staggered times so they don't have to wait around.
. . . They expect the time per test voter to be about one hour, during which they will get information from the person, then have them vote on a number of different machines, and then ask them questions about their experience.
. . . More details will be available soon.
. . . Suggestions by WheresThePaper: Test voters need to fully and accurately check their voter-verifiable printout. Volunteer test voters need to follow up after submitting their names to make sure they are "in the loop."
(5) No one has run a mock election public test to show that the systems
submitted for state certification work. (Reasons: no time, no staff!)
Remember that federal and state certification are piecemeal and partial.
Our elections will be the first time these systems as a whole
are being used.
What Is A Mock Election
(6) Even though NY law prohibits wireless communications in voting systems,
the state and NYC Boards of Elections have said that they have no way
to examine the equipment and determine whether it complies with
this sensible security precaution.
(7) New York City may make estimates about how much equipment is needed
based on only 50% turnout, which means during big elections with high turnout,
we will have long lines of voters waiting to vote.
(8) New York state law requires a voter-verified paper trail from DREs.
If voters are rushed, they will not be able to verify their paper printout.
(Remember that only 3% of the paper trail must be spot-checked,
and the electronic tallies will be used if paper tallies do not match
electronic tallies. Nevertheless the paper trail is critical to voters and
candidates to support challenges and broader counts if candidates can
afford to go to court in case of paper-electronic discrepancies.)
(9) If you live in NYC, please go to
4. What To Do (NYC) and take action!
If you live outside NYC, please go to
New Yorkers for Verified Voting
and take action!
Counties required to choose equipment by Dec. 21--AFTER cerfication
Sept. 20 letter to Commissioners from State Board of Elections
Counties required to choose equipment by Oct. 31--PRIOR to cerfication
Sept. 7 letter to Federal Court from State Board of Elections
Aug. 2006 Cost Report by NYC BOE
An Analysis of the Number of Voters per Voting Machine,
A Report for The Board of Elections in the City of New York, 24 pages,
Aug. 21, 2006
Voting System Applications for Cerfication
as of August 9, 2006
EAC: HAVA money: machines do not ALL have to be accessible (one per pollsite is required) if NY purchases after 12/31/06
June 20 letter from EAC to State Board of Elections
Chart - Voting Machine Money--apportionment by county
State Board Letter - Allocation of Money to counties
Situation as of June 16, 2006 -- Bo Lipari's WebLog
County Equipment, Plan B
Plan B Equipment Selections as of June 5, 2006, by county
Next State Commissioners Meeting
Monday June 5, 2006, 12:00 noon, State Board of Elections Offices, Albany, N.Y.
June 2
Order of Judge Sharpe, June 2, 2006
Info for Bids for Equipment
NYS Office Of General Services, Bid Notice Opening June 1,
How to submit bids.
May 25
Detailed comments on Voting System Standards passed on April 20, 2006
May 22 State Board Meeting
notes
May 20
State Board report on authorization testing of interim systems
168 pages, over 6 MB in size.
May 18
Voters and Disability, Civic and Civil Rights Groups Challenge State's Plan
by filing a motion to intervene in DOJ lawsuit against NYS.
As of May 18
The State Board met with the judge and the U.S. DOJ in conference on
Tuesday, May 16, in the Judge's chambers. There was agreement to have an order
prepared to approve the NY state plan that the State Board had submitted.
A signed order is expected on May 19.
The DOJ has no authority to request that the federal money received by
NY State be returned. The EAC has authority to request this, but they
have not done so yet. If they do, NY State would probably fight it.
The EAC never fully funded the states to the level authorized by
Congress, and the money not received would equal the money received.
Also, the EAC did not get established in the legal timeframe required
by HAVA, and did not provide the timely guidance to the states that they
were supposed to provide, and these are among arguments that NY State
would use to fight to keep the money we have already received.
NYC compliance plan for 2006
Voting Machines for Disabled in New York City,
By Michael Cooper, New York Times, May 17, 2006
Senator seeks $10M to aid disabled voters,
Star-Gazette Albany Bureau, May 17, 2006
State, federal officials near voting-machine deal,
Delaware, Otsego election officials say 'Plan B' not ideal for disabled.
The Daily Star, May 17, 2006
May 16, 2006
Report of NYC BOE Commissioners Meeting
Accessible Machines Per County
Chart submitted by NYS on May 15 to the court
A comparison to the chart of April 27, 2006, shows that
some counties have reduced the number of accessible machines they will get
for use this year:
| county |
old |
new |
| Albany |
14 |
1 |
| Broome |
4 |
1 |
| Cattaragus |
3 |
1 |
| Franklin |
4 |
1 |
| Montgomery |
38 |
1 |
| Oswego |
25 |
1 |
| Saratoga |
21 |
1 |
| St. Lawrence |
33 |
1 |
| Westchester |
14 |
1 |
| NYC |
20-30 |
6 |
Next -- Voter Registration Database
200 page RFP for Systems Integrator for the database
Public Testing of Machines Continues, May 18-19
State Board announcement, testing AutoMark May 18-19
State Board announcement
Certification testing for accessible components for elections in 2006
will begin on Monday, May 8.
The testing site is the Turnpike Golf Course,
Guilderland, NY (Route 20, between Route 155 and 146 on the south side).
Testing will begin at 9:30 AM.
Monday-Tuesday will be on the Avante system.
Thursday-Friday will be on the Populex.
Testing is open to the public.
Check the NYS BOE website for more information.
They were having trouble with their website on May 4, so the announcement
may not show up promptly.
May 3, Bo Lipari appointed to Citizen's Advisory Committee
State legislation recently expanded the Citizen's Election Modernization
Advisory Committee by two persons.
The Disabled American Veterans of NY and the League of Women Voters of NYS
were designated to suggest the appointments.
LWVNYS suggested Bo Lipari, member of the Tompkins County LWV,
to be their representative. His name was accepted by the Commissioners of
the State Board of Elections on May 3.
Bo will be the first member of the committee who has professional
computer expertise and experience.
April 28, DOJ response
DOJ Response
DOJ attachment 1 - Summary of County Responses of April 20, 2006
DOJ attachment 2 - Estimate of Disabled by County, April 19, 2006
DOJ attachment 2 - County Statistical Summary by NYS BOE, April 14, 2005
. . . DOJ accepted NY's plan which postpones full compliance with HAVA
until 2007. DOJ acknowledged, as NY State and citizens who sought
to intervene in the lawsuit had contended, that an attempt to
enforce full compliance this year would result in an election disaster.
DOJ stated :"...the United States is mindful at this late date of the
potential for disruption of the federal election process in New York
if plans for full HAVA compliance are implemented in too hasty a manner..."
. . . NY's plan calls for a small number of accessible devices be provided
in each county in 2006, and full HAVA compliance by 2007.
NY's plan for partial implementation of the HAVA-required
statewide voter databases was also accepted.
Disabled Say Voting Plan Isn't Enough
Newsday, May 6, 2006
April 28, Citizens Union Amicus Brief
Declaration of Dick Dadey
Brief
Citizens Union filed an amicus brief against the State Board in the DOJ case.
Time Schedule for NYC Selection of Interim Accessible Voting Equipment
April 25 - Commissioners Meeting, demo of Populex and Avante systems, Public can observe
May 2 - No meeting, commissioners will be in Syracuse at the State meeting
May 9 - Commissioners Meeting, demo of ES&S AutoMARK and IVS Vote-By-Phone, Public can observe
May 12 - Staff will recommend a system for the NYC interim response using 4 criteria:
a. Voter ease-of-use
b. Poll worker ease-of-use (starting the system in the morning, maintaining it during the day, closing it out at night)
c. Integration with existing programs (CBIS(?), last-minute ballot changes, testing prior to the election)
d. Vendor Strength and Support (can they deliver their systems on time, can they train our staff)
May 16 - Selection of equipment for the interim response
May 22 - NYC BOE will tell the State BOE which equipment we will use for our interim response. By then the NYC BOE also hopes to know how many units we will need (may have this info on May 12).
April 20, 2006
VOTING SYSTEMS STANDARDS PASSED 4/20/06, copy from State Board website
html version
State Board press release
copy, State Board press release
April 21, 2006
DOJ asks the Court for an extension to April 28
to reply to State Board's Plan of Compliance.
The DOJ was supposed to submit a response by April 20 to New York State's
proposed plan for HAVA compliance. Instead, DOJ submitted a request
for an extension until Friday, April 28.
The Court is expected to grant this extension.
On April 10, the New York State Board of Elections submitted a proposed plan
to the Court which would keep NY's lever machines in use for the 2006
elections, and require a ballot marking or vote by phone accessible voting
system to be placed in one or more locations in each county. The Court
called for the DOJ to respond to the State's plan by April 20, 2006.
The NYS Board also submitted to the Court the results of the county
responses to their plans for implementing the proposed state plan. Most
counties indicate that they will purchase only a single accessible device
per county, the minimum required by the State's plan. Even New York City
proposes to have only 20 to 30 accessible voting devices in separate
locations throughout the city, rather than one device per polling place as
called for by HAVA. If the counties plans are accepted by the DOJ as is,
there would be less than 500 accessible ballot marking or vote-by-phone
systems in the entire State of New York in the 2006 election.
It is unclear whether the DOJ will accept the state proposal, or be content
with the counties plan to place only a single accessible device at a central
location in each county.
April 10, 2006
State Board Plan of Compliance submitted to the court, 4/10/06.
NYVV.org Comments on the State Board's Plan
April 3, 2006
revised voting systems standards of April 3, 2006.
March 28, 2006
Bids from ES&S/Automark, Populex, Avante, and IVS
The Office of General Services got these 4 responses to the
State Board of Elections' RFP for HAVA-compliant ballot marking devices
and vote-by-phone to provide interim equipment for the Plan B option.
March 27, 2006
Cover letter from State Board to Counties
County HAVA Compliance Form asking counties what interim
distribution of equipment they will provide
March 23, 2006
Court Order
The court granted the DOJ's request for a Preliminary Injunction,
denied motions by LWV and NYVV to intervene at this time, and
ordered the State BOE to present a remedial plan for voting system and database
compliance by April 10.
DOJ will then have 10 days to respond.
Motion to Intevene Denied in DOJ/NYS HAVA Lawsuit
Although the US District Court denied voters rights groups'
motion to intervene, the Court held open the possibility
that intervenors may be allowed to participate later,
at a point when a specific plan for
HAVA compliance has been proposed.
We should continue to lobby our county election
commissioners and legislators for an Paper Ballot
Optical Scan solution.
The interim solution known as "Plan B"
would put Automark ballot-markers in
every polling place to facilitate disbled voters'
access to paper ballots. NYVV.org supports "Plan B" for
New York's 2006 interim HAVA compliance.
Deadline set on new voting plan, Times Union, March 24, 2006.
The DOJ indicated they could not force
full compliance with new machines this year. The judge ordered the
Board of Elections to produce a plan by April 10, at which time the
Justice Department will have 10 days to respond.
March 22, 2006
Voting Systems Standards, Version 3, March 22, 2006
First Impressions Evaluation.
State Board of Elections meeting, March 21, 2006
audio 1, A Board lawyer, Valentine, suggests the news on the
lawsuit should be discussed in Executive session. Commissioner Doug Kellner
wants public disclosure. Another lawyer, Feldman, counsels against a
public discussion invoking "legal strategy" needs. Commissioner Aquila
concurs with Mr. Feldman and Commissioner Kellner goes along.
audio 2, same meeting -- Commissioner Kellner wants to discuss
Plan B publicly, and asks Anna Svizzero, operations chief, for news on it.
She relays that County Election Commissioners are concerned about
costs and training of a new system for this year.
Co-Executive Directior Kosinski weighs in, on balancing the limits of
what counties can accomplish with DOJ pressure.
March 14, 2006
Letter from Sequoia to NY Customers, March 14, 2006
regarding their ownership by a foreign company.
March 13, 2006
NYVV Update on the DOJ, Court, Plan B, etc.
March 10, 2006
State To Buy Devices To Help Disabled Vote,
Newsday, March 11, 2006.
State Asks For Info On Disabled Voting Machinery,
Newsday, March 10, 2006. NY State, under pressure from the DOJ, has
put out an invitation for bids for voting equipment that will not
go through any state certification process at all.
Miscellaneous Services Solicitation.
Bid Opens for Vote Machine Help, Times Union, March 10, 2006.
Two signs that commissioners want DREs is that they are speculating on
leasing or renting accessible machines. Also, the Board of Elections
in NYC has said they don't want to buy Automarks that they would "throw
out" the following year (they wouldn't want to sell them to other
jurisdictions?).
Does the EAC Really Care If Voting Machines Are Accessible?
By AJ Devies, Handicapped Voters of Volusia County (HAVOC),
March 10, 2006.
A Conversation With Brian Hancock, Election Assistance Commission's ITA Secretariat.
March 8, 2006
State Board Memo to Counties on HAVA Compliance
March 7, 2006
DOJ Brief for Prelimiary Injunction.
DOJ wants a judge to act now to order NY to comply with HAVA.
If granted, this would supersede the first lawsuit.
as well as the Motion to Intervene filed on March 3.
NYVV statement on DOJ Preliminary Injunction:
. . . March 7, 2006 - The Department of Justice (DOJ) has moved for a
preliminary injunction in their suit against New York State. This requests the judge to rule immediately that New York must present a plan for HAVA machine and voter registration database compliance by September 2006.
. . . New Yorkers for Verified Voting is studying the latest DOJ brief and is
preparing a response.
. . . A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order issued before or during trial commanding a specific action. Legally, the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent major injury or damage from occurring while the court is deciding the case.
. . . In their brief, the DOJ claims:
1) The State of New York is not in compliance with Sections 301 and 303(a) of HAVA
2) Absent a preliminary injunction, New York will fail to implement election procedures that comply with Sections 301 and 303(a) in time for the 2006 federal election cycle.
3) New York's failure to comply with HAVA in time for upcoming federal elections inevitably will result in significant harm to thousands of voters and to the integrity of the federal election process in the State.
March 3, 2006
New York Voters Groups Oppose DOJ Lawsuit:
Larry Rockefeller, The League of Women Voters of New York, and
New Yorkers for Verified Voting intervene in DOJ lawsuit!
Motion to Intervene
Brief
Voters, Groups Oppose DOJ lawsuit that would cause electoral Chaos,
Larry Rockefeller, League of Women Voters, New Yorkers for Verified Voting,
March 3, 2006.
A Voting Machine Mess, New York Times, March 3, 2006.
March 2, 2006
New York Is Sued by US on Delay of Vote System,
New York Times, March 2, 2006.
March 1, 2006
New York State Sued For Failing To Meet New Voting Guidelines,
New York Times, March 1, 2006.
DOJ Complaint.
February 28, 2006
Stopgap Accord Sought on Voting System,
Commissioner Kellner stands up to the Dept. of Justice!
February 27, 2006
Oversight of the Process of Selecting New Voting Machines,
Teresa Hommel's statement before the
Governmental Operations Committee of the New York City Council.
Feb. 24 -- Dr. Rebecca Mercuri Comment on second draft of NY Voting System Standards
Teresa Hommel Cover Letter
Dr. Rebecca Mercuri comment on NYS VSS
Dr. Rebecca Mercuri comment on FEC 2002 VSS
Dr. Rebecca Mercuri EAC Memo
Dr. Rebecca Mercuri Comment on Voting Systems Guidelines
NY Times, Feb. 24, 2006
City's Lawyer Criticizes State On Rules For Voting Machines.
Voter Groups See Flaws In Plan To Upgrade Balloting, Feb. 23, 2006.
Civic Groups Call For NYS BOE to Reject Second Draft, Feb. 22, 2006.
NYVV, Comments on Second Draft, Feb. 22, 2006
NYVV Response to the Proposed Final Voting System Standards
Note that as of Feb 27, the Voting Systems Standards will be revised AGAIN.
Nicola Coddington Comments on Draft 2, Feb. 24, 2006.
The situation as of February 23, 2006
HAVA Hurry: An Update From New York
By Wanda Warren Berry, NYVV, Feb. 23, 2006
NY Times Editorial slams NY State revised voting machine standards
Bungling Voting Machines, Feb. 19, 2006.
Plan B -- Feb 17, 2006
Bo Lipari reports on Plan B
NYVV.org and wheresthepaper.org urge everyone
to continue advocating for PBOS, and to also endorse Plan B.
Plan B is a temporary solution that may satisfy the US Dept. of Justice
so that NY may be able to keep our HAVA money for machine replacement.
It is not a permanent solution because our state law ERMA bans lever
machines as of 9/1/07. IF PLAN B IS ADOPTED, there MAY be interest
in both houses of our state legislature to rescind the ban on levers.
Unless that happens, Plan B cannot become a permanent solution to
meeting HAVA requirements.
Current Status as of 2/17/06
Need comments on new voting system standards by Fri Feb 24, 2006
Bo Lipari reports on the new Voting System Standards
Oveview as of Feb 14, 2006
NY's flawed new Election Reform and Modernization Act
("ERMA")
bans lever machines as of 9/1/07,
requires each county and the City of New York
to choose a new voting technology, and allows two options:
1. PBOS -- consists of paper ballots to be marked by hand (or by ballot-marking devices for voters with disabilities or minority languages), and optical scanner machines in each polling place to check each ballot for correctness before it is cast and to print a tally at the end of the election day.
2. DREs -- consist of "Direct Recording Electronic" voting machines (computers) with a touchscreen or pushbuttons, and a tiny printer to print a receipt-like list of each voter's choices for the voter to verify before pressing "Cast My Ballot." The printout then goes into a secure storage box in the machine.
