An Anthology of the Best Political Opinion and Commentary
From the Progressive Internet  --   www.crisispapers.org

 

ELECTORAL  INTEGRITY

  See also: "Election Fraud"

"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery.."

Thomas Paine

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Fifteenth Amendment
Constitution of the United States

For more information on this issue:

A Compendium of Voter Fraud Links (Imagicke)

 Ernest Partridge on Election Fraud 

Steven Levy: Will Your Vote Count in 2006?, Newsweek, May 29, 2006 issue

"How bad are the problems? Experts are calling them the most serious voting-machine flaws ever documented. Basically the trouble stems from the ease with which the machine's software can be altered. It requires only a few minutes of pre-election access to a Diebold machine to open the machine and insert a PC card that, if it contained malicious code, could reprogram the machine to give control to the violator. The machine could go dead on Election Day or throw votes to the wrong candidate. Worse, it's even possible for such ballot-tampering software to trick authorized technicians into thinking that everything is working fine, an illusion you couldn't pull off with pre-electronic systems. "If Diebold had set out to build a system as insecure as they possibly could, this would be it," says Avi Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer-science professor and elections-security expert."  (5/23)

Danny Schechter: Why is the Media Downplaying Our Voting Scandal?, Common Dreams, May 19, 2006

"Worse still, the Congress is burying reform measures with scant media attention. Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause writes: 'What is Congress doing? Nothing. Right now HR 550, The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act the bill, which would take care of these problems, is languishing in committee. The bill has 186 cosponsors, more support than most bills voted on in the House'.' Stories like this just dribble out with little follow up and less investigation. Isn't the threat to democracy here self-evident and worthy of more media attention? The press has a long tradition of skepticism. Have they become skeptical about the workings of democracy itself? Why has the heart of our democratic process become such a 'ho-hummer.' Don't they realize the truth expressed by one of our Mediachannel readers Donna Perlmutter who writes: 'Without free, fair elections, nothing else matters'?"  (5/23)

Brad Friedman: On electronic voting: We were always right, they were always wrong, The Huffington Post, May 13, 2006

"In this morning's NY Times we find this (actually, understated) headline, "New Fears of Security Risks in Electronic Voting Systems". The "fears," of course, aren't "new" at all. But if that's what the NYTimes needs to do to save face, we're happy to look the other direction and applaud them for finally jumping in to cover what they should have been covering for the last two years. Every damned day. The article covers the latest -- and most stunning -- security breach yet discovered in electronic voting machines. This time, it's a "feature" that Diebold has implemented on every touch-screen voting machine in the country. A "feature" to make it easier for them (and apparently every fraudster and/or partisan and/or terrorist in the world) to change the operating software in about one minute's time with nobody noticing and with no password necessary. And there are no simple ways to correct the problem." (See also Stephanie Desmon: Experts see new Diebold flaw: They call it worst security glitch to date in voting machines and a 'big deal',  Bev Harris: Critical Security Alert: Three-level security flaws found in Diebold touch-screens , and Black Box Voting: Triple Protection for Election 2006 ). (5/16)

Robert McMillan: Backdoor Found in Diebold Voting Machines,  PC World, May 15, 2006

This article is significant not only because it's a well-written affirmation of the blockbuster discovery made previously by electoral-integrity experts, but because it's published in a mainstream computer journal. "Last week, the voting watchdog organization Black Box Voting published a report detailing how Diebold's TS6 and TSx touch-pad voting machines could be compromised by taking advantage of 'backdoor' features designed to allow new software to be installed on the systems. Finnish security researcher Harri Hursti discovered backdoors in the systems boot loader software, in the OS, and in the Ballot Station software that it runs to tabulate votes. 'These are built-in features, all three of them,' said Black Box Voting Founder Bev Harris. 'If a malicious person had access to a Diebold machine, the back doors could be exploited to falsify election results on the system,' she said."  (5/16)

Brad Friedman: Newly Discovered Diebold Threat Described as 'Major National Security Risk'!, BradBlog, May 5, 2006