ERMA requires our State Board of Elections to create Voting Systems Standards ("VSS")
to ensure that our future equipment is safe and proper to use.
The State Board's first
draft received nearly universal criticism
as poorly written and superficial.
It imposed almost no requirements on DREs
(meaning, federal certification was not required
and state requirements were so minimal as to allow any
system to be certified).
About 2 dozen comments are linked below in this section.
The State Board's second draft was posted on 2/14/06 and comments will be received until Feb. 24, 2006.
Feb. 14, 2006
State Board's Second Draft of the New Voting Machine Regulations
This draft will be posted for a period of 10 days for additional public comment.
All comments received no later than February 24, 2006, will be considered
in making any further changes to the regulations.
Send comments to:
NYS Board of Elections
40 Steuben Street
Albany, NY 12207-2108
or
info@elections.state.ny.us
Feb. 13, 2006
Letter to State Board:
"General Principles Regarding the State Board of Elections'
Implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)"
from Common Cause/New York,
New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. (NYPIRG),
League of Women Voters of New York State,
New Yorkers for Verified Voting (NYVV),
Citizens Union, and the
Task Force on Election Integrity of Community Church of NY.
Feb. 10, 2006
Two new drafts have circulated, neither of which fixes
the problems in the first draft.
Compare.doc is 26 pages,
compare060207.doc is 29 pages.
State Board Staff Analysis of comments received prior to 1/23/06.
More citizen input is needed NOW!
What to tell them! -- Requirements that should be in NYS's Voting System Standards,
Feb. 10, 2006.
Feb. 9, 2006
Current situation -- Briefing by State Commissioner Kellner.
January 25, 2006
Letter to U.S. DOJ from Senators Schumer and Clinton.
Jan. 23, 2006 -- comments that dealt with specific VSS contents
Dr. Douglas W. Jones,
Jan. 23, 2006.
"the proposed voting standards ... were not the product of an expert
advisory committee or other expert resource."
"the proposed regulations taken together, and in many instances taken
alone, put the voting rights of the citizens of New York at significant risk."
Larry Rockefeller, Jan. 23, 2006.
...the regulations, if adopted, will unconstitutionally and illegally impair
New Yorkers' fundamental right to vote.
First, the regulations place our State at substantial risk of electoral fraud.
Second, the rush to implement the regulations guarantees chaos in the upcoming
2006 elections.
NYVV.org, Jan. 20, 2006.
Bo Lipari, Robert Kibrick, and Teresa Hommel
Teresa Hommel, Revision, First 8 Sections, Jan. 22, 2006.
Dept. of Justice Threat and Response
US Dept. of Justice Threatens To Sue New York State over HAVA non-compliance,
NY Times, Jan. 12, 2006.
US Dept. of Justice letter of Jan. 10, 2006
Response from the League of Women Voters of New York State and
New Yorkers for Verified Voting, Jan. 12, 2006.
Department of Justice Threatens To Sue New York State
By Warren Stewart, Director of Legilative Issues and Policy, VoteTrustUSA,
Jan. 12, 2006.
BradBlog, Jan. 12, 2006:
DoJ Threatens to Sue NY State and Board of Elections for Lack
of HAVA Compliance! Even While the Feds Own Inability to Meet
HAVA Reqiurements Continues.
Additional Reporting by John Gideon.
Feds Warn State Over Vote Systems,
Times Union, Jan. 13, 2006.
WheresThePaper.org opinion:
Federal law requires our new voting equipment to be in use in the first
federal election in 2006. We are not "non-compliant" at this time.
The law does not deal with "violations" that have not yet happened.
The DOJ's threat of legal action regarding voting machines is
posturing and bullying.
Replacement of lever voting machines with paper ballots and optical scanners
with ballot marking machines for voters with special needs
can be easily accompished in three months.
The City of Boston signed a contract for optical scanners in May, 2003,
and held their first election with them without problems in September, 2003.
Newton's First Election Using Optical Scans Goes Smoothly
Regarding the statewide voter registration database,
Arizona just awarded a contract
for the work to be done -- did Arizona get a threatening letter?
Uneven application of law is injustice, and a common tool of tyrants.
US Dept. of Justice letter to Connecticut
Comments submitted to State Board
The State Board's first draft was published in the State Register on Dec. 7,
beginning a 45-day comment period that ended on Jan. 23, 2006.
The State Board held four hearings during the comment period.
News: Only one person supported DREs in 4 hearings
Putnam Hearing Focuses On Future Of Voting,
Journal News, Jan. 13, 2006.
Only one speaker ... advocated for touch-screen[s]...
[Co-executive Director of the State Board of Elections] Koskinski,
a Republican, said [those] remarks were the only ones he and his
Democratic counterpart, Stanley Zalen, have heard supporting touch-screen
voting technology over the course of the four hearings.
1.02e Certification, 2005
Detailed Comments on Draft Voting Systems Standards,
Teresa Hommel, Nov. 2005.
Overview by New Yorkers for Verified Voting, 11/9/05.
Eight points, Teresa Hommel, 12/14/05.
Testimony Presented in Hearings
1.
Bo Lipari, Executive Director of New Yorkers for Verified Voting. Summary:
You work for us, the public.
We demand an open and fully visible process.
We demand that all types of voting systems be objectively evaluated,
and that fair, accurate, thorough evaluations
of voting systems in widespread use throughout the United States
be performed and presented to the public.
The State Board should stop misrepresenting the situation
to the public and press
because we will not go away and let you get away with it.
2.
League of Women Voters of New York State Testimony
by Aimee Allaud, LWVNYS Elections/Government Specialist.
3.
Council Member Bill Perkins, Chair of Governmental Operations Committee
(the part on PBOS starts on page 12)
Resolution 1301 submitted by Perkins
on the last day of the 2005 City Council.
The same resolution has been submitted in the
2006 City Council.
4.
Board of Elections in the City New York.
5.
State Senator Liz Krueger.
6.
League of Women Voters of the City of New York.
7.
Susan Greenhalgh of New Yorkers for Verified Voting.
8.
Teresa Hommel. Summary: Compare a professional evaluation
of a computer system to what the State Board is doing.
We have election commissioners who can barely send an email
and won't listen to anyone else except vendor salesmen.
They are acting like children when you try to take away their favorite toy,
their perfect dream election machine. The State Board must wake them up
by running a large public test under real-election conditions --
Either the machines work or they don't.
You must invite the public, not shut us out.
9.
Stephanie Low, Simultaneous Submission of DREs and PBOS, Public Test, Red Test
10.
Marjorie Gersten, Auditability
11.
Dan Jacoby, No Automated Tests
12.
Rick Schwab, How to Avoid Privatization
13.
Katherine Wolpe, Rescission of Certification
14.
Diana Finch, Ban All Communication Capability
15.
Women's City Club.
16.
Marge Acosta.
17.
Ann Harbeson.
18.
Allegra Dengler.
Dec. 5 Bombshell -- State Board evaluates DRE before standards exist
On Dec 6 the State Board started to evaluate the Liberty voting system,
(1) without waiting for the legally-required
45-day public comment period
and for the draft standards to be finalized,
and (2) in spite of the fact that the Liberty system
lacked both the legally-required
printer for the voter-verified paper audit record, and the
accessibility attachments for voters with disabilities.
See below for the response by outraged citizens groups,
and NYVV's call to action.
Dec. 5 -- citizens find out that on Tuesday Dec. 6
the State Board will begin certification examination
of Liberty DREs that lack the printer for a voter-verified
paper audit record, and lack some accessibility attachments
required by ERMA, the new NY state law.
Demand an Open Voting Machine Certification Process! NYVV Action Alert,
Dec. 5, 2005.
Irresponsible Rush to Test Voting Systems,
NYVV explains why it is an outrage for the NY State Board of Elections
to begin certification testing of paperless Liberty DREs
even though state law requires a VVPB-equipped machine. Dec. 5, 2005.
Certification Testing of Incomplete Voting Systems is
a Betrayal of Public Trust.
NYPIRG, Common Cause NY, League of Women Voters NYS, and NYVV outraged at
NY State Board of Elections,
call for legislature to convene oversight hearings on State Board actions.
Dec. 5, 2005.
The surprise letter, dated 11/22/05 but received 12/2/05.
Commissioners Oblivious
ProposedElectionReformDrawsCriticisms,
The Daily Freeman, 12/4/05.
"Local elections commissioners said they had not reviewed the proposed
regulations in detail but added that they are less concerned with the
regulations themselves than with the pressure that will be placed
on counties to implement them.
Nevertheless, "I am confident whatever we do certify here in New York,
will meet the criteria and be well tested," said Thomas Turco,
the Republican commissioner of elections for Ulster County.
Dutchess County Democratic Elections Commissioner Fran Knapp said
she is primarily concerned that the state certify new voting machines
in time for counties to obtain them in time for next year's election.
1.03. Cost
1.03a Cost: Printing Ballots
1.03b Cost: Machine Purchase
1.03c Cost: Increases
1.03a Cost: Printing Ballots
Cost of Printing Ballots, Report by Marge Acosta, July, 2007
1.03b Cost: Machine Purchase
Purchase Cost of New Voting Equipment for New York City
A Study by the Task Force on Election Integrity, Community Church of New York
Teresa Hommel, Chairwoman
November 6, 2006
Individual Parts of the Study:
Report
Appendix 1 - Bronx Costs
Appendix 1 - Brooklyn Costs
Appendix 1 - Manhattan Costs
Appendix 1 - Queens Costs
Appendix 1 - Staten Island Costs
Appendix 2 - Citywide Costs
Appendix 3 - Pollsite Voter Turnout, November 2004
Appendix 4 - Voter Timing Data
Appendix 5 - Number of Voters Served per DRE
Supplement - Number of Voters Served per DRE with .5% requiring 37 min.
Supplement - Number of Voters Served per DRE with .25% requiring 37 min.
Supplement - Number of Voters Served per DRE with none requiring 37 min.
New Voting Systems for NY--Long Lines and High Cost
by William A. Edelstein, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, November 14, 2006
2-page summary
. . . One of the key decisions facing New York State is the replacement ratio of new voting systems to lever machines. The New York State Board of Elections has conducted timing tests which will be used to provide an average time per voter for each evaluated system. However, average time per voter is only one component of determining how many machines are needed. We also need to know how many voters can be served during peak voting times in the morning, noon, and evening when turnout is high, and the likelihood that lines will form is greatest.
. . . In order to assess waiting times for voters, New Yorkers for Verified Voting conducted computer simulations of voting system capacity. NYVV used queuing theory, the mathematics of waiting lines. Queuing theory uses voter arrival rate, the number of available machines, the voting time per voter, and the machine breakdown rate to predict the probability of forming long lines on Election Day and overtime at the end of the day. The above report shows their results.
. . . On August 21, 2006, the Board of Elections of the City of New York released a report entitled "An Analysis of the Number of Voters per Voting Machine" (link is below). This report concluded that New York could replace each lever machine by a single full face ballot DRE with voter verified paper trail. The New York City report uses flawed assumptions to force this conclusion. NYVV's report notes these false assumptions and uses computer simulations to show that the replacement ratio of DREs to lever machines proposed by the New York City report would lead to long lines with delays of one to two hours or longer.
. . . NYVV's report has two sections. The second part is a technical overview of the methodology used, and includes the actual data results from the simulations. Activists should request their Boards of Elections to spend some time reviewing the technical section and considering how this can be applied to the problem of determining voter waiting times.
. . . The computer simulations applied by NYVV use data from the New York City report, but other values can be used. When the State Board of Elections issues information about average time to vote on individual systems, NYVV strongly recommends that those numbers be used in computer simulation analysis to determine the probability that long lines will form at peak voting times.
Aug. 2006 Cost Report by NYC BOE
An Analysis of the Number of Voters per Voting Machine,
A Report for The Board of Elections in the City of New York, 24 pages,
Aug. 21, 2006. This report assumes 50% turnout,
and that optical scanners will handle only 1400 voters per day.
Suffolk County, July, 2006
Overview of Cost Factors Associated With Electronic Voting Machines and HAVA Compliance
presented to Ways and Means Committee, July 26, 2006.
Created by the Suffolk County Legislature Budget Review Office.
November, 2005: Cost assessed using the number of lever machines per pollsite
New York City
Suffolk County
1.03c Cost: Increases
Due to the economic crisis,
New York City has closed fire houses,
which Bloomberg wanted to sell
"because the city needs money" and
cancelled classes for new cops.
The city faces shortened library hours, closed hospitals,
teacher lay offs, and closed subway and bus lines.
Our streets are barely paved and the sidewalks are cracked and uneven in
many neighborhoods. More people are unemployed, and more jobs are being lost.
Now is not the time to buy new voting equipment that
is no better than what we have BUT will cost more.
Increased Election Costs in Other Jurisdictions
Summit Ponders Printing Ballots
,
Akron Ohio Beacon Journal, Dec. 12, 2006
Mayor Corroon says upkeep of Electronic Voting Machines Costing "Million and Millions",
KCPW Salt Lake City radio, Dec. 8, 2006
1.04. Timing Studies, Wait Time to Vote
Survey Data on the Number of Voters per DRE in Other State Jurisdictions,
by Marge Acosta, May 7, 2007
NYVV report on timing, March 26, 2007
Voting Machine Numbers For NYS, NYVV.org, Jan. 30, 2007
DREs: Long wait times for voters can be predicted!
The State Board of Election's AIR Study
showed approximately 4 minutes per voter to vote on a DRE, and
approximately 30 seconds per voter to scan a ballot
when overvote and undervote notification was given by the scanner.
Voter timing data, Brooklyn, Oct. 26-27, 2006, observed by
local activists.
Report by Teresa Hommel: using AIR estimates for DREs, voters will wait 30-140 minutes to vote
Report by Teresa Hommel: with optical Scanners, voters should not wait at all
NYVV 2-page report
NYVV full report
Warning, DRE wait times during peak voting hours:
--200 pollsite voters per DRE, 60% peak hour voters:
Average wait time: 35 minutes
Longest wait: 70 minutes
Percent of voters waiting 30 or more minutes: 58%
AIR Study, page 26, recommendation: pollsite voters per DRE:
Avante DRE - from 218 to 247
Sequoia DRE - from 207 to 243
Liberty DRE - from 295 to 342 (The system used in AIR's Study did not have a final voter-verifiable printout of candidates selected, and not all test voters were instructed to verify their votes on this system.)
AIR Study recommendation: pollsite voters per OpScan:
Diebold OpScan - 1588 to 2571
ES&S OpScan - 1931 to 2571
Jurisdictions with many thousands of voters per OpScan report no waiting lines.
Aug. 2006 Report by NYC BOE
An Analysis of the Number of Voters per Voting Machine,
A Report for The Board of Elections in the City of New York, 24 pages,
Aug. 21, 2006. The NYC BOE report concludes that 554 registered voters can
be assigned per DRE. Our study above shows that this would result in long waits for peak hour voters:
average wait time: 71 minutes
longest wait time: 142 minutes (2 hours and 22 minutes)
Why DREs will cause long lines
Analysis of why DREs cause long lines and higher cost
1.05. School District Elections
Uncertified Liberty DREs were used in upstate School District elections, May 15, 2007
A bill that would require voting machines that are used during school district elections to be approved by the state board of elections.
http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A08425
SPONSOR: Nolan
COSPONSORS: Benedetto, Fields, Gabryszak, Gordon T, Lafayette, Rivera P
MULTISPONSORS: Brennan, Farrell, Glick, Gottfried, Jaffee, Koon, Magee, Maisel, McEneny, Millman, O`Donnell, Paulin, Pheffer
Amends SS2035, 1951, 2502 & 2553, Education Law
What to do
Call your state assemblymember and ask them to immediately co-sponsor bill A8425
Make sure you tell them that the bill does not require the use of voting machines (because many school district elections are conducted on paper ballots which are hand counted), but if machines are used, they must be certified.
To find your assemblymember, call the League of Women Voters
at 212-725-3541 or go to http://www.lwvnyc.org/TRY_find.html
Liberty Voting Review From Troy School Election,
Report by Schenectady County Commissioner of Elections Brian Quail,
May 16, 2007.
While Liberty claims that their voting machine is not a computer,
we note that it has a flash drive....
Machines Simple To Use Voters Say,
Times Union, May 16, 2007. A report with some errors: It says that the poll
WATCHERS turned up late. This is an ERROR, because he meant poll WORKERS, and this is an error--the poll workers were an hour early, and it took an hour for Liberty technicians to get the machines to work.
Polls Open For School Vote,
Post Star, May 15, 2007.
Oversight of school voting sought,
Activists want state Elections Board to take control from state Education Department.
Times Union, May 12, 2007.
District prepares for high-tech voting,
The Record, May 10, 2007.
New machines to be set for Troy voting,
Times Union, May 8, 2007.
Liberty brochure (prints on legal size paper), April, 2007
NYVV rebuts claims in Liberty brochure, April, 2007
Troy City School District Election Resources, NYVV
The Record in Troy urges education board to dump DRE plan use paper ballots,
The Record, Troy NY, May 8, 2007.
Critics Wary Of New Voting Devices,
Albany Times Union, April 25, 2007
Voting machines promise accurate election this year,
Troy Record, March, 2007
Peacemakers of Schoharie
County call for investigation of Liberty for ethical violations, April 27, 2007.
Peacemakers of Schoharie County letter to State Board, April 26, 2007.
1.06. Bought and Sold, Electronic Voting in NY
3-min YouTube trailer for Bought and Sold by filmmaker Bob Millman
BOUGHT AND SOLD Electronic Voting in New York State
(45 minutes)
Important DVD, send a copy to your county leaders and election commissioners, local TV stations and newspapers!
Orders may be sent to the filmmaker via email to r.millman at att.net
You may order on-line using a credit card through Pay Pal at
http://stores.ebay.com/Bought-and-Sold-the-movie
Ten-minute clip from BOUGHT AND SOLD
2-minute YouTube movie--test voters were not told to verify the VVPAT on DREs, by filmmaker Bob Millman
1.07. Vendor Irresponsibility
Comptroller Guidelines
The NY State Comptroller says that NY should not do business with vendors with
a history of poor customer service, unethical business practices, etc.
Vendor Responsibility: Standards, Procedures, and Documentation Requirements,
New York State Office of the State Comptroller,
Procurement and Disbursement Guidelines
Bulletin No. G-221, November 1, 2004
The major vendors are irresponsible
Irresponsibile Vendors -- Ellen Theisen of VotersUnite shows that voting system vendors fail to meet NY State requirements, July 10, 2007
Andrea Novick's Memo 1 to NYS Governor, Board of Elections, and Legislature,
The voting vendors scheduled for certification testing are ineligible to contract with New York State.
Memo I Abstract
Andrea Novick's Memo 2 to NYS Governor, Board of Elections, and Legislature,
Alternative Voting Systems that are HAVA-compliant, NYS-compliant and Democracy-compliant
Memo 2 Abstract
Supplement to Memo I
to Governor Eliot Spitzer, State Board of Elections,
Office of General Services, The Comptroller's Office.
By Andi Novick, August 22, 2007
A Publicly Owned and Controlled Voting System Ensuring Transparency and Oversight by the People or Nothing,
Andi Novick, July 30, 2007
Successful 2007 Effort--Waive Certification Fees for Free Open Source Software
This policy was adopted!
Fee Waiver Policy proposed to NY State Board of Elections
Fee Waiver Policy proposed to NY State Board of Elections
Free Open-Source Software is best!
Wikipedia open-source info
Letter to NY State Board of Elections, to adopt a fee-waiver policy
Long letter, HTML
Long letter, Word Doc
Short letter, public distrust of secret software
Short letter, open source is higher quality
Short letter, lower cost
Short letter, avoid privatization
Background Info on Free Open Source Software
Long letter, HTML
Long letter, Word Doc
1.08. U.S. Dept. of Justice Lawsuit
Court Order Jan. 16, 2008
Supplemental Remedial Order
Bo Lipari, Executive Director of NYVV, summarizes the Order
State Board's Papers filed on Jan. 4, 2008
Cover Letter
State Board Plan for HAVA Compliance
Exhibit C, Plan B for 2008
Exhibit E, Plan A Timeline
Comments on the case and Dec. 20, 2007 Court Session
NY Times: NYC BOE will buy 1800 BMDs (accessible Ballot Marking Devices)
NY balks at federal voting demands, Star Gazette, Dec. 15, 2007
Transcript of Court Session, Dec. 20, 2007
United States District Court, Northern District of New York
Oral Argument before the Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, U.S. District Court Judge
Transcript
Papers filed with the court prior to Dec. 20, 2007
NY State Attorney General Opposes DOJ
Attorney General Memo in Opposition to DOJ Motion
Zalen Affidavit
Kosinski Affidavit
State Board seeks to join counties as parties, Dec. 14, 2007
Order to Show Cause, NYS BOE asks to join 58 County Boards
Memo of Law in Support of Motion To Join the Counties
Kosinski-Zalen Affidavit in support of Order to Show Cause
DOJ opposes State Board
Motion by Election Commissioners Assn (ECA), DOJ response
ECA Brief
ECA Notice of Motion
ECA President Norman Green
ECA Oswego County Commissioners
ECA Nassau County Commissioners
ECA Rockland County Commissioners
ECA two of the ten NYC County Commissioners
ECA St. Lawrence County Commissioners
Motion for Amicus by NYVV, LWV, NYPIRG, CANY
Brief
Letters to the Court
Assembly Members
Voting Machine Technician
Six Counties Ready to Comply
without NY’s voting system standards or certification process.
Motion for Amicus, Andi Novick
Brief
Memorandum of Law
Motion for Leave
Notice of Motion for Leave
Order
Teresa Hommel, WheresThePaper.org
Dennis Karius, ARISE
Dave Berman, Voter Confidence Committee of Humboldt County, CA
Richard Stinson, Del4Change (Delaware County, NY)
Steven Freeman, founder of Election Integrity, author of Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count
Mary Ann Gould, Chairperson, Coalition for Voting Integrity, PA
Wayne R. Stinson, Coordinator, Peacemakers of Schoharie County, Voting Integrity Project
Pokey Anderson, co-anchor of news analysis show, The Monitor, on KPFT, Houston TX
Judy Alter, Director, Protect California Ballots
Rady Ananda, Legal Investigator, co-founder of J30 Coalition of Columbus Ohio, Chair of J30 Research and Investigations Committee
Rady Ananda, Technical Reports on Voting Systems
Rady Ananda, Calculation of Labor, Time and Wages ofr Hand-Counting Paper Ballots for 15 New York Counties
Rady Ananda, Summary of How to Estimate Hours and Costs for Hand Counters
Rady Ananda, Projected 2008 Registration and Turnout for NY (1-page summary)
Karen Charman, Shandaken Democrat Club, Ulster County NY
Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance, co-author with Bruce O'Dell of "Landslide Denied: Exit Polls vs. Vote Count 2006," and with others, "Fingerprints of Election Theft: Were Competitive Contests Targeted?"
Nancy Tobi, Chair, New Hampshire Fair Elections Committee, a founder of Democracy for New Hampshire, and Legislative Coordinator for Election Defense Alliance
Joel Tyner, Dutchess County Legislator, District 11, representing Clinton and Rhinebeck
Gary Bischoff, Ulster County Legislator, District 4, representing the towns of Saugerties, Ulster, and Kingston
Susan Zimet, Ulster County Legislator from New Paltz, NY
Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Media, Culture and Communications at NYU and author of Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform
Joanne Lukacher, Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media
Andi Novick, Vendor Irresponsibility (21 pages)
Andi Novick, Vendor Irresponsibility (60 pages)
Comment on Andi Novick Brief and Declarations
Hand-Counting Paper Ballots Proposed In NY District Court,
by Dave Berman, Dec. 15, 2007
I am Voter Hear Me Roar: Meet the New York Amici,
by Rady Ananda, Dec. 15, 2007
Citizens Speak, State Board of Elections listens
Andi Novick and others speak magnificently,
Nov. 7, 2007
Department of Justice Trying to Force New York to Vote on Theft-Enabling Machines for 2008 Election,
by Andi Novick, Nov. 8, 2007
The Department of Justice v. New York State v. The Citizens of New York,
by Andi Novick, Nov. 11, 2007
Bo Lipari's Blog, NYVV
The DOJ and New York State - Part 1
The DOJ and New York State - Part 2
DOJ asks Federal Court to take over New York's HAVA Compliance:
DOJ asks court to force NY to replace our lever machines by September, 2008,
AND says state regulations mean nothing, only federal standards matter!
So what if the machines don't work or aren't really accessible!
The timing of this legal offensive may be politically motivated and timed to disrupt the Presidential voting in NY in 2008, given that so many NY counties want DREs which would be impossible to obtain and prepare for use so quickly. NY counties do not seem interested in voter-marked paper ballots whether counted by optical scanner or by hand, which would be feasible to obtain and prepare to use in the remaining time.
11/15/07: The date for the DOJ motion to be heard in court,
originally announced to be Dec. 6,
has been pushed back to Thursday, Dec. 20, 2007.
U.S. District Court
Northern District of New York
Case 1:06-cv-00263-GLS United States of America v. New York State Board of Elections et al
The NY State Response to the DOJ Motion is due by Noon on 12/14/2007;
The Motion Hearing is set for 12/20/2007 at 09:00 AM in Albany before Judge Gary L. Sharpe.
Disaster in the making,
New York Daily News, Nov. 12, 2007
Counting on Chaos at the Polls,
New York Times, Nov. 18, 2007
New York State takes on the DOJ over e-voting,
We don't want no stinking voting machines
(the English have a way of getting to the heart of the matter)
The Register, Nov. 12, 2007
Andi Novick and others speak magnificently to the State Board of Elections,
Nov. 7, 2007
Legal Papers
Notice of Motion to Enforce June 2, 2006 Remedial Order, 2 pages
Memo in Support of US' Motion to Enforce
the June 2, 2006 Remedial Order, 30 pages
Heffernan Declaration, 3 pages
Republican Plan Sept. 29, 2007
Democratic Plan Sept. 29, 2007
Reaction to DOJ Motion to Enforce
Madison County Board of Supervisors - Resolution 430, Nov. 20, 2007
Bo Lipari's Blog on the DOJ action, Nov. 10, 2007
Press Conference against DOJ takeover of NY State selection of new
voting equipment and DOJ legal effort to force NY to buy failed equipment,
conducted by Council Member Simcha Felder, Nov. 8, 2007, on the steps of
New York City Hall.
Felder Press Release
photos
Civic Groups Blast Department of Justice Proposal to Gut Standards for New Voting Systems,
NYVV, LWV, and NYPIRG, Nov. 7, 2007
US to NY: You Gotta HAVA Faulty Voting Machine,
by Rady Ananda, Nov. 7, 2007
Andi Novick's Remarks for State Board of Elecions,
Nov. 7, 2007
Federal Take-Over of New York State Elections?
Voice of the Voters!, Nov. 7, 2007, on the Internet:
http://wnjc.duxpond.com/ or
www.voiceofthevoters.org
GUESTS:
Bo Lipari, Executive Director, New Yorkers for Verified Voting
Andi Novick, attorney; founder of Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media
John Bonifaz, Constitutioal and Voting Rights Lawyer, Legal Director VoterAction.org
Feds demand voting overhaul,
Times Union, Nov. 7, 2007
Feds weigh takeover of NY voting machine selection,
Newsday, Nov. 7, 2007
Feds Ask Court to Order New Voting Machines for New York by 2008,
WXXI, Nov. 6, 2007
Justice Department Pushes for New Voting Machines,
WNYC, Nov. 7, 2007
1.09. BMDs, but no DREs as BMDs
Report of 12/12/07 State Board Meeting
Three companies have submitted applications for Plan A and Plan B testing which will be conducted simultaneously: Avante submitted a DRE and OpScans; Premier (Diebold) and ES&S submitted OpScans. No completed applications for Plan A have been received. The Board agreed to give priority for testing to BMDs. BMD testing is estimated to take at least 6 to 8 weeks. The testing lab, Systest of Colorado, has not yet provided a test plan/schedule for BMDs. The State Board's first meetings with Systest will be a three-day meeting starting Dec. 18, 2007. All vendors have objected to the 30-day requirement for production of their product, saying that such a short timeframe is not do-able.
Draft BMD Requirements
Comment was needed by Oct. 5,
Posted on State Board of Elections website
NYVV comments on the Draft RFP, Oct. 5, 2007
Comments on DOJ case and Dec. 20 Court Session
NYC BOE will buy 1800 BMDs
New York Times, Dec. 23, 2007
Bo Lipari's Blog
Breakthrough at the Board? NY Could Vote on Paper Ballots, Jan. 20, 2008
Decision On Voting Machines Will Be Made Before Feb 8, 2008!
Due to the US Dept of Justice lawsuit to force NY State to replace our mechanical lever voting machines, NY State's county election commissioners have until Feb. 8, 2008 to choose what to buy for their county. Their choices are:
(1) voter-marked paper ballots, accessible "Ballot Marking Devices" (called "BMDs") for voters with disabilities, and precinct-based Optical Scanners (also called "ballot scanners"), or
(2) electronic voting machines (called "touchscreens" or "Direct Recording Electronic voting machines" or "DREs").
NY State reached a compromise with the federal court--if our counties provide Ballot Marking Devices in each poll site in 2008, we can wait till 2009 to replace our lever machines.
BUT our State Board of Elections has recklessly redefined "Ballot Marking Devices." Now they say that DRE touchscreen voting machines can serve as Ballot Marking Devices!
Let's be clear - DRE touchscreens are not Ballot Marking Devices -- they do not provide accessible verifiable voting for voters with disabilities. But if county commissioners choose to buy DREs for use as Ballot Marking Devices, this choice will use up most of the funding available for new voting machines.
If your county selects DREs on Feb. 8, 2008, your county will vote on touchscreen voting machines.
Concerned New Yorkers can help by notifying your county election commissioners of the importance of choosing a voting system based on voter-marked paper ballots, and by putting the media spotlight on this issue.
It is urgent that you contact your county election commissioners in writing before the end of the January, and send a copy of your letter to all local newspapers and county legislators.
Please use this
letter
-- copy it, fill in your info, print it, and send it to your county election commissioners, and your local media and county legislators:
For New York City Residents: please send 10 letters, one each to our ten commissioners (we have one Dem and one Repub from each of the five boroughs. All letters can be sent to the address below the names:
Commissioner James J. Sampel
Commissioner Frederic M. Umane
Commissioner Anthony Como
Commissioner Julie Dent
Commissioner Nero Graham Jr.
Commissioner Terrence C. O'Connor
Commissioner Juan Carlos “J.C.” Polanco
Commissioner Nancy Mottola-Schacher
Commissioner Gregory C. Soumas
Commissioner Maryann Yennella
Board of Elections in the City of New York
Executive Office
32 Broadway
New York NY 10004-1609
New Yorkers who do NOT live in NYC: Contact information for NY State's county election commissioners
State Board of Elections
Please act now! The decision whether we will vote on touchscreens
or voter-marked paper ballots will be made in the next few weeks!
New Yorkers for Verified Voting's action page:
NYVV Action Page
Orgs send letter to State Board, Jan. 22, 2008
Letter
Brennan Center blog page, explains where we are as of Jan. 22, 2008
Brennan Center, League of Women Voters of NYS, Common Cause NY,
New Yorkers for Verified Voting and NYPIRG sent a joint letter to the New York
State Board of Elections to oppose any effort to permit the authorization or
purchase of full-face DREs as ballot marking devices.
State Senator Liz Krueger Calls on Commissioners to choose BMDs that are compatible with OpScans
Press Release, NYVV, NYPIRG, and LWV urge Spitzer and Cuomo
to Support Optical Scan Voting Machines, not DREs to be used as BMDs, Feb. 5, 2008
Jan. 24, 2008--Brief Victory for Citizens & Paper Ballots at State Board of Elections
A Victory for Election Integrity in New York,
Bo Lipari, Jan. 24, 2008
State picks optical-scan machines,
Ithaca Journal, Jan. 24, 2008
NY board chooses new voting machines for handicapped,
Newsday, Jan. 24, 2008
Breakdown at State Board of Elections
R's want inaccessible DRE approved as accessible BMD
Breakdown at the Board, Protecting vendors, not voters,
Bo Lipari's Blog, Jan. 24, 2008
Review of Machines submitted as BMDs,
Bo Lipari, Jan. 17, 2008
News Release, Civic Organizations on State Board deadlock,
Brennan Center for Justice, League of Women Voters of New York State,
New Yorkers for Verified Voting, New York Public Interest Research Group,
Jan. 23, 2008
Board of Election at Loggerheads: R's want a DRE, D refuses,
Times Union, Jan. 24, 2008
Voice of the Voters! Radio/Internet Program of Jan. 9, 2008
(Archives at www.voiceofthevoters.org)
Doug Kellner, Co-Chair, NY State Board of Elections, said that
1. Liberty and Avante DREs have been fitted with full-face ballot printers,
and thus they could be certified as BMDs.
2. Paper ballots and optical scanners are much less expensive than DREs.
3. Counties have not yet fully grasped that they will have to recount the
paper trail or paper ballots from 3% of their equipment, and recounting
with paper ballots would be much easier.
Summary of Kellner's Remarks
OGS announces bidding for BMDs,
Office of General Services, bidding opens Nov. 19, 2007
Draft BMD Requirements
Comment was needed by Oct. 5,
Posted on State Board of Elections website
NYVV comments on the Draft RFP, Oct. 5, 2007
Sept. 18, 2007--Action was taken to oppose DREs to be used as accessible
ballot markers for voters with disabilities
REPORT--OVER 3000 FAXES WERE SENT.
Best activist quotes:
"Stop putting lipstick on a pig--a touchscreen
voting machine is a touchscreen voting machine, and no amout of pretending
that it's an accessible ballot marker changes that!"
"The evidence is in, we want paper not touch screen voting machines!"
"Start with paper, stick with paper!"
"Stop finding excuses for using touchscreen voting machines."
Watchdogs Want To Block Touch-Screen Voting,
New York Times, Sept. 19, 2007.
NY asked to reject ATM-style voting machines,
Legislative Gazette, Sept. 24, 2007.
NYS behind in compliance with federal voting law,
WNYT Albany Channel 13, Sept. 19, 2007
Critics slam plan for disabled voting equipment,
Newsday, Sept. 19, 2007.
11 organizations' letter to State Board
Brennan Center letter to State Board
Explanation--
. . . The NY State Board of Elections had proposed a dangerous plan that
would allow uncertified DREs to be used in polling places around the
state in 2008. The proposal would have allowed DREs to be used without full
certification testing required under NY regulations that citizens fought so
hard for.
. . . The Board's proposal would have allowed a DRE to be used in each polling place
as an accessible voting machine, using the VVPAT as the official ballot.