"We've now been able to gather a great deal of additional information concerning details about the story we first posted yesterday on the official Pennsylvania state warning issued about the new "security vulnerability" discovered in all Diebold touch-screen electronic voting machines. That warning, which has now brought a lock-down on all Diebold systems in PA, where early absentee (non-machine) voting is about to begin prior to their upcoming May 16th primary election, was reported by the Morning Call yesterday. The warning says the serious security vulnerability could allow ''unauthorized software to be loaded on to the system." Public details about the warning are still sketchy as those in the know have acknowledged that the problem is so serious, they are hoping to keep the info under wraps until mitigation steps can be taken to safeguard systems. The BRAD BLOG has been told on the record, however, by one person involved in the matter, that the vulnerability is a 'major national security risk.' "  (See also Financial Times: Electronic Voting Switch Threatens Mass Confusion ).  (5/9)

Sheila Parks: Hand Counted Paper Ballots in 2008, Tikkun Magazine, April 10, 2006

"The right to vote, as well as the principle of “one person, one vote,” are cornerstones of our democracy. The anti-slavery, women’s suffrage, and civil rights movements as well as the expansion of voting to young people are all part of the history of electoral reform in this country. Equally fundamental is the assurance that each voter knows that her or his vote counts and is counted as intended. At this time in our history, many have lost confidence in our voting system. . . . Hand Counted Paper Ballots are an alternative to the current widespread and increasing use of electronic voting machines. An HCPB system of voting has the following major advantages over electronic voting machines: (1) Counting of ballots is publicly done, observed and filmed by everyday citizens who are registered voters in the precinct where the counting takes place. (2) Security safeguards are much more easily built in to protect against tampering. (3) The cost is far less."   (4/18)

John Gideon: The Approaching 2006 E-Voting 'Train Wreck' Continues On Course,
VoteTrustUSA, April 16, 2006

"Our elections are headed straight towards disaster; a "Train Wreck". That "Train Wreck," however, may still be avoided. The engineers of one of those trains, as it were, are the elections officials who are allowing themselves to be cowed by vendors like ES&S, Sequoia, and Diebold. The disaster can be avoided, but it will require the election officials to switch their train to a different track – by first acknowledging that there are problems. In order to begin that process those officials must finally realize that they are not alone. Counties across the country are finding the exact same problems. The bad ES&S memory cards were not just found in Summit County, Ohio; they were also found in North Carolina and probably other counties in other states... The federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) -- created by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 -- has likewise not been doing their job. They seem to be content to just sit back and watch as voting systems across the country are in melt-down."  (4/18)

Andrew Welsh-Huggins: Ohio Official  [Blackwell] Invested in Vote Machine Co.,  Washington Post, April 4, 2006

"Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who is  seeking the Republican nomination for governor, said he discovered the shares for Diebold Inc. while  preparing a required filing for the Ohio Ethics Commission. ... The state negotiated a deal with  Diebold last year for $2,700 per touch-screen machine. ... Democrats weren't buying Blackwell's  explanation. 'If he can't manage to know what's in his checkbook, why would the people of Ohio want to  trust this man with the state's checkbook?' said Brian Rothenberg, spokesman for the Ohio Democratic  Party."  ( See also Brad Friedman: Ohio '04 Recount: 'The Fix Was In," Says County Prosecutor , Joan  Mazzolini: [Ohio] Workers Accused of Fudging '04  Recount, and  Sean Greene: With voting machine company now  bankrupt, CEO speaks out: No vendor "has a system  that voters can trust"!).  (4/11)

Ivan Eland:  Wanted: A Freer Market in U.S. Politics, Independent, April 3, 2006

"A parliamentary system — in which parties earn the  number of seats they have in parliament based on their  percentage of the vote (proportional representation)  and choose a prime minister based upon a party  leader's ability to form a coalition of parties that  commands a majority in the legislature — is more competitive. Governing coalitions formed after a rough  and tumble election campaign that give voters a wider  choice among multiple parties are much different from  the electoral coalitions of the two-party system, which  cause political groupings to mute their differences in an  attempt to allow their coalition to win. Some decry the  instability of multiple party systems, but it isn't easy  living free. 'Freedom' is just a politician's fancy word  for choice, and multiple party systems offer greater  choice and less behind-the-scenes collusion between  the parties. In a multi-party system, the collusion  among the parties occurs only after the voters have  spoken—not before—and is out in the open."  (4/11)