But since a DRE's VVPAT cannot be read back or verified by the voter in any way
other than direct visual observation, a DRE fails to satisfy even the basic
requirement of allowing all voters to verify their ballots. This means our state
Board of Elections was considering allowing an inaccessible DRE to be used
as an accessible voting device!
. . . The Board's proposal would have bypassed the full and thorough testing process
that is guaranteed to New York State voters by law. In light of all we have
learned from other states about the massive failures of DREs, New York
activists sent over 3000 faxes to the State Board to prevent this from happening.
State Board of Elections Aug 16 meeting
The commissioners agreed on August 16, 2007 to prepare a plan for implementation of HAVA to require each county board to provide a fully accessible ballot marking device for voters with disabilities at every poll site in time for the September 2008 primary. (State Board minutes are posted within 2 days on the State Board web site.)
1.10. 2008 Vendor Lawsuits
In January and February, 2008, vendors used litigation to get their products
on New York's list for consideration as accessible Ballot Marking Devices
(BMDs).
Premier (formerly called Diebold) sues, court puts their accessible AutoMark on list of accessible BMDs
Judge orders Premier AutoMark on approved list, Feb. 6, 2008
Affidavit by Buck Jones of Premier, Feb. 6, 2008
Allison Carr Letter to Judge O'Connor, Feb. 6, 2008
Republicans move to dismiss, Feb. 4, 2008, includes as yet unpublished
transcripts of the State Board's official meetings, beginning page 35.
Premier goes to court and on Feb. 1, 2008 the judge orders arguments to be held Feb 5. Premier wants the court to overrule the State Board Republicans' letter of Jan. 29 and to put Premier's AutoMark back on State Board's list of approved BMDs
ES&S sues, court puts their accessible AutoMark on list of accessible BMDs
Judge signs Order to put ES&S AutoMark on approved list, Feb. 6, 2008
ES&S Order to Show Cause With Stay, Feb. 5, 2008
ES&S Order to Show Cause, Feb. 5, 2008
Avante sues, court puts their inaccessible DRE on list of accessible BMDs
Judge orders State Board to put Avante DRE on approved BMD list,
Feb. 6, 2008
Avante Petition, Feb. 6, 2008
Avante Order to Show Cause
Problems with LibertyVote Accessibility Features,
Bo Lipari, Jan. 22, 2008
Liberty sues for court to hold State Board in Contempt
Judge O'Connor's signs the motion, Feb. 6, 2008.
Liberty sues, court puts their inaccessible DRE on list of accessible BMDs
Judge O'Connor's decision, Feb. 4, 2008, puts Liberty's DRE on the list of
approved BMDs.
Appellate Court Denies Democrats' Motion to Stay Judge O'Connor's decision,
Feb. 7, 2008. Also, Liberty's motion against the motion by Democratic State
Commissioners Kellner and Aquila motion is denied because it is
therefore unnecessary.
Liberty documents
Affidavit of Matthew Clyne, Democratic Election Commissioner of
Albany County, Feb. 7, 2008, in support of Liberty DRE-BMD
Affidavit in Opposition, Douglas Kellner, Jan. 31, 2008
Liberty's court papers (Article 78 Petition), January, 2008
After oral argument on Jan. 28, 2008, Albany Supreme Court Justice Kimerbly
O’Connor denied Liberty’s application for a temporary restraining order
compelling the State Board of Elections to include Liberty on the list
of approved ballot marking devices.
However, on Feb. 4, she issued her decision which was shockingly bad.
Bo Lipari's blog
Blind Justice on the court's bad decision
which ignores the facts and makes bad law.
Jan. 29, 2008--It's not over yet! Republicans nix AutoMark!
Letter from State Board to County Boards, Jan. 29, 2008
1.11. Regulations Section 6210
Comments on Draft Regulations 6210
Regs with Comments, June 15, 2008
Regulations Section 6210
Section 6210, which will need to be commented on soon.
Although dated 1/19/07, they were released on 4/6/07.
Section 6210 with comments by Teresa Hommel, April 16, 2007.
1.12. Contact NYS and NYC Officials
Federal
U.S. Senators and Congressional Representatives
(state web site, not necessarily up to date)
PublicMarkup.org, where you can review and comment on
proposed federal legislation in Congress.
State
Governor David Paterson
State Assembly
State Senate
State Senate Markup Site for pending legislation
State Board of Elections
Office of the State Comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli
Office of the State Attorney General, Andrew M. Cuomo
Democratic Party
Republican Party
Counties
County Boards of Elections
New York City
New York City Council
Board of Elections in the City of New York (administrative office for the 5 boroughs)
2.00 Look Up My Voter Registration
Look up my registration in NYSVoter, the statewide voter registration database
maintained by the State Board of Elections
2.01 Comptroller Audit: County Boards
County Boards of Elections Compliance with Election Law,
2008, Office of the New York State Comptroller.
alternate download
New York City is praised on page 10.
2.02 Optical Scanners: Better than DREs
Definitions
PBOS -- Paper Ballots, Optical Scanners, and
ballot marking devices for voters with
disabilities, non-English language, or illiteracy.
DRE -- Direct Recording Electronic touchscreen
or pushbutton computerized voting machine.
BMD -- Ballot Marking Device - a device or machine that
enables voters with disabilities, non-English languages, or illiteracy to
mark a paper ballot without direct human assistance.
Difference between paper ballots and paper trails, Roy Lipscomb, 2/7/07
International Standards
International standards for election legitimacy are based on observation.
Ordinary non-technical citizens must be able to witness their own ballot
and their own votes that will be counted for election-night tallies.
Observers must be able to observe the storage, handling, and counting of votes, and understand what they witness so they can attest that the procedures
were conducted properly and honestly.
Voters must be able to witness their own ballots. This means the ballot
cannot be concealed inside a computer. It is not enough to show voters an
image on a computer screen. It is not enough to show voters a
voter-verifiable printout. Neither the computer screen nor the printout is
the legal ballot that will be counted to create the tallies of the election.
These are simple concepts. Beware of individuals who claim to not understand
them, or who wish to ignore them.
Election integrity comes from handling votes with appropriate observation.
And elections are votes, not about computers.
Our Goal
We want New York State to have the best voting
technology possible, to secure the future of our democracy.
We want New York State to adopt PBOS -- voter-marked paper ballots,
optical scanners, and BMDs --
OR to keep and properly maintain our current mechanical lever machines
and provide BMDs for voters with special needs.
The NY state legislature made a mistake in their 2005 legislation when
they banned lever machines as of 2007, and delegated responsibility to
each county to select either DREs or PBOS as their new equipment.
Now the state deadline for replacing lever machines
has been moved to March, 2008.
But what is needed is a state mandate to either switch the state
to voter-marked paper ballots, optical scanners, and BMDs,
OR a mandate to keep and maintain our mechanical lever machines
and provide BMDs for voters with special needs.
Given the current law, the decision on new voting machines will be made
by each county's two election commissioners (one Democrat and one
Republican). These commissioners are appointed by the county leader of their
party.
Citizens must work county-by-county to educate all our
officials and other citizens.
Advantages of PBOS
Honest Elections. Paper ballots can be secured.
Everyone understands how to safeguard paper ballots --
election workers can easily conduct elections with paper ballots,
and observers can effectively observe the handling of them.
No one says that elections with paper ballots are impossible to tamper with,
especially if election staff conduct secret procedures
and later merely announce some results
and claim that these results came from the optical scanner.
However, with paper ballots you have a real ballot
and if the election procedures are honest and are properly observed,
we have a chance to prevent tampering
and achieve voter control of election outcomes.
Honest elections depend on local political will
and the involvement of citizens from all parties.
Tampering with an optical scanner is easy to detect
by hand-counting votes on a batch of paper ballots
and feeding them through the scanner.
With evoting no one can observe in a meaningful way,
and there are no authentic ballots on which to base audits.
Voter Wait Time. The use of paper ballots can avoid long voter waiting times
which can occur if EVERYONE has to use computers to enter their votes.
Depending on the length of the ballot, an able voter can take
from 3 to 8 minutes or longer.
A voter with disabilities can take 30 minutes or longer
to use the assistive devices to cast a ballot.
Long wait times can prevent many people from voting.
All voters would have long waits if there are only one or two
electronic machines per election district, and many voters arrive at the same
time. This is true especially if multiple voters with disabilities arrive at
the same time (this is likely to happen in the city and suburbs because
accessible van services usually pick up many people before taking them
to their destination).
With the use of voter-marked paper ballots,
many voters can mark their ballots at the same time.
Reasons to oppose electronic voting and vote tabulating.
"New York Should Not Acquire or Use Electronic Voting Systems".
News,
commentary
and reports
from across our country tell us that DRE voting systems lose a
high percentage of ballots and votes -- sometimes as many as
25 percent.
Meanwhile our public servants with responsibility for conducting elections
cannot manage the
computerized voting systems they use. In all cases vendor technicians are
"helping" without technical oversight since the Boards of Elections do
not have the expertise or training to know their own software and hardware.
They haven't got a clue what their vendor technicians are doing.
We should not allow this appalling situation to happen in our state!
We do not believe that Boards of Election are competent to handle secure computer systems.
Computers will be used as a tool for undetectable or uncorrectable fraud
and an excuse for incompetence.
For example, in October, 2004, the New York City Board of Elections sent out 11,000 packets to
voters, advising them that they were eligible to vote on November 9
even though the election was on November 2.
Executive Director John Ravitz later
blamed the error on a computer.
Whether or not a computer (rather than a person) was responsible for the mistake,
the incident shows why Boards of Election should not run elections on computers.
Around the country, computers have been the cause or convenient scapegoat
for leaving a presidential candidate off the ballot,
sending voters to the wrong polling place,
losing voter registrations,
changing voters' addresses so that their identification
no longer matches their voter registration,
subtracting rather than adding votes to a candidate's tally,
losing ballots, etc.
Democracy requires voting methods that ordinary people can observe,
but no one can observe what a computer is doing.
The idea of voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPAT),
originally, was to restore the ability of people to observe at the two critical times.
First, the voter-verified paper ballot gives each voter the ability
to observe that his/her vote is recorded correctly on paper (a permanent, non-electronic material).
Second, the audit gives election observers a way to observe
that the votes on the paper ballots are counted correctly.
Elections are not a court of law where a piece of technology
is assumed accurate until proven inaccurate.
If you start out with the premise that the computer is accurate,
you miss the point that large computer systems are (1)
rarely, if ever, perfect, and
(2) honest elections have to start out with observable procedures.
Our candidates, voters, and political parties should be able to
observe appropriately as a routine matter.
When observers are shut out, or when citizens don't even know that they
need to observe, we can't know if corrupt insiders
are destroying election records and
replacing real ballots and tally sheets with false ones.
The history of elections tells us that
whenever any part of election administration is
concealed from public oversight, errors and fraud will occur.
Computers are wonderful, but they are an inappropriate technology
for elections in a democratic society.
A Little Fraud Goes A Long Way
A
Yale study
showed why computerized elections must comply with professional
Information Technology standards of 100% audits, 100% accuracy.
Here is
commentary applying the study to New York.
Boards of Election across our country seem to believe that
DREs eliminate any need for concern with the accuracy of
ballot recording and vote tabulating. Until this belief in the magical
properties of computers is replaced by realistic, professional knowledge, our
democracy is more secure if we vote on paper ballots. Security concerns with
paper ballots are realistically understood by most people.
New York law requires DREs to print a voter-verifiable paper trail,
BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE professional-quality computer audits
before multipartisan observers.
Our county Boards of Election don't have the
staff, expertise or resources to perform such audits.
What will we get? Voter-verified paper trails,
3% of which will be counted, and official tallies taken from
97% unverified computers.
Computer technology won't be used correctly in elections,
and shouldn't be used at all.
Indirect ways to determine if an election was honest
DREs conceal how an election is conducted, and forces people to use
cumbersome time-consuming indirect ways to determine if an election was
honest.
Since the November 2004 election, mathematicians and statisticians have analysed
the published numbers of voters, ballots, and votes, and compared these numbers
to exit polls, registrations by party, etc.
In a strong democracy, however, multipartisan observers would simply maintain
observation of the ballots once cast, and observe a public counting of votes.
When the election procedures are publicly observable,
everyone can be confident that the outcome expresses the will of the voters.
The use of computers to record ballots and count votes appears to be part
of an overall effort to prevent public participation in election
procedures, and to prevent observation.
Electronic voting makes elections very complicated.
Because of legal or technical barriers to observation of vote-recording
or vote-counting, people have started looking for "other" ways to ensure
security. This is why people are asking about certification reports; open
source software; communications devices; chain of custody issues and its
documentation; paying millions of dollars for computer scientists to examine
the software (even though computer scientists say that all errors cannot be
found, and even if just the errors they have already found were corrected, the
software would have to be rewritten and certified all over again); citizens
advisory committees when there should have been committees of computer
professionals, auditors, and CPAs evaluating this equipment long ago; vendor
accountability; and computer training for Board of Election staff and poll workers.
None of these attempts to ensure election integrity can work.
How do we know? If they could ensure computer security,
every business would perform them once and never do another audit.
Moreover, the complete independent audit required to ensure the integrity
of a computerized election requires more than just counting the voter-verified
paper ballots. It ALSO requires an investigation into all
discrepancies between the paper and computer tallies. That
is more than twice as much work as running an election with hand-marked paper
ballots, maintaining citizen oversight of the ballots, and then recounting
them. It is far simpler and faster to recount paper ballots than to perform a
computer audit. Also, the public can observe the recount of paper ballots and
know that it is accurate, but only a handful of computer experts can understand
a computer audit.
Cost
States that have already spent money on
electronic voting systems may have lost a lot of money, but that is nothing
compared to losing our democracy.
The federal money we get won't cover the
purchase cost of evote machines.
Electronic voting machines are the
most expensive voting technology, and the costs never end.
After one Florida county switched to evoting, they spent
$4.6 million more per election.
No one in a position of responsibility in New York State has
formally evaluated the cost of evoting.
This includes our legislature, State Comptroller, state Board of Elections,
county Boards of Elections, and Attorney General.
Only NYVV.org
has completed studies of purchase and continuing costs.
One
county cost comparison in Florida.
showed that the evoting county had to spend over $1,000,000 more per year.
Several states have found that evoting
costs so much that some counties must
close polling places.
TX,
MN.
Combining polling places,
in order to cut down on the cost of HAVA implementation,
has consequences:
confusion when poll sites are changed and voters have to go somewhere other than their normal site,
problems for disabled voters who may have to travel greater distances to get to new, combined sites,
and longer lines because combining polling places does not mean more machines in the new site.
Tactics of DREs supporters
One tactic is to confuse our language. DRE supporters are using the term
"paper ballot" to refer to DRE printouts -- which
are not used to create tallies.
The "Florida Voters Coalition" had to deal with this by saying they wanted
"durable voter verified paper ballots, machine-readable and hand marked
by the voter or by a certified non-tabulating ballot marking device."
This language allows for all Ballot Marking Devices including IVS,
but eliminates the use of DREs.
Who uses PBOS?
46% of counties, 36% of precincts and 35% of voters used
optical scan in the United States during the Nov 2004 election
(source: Election Data Services).
Since November, 2004 several states have selected opscan statewide:
South Dakota,
North Dakota,
Michigan,
Nebraska, and
Minnesota.
Other states are planning to use opscan as their primary voting system,
supplemented with a mix of ballot-markers and DREs for accessibility:
Wyoming,
most of New Mexico.
States that are either all or mostly opscan:
Maine,
Arizona,
Vermont,
Massachusetts,
Rhode Island,
New Hampshire.
Oregon is all vote-by-mail (central count opscan).
In some states individual counties have selected opscan:
California,
North Carolina.
2.03. Against DREs (Evote Machines)
National info:
Daily Voting News Email to DVN@votersunite.org
Election Integrity News (weekly) Email to contact@votetrustusa.org
New York State info:
New Yorkers for Verified Voting news and alerts. Email to contact@nyvv.org
Bo Lipari's WebLog
NYVV Current Action
MidHudson Verified Voting
A. New York should learn from the experience of other states
and counties, where electronic voting systems have lost votes
and cost millions of dollars more than expected.
Documented Failures of vendors and their electronic voting systems
Miami-Dade's Elections Chief Says Urges Switch to Optical Scan,
Sun Sentinel, May 28, 2005.
Paperless voting costs soar, MiamiHerald, May 26, 2005.
$4.6 million more per election
in Miami-Dade county after switching to evoting.
B. Cost
We can't afford it!
C. The
missing security requirements in proposed state legislation
show that electronic voting will not be used securely.
It is better to use technology that people understand!
D.
Communications capability in electronic voting systems will be
uncontrollable, and every electronic ballot box will be open to
tampering without leaving any trace of evidence.
E. FAQ,
Frequently Asked Questions, Why Do Informed Citizens Oppose Electronic Voting?
Optical Scanners in Use
Mississippi County uses op scan and Automarks
Jackson County, Mississippi uses op scan and Automarks
Arizona uses Automark
Optical Scan systems are used in
Los Angeles (Ink-A-Vote)
Arizona
Wisconsin
New Hampshire
Vermont
1. Electronic voting systems have proven themselves unreliable.
----Are
"plausible" and "oops"
the new American standards for election results?
The computer reported a vote count of
144,000, but there were fewer than 20,000 registered voters in the county.
After a techie rushed in and "fixed" the computer, the numbers were
plausible (approximately the same as the number of people who had voted) and
everyone accepted them. The numbers could not be independently verified.