John Gideon: E-Voting 2006: The Approaching Train Wreck, Bradblog.com, April 9, 2006

"Normally this space is taken with my ideas of what are the "Top 5" voting news stories for the week. Today I am going to use this space to talk about what I see as the beginning of a disaster in the making with our elections. This isn't the election fraud that some point to when they talk about the vendors and some elections officials. It's not about recounts or audits. This is a real, get your hands around it, happening problem that will disrupt our election process if we do not do something about it now. While we have been involved in all of our issues about Direct Recording Electronic (DRE or "touch-screen") voting machines or paper ballots the electronic voting machine vendors have been wreaking complete havoc across the country."

John Schneider: Touch-screen voting isn't the right answer, The Baltimore Sun, March 31, 2006

"A debate over the use of electronic voting machines in Maryland generally has focused on words such as "security," "interpretive code" and "hacking." . . . This isn't surprising: There are powerful commercial and political interests vying for the upper hand, with much prestige and profit at stake. Still, the debate has been incorrectly framed, and voters are the poorer for it. The problem is this: When discussing the integrity of any data storage, processing and retrieval system, the term "secure" is a misnomer. In the realm of computer science, there is no such standard, no such definition. One can only describe the precautions taken and the recovery plan if the system is breached. More simply, all computer systems can be rigged or manipulated. It is never a question of "if," only of time or money and the potential payoff. That's why computer science regards security as a process, not a feature. This process has several integral parts, which include multiple layers of intrusion detection and prevention, alerting and, most important, a means to recover from a security failure." (Note: The author endorses optical scan technology). (4/4)

Joan Brunwasser: A Bit of a Quandary, OpEdNews.com, March 31, 2006

A good survey of the electoral integrity issue to date, citing seveal recent setbacks for the e-voting industry. "Let us examine election reform in all of its forms. Let us turn each proposal inside out. I invite activists, legislators, computer scientists and concerned citizens to use OpEdNews as a forum. I will print articles from all sides. The important part is to give this discussion the time and attention it deserves. Unfortunately, it will not be in time to save us from this election, perhaps not even the next one. We will pay a heavy price for that. But, ultimately, if done properly, we can take back our elections and create an informed, mobilized public that is actively involved in determining the course of our country and our future. That will be a bonus, for healthy democracy depends on the vigor of its debates and the degree of involvement of its citizens." (4/4)

Jim Drinkard: Primary voting-machine troubles raise concerns for '06, USA Today, March 28, 2006

"Problems using voting machines in the Texas and Illinois primaries this month have reinforced fears that the 2006 elections may be beset with glitches. "There's a lot of evidence that some of those fears are coming to pass," says Doug Chapin, president of Electionline.org, a non-partisan group that studies elections. "The theory that new technology results in error seems to be borne out early in the process." More than 30 million Americans will be voting on unfamiliar equipment this year, after modernization required by the Help America Vote Act. Congress passed the law in 2002 to address problems stemming from the 2000 presidential election in Florida." (4/4)

Reuters: California Sued Over Diebold Voting Systems,  truthout, March 21, 2006

"'In certifying the Diebold machines, the secretary has sidestepped his duty to deny certification to voting systems that violate state and federal standards,' Dolores Huerta, a co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America and plaintiff in the case, said in a statement. 'Diebold systems have failed in security tests and in communities around the country.' The lawsuit seeks to block the purchase of the TSX systems and a reversal of the secretary of state's certification. ... In 2004, Diebold paid $2.6 million to settle a lawsuit alleging it had provided false information about security and certification to obtain payments for its electronic voting equipment in California." (See also John Gideon: IL. E-Vote Meltdown 414 Memory Cartridges Missing In Chicago and Cook County!, Neal Resnikoff: Letter to the Editor of the Chicago Tribune, and John Gideon: NJ Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of Electronic Voting Machines).   (3/28)

Did White House Direct Phone Jamming Scheme?, BuzzFlash News Alert, March 23, 2006