After about 48,000 people voted, no race
showed more than 36,000 votes. Approximately 12,000 votes had been lost.
----
Myth Breakers For Election Officials
breaks down failures of electronic voting systems into 10 categories for DREs
and 4 categories for Optical Scanners.
----
Failures of electronic voting systems
.
2. Federal and state certification does not
mean that electronic voting systems work.
----Most election system failures listed above
occurred with certified systems.
----The
I-Team Interview with MicroVote Executives
confirms what computer technologists and common sense have been telling us --
certification does not mean that the systems work.
----
Count Crisis
by Matthew Haggman, Miami Daily Business
Review, May 13, 2004. A scathing internal review of the iVotronic touch-screen
voting machines used in Miami-Dade and Broward, Fla. counties, written by a
Miami-Dade County elections official, revealed that the tabulation of results
may be flawed. The review, contained in a June 6, 2003, memo revealed that the
vote images and audit log created by these voting systems omitted some machines
and ballots, but reported other machines that were not actually used, as well
as "phantom" ballots. Faced with this report that their electronic
systems might not be working, officials hid the report and reassured the public.
3. Electronic voting machines look like
ATMs on the outside, but they don't have ATM security on the inside.
----Security means more than safety from
hackers. It means that the results of normal operation have been proved correct
by independent audit.
----100% of ATM transactions are audited. 100%
of transaction-capturing and -processing computer systems in business,
industry, and government are audited.
----Auditing is the only way to detect and
correct errors that are unavoidable when humans interact with complex computer
systems.
----Auditing is the only way to enable
software maintenance, which means detecting and fixing software errors that
show up only when systems perform real-world work.
----72% of computer software projects are
complete or partial failures -- which means that the system doesn't work!
Computerized voting machines are no exception.
Why the Current Touch Screen Voting Fiasco Was
Pretty Much Inevitable
by Robert X. Cringely, December 4, 2003.
----Electronic voting systems without VVPAT
prevent the universally-followed standard practice of independent auditing.
They provide NO WAY to verify that ballots are recorded correctly or that votes
are tallied correctly. They provide no way to detect errors, so errors remain
in the system forever and corrupt election after election.
----The law must require electronic voting
systems to provide voter-verified paper ballots, to be secured and counted as
the ballot of record.
----The law must require Boards of Election
to independently audit electronic voting and vote tabulating systems in a
manner consistent with ordinary business standards.
If Boards of Election lack the
resources to independently audit their computer-produced voter-verified paper
ballots, then the law must provide the resources or mandate an easier-to-manage
election methodology such as hand-marked paper ballots countable by hand or
optical scanner. A small percentage of random recounts is not an independent audit
and may miss most errors; that is why businesses perform independent audits,
not random checks of a tiny percentage of their transactions.
----The law must allocate funds to cover the
expense of independently auditing the work of electronic voting and vote
tabulating systems.
----The law must require 100% accuracy in recounts of computerized
elections. A
recent Yale study
showed why computerized elections must comply with professional
Information Technology standards of 100% audits, 100% accuracy.
Here is
commentary applying the study to New York.
4. Voter-verified paper ballots are needed
to enable auditing of electronic voting systems.
----State of the art, at this time, is that
transaction information is printed on paper. This is why ATMs, cash registers,
etc, give paper receipts. A continuous paper tape inside the ATM or cash
register also records the transactions.
----The law must require electronic voting
systems to print paper ballots marked with the voter's choices that the voter
can verify before casting the ballot; these ballots must be secured for later
use in counting, recounting, and performing independent audits of the election.
5. Election integrity is a nonpartisan
issue. Both Republicans and Democrats have called for voter-verified paper
ballots to enable verification of election results.
----Sen. John Ensign (R-Nevada)
----Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut)
----Rep. Steve King of (R-Iowa)
----Rep. Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
----The Report of the
Fairfax County Republican Committee
,
January, 2004, calls on the Virginia legislature to pass a law requiring
disclosed source code, a voter-verifiable paper trail, and surprise recounts in
0.5% of all precincts. The Washington Post reported GOP
Says County Was Unprepared, Urges State Control
by David Cho,
January 10, 2004.
6. Most Boards of Election lack in-house
expertise and experience in evaluation and management of secure computer
systems. This has allowed vendors to sell electronic voting systems that have
no auditing capacity as a panacea for the lack of resources that Boards of
Election struggle with.
----Board of Elections don't realize that
comparable computer systems are always audited, and that without auditing these
systems are error-prone and not trustworthy.
----Board of Elections don't realize that
unless they independently audit their electronic voting systems (perform end-of-election-day
reconciliation), they will have only "plausible" results from the
computer.
---The law must fund and require Board of
Elections to have training in evaluation, management, and handling of secure
computer systems before Board of Elections evaluate, acquire and use them.
7. Voter confidence, as well as basic principles of democracy,
require elections to be conducted in way that allows public oversight.
When computers are used for vote recording or tabulating,
public oversight is prevented, and the legitimacy of election outcomes
and the elected government will always be tainted.
Reading software is not a substitute for appropriate observation of votes.
Nevertheless, because computerized equipment is already in use now,
most activists advocate that the the public
must have open access to all software, as well as all certification
reports from Independent Testing Authorities.
----For purposes of brevity,
"software" here includes all firmware and all other kinds of
programming, as well as compilers used to generate the final code.
----No one can directly observe the processes inside a computer,
and it is very hard to control what software is inside a computer
during an election. However, by studying DRE and optical scanner software,
technologists can find innocent errors that can affect elections.
----The law must require federal and state certification reports
of all election systems certified by New York to be made
openly available to the public by being posted in full on our state Board of
Elections web site.
----The law must require software used in electronic voting and
vote tabulating systems to be "open-source,"
meaning it must be posted on our state Board of Elections website, for viewing
and downloading by anyone.
A Really Open Election
by Clive Thompson, New York Times, May 30, 2004:
"[I]s the counting of votes -- a fundamental of democracy -- something you
want to take on faith? No, this problem requires a more definitive solution:
ending the secrecy around the machines.
"[T]he government should . . . put the source code online publicly, where anyone
can critique or debug it. This honors the genius of the open-source movement.
If you show something to a large enough group of critics, they'll notice (and
find a way to remove) almost any possible flaw. If tens of thousands of
programmers are scrutinizing the country's voting software, it's highly
unlikely a serious bug will go uncaught."
----Open-source software is more secure
than secret software.
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/elections/disclosure.html
http://www.wheresthepaper.org/May24OpenSource.htm
----Open-source software has already been used in
Australian
election systems.
----The Open
Voting Consortium
is currently developing free open-source
software for election systems.
----Warning about the limitations of open-source software:
In the Information Technology world, the purpose of examining a computer
system is to find obvious flaws and reduce the number of errors that
occur during operation, but no examination of any hardware or software
can ensure that a computer system works. For that you need an independent
complete audit. This has been said over and over. Avi Rubin has said that
no reading of software can find all flaws and no computer expert (other
than perhaps Michael Shamos and Ted Selker) will guarantee that any software
works as a result of examining the software.
If you go to a bank with your statement and cancelled checks and tell an
officer "here's an error on my statement" the officer looks at your paperwork.
He/She doesn't say, "Read our software!" Moreover, all legitimate businesses
audit all their records, financial companies and banks send statements to all
their customers, etc. The idea that you can determine/ensure the correct
operation of a computer system with a partial audit (1-5% count of vvpat)
is a political strategy and has nothing to do with how real IT departments
work in business, industry or government installations.
Nevertheless, the legal right explicitly stated in law that enables
candidates, parties, and voters to examine an entire voting system
including all harware, software, firmware, and all other parts, without
time-delaying expensive court struggles is useful for finding obvious flaws.
8. All communications devices in
voting and vote tabulating equipment must be banned because they allow a person
anywhere in the world to access and modify the software, ballots, and tallies
in the voting and tabulating equipment.
----The law must ban all communications
devices in voting and vote tabulating equipment.
9. Unless independent computer
professionals, computer scientists, auditors, and CPAs participate in voting
system selection advisory committees, these committees will not be able to
evaluate vendors' claims for their electronic equipment, nor the procedures for
proper use of the equipment.
----The law must require inclusion of
independent computer professionals, computer scientists, CPAs and auditors in
these committees, and require vendors to answer all questions about the systems
to be evaluated.
10. Computer purchases should be made ONLY
after arms-length evaluation of the product and vendor.
----Vendors have taken advantage of Boards of
Election ignorance and trust, as discovered in California, Indiana, and other
states where the product delivered and used in elections was not the product
sold.
----Vendors have delivered products that did
not work, as the California Top to Bottom Review discovered.
----Vendors who say that the security of their
systems can be proven by post-election printouts of ballots and/or log reports
of the day's activity know that such reports do not provide a meaningful
independent audit of system work, and are taking advantage of Board of Election
ignorance.
----Vendors who say that their systems have
never been proven to give inaccurate results know that their systems conceal
evidence of vote-tampering. They know that their systems have never been proven
to give accurate results, since these systems cannot be independently audited
and nothing can be proved. Moreover, these claims ignore the many elections
where the machines lost hundreds or thousands of ballots.
----Vendors who suggest that a secure computer
system can be managed by people with minimal computer competence are taking
advantage of Board of Election ignorance and trust.
----The law should require NY State to
purchase or license only open-source software that has been openly available
for public inspection for at least 3 months prior to its certification and
subsequent selection for purchase (to allow evaluation of its quality) and only
after it has been given public approval by the same computer scientists who now
criticize the quality of currently-available commercial products.
----New York should fund the development of
open-source free software for election systems, for example through Open
Voting Solutions. This kind of investment would ensure the quickest delivery
of the most secure, inexpensive electronic voting systems and ensure the
integrity of NY state's future elections.
A
Really Open Election
by Clive Thompson, New York Times, May 30, 2004:
"[T]he government should ditch the private-sector software makers. Then it
should hire a crack team of programmers to write new code. . . . A group of
civic-minded programmers known as the Open Voting Consortium has written its
own open-source code.
2.04 New York State HAVA Links
HAVA Links on State Board of Elections web site
2.05 New York State
New Yorkers for Verified Voting, in partnership with the
New York State League of Women Voters,
is the only statewide organization dealing with voting machine
technology as its main focus.
WheresThePaper.org
is active primarily in New York City.
2.06 New York City
Political Structure of NYC
Major Political Parties
Board of Elections in the City of New York
City Council
. . .Work of the City Council Governmental Operations Committee:
. . . . . .
Resolution 961 for a state-owned open source system
. . . . . .
Resolution 131-A 2007 for PBOS--PASSED
. . . . . .
Resolution 228-A 2006 for public public tests --PASSED
Hearings -- NYC Board of Elections 1/23/07, 11/21/06
Hearings -- Voter Assistance Commission 12/7/06, 6/28/07
Battle for PBOS, not DREs! Organization Resolutions
Why non-English languages are important in NYC
Political Structure of NYC
New York City has 5 counties, often called boroughs.
--New York (usually called Manhattan)
--Kings (usually called Brooklyn)
--Queens
--Bronx
--Richmond (usually called Staten Island)
Each county has
--one Democrat and one Republican County Leader,
--one county Board of Elections,
--one Democrat and one Republican Election Commissioner.
Each County Leader recommends the person to be Election Commissioner
for his party for his county. The City Council "vets" the recommended person
and if he/she passes the background checks the City Council then appoints
him/her for a term of four years.
County Boards of Elections, contact info, and Commissioners
Major Political Parties
Democratic Party
Republican Party
Board of Elections in the City of New York
Each of the five boroughs of NYC has its own county Board of Elections.
The five boroughs of NYC also have one central Board of Elections
Executive Office, called the
Board of Elections in the City of New York.
The Board of Elections in the City of New York has a bipartisan staff that
oversees the daily activities of the Executive Office and five county boards.
This is where the Commissioners hold weekly meetings
most Tuesdays at 1:30 at 42 Broadway, 6th floor.
Call before attending, in case the day or time is changed,
212-487-5300.
Send email to your Election Commissioner
2006 vendor replies to "Request for Information" from NYC BOE
Minutes of the weekly meetings of the NYC Board of Elections
Weekly Agenda books provided to the Commissioners at their weekly meetings
Commissioners Agendas
Feb. 17, 2009
Mar. 3, 2009 ,
Mar. 17, 2009 ,
Mar. 24, 2009 ,
Mar. 31, 2009
Apr. 7, 2009 ,
Apr. 14, 2009 ,
Apr. 21, 2009 ,
Apr. 28, 2009
May 5, 2009 ,
May 12, 2009 ,
May 19, 2009 ,
May 26, 2009
June 2, 2009 ,
June 9, 2009 ,
June 16, 2009 ,
June 23, 2009
New York City Council
New York City Council, home page
Members -- enter your address and get the name of your Council Member
Absenteeism at City Council, as of Nov. 10, 2006
Tax Dollars at "Work", City Council Spending on Advertisements,
Citizens Union, October, 2007
Legislation and Committees
Whose bills get introduced and passed?, Oct. 1, 2007
City Elected Officials get Pay Raise, Nov. 15, 2006
City Council Resolution 961 for a state-owned open source system
Resolution 961 urges the New York State Board of Elections to commission the
development of our own optical scan system which the state would fully own,
or accept a free 100% open-source system from citizens who have developed it.
Resolution 961 on City Council website
Resolution 961, a copy, useful if City Council website is down
Res. 961 was introduced July 25, 2007 by lead sponsor Council Member Darlene Mealy, and has 28 out of 51 Council Members as sponsors.
PLEASE call your own Council Member ASAP -- if they are a sponsor, thank them!
If they are not, ask them to sponsor, and ask what questions or concerns have kept them from signing up! Send an email to admin AT wheresthepaper.org to let us know what you learn!
Find My City Council Member
City Council website--enter your address, get your Council Member's name
League of Women Voters
23 Non-Sponsors--Contact them, ask them to sponsor Resolution 961!
Non-Sponsors with contact info
as of Dec. 14, 2007
28 Sponsors! Thank these Council Members!
Addabbo , Avella , Dilan , Foster , Gentile , Gerson , Gonzalez , Jackson ,
James , Koppell , Liu , Mark-Viverito , Martinez , McMahon,
Mealy (Lead Sponsor) , Mendez , Monserrate , Nelson , Palma , Recchia , Reyna ,
Sanders , Seabrook , Stewart , Vacca , Vann , White , Yassky
Res. 961 -- Letter to Christine Quinn, Speaker of City Council
Word doc version
HTML version
Speaker Christine Quinn
The Speaker's Office
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
OFFICE (212) 788-7210
FAX (212) 788-7207
Email to Speaker Christine Quinn: http://nyccouncil.info/contact_speaker
Res. 961 -- Letter to Simcha Felder, Chair of the Governmental Operations Committee
Word doc version
HTML version
Council Member Simcha Felder
250 Broadway, 17th Floor
New York NY 10007
OFFICE (718) 853-2704
FAX (718) 853-3858
felder@council.nyc.ny.us
Explanation of the issue
Resolution 961 deals with our future voting equipment, and public confidence in our elections. We need voting equipment that is under full public control and not under the control of private corporations, which have no accountability to the public.
New York State has two alternatives to the purchase of voting systems with secret software from private vendors.
1. New York could commission the development of its own optical scanner system to be used throughout the state.
2. New York could accept a free, 100% "open source" system which has been developed by citizens eager to provide an alternative to commercially produced systems.
The state of Oklahoma developed their own software for their current optical scanner system, and there is not even one problem report from Oklahoma in any election problem database for recent elections.
This subject is urgent now, because New York State plans to resume testing new systems from private vendors in December, 2007. Yet, all of the major vendors that wish to sell their equipment in New York have had difficulties in delivering working equipment, and their equipment has a history of high failure rates. These vendors have engaged in legal disputes with their clients, in some cases going so far as to claim ownership of voting data after use of their equipment.
In addition, the New York State Comptroller has guidelines for
vendor responsibility and
NONE of the major vendors of voting systems meet these requirements.
Our City Council Members must voice the need for voting equipment that is under full public control, open to public scrutiny, and worthy of public confidence.
We want the City Council to pass Resolution 961 to send a message to the New York State Board of Elections to commission the development of a system that would be owned entirely by our state, or to accept a free system from citizens who have developed it.
City Council Resolution 131-A for PBOS--PASSED UNANIMOUSLY March 14, 2007
Resolution 131-A urges the New York City Board of Elections to select
PBOS as the City's new voting technology.
It was introduced March 1, 2006 by lead sponsor Council Member Charles Barron.
It passed by unanimous vote, March 14, 2007.
Photos: March 14, 2007, Press Conference for Resolution 131-A
Statement by Teresa Hommel
Unanimous vote for scanners, paper ballots by Helen Klein, Courier-Life, March 23, 2007
Press kit
Council Member Barron's Press Release
Task Force on Election Integrity, Community Church of New York, Press Release
New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) Press Release
Resolution 131-A copy (in case City Council website is down)
Quotes of Supporting Organizations
Graphic: PBOS vs. VVPAT
Graphic: PBOS Pollsite
Importance of Res. 131-A
1. The language of Res. 131-A shows foundational understanding of democracy: if the people cannot understand, observe, and attest to the proper handling of votes, the election cannot support a legitimate democratic government. Government behind locked doors is either corrupt or vulnerable to corruption. Elections are the same. We must not conceal the handling of votes inside computers. The resolution accurately lists all considerations that decision-makers should weigh in the selection of voting equipment, and all of them support paper ballots and optical scanners, NOT electronic voting machines.
2. The passing vote for Res. 131-A was unanimous
3. Lobbying for Res. 131-A consisted of thorough briefings with council members and staff, most lasting 2-3 hours or more. Over 60 documents in the briefing packet supported all claims for the advantages of PBOS.
4. Res. 131-A had grassroots support, not just support by the leadership of large organizations. This was the result of dozens of training and informational sessions with the membership of many local organizations. See the
resolutions passed by local organizations.
5. Passage of Resolution 131-A is one step in an effort that must continue to renew our democracy. Citizens must re-engage in participation and oversight of our elections. This includes work as poll workers and election observers, as well as continuous oversight of our NYC Board of Elections by attendance at their regular weekly open meetings. For info on the weekly meetings, call the Board at 212-487-5300. A strong democracy requires all citizens to pay deep and continuing attention to the work of our government. Democracy is self-service.
The authority to select new voting machines lies with the county election commissioners, but the City Council was urged to take a position on voting machines for these reasons:
1. Elected officials represent all of us and it is their responsibility to speak for us on this important issue which is at the heart of our democracy.
2. It is their fiduciary responsibility to see that City funds are properly spent, and not allow a costly, failure-prone system to be purchased when a less expensive and more reliable system is available.
3. A resolution from the City Council will be a voice heard in Albany. This will improve chances for new legislation for a statewide system based on paper ballots with scanners.
4. A pro-PBOS resolution will communicate the intent of the City Council directly to our Election Commissioners. Our Election Commissioners have been lobbied by the electronic voting machine vendors, and may choose electronic voting machines if the City Council does not make its preference known.
5. If our election commissioners split their vote, with half supporting paper ballots with scanners and the other for touchscreen voting machines, the decision will go to the New York State Board of Elections. The State Board most likely would honor the City Council's stated preference.
On the day before the vote on Res. 131, 43 Council Members were sponsors of Reso 131:
Addabbo , Arroyo , Avella , Baez , Barron , Brewer , Comrie , de Blasio , Dickens , Dilan , Foster , Gallagher , Garodnick , Gennaro , Gentile , Gerson , Gioia , Gonzalez , Jackson , James , Katz , Koppell , Lappin , Liu , Mark-Viverito , Martinez , McMahon , Mealy , Mendez , Monserrate , Nelson , Oddo , Palma , Reyna , Sanders , Seabrook , Sears , Stewart , Vacca , Vann , Vallone , Weprin , White
NY City Council Report on Voting Machines
City Council Report
Resolution 228-A for public tests before purchase--PASSED UNANIMOUSLY Aug. 16, 2006
Resolution 228-A on NY City Council Website.
Resolution 228-A copy on WheresThePaper.org.
Photos of the Press Conference!
Materials in the press kit:
Council Member and Lead Sponsor Robert Jackson's Press Release
Quotes by Supporting Organizations
What Is A Public Mock Election
What Is A Hacking Test
Organizations that passed resolutions to support Res. 228-A:
JPAC
League of Women Voters, NYC
People for the American Way
With Resolution 228-A, the New York City Council has set a standard that our entire nation can aspire to: Resolution 228-A says we want to see:
-- Complete Mock Election Tests -- they are the only way to ensure that an entire voting system works AND that our elections staff and poll workers and voters can work with it. Here's an example of what can happen if we don't conduct this kind of test prior to purchasing and using the equipment:
Watchdog Group Questions 2004 Fla. Vote
-- Hacking tests, both by professionals and individual public-spirited computer experts -- these tests are the only way to ensure that computerized voting systems are not easily broken into. For example:
Liberty Voting Machines Hacked
-- A procedure to confirm that the equipment we receive is what we ordered, complies with state requirements, and does not contain illegal wireless communications components. Around our country, jurisdictions have discovered that their equipment is illegal AFTER it fails in an election.
-- Cost analysis. Our city has closed firehouses and hospitals, reduced the hours that our libraries are open, just to save a few million dollars. But we might spend hundreds of millions of dollars for equipment that no one has seen work yet, and our Board of Elections hasn't even published a cost analysis of our different options.
If our Board of Elections pays attention to this resolution, it will help us prevent future problems.
More about Resolution 228-A
Hearings, City Council Governmental Operations Committee
January 29, 2007, HAVA Compliance and Resolution 131
Photo (c) Rick Schwab.
Council Member Barron, Lead Sponsor of Res. 131, with supporters at hearing
Testimony:
Abe Rosen ,
Adele Bender ,
Allegra Dengler ,
Beth Franzese ,
Bridget Cooke ,
Celia Wu ,
Charles Michael Couch ,
Dan Jacoby ,
David Finkelstein ,
Debra Cooper ,
Diana Finch ,
Fran Baskin ,
Georgina Christ ,
Gloria Mattera ,
Jane Colvin ,
Jessica Flagg ,
Jim Robbins ,
Joyce Blum ,
Kathy Jacobson ,
Leonard Peters ,
Malcolm Varon ,
Marge Acosta ,
Marge Acosta-Dayton Quote 1 ,
Marge Acosta-Dayton Quote 2 ,
Marge Acosta-Haphazard Purchase ,
Marge Acosta-Printcomm Quote ,
Marjorie Gersten ,
Nydia Leaf ,
Pearl Reeves ,
Phyllis Cunningham ,
Rick Schwab ,
Rona Beame ,
Ronald Crenshaw ,
Shera Katz ,
Sherry Rogers ,
Sue Bernhard ,
Teresa Hommel ,
Tucker Farley
Douglas A. Kellner, Co-Chair, NY State Board of Elections
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Citizens Union
October 4, 2006, Accessibility and Ballot Marking Devices in 2006
Teresa Hommel,
urging continuous and detailed oversight by the City Council and
urging that simplicity, understandability, manageability, and observability
be added to the Board of Elections' criteria for selection
of equipment for 2007
June 26, 2006, on Accessibility Plans for 2006
Teresa Hommel,
urging continuous and detailed oversight by the City Council
Terence Moakley,
An associate executive director at United Spinal Association,
formerly Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association
Neal Rosenstein, NYPIRG
Alexander Wood,
delivered on behalf of the Disabilities Network of New York City (DNNYC)
April 24, 2006, Hearing on Resolutions 131 and 228
Adrienne Kivelson (Election Specialist for the League of Women Voters of the City of New York) ,
Arnold Gore ,
Dan Jacoby ,
David Kogelman Esq. (HAVA Committee Chair, New York Democratic Lawyers Council) ,
Diana Finch ,
Evelyn Jones Rich (Chair, City Issues Committee, New York City Americans for Democratic Action (ADA)) ,
Katherine Wolpe ,
Marge Acosta ,
Marjorie Gersten ,
Nina Reznick ,
Peter Belmont ,
Phyllis Andrews ,
Rick Schwab ,
Ronni Eisen ,
Sari Joseph ,
Teresa Hommel (Chair, Task Force on Election Integrity, Community Church of NY) ,
Tracey Denton (Executive Director, Democracy for NYC)
People for the American Way
March 7, 2006
The Cost of New Voting Machines, Teresa Hommel
February 27, 2006
Oversight of the Process of Selecting New Voting Machines, Teresa Hommel
Hearings, New York City Board of Elections
Nov. 21, 2006
Testimony: Ann Eagan ,
Arnold Gore ,
Carolyn DePaolo for United Hebrew Trades ,
Catherine Skopic ,
Celia Wu ,
Christopher Marshall ,
Constance Dondore ,
Dan Jacoby ,
David Finkelstein ,
Debra Cooper ,
Ella Matthews ,
Ellen Stone ,
Fran Baskin ,
Genevieve Cervera ,
H ,
Howard Stanislevic ,
Jane E. Colvin ,
Jim Robbins ,
Joan Sanders ,
Karen Hoover ,
Katharine Wolpe ,
Lawrene Groobert ,
Leathea Vanadore ,
Leon Gortler ,
Marjorie Ramos ,
Miriam Balmuth ,
Neal Rosenstein for NYPIRG ,
Nina Reznick ,
Pamella Farley ,
Patricia Dempsey ,
Phyllis Andrews ,
Phyllis Salome ,
Rick Schwab ,
Robie Wiesner ,
Rona Beame ,
Ruth Benson ,
Sally Jones ,
Sari Joseph ,
Stephanie Low ,
Sue Bernhard ,
Teresa Hommel ,
William Ginsberg
Jan. 23, 2007
Testimony:
Citizens Union. "Citizens Union Foundation testified at the Board of Elections' public hearing and the City Council hearing on Resolution 131, which urges the Board of Elections to select optical scan machines for use in New York City. Based on the comments of the CU members and staff that participated in the demonstrations and shared their feedback, CUF found that the DRE machines provided the greatest ease of use. However, CUF recognized that the optical scan machines' gave the greatest sense of security because of the presence of a voter marked paper ballot. ... CUF has not decided to support one system over another, but rather has advocated for adherence to stringent guidelines for either system, ensuring security and ease of use.
Note use of the "how do you feel" argument against PBOS: the voter-marked paper ballot gave a sense of greater security. Will CUF ever concede that the greater security is real, not just a feeling?
Testimony:
Betsy Gotbaum, Public Advocate
State Senator Velmanette Montgomery
Scott Stringer, Manhattan Borough President
Citizens Union
Photos: Commissioners and Crowd ,
We Testified for PBOS!
Hearing, Voter Assistance Commission
June 28, 2007:
Andi Novick (Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media) ,
Arnold Gore ,
Dan Jacoby ,
Diana Finch ,
MarjorieGersten ,
Teresa Hommel ,
Pamella Farley
Dec. 7, 2006: Diana Finch
Organizations -- Pass Resolutions and send them to decision makers
NYVV has posted the resolutions passed by counties, towns, and villages
Organizations that passed resolutions for PBOS
ACORN, March 9, 2006.
ADA (NYC Americans for Democratic Action), March, 2006.
Astorians for Peace and Justice, March 23, 2006.
Brennan Center for Justice,
November 21, 2006.
Brennan Center web site
Bronx-Westchester Nation Discussion Group, Jan. 15, 2006.
Brooklyn Parents for Peace, March 22, 2006.
Brooklyn-Queens NOW, Feb. 13, 2006.
Center for the Women of New York, Feb. 28, 2006.
Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, Dec. 20, 2006.
Citizen Action of New York, June 20, 2005.
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, New York City Chapter, May 19, 2007.
Community Board 10, Brooklyn, January 22, 2007
Community Board 3, Manhattan, January, 2007
Community Board 6, Manhattan, Dec. 13, 2006
DC 37, 2006.
Ethical Culture Society of Queens, March 28, 2006.
JPAC, March, 2006.
League of Women Voters, NYC
New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG),
November 10, 2006.
New York StateWide Senior Action Council, New York City Chapter, Jan. 8, 2007.
North Manhattan Neighbors for Peace and Justice and
Washington Heights Political Action Group, Feb. 6, 2006.
PRLDEF, Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., May, 2007.
Public Employees Federation (PEF), Sept. 21, 2005.
SEIU Local 200United, March 10, 2005.
Sierra Club, Feb. 25, 2006.
Warbasse Social Action Group, A JPAC Unit, Feb. 23, 2006.
Working Families Party, March 6, 2006.
Sample Cover Letter
Where to Send the Resolution and Cover Letter
Why Non-English Languages are Important in NYC
Hispanics Flex Political Muscle,
amNY, Oct. 10, 2007
English Proficiency and the Eligible Voter Pool,
presentation by the Population Division of the NYC
Department of City Planning.
(warning, the file is almost 2 meg in size.)
This report is relevant to language minorities,
and the need for ballots
and other election materials in non-English languages.
3.00 Editorials, News, Events, Documents -- 2009
All material on why NY should keep our Lever Voting Machines
After Introduction From Ferrer, Firm Earned $100,000 From State Pension Fund,
New York Times, May 9, 2009
Press Release, Absentee Voting Report,
by Comptroller DiNapoli, Mar. 6, 2009
Absentee Voting Report, by Comptroller DiNapoli, Mar. 6, 2009
Too-close-to-call Staten Island election has all eyes on next week's recount,
SI Live, Feb. 26, 2009
Votes Counted in Staten Island Race,
New York Times, Mar. 8, 2009
Rage Against the (McMahon) Machine?,
SI Live, Mar. 8, 2009
Recount in Staten Island City Council election gets underway -- may take weeks,
SI Live, Mar. 4, 2009
3.01 Editorials, News, Events, Documents -- 2008
February 2008
Paper ballot activists rally in Westchester as voting machine ruling looms
Journal News, Feb. 1, 2008
January 2008
Commissioner Aquila in surgery, Co-Executive Director Kosinski resigns,
Newsday, Jan. 23, 2008
Procedural Conflict at State and County Boards over Republican Ballot
G.O.P. Move to Change State Ballots Stirs Debate
New York Times, Jan. 27, 2008
NYC Event, Jan. 5, 2008
Flyer--NY Elections--The Insider View!
Introduction to Event
Comments on Reading
Script excerpt of federal court transcript
Photo, Richard Wagner, Teresa Hommel, Dan Jacoby (click on photo to enlarge)
3.02 Editorials, News, Events, Documents, Drama -- 2007
Drama of 2007
As of December 1, 2007, the big factor in New York State is the
lawsuit
brought by the U.S. Dept of Justice. Oral arguments will be held on
Thursday, Dec. 20, 2007.
Other factors are the selection of a testing laboratory, and
certification testing of new voting equipment.
Unless the federal court rules otherwise, the decision on selection
of new voting equipment will be made county by county,
by the two county election commissioners of each county.
The commissioners are appointed by their county leader, who is
selected by members of his/her party. Thus, citizens who are active
in the Democratic or Republican party are the ultimate power behind
this process. However, it appears that individuals who are not insiders
in their party are not really players. In some counties the commissioners
and county leaders are not open to getting information from citizens.
Only a handful read the Daily Voting News. They get their information from
vendors and from Electionline, which is a weekly whitewash of election news.
Action Alert: Keep the heat on NY to reject computerized voting,
Andi Novick, Nov. 17, 2007
NYS voting machine info gathered by Black Box Voting
NYS election protection info gathered by Black Box Voting
NYS 2007 Existing Voting Equipment by County
NYS Electronic Precint-based Voting System Certifications,
Updated 1/26/06
Election commissioner to quit,
Democrat Edward Szczesniak is retiring, and Legislator Ed Ryan wants his job.
Daily Star, Nov. 27, 2007.
This exemplifies our problems with Commissioners.
The position is a political plum that requires no specific training
or experience. The politico who wants the job speaks of
"a new electronic system."
Poll access for disabled heats debate,
Daily Star, Nov. 27, 2007. Good summary of current situation.
Schedule of new voting machines, as of Nov. 23, 2007
The State Board of Elections expects to have a new testing lab and
resume testing of voting systems early in December, 2007
S6435 - On July 26, 2007, NYS passed
a law to keep lever voting machines till replacements are available
Lever machines may be used this year
Lever voting machines may still be used by N.Y. counties,
Outdated equipment can't be replaced by next elections.
PressConnects, July 20, 2007
Will NY counties have to use hand-counted paper ballots in our September primary?
Legal memo prepared for the Election Commissioners of the NYC Board of Elections, July 17, 2007
ERMA, Election Reform and Modernization Act, became law 7/12/05
Voting System Standards with comments, passed 4/20/06
As of July 4, 2007
1. The NY State Board of Elections is in process of hiring a new testing company
to replace Ciber, and hopes to begin testing electronic voting systems again
in September. The State Board hopes to have a list of state-certified
machines by the end of 2007.
2. A new statewide voter registration system will be tested and/or installed
in all of NYS's 62 counties during July. As of now, it is installed in about 30
counties.
3. During the last week of the state legislative session in June, citizens made
over 3000 phone calls to legislators in 2 days to beat back an amendment to
NY State Election law to exempt some software from state escrow requirements.
4. The leading federal bills for election reform are shockingly corrupt, and
for more details go to HR811.
5. Should NY State use a free, completely open-source system from Open Voting Solutions?
New York State seeks Testing Company
OGS Notice for "Independent Testing Authority Services for Voting System
Examination and Certification Testing",
Bid Opening Date 10/9/07
Word is that iBeta SysTest, Infogard, Wyle Labs and several other vendors intend to bid on the contract.
State Board of Elections Aug 16 meeting
The commissioners agreed on August 16, 2007 to prepare a plan for implementation of HAVA to require each county board to provide a fully accessible ballot marking device for voters with disabilities at every poll site in time for the September 2008 primary. (State Board minutes are posted within 2 days on the State Board web site.)
Schedule of new voting machines, as of Aug. 27, 2007
The State Board of Elections expects to have a new testing lab and
resume testing of voting systems by the end of November, 2007,
such as Nov. 26, the Monday after Thanksgiving.
S6435 - On July 26, 2007, NYS passed
a law to keep lever voting machines till replacements are available
NYC City Council Resolution 961 introduced July 25, has 24 sponsors
read the reso, send letters of support
Avante Clarifies their position
Avante's position,
June 18, 2007
Bo Lipari's blog on Avante's position, June 28, 2007
Kathy Dopp comments:
1. The most reliable method to ensure election outcome accuracy is
independent manual counts of sufficient voter CREATED (not voter
verified) paper ballot records.
2. DREs are more expensive than paper opscan ballots.
3. DREs leave elections susceptible to Denial of Service attacks,
electronic failure, and power outages.
4. DREs create longer lines at the polls.
Lever machines may be used this year
Lever voting machines may still be used by N.Y. counties,
Outdated equipment can't be replaced by next elections.