"A new report suggests that the national Republican establishment--including the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and even the Bush White House--may have had a role in the criminal Election Day phone jamming scheme that disenfranchised countless New Hampshire voters in 2002. The Union Leader today reported that "court records show Ken Mehlman's office received more than 75 telephone calls from now-convicted phone-jam conspirator James Tobin from Sept. 30 to Nov. 22 of that year." At the time, Mehlman--the current RNC Chair--was White House political director. [Union Leader, 3/23/06] This raises the disturbing question of whether Tobin, who worked for the RNC and the NRSC at the time and has since been convicted on two criminal charges for his role in the scheme, discussed the plan with one of the President's most important political strategists." (See also John Distaso: Calling Ken?).  (3/28)

Ian Hoffman: E-vote case puts actor in limelight, Oakland Tribune, March 13, 2006

"One night early in 2004, a few weeks before the presidential primary, a Van Nuys actor making ends meet temping as a word processor listened on headphones as a young lawyer laid out a defense for Diebold Election Systems Inc.'s use of unapproved voting software in Alameda County.  Sitting at a computer terminal on the 45th floor of a Los Angeles skyscraper, Steve Heller transcribed the lawyer's taped memo suggesting that Diebold could claim the software was a new, "experimental" voting system, even though it had handled two Alameda County elections in 2003. . . . [T]he night after hearing the Diebold defense proposal, according to investigators who recreated his actions from computer logs, Heller went back to work inside the word processing center at the law firm Jones Day and began printing every document he could access that its attorneys had created for Diebold — 107 memos, charts, actions plans and e-mails. . . . Heller himself remained largely unknown until two weeks ago when the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office charged him with a computer crime, second-degree burglary and receiving stolen goods — offenses carrying up to four years in prison — and propelled him to folk hero status among voting reform advocates, computer scientists and critics of electronic voting."  (See also Hemmy So: Whistle-Blower or Thief in Diebold Case?, Brad Friedman: Hart InterCivic Whistleblower Warned of Texas, Ohio E-Voting "Fraud" Concerns in 2004: 100,000+ Votes Were Errantly Added by Hart Machines in a Single County and Paul Lehto: Honest Legal Advice for Your Local Election Officials ).  (3/21)

Robert C. Koehler: Trust us: Take this box and stuff it, Common Wonders, March 16, 2006

"[T]he worry that trumps all others is the state of this proud, imperfect democracy. We may be surrendering our power to change the national direction or demand that government be responsive to us. My fellow Americans, our voting machines don't work, at least not all the time. The mechanism of our democracy is in chaos, and almost everyone is going along with it. Thanks to the allegedly well-intentioned, but disastrous, Help America Vote Act, the country is shifting, county by county, to electronic voting machines, which are not only glitch-prone on a spectacular scale (e.g., 100,000 phantom votes were recorded in Tarrant County, Texas, during the state's primary last week), but work, like God, in mysterious ways, which we're not supposed to question. The results they give us are all too often unverifiable. And here's the clincher: The process isn't even public anymore." (3/21)

Maurice Tamman: State: Absentee Vote Count "Will Not be a Problem" in Elections,   Sarasota Herald-Tribune, March 4, 2006

"With just days before elections, state officials were scrambling this week to determine whether they had a problem that could call into question tens of thousands of absentee votes. The problem surfaced in the state's newly minted central voter database, a multimillion-dollar project that is supposed to cleanse the voter rolls of errors and prevent voter fraud. The Herald-Tribune on Wednesday found thousands of mysterious entries in the tally of historic votes that suggested people had already voted in elections that haven't yet occurred."  (See also Peter Soby Jr.: Whistleblower Charged With Three Felonies for Exposing Diebold's Crimes, and New York Times Editorial: An Important Election Safeguard).   (3/14)

David Dill: Reframing the Election Fraud Debate, AlterNet, March 9, 2006

"Theories of widespread election fraud are highly debatable, to say the least. Some people enjoy that debate. I do not. It encourages a sense of hopelessness and consumes energy that could instead be focused on long-term changes that could give us elections we can trust. The election fraud debate frames the problem incorrectly. The question should not be whether there is widespread election fraud. It should be: "Why should we trust the results of elections?" It's not good enough that election results be accurate. We have to know they are accurate -- and we don't. In a word, elections must be transparent. People must be able to assure themselves that the results are accurate through direct observation during the election and examination of evidence afterwards."  (3/14)