PressConnects, July 20, 2007
Book explains NY State politics
Three Men in a Room: The Inside Story of Power and Betrayal in an American Statehouse, by Seymour P. Lachman and Robert Polner.
NYC Top 10 Lobbyists
New York City's Top Ten Lobbyists, City Hall News, July 16, 2007
Will NY counties have to use hand-counted paper ballots in our September primary?
Legal memo prepared for the Election Commissioners of the NYC Board of Elections, July 17, 2007
We're Counting the Votes, And You Can Too!
Watch citizens hand-counting votes on paper ballots!
(requires Windows Media Player)
Push to Vote-by-mail
Now, it's voters left hanging, Newsday suggests vote-by-mail
because the money for new machines is driving them nuts--yikes! Spend it
already! July 10, 2007
Escrow of Software
Voting Machine Vendors – We Can't and We Won't
by Bo Lipari, June 29, 2007
email from Avante to NY state officials
As of July 4, 2007
1. The NY State Board of Elections is in process of hiring a new testing company
to replace Ciber, and hopes to begin testing electronic voting systems again
in September. The State Board hopes to have a list of state-certified
machines by the end of 2007.
2. A new statewide voter registration system will be tested and/or installed
in all of NYS's 62 counties during July. As of now, it is installed in about 30
counties.
3. During the last week of the state legislative session in June, citizens made
over 3000 phone calls to legislators in 2 days to beat back an amendment to
NY State Election law to exempt some software from state escrow requirements.
4. The leading federal bills for election reform are shockingly corrupt, and
for more details go to HR811.
5. Should NY State use a free, completely open-source system from Open Voting Solutions?
New York Voting News, from NYVV.org
New York Voting News, #4, April 6, 2007
New York Voting News #3, Feb. 16, 2007.
New York Voting News #2, Jan. 31, 2007.
Twice monthly, subscribe via email to contact(at)nyvv.org
Dominion Voting, Canadian opscan company.
Suffolk County Motion to Intervene
in the DOJ/NY State lawsui, asking to be allowed to keep their
lever machines. March 30, 2007
State Board proposes excess voters per machine, guarantee of long waiting lines
NYVV Response, March 26, 2007
Voting Integrity advocates around the state are extremely concerned that adoption of the machine timing proposal proposal currently before the State Board of Elections will be a disaster for New York. The proposal does not interpret the State Board's timing data correctly, and will condemn thousands of New York State voters to long lines and voter disenfranchisement. These guidelines must not be adopted in their current form.
NYVV Report on State Board meeting, March 27, 2007
The State Board is scheduled to approve a proposal for public comment
at their 4/20/07 meeting.
Village Independent Democrats,
Resolution to assign no more than 200-300 voters per DRE, 4/12/07.
Liberty DRE does not have a real VVPAT
Open Letter to State Commissioners,
from Bob Millman, March 21, 2007
Graphic: Liberty VVPAT is hard to verify
Thermal Paper VVPAT
Open Letter to State Commissioner,
from Bob Millman, March 5, 2007
New York City Council unanimously passes Paper Ballot/Optical Scanner Resolution, March 14, 2007
all info
Please send a letter to Gov. Spitzer
BY FREE FAX
Long letter: html ,
Word doc
Short letter: html ,
Word doc
Groups call on Gov. Spitzer to endorse Optical Scan Voting, Feb. 2, 2007
A5170, State Bill for paper ballots/optical scanners
Assemblywoman Sandy Galef introduces Paper Ballot/Optical Scan Bill, Feb. 12, 2007
State Board of Elections now posts its minutes
NY State Board of Elections, Minutes of Meetings
State Board Meeting, Feb. 6, citizen's notes
EAC and Ciber Scandal
StatesVoteMachineTestersFlunk, Albany Times Union, June 14, 2007
EAC Assessment Report, CIBER & Wyle, July 17-22, 2006.
Ciber certified approximately 70% of e-voting equipment in the USA.
Ciber: Lab hired to certify NY voting equipment barred from approving new machines by federal agency!
Florida Shifting To Voting System With Paper Trail, New York Times, Feb. 2, 2007.
New York Won't Replace Voting Machines by the Fall
Elections Official Takes Federal Panel To Task
Certification of new equipment pushed back to 5/7/07
Send a
letter or
Word doc petition
to the NY State Board of Elections to praise them for
doing a good job to make sure new voting machines work before certifying them.
New York has been criticised for being "last" to get new voting equipment.
But we are "first" to make sure they work before we buy them and use them!
Include your name and address, and the date.
If you express the ideas in your own language, it will make your letter more powerful.
E-Voting Failures in Nov. 2006,
We don't want those problems here! Send this to your county election officials
AND all elected and appointed officials in your county!
Overviews
NYC Overview, as of 2/16/07 ,
Word doc.
Why we support Paper
Ballots and Optical Scanners, as of 2/8/07.
National overview: The Good News (Really) About Voting Machines,
Times Select Talking Points, Jan. 10, 2007.
NYC Board of Elections RFI Info
200 questions that the NYC BOE asked vendors, and vendor answers.
Governor Spitzer, to lead our state to paper ballots
andi novick's challenge to New Yorkers
Who'll Stop the Train (Wreck)?,
Reject Theft-Enabling Voting Computers!
Oct. 11, 2007
original posted at OpEdNews
webpage for sending letters
Status of NY State, as of Oct. 11, 2007
Status quo in voting booth but voter registrations can be checked online
Journal News, Oct. 11, 2007
Sharp Divide Over Voting Machines
Times Union, Oct. 4, 2007
Another delay expected in N.Y. voting machine switch
PressConnects, Oct. 3, 2007
Transcript, State Board Meeting, Sept. 20, 2007
ECA letter
Election Commissioners' Assn of the State of NY
to the State Board, Sept. 19, 2007
WheresThePaper.org comment: The ECANY is now playing the role of speaking for
all New York's county election commissioners, although in the past
it said it was a "voluntary" organization in which commissioners could
choose whether to become members or not, and therefore it was not subject to
open meetings laws, etc.
"All commissioners are cognizant of the growing concerns the public has with new voting technology..." --page 5. It sounds like they have recognized the problems with DREs, but many commissioners assert that DREs and Optical Scanners have the same levels of problems, while the truth is that in
November, 2006
, out of 1026 trouble reports, DREs accounted for 760 of them, or 74%.
Sept. 18, 2007--Action was taken to oppose DREs to be used as accessible
ballot markers for voters with disabilities
REPORT--OVER 3000 FAXES WERE SENT. THE ISSUE IS QUIET AS OF OCT. 8, 2007.
Best activist quotes:
"Stop putting lipstick on a pig--a touchscreen
voting machine is a touchscreen voting machine, and no amout of pretending
that it's an accessible ballot marker changes that!"
"The evidence is in, we want paper not touch screen voting machines!"
"Start with paper, stick with paper!"
"Stop finding excuses for using touchscreen voting machines."
Watchdogs Want To Block Touch-Screen Voting,
New York Times, Sept. 19, 2007.
NY asked to reject ATM-style voting machines,
Legislative Gazette, Sept. 24, 2007.
NYS behind in compliance with federal voting law,
WNYT Albany Channel 13, Sept. 19, 2007
Critics slam plan for disabled voting equipment,
Newsday, Sept. 19, 2007.
11 organizations' letter to State Board
Brennan Center letter to State Board
Explanation--
. . . The NY State Board of Elections had proposed a dangerous plan that
would allow uncertified DREs to be used in polling places around the
state in 2008. The proposal would have allowed DREs to be used without full
certification testing required under NY regulations that citizens fought so
hard for.
. . . The Board's proposal would have allowed a DRE to be used in each polling place
as an accessible voting machine, using the VVPAT as the official ballot.
But since a DRE's VVPAT cannot be read back or verified by the voter in any way
other than direct visual observation, a DRE fails to satisfy even the basic
requirement of allowing all voters to verify their ballots. This means our state
Board of Elections was considering allowing an inaccessible DRE to be used
as an accessible voting device!
. . . The Board's proposal would have bypassed the full and thorough testing process
that is guaranteed to New York State voters by law. In light of all we have
learned from other states about the massive failures of DREs, New York
activists sent over 3000 faxes to the State Board to prevent this from happening.
Voters Per Machine--Comment Period ends Sept. 17, 2007
Proposed Draft 6210.19 Regulations for Number of Voters per Machine
NYVV explains why 550 voters per machines is bad, 40 pages.
6 page version
The State Board's proposal to assign 550 registered voters to each DRE
would result in
71 minutes average wait time, 142 minutes longest wait time.
Sample Letter
Emails can be sent to Robert Brehm, RBREHM (at) elections.state.ny.us
Fax to Bob Brehm at 518-473-8315
More info from NYVV
Please read Sarah Everett's doctoral dissertation on voters'
ability to verify the paper trail, and comment on it in relation
to how much time a New York voter should have for voting in a DRE.
The Usability of Electronic Voting Machines and How Votes Can Be Changed
Without Detection. Everett, S. P. (2007).
Rice University, Houston, TX.
See especially, discussions on page 77 and 103.
Decenber 2007
Comments on DOJ case and Dec. 20 Court Session
NYC BOE will buy 1800 BMDs
New York Times, Dec. 23, 2007
NY balks at federal voting demands, Star Gazette, Dec. 15, 2007
Report of 12/12/07 State Board Meeting
Three companies have submitted applications for Plan A and Plan B testing which will be conducted simultaneously: Avante submitted a DRE and OpScans; Premier (Diebold) and ES&S submitted OpScans. No completed applications for Plan A have been received. The Board agreed to give priority for testing to BMDs. BMD testing is estimated to take at least 6 to 8 weeks. The testing lab, Systest of Colorado, has not yet provided a test plan/schedule for BMDs. The State Board's first meetings with Systest will be a three-day meeting starting Dec. 18, 2007. All vendors have objected to the 30-day requirement for production of their product, saying that such a short timeframe is not do-able.
Draft BMD Requirements
Comment was needed by Oct. 5,
Posted on State Board of Elections website
NYVV comments on the Draft RFP, Oct. 5, 2007
November 2007
OGS announces bidding for BMDs,
Office of General Services, bidding opens Nov. 19, 2007
Paper Ballots, Please. Two outstanding letters to the editor,
Post-Standard, Syracuse.com, Nov. 30, 2007
Will Your Vote Be Counted?,
Port Washington News, Nov. 30, 2007
HAVA lawsuit: Sad ending to important process,
Ithaca Journal, Nov. 29, 2007
NYPIRG Press Conference, Nov. 29, 2007
Professors Call for Optical Scan Systems to Replace Lever Voting Machines
Beware of Computerized Touch Screen Voting Machines say Computer and Social Science Faculty
Press Release
photos
Times Union Blog
Say No to Computerized Voting Machines, New York Times, Nov. 29, 2007
College professors come out against new voting technology,
Ithaca Journal, Nov. 30, 2007
Court to review Huntington election ballots,
Newsday, Nov. 29, 2007
Editorial: Time to act on voting machines,
Utica Observer-Dispatch, Nov. 29, 2007
Clinton County Plans For New Voting Machines,
WCAX-TV 3, Nov. 28, 2007
Election commissioner to quit,
Democrat Edward Szczesniak is retiring, and Legislator Ed Ryan wants his job.
Daily Star, Nov. 27, 2007.
This exemplifies our problems with Commissioners.
The position is a political plum that requires no specific training
or experience, and no accountability to the people -- only the party.
The politico who wants the job speaks of "a new electronic system."
Poll access for disabled heats debate,
Daily Star, Nov. 27, 2007
Court to weigh voting lawsuit,
Times Union, Nov. 26, 2007
Last Call For Cash-Grubbing Pols,
New lobbyist donor rules go into effect soon. Brother, can you spare $4,950?
New York Magazine, Intelligencer, Nov. 25, 2007
New York won't meet HAVA requirements by presidential primary,
Newsday, Nov. 25, 2007
County to U.S.: Let N.Y. fix voting system,
Post-Standard, Syracuse.com, Nov. 21, 2007
State elections board discusses U.S. lawsuit in closed session,
Journal News, Nov. 21, 2007
Caroline board may appoint 2 to seats,
Ithaca Journal, Nov. 21, 2007
New York City lobbyists probed,
Daily News, Nov. 20, 2007
Premature Switch,
Observer, Nov. 19, 2007
Counting on Chaos at the Polls,
New York Times, Nov. 18, 2007
SPECTRUM: Voting machines raised ire both now and then,
PressRepublican, Nov. 17, 2007
Paper ballots next year? State election official says they'd be impractical,
Daily Freeman, Nov. 15, 2007
Digital Democracy,
Daily Freeman, Nov. 13, 2007
Disaster in the making,
New York Daily News, Nov. 12, 2007
New York State takes on the DOJ over e-voting,
We don't want no stinking voting machines
(the English have a way of getting to the heart of the matter)
The Register, Nov. 12, 2007
DOJ pushes N.Y. Elections Board to comply with e-voting rules,
Computerworld, Nov. 9, 2007
Lawsuit aims to bar computerized voting,
Times Union, Nov. 9, 2007
Complaints land Colonie vote in court,
Times Union, Nov. 9, 2007
Election activists call for return to paper ballots,
Times Union, Nov. 8, 2007
Bloomberg: Election Day Holiday 'Is a Waste',
NY Sun, Nov. 8, 2007
Fined: Bilal, Luciano, Dickens,
Observer, Nov. 8, 2007
2009 mayoral campaign shaping up,
AM NY, Nov. 7, 2007
Farrell Starts Raising For '09,
Daily News, Nov. 7, 2007
Feds seek to fast-track N.Y.'s voting-machine replacement,
Poughkeepsie Journal, Nov. 6, 2007
Sptizer Leaves 'Em Hanging,
NY Observer, Nov. 5, 2007
Announcement: OGS announces bidding for BMDs,
Office of General Services, bidding opens Nov. 19, 2007
Symposium at Albany Law School, Nov. 16, 2007
Brochure: Helping New York Choose: Voting Technology in the 21st Century
Registration, more info
Where: Albany Law School, 80 New Scotland Avenue, Albany NY
The Symposium will present panel discussions on
current voting methods and machines that are used in New York, the
effect of implementing the Help America Vote Act ("HAVA") and other
similar legislation, and how changing technologies can affect our
voting system.
Contact: Shalyn Morrison, SMorrison AT albanylaw.edu
October 2007
The Election Scam Machine, on "election" of judges in NY.
Judicial Reports, Oct. 31, 2007
Former Yassky Aide To Seek Yassky's Seat,
Daily News, Oct. 31, 2007
Nassau to provide voting machines for disabled,
Newsday, Oct. 30, 2007
Councilman Joins Race for Top Seat in Brooklyn,
New York Times, Oct. 29, 2007
City Councilman Mathieu Eugene faces challenger,
Daily News, Oct. 29, 2007
Most in Rochester area will still vote on older machines,
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Oct. 28, 2007
A Youth's Troubled Court Case, Tangled in Staten Island Politics,
New York Times, Oct. 27, 2007
NY Senate Snubbed by Gov's Ex-Aide,
Earthlink News, Oct. 22, 2007
It's Pritchard vs. Fournier in District 5, Otsego County,
Daily Star, Oct. 22, 2007
Democrats set sights for mayoral race in 2009,
NY Daily News, Oct. 14, 2007
Onondaga County won't use BMDs
Voters with disabilities can't use paper ballots because county
won't use their Ballot Marking Devices. Syracuse Post-Standard, Oct. 13, 2007
Lifton continues on Panel
Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton continues on Citizens Election Modernization Advisory Committee,
Ithaca Journal, Oct. 13, 2007
N.Y.'s voting fights,
Times Union, Oct. 5, 2007
Election Official Advocates Voting Reform,
Ithaca Journal, Oct. 2, 2007, about Ion Sancho.
Election Supervisor Says Voting Process is Flawed,
Cornell Daily Sun, Oct. 2, 2007, about Ion Sancho.
September 2007
NYVV Annual Meeting
Sept. 29-30, 2007.
Keynote Speaker Ion Sancho.
Join voting integrity advocates from around New York State
for New Yorkers for Verified Voting's 2nd Annual Meeting in beautiful
Ithaca NY. Florida Election Commissioner Ion Sancho will be this year's
keynote speaker.
YouTube--Bo Lipari introduces Ion Sancho (Annual NYVV 2007 Part 1)
YouTube--Ion Sancho, part 1 (Annual NYVV 2007 Part 2)
YouTube--Ion Sancho, part 2 (Annual NYVV 2007 Part 3)
YouTube--Ion Sancho, part 3 (Annual NYVV 2007 Part 4)
YouTube--Ion Sancho, part 4 (Annual NYVV 2007 Part 5)
State elections board must convene task force, Letter to the Editor,
Post-Standard, Sept. 26, 2007
Judge approves viewing of ballots in Oswego races,
Post-Standard, Sept. 25, 2007
John Ravitz, Executive Dir. of NYC BOE, resigns
City Elections Chief Is Stepping Down, Sept. 24, 2007
Voting machine aids those with disabilities, original site of
News10Now, Sept. 14, 2007
WheresThePaper.org copy, text only, no video
A Chance to Make Votes Count,
Editorial, New York Times, Sept. 6, 2007
Nedap edits their Wikipedia Entry
Dutch computer voting machine company caught editing Wikipedia entry,
International Herald Tribune, Sept. 5, 2007
Voting By Lever May Last Till 09,
Daily Star, Sept. 5, 2007
2-Faced Pols' Lobbyist $cheme,
New York Post, Sept. 2, 2007
August 2007
New Bronx Republican Commissioner,
Daily News, August, 2007
Lever-Action Voting Machines' Days Numbered,
White Plains Times, Aug. 23, 2007
With Spitzer Inquiry, Albany's Eyes Are on Ethics Panel Just as It Is Changing,
New York Times, Aug. 13, 2007
Threatening phone message left for Gov. Spitzer's father, Bernard Spitzer,
on his answering machine, on Aug. 6, 2007
by Roger Stone Jr., political consultant to the Senate Republican majority,
according to Kroll Investigations.
As of Aug. 22, 2007, lawyers for Bernard Spitzer accused Stone of threatening
him in this anonymous, insulting phone message. Stone denied the allegation,
saying that he had been at a theater performance, which was found to not
have been held since Aug. 6 was a Monday and that theater is closed on Mondays.
The private investigative firm traced the message to the phone number of
Stone's wife Nydia. The allegations were sent to Sen. George Winner,
whose committee had been holding hearings into efforts by some of Gov.
Spitzer's aides to use state police to embarrass Senate Republican leader
Joseph Bruno.
More and pix from NY Magazine
Those Pesky Voting Machines,
Syracuse Post Standard, Aug. 7, 2007
N.Y. wise to wait on upgrade for election systems,
State has saved millions as other states have stumbled on poor choices.
Star-Gazette, Aug. 7, 2007.
It's a Female Dog, or Worse. Or Endearing. And Illegal?,
New York Times, August 7, 2007, on New York City Council Member Darlene Mealy's
resolution to limit the use of words degrading to women.
Arraigned on Rape Charges, Councilman Is Out on Bail,
New York Times, August 4, 2007
July 2007
New York will continue to use old voting machines,
Newsday, July 30, 2007.
Scriber Named to Leadership Post Within State Election Organization,
Oswego County Business, July 6, 2007.
June 2007
Journal Snubs Forum On Election Fraud,
Poughkeepsie Journal, June 24, 2007
We called our state assemblymembers and state senators in June!
Microsoft Muscles the NYS Legislature (Bo Lipari's Blog)
Microsoft proposed changes
Microsoft to NYS: We won't escrow our software
background info
Sides Spar Over Voting Machine Rule, Times Union, June 16, 2007
Watchdog Warns Of Risk To State Election Law, The Journal News, June 16, 2007
Precise argues that NY State law does not
really require all software to be escrowed, document undated, faxed June 6, 2007
What it takes to get noticed in NY
Happy Bedfellows Spend Big for Mayor's Plan,
The New York Observer, June 17, 2007
City Lobbyists Hit $44 Million Jackpot
New York Post, June 8, 2007.
May 2007
NY will not lose HAVA money
NY now has till March 2008 to get new machines, and not lose HAVA money,
From Douglas Kellner, Co-Chair, NY State Board of Elections, May 25, 2007
BMD Purchasing Memorandum
NY State Office of General Services, Procurement Services Group,
May 24, 2007
Machines Simple To Use Voters Say,
Times Union, May 16, 2007. OK, but are you really voting?
Polls Open For School Vote,
Post Star, May 15, 2007.
The vote is in, Times Union strongly endorses paper-ballot-optical-scan systems.
Times Union, May 14, 2007.
Oversight of school voting sought,
Activists want state Elections Board to take control from state Education Department.
Times Union, May 12, 2007.
District prepares for high-tech voting,
The Record, May 10, 2007.
New machines to be set for Troy voting,
Times Union, May 8, 2007.
Vote of no confidence
Keep old lever voting machines for now, until new technology is perfected.
Newsday, May 8, 2007.
Troy education board needs to vote anew,
The Record, Troy NY, May 8, 2007.
New schedule
Voting Flaws
New Schedule For New Machines--we will certify them by the end of 2007,
and use them for the first time in the presidential election of 2008!
New York 1 News, May 7, 2007.
Douglas Kellner Testimony
testimony
May 5, 2007
April 2007
Vendors Try an End Run Around NYS Election Law,
Uncertified DREs to be used in Troy School Election on May 15.
By Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, April 28, 2007.
New Electronic Voting Machines will not be in place in 2007,
Channel 6 CBS news, Albany, April 26, 2007.
Critics Wary Of New Voting Devices,
Albany Times Union, April 25, 2007.
Liberty pulls an end-run around state certification requirements to
be used in school board elections.
Delay On Voting Machines Causes Concern,
Post Standard (Syracuse), April 20, 2007
Microsoft refuses to escrow its source code in New York
Email, NYS Board of Elections to Vendors Re Microsoft, April 13, 2007
Bo Lipari's weblog explains the situation, April 16, 2007.
Troy School District officials vow every vote will count,
but they will use uncertified Liberty DREs, April 11, 2007
Expert lists paper ballot benefits,
By Leeanne Root, Oneida Dispatch, April 11, 2007
March 2007
Suffolk County Motion to Intervene, March 30, 2007
Unanimous vote for scanners, paper ballots by Helen Klein, Courier-Life, March 23, 2007
Liberty Voting Machine Problems
The VVPAT is hard to verify
Elections officials may get $28G raises
The Journal News, March 18, 2007
Blair Horner moves to the Attorney General's Office
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has appointed Blair Horner to be his
Special Advisor on Policy and Public Integrity. He will lead
"Project Sunlight," a comprehensive Internet accessible database
for public information on elected officials, lobbyists, special interests,
contracts and donors. For nearly 25 years Blair Horner has advocated
for government reform, and other important issues, in Albany as
Legislative Director of the New York Public Interest Research Group.
Thermal Paper VVPAT
Open Letter to State Commissioner,
From Bob Millman, March 5, 2007
Lifton seeks to preserve committee on voting machines,
March 3, 2007
Board of Elections Raided, Part of City 'Criminal Probe',
New YorkPost, March 1, 2007
February 2007
Pay to Play in Politics explained,
Gotham Gazette, Feb. 26, 2007
'Paper' tigers issue warnings - Greens lead fight to scrap electronic voting machines,
Brooklyn Heights Courier, By Helen Klein, Feb. 24, 2007
Spitzer must protect New York voters with disabilities,
Buffalo News, by Brad Williams, Feb. 24, 2007
Government's Annual Reports, discusses Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Quinn.
Gotham Gazette, Feb. 20, 2007
Is Governor Spitzer Crazy, Or is He Crazy Like a Fox?,
Henry J. Stern, New York Civic, Feb. 15, 2007
Lifton among those calling for switch to optical scanner voting, Ithaca Journal, Feb. 14, 2007.
Special City Council Elections, Gotham Gazette, Feb. 12, 2007.
Florida's example, The governor asks the Legislature to fund optical scan voting machines, Times Union (Albany), Feb. 10, 2007.
Making Democracy Credible,
New York Times, Feb. 9. 2007
Voting Mess, State's foot-dragging could lead to ballot confusion, delays,
The Post-Standard (Syracuse), Feb. 9, 2007. Although the editorial is pro-PBOS, the idea that we might have to hand-count ALL paper ballots is false because counties will use optical scanners for most counting. NY State law requires 3% spot-checks which are to be done by hand-counting, and that will be done both for DRE voter-verified paper printouts as well as for voter-marked paper ballots produced by with PBOS systems.
It is true, however, if a county Board of Elections WANTS to make vote-counting unmanageable, there are endless ways to do it wrong and make the counting process last forever. You can't force people to have good intentions or to be competent.
Machine politics, The voting machine mess goes far beyond New York's delay,
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Editorial, Feb. 5, 2007.
Good Election News From Florida, New York Times, Feb. 5, 2007.
Florida Shifting To Voting System With Paper Trail, New York Times, Feb. 2, 2007.
Maltese Out, Ragusa In, New York Sun, Politicker, Feb. 2, 2007.
January 2007
New York Won't Replace Voting Machines by the Fall
New York Times, Jan. 27, 2007
Brian Lehrer Show with Larry Norden, Teresa Hommel, Adam Cohen, and Douglas Kellner
WNYC Radio, Jan. 26, 2007
Elections Official Takes Federal Panel To Task
Times Union, Jan. 26, 2007
Assemb. John Lavelle, 57, S.I. Democratic chairman, Dies,
Newsday, Jan. 25, 2007.
Deadline for New Voting Machines Pushed Again,
Star Gazette, Jan. 24, 2007.
Certification of new equipment has been rescheduled for May 7, 2007
Counting Ballots,
Two new developments expose more flaws in electronic touch-screen voting.
Times Union, Jan. 13, 2007.
The County Dilemma
The County Dilemma was published by the two Albany County Election
Commissioners, Oct. 31, 2006, but has many inaccuracies.
WheresThePaper.org notes that the citizen dilemma is what to do about
county commissioners who are ill-informed or biased. NYVV.org has published a
response, Jan. 12, 2007.
The Good News (Really) About Voting Machines,
Times Select Talking Points, Jan. 10, 2007.
NY Times praises activists including WheresThePaper.org and NYVV.org!
Don't rush into new machines,
State's voting changeover should be moved from '07 to'09.
Star-Gazette, Jan. 7, 2007
Firm that tests voting machines not accredited; state cites inadequacies
The Journal News, Jan. 5, 2007
New York State May Suspend Tests of New Voting Machines
New York Times, Jan. 5, 2007
Vendors campaign for new voting systems here,
Machines, competing for city use beginning this year, are demonstrated at the County Clerk's Office. Staten Island Advance,
Friday, January 05, 2007
Firm that tests voting machines not accredited; state cites inadequacies
The Journal News, Jan. 5, 2007
New York State May Suspend Tests of New Voting Machines
New York Times, Jan. 5, 2007
U.S. Bars Lab From Testing Electronic Voting,
New York Times, Jan. 4, 2007
NY State's Voting Machine Certification Process:
Issues, Status and Projections for Voting Machine Testing,
by Bo Lipari, Executive Director, NYVV.org
The Daily Voting News and Election Integrity News reported the problems in October, 2006:
Independent Review Reveals Flaws In Voting System Testing Process,
Key voting system standards missing from test plans.
By Howard Stanislevic, VoteTrustUSA, October 23, 2006
CIBER Security Master Test Plan Review By NYSTEC (NY State Technology Enterprise Corp.), Sept. 27, 2006
CIBER Chairman Sells Shares, Businessweek, Dec. 21, 2006.
What did he know and when did he know it?
Bradblog on Ciber, Jan. 4, 2007
From Alegra Dengler, a summary: Private voting machine manufacturers with political ties hired a private testing company with political ties to test their software in secret. Voting machines certified by this shady process are in use all over the country. Here in New York state, Ciber was hired to test machines but the State Board of Elections wisely hired another firm, NYSTEC (NY State Technology Enterprise Corp.), to review Ciber's work. NYSTEC found many flaws, resulting in the delays we have had in the last few months in certifying new voting equipment.
Testing Lab Failure Leads To Obfuscation By The Election Assistance Commission,
By John Gideon, VotersUnite.org, Jan.6, 2007
Delay voting machine shift,
New York shouldn't scramble to adopt untried system before 2008 election.
Newsday, Jan. 3, 2007
3.03 Editorials, News, Events, Documents -- 2006
2006 info is now on a separate page.
3.04. Editorials, News, Events, Documents -- 2005
2005 info is now on a separate page.
3.05 Editorials, News, Events, Documents -- 2003-2004
2003-2004 info is now on a separate page.
3.06 Voting System Equipment
Some info is on the Links page.
NYC Board of Elections Evaluation Report on BMDs
Report, presented to Commissioners on Feb. 6, 2008
Lever Machines
Where do our county Boards of Election get parts, service, training for service technicians, and temporary service technicians for times of peak requirements?
Downstate machines:
International Election Systems Corp.
1550 Bridgeboro Road
PO Box 70
Edgewater Park NJ 08010
Telephone 609-871-2100
President: Richard Nowetner.
Upstate machines:
Automatic Voting Machine Corporation (AVM).
608 Allen St.
Jamestown, NY 14701-3966
NY Tel. 716-664-9600
Fax 716-483-2822
LibertyVote Nedap DRE
Security Analysis
Studying the Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B Voting Computer: A Computer Security Perspective,
Presented August 6, 2007 at the USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop, Boston, USA.
Ireland reacts to Nedap court decision in Netherlands
E-voting plans hit by decision in Dutch court,
Independent.ie, Oct. 3, 2007
Nedap Thrown out of their own country, Netherlands
Dutch government abandons e-voting for red pencil,
Sept. 27, 2007
Nedap edits their Wikipedia Entry
Dutch computer voting machine company caught editing Wikipedia entry,
International Herald Tribune, Sept. 5, 2007
Usability Concerns About the LibertyVote/Nedap DRE
Three Major Problems with the LibertyVote/Nedap DRE
Letter from Bob Millman and Aimee Allaud to State Board of Elections
Security Analyses of Nedap DRE
Dutch Group Successfully Hacks Nedap DRE
Full Security Analysis Report on Nedap DRE
Nedap Diagram Showing that LibertyVote DRE is not a standalone system
NY Voting Integrity Advocates Question Liberty/Nedap DRE use in NY
Voting Integrity Group Calls For Investigation of Liberty/Nedap
Voting Integrity Project Letter to New York State Board of Elections
Software Executive Tries to Force Dutch Government to Ban Voting Integrity
Activist from Advisory Panel
ES&S M100 Precinct-based Optical Scanner Specifications
M100 Specifications
CPU:
Scanner: Intel 286 EX 33 MHz
System Memory: 4MB RAM, 512K Flash
PCMCIA Memory Cart: 512K 2MB
http://www.essvote.com/HTML/docs/Model100.pdf
Fast Election Reporting
Immediately upon poll closing, the Model 100’s internal thermal
printer prints out vote totals and enables election officials to
immediately transmit results to election central.
The Model 100 comes equipped with dual PCMCIA slots,
an optional wireless modem for transmitting results,
two external serial ports and one parallel port
allowing the connection of a wide array of external components.
All election definition programs, actual vote tallies, and audit logs
are retained securely on the PCMCIA memory card within each
Model 100 unit.
AutoMark
Automark video
transcript and video
As of 4/4/06, Automark is certified in the following states.
Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota,
Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
Automark Technical Systems, main web page
Automark is federally certified.
Press Release, June 23, 2005.
Letter from Systest
Letter from Cyber, (click on second link on the right).
AutoMark Endorsement by Voters with Disabilities:
Go to
Automark's main web page.
Scroll down. On the lower right, click the links under
"See what people are saying about the AutoMARK!"
3.07 Historical Documents
NY Times, June 18, 1897, To Test Voting Machines.
Gov. Black Appoints a Commission for the Purpose.
NY Times, April 1, 1900, Voting Machine Examined.
Bardwell Votometer Tested by the New York State Commission.
NY Times, Feb. 8, 1939, Boards Watch Test of P.R. Voting Device.
Costuma Says Machine Would Save $50,000 on Election.
NY Times, Nov. 4, 1954, New Vote Device Tested
Machines Tried Out in Nassau. Print Election Totals.
NY Times, June 21, 1962, Advantages of Voting Machines Are
Compared at Board of Elections.
NY Times, July 4, 1962, Board of Estimate to Act Friday On Buying
2,750 Vote Machines.
NY Times, Aug. 11, 1962, Vote Machines Bought By City.
Few or No Paper Ballots to Be Used--Suit Rejected.
NY Times, Aug. 31, 1966, City Purchasing Voting Machines.
900 Will Cost $1,552,000--To Speed November Vote.
3.08 Photos
What's the difference between PBOS and VVPAT?
PBOS vs. VVPAT
Optical Scan Pollsite
Color, using AutoMark name, showing 2 AutoMarks:
200 KB ,
1 MB ,
2 MB
Color, using "BMD":
one BMD ,
two BMDs
Color, using "BMD", showing 2 BMD, wide margins:
1 MB
Black and white, using "BMD":
one BMD
NYPIRG Press Conference, Steps of City Hall, Nov. 29, 2007
Professors Call for Optical Scan Systems to Replace Lever Voting Machines
Beware of Computerized Touch Screen Voting Machines say Computer and Social Science Faculty
Press Release
photos
Times Union Blog
Say No to Computerized Voting Machines, New York Times, Nov. 29, 2007
November 8, 2007, Press Conference against DOJ takeover of NY State
selection of new voting equipment
October 27, 2007, Letter-signing at the Peace March in NYC
Sept 28-30, 2007, NYVV Annual Meeting
March 14, 2007, Press conference for passage of Resolution 131
Joint Hearing on HAVA Compliance and Resolution 131,
Governmental Operations Committee and Technology in Government Committee
New York City Council, Jan. 29, 2007
Photos
Council Member Barron, Lead Sponsor of Res. 131, with supporters after hearing on 1/29/07. Res. 131 advocates paper ballots and optical scanners.
More info on hearings in NYC: City Council , NYC Board of Elections
Hearing at the New York City Board of Elections, Jan. 23, 2007
Commissioners and Crowd ,
We Testified for PBOS!
Press Conference on the Steps of City Hall for Resolution 228-A, Aug. 16, 2006
Group 1 ,
Group 2 ,
Group 3 ,
Group 4 ,
Getting Ready!
3.09 Briefing Packets
Overviews, 1-page
Choose PBOS
Keep Evoting out of New York--What's bad, what's good!
Briefing, 1-hour, includes info on minority disenfranchisement by DREs
Materials List,
Aug. 20, 2007
Briefing, 3-hour
Choose PBOS, not DREs (4-page overview)
Flyer--What to do--"Make 6 Phone Calls"
Word Document
HTML
Flyer--two-sided informational--"New Voting Machines For New York"
HTML.
Word Document
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political,
democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. We believe this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. For more
information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