Brad: Legal Proceedings Launched Against Diebold in Florida, Brad Blog, March 9, 2006

"E-Voting Monolith and 'Competitors' All Refuse to do Business with County Unless the Elected Ion Sancho is 'Removed from Office'. Ion Sancho is fighting back. Sancho, the Election Supervisor of Leon County, Florida who exposed a number of security flaws in Electronic Voting Machines made by the Diebold corporation of North Canton, Ohio, today launched legal "breach of contract" proceedings against the company. The action has been filed on behalf of the Leon County Supervisor of Elections office."  (3/14)

Associated Press: Third [Ohio] Elections Worker Indicted Over Presidential Recount,  Associated Press, March 9, 2006

"The third highest ranking employee at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has been indicted on charges of mishandling ballots during the 2004 presidential election recount.  Jacqueline Maiden is the third board worker charged with six counts alleging that Ohio laws were not followed in the selection and review of ballots for the recount. The most serious charges carry a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison. The charges stem from a complaint filed by a lawyer who watched over the recount on behalf of two third-party presidential candidates." See also Ana Ribeiro: '04 [Florida] Count Still Sparks Debate.   (3/14)

Missy Comley Beattie: Electronic Voting is a Slam Dunk for Republicans, OpEdNews.com, March 5, 2006

"There’s no reason for George W. Bush to rethink his radical agenda. Disengaged as a human being and transparent in his indifference to suffering, he demands that his “will be done.” Without voting integrity, there’s no reason for me to write about the war. In fact, there’s no end to war and no taking back the country. There’s no end to spying, no end to abuse of the environment, the poor, and our Constitution. There is no end to the criminal doctrine which defines George W. Bush. As long as punch-screen machines are in place, people of compassion might as well stop what we’re doing, shut down our computers, roll over and cry, “Uncle.” It’s a slam dunk for Bush and the end of civilization for us."  (3/7)

Chris Floyd: Party hacks: California sinks into the Bushist Sea, The Moscow Times, March 3, 2006

"Two weeks ago, an obscure, unelected, Republican-appointed official in California decided the future of the world. That future - at least for the next several years - will be an accelerating nightmare of war, corruption, repression, breakdown, atrocity and terror. That's because the loyal apparatchik has, with the stroke of a pen, guaranteed the perpetuation of the militarist Bush Faction in power in 2008 and beyond. One of the few certainties in modern American politics is that no Democrat can hope to win the presidency without carrying California. . . . Thus the sudden, hugger-mugger decision by California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson to override the objections of his own experts and certify the eminently hackable voting machines of the politically partisan private firm, Diebold, for use throughout the state means, quite simply, that the fix is in for the 2008 race. . . . [T]he 2008 election will be conducted largely on wide-open machines programmed by avowed partisans and paymasters of a ruthless gang that has already committed demonstrable vote fraud on a massive scale in engineering narrow "victories" in 2000 and 2004. So it doesn't who runs; it doesn't matter who votes; it doesn't matter how deeply unpopular the Bush Faction becomes through the murderous ruin of its radical militarist-corporatist agenda. The "consent of the governed" will be drowned in the blood money that has bought the nation's electoral process."  (See also Brad Friedman: Florida [Admits Hack,] Issues "Technical Advisory" for "Security Enhancements" on "All Voting Systems' in State!").   (3/7)

Bill Richardson: Making Every Vote Count, TomPaine.com, March 2, 2006

"Recent elections would suggest that democracy, the greatest system of government in the world, can be broken. As the world witnessed in 2000, the sanctity of the ballot box and the integrity of our government are vulnerable. The people of the United States lost faith in the electoral process, and the covenant between citizens and elected officials deteriorated. Those national officials scrambled to pass legislation to restore voter confidence, but in 2004, inaccurate exit polls [!!!] raised further doubts about electronic voting machines without a verifiable paper record. . . . On March 2, 2006, I will sign a bill that will transition New Mexico to an all paper-ballot system using optical scanners to count the vote. Paper ballots are the least expensive, most secure form of voting available. Having marked their votes with pen and paper, voters will walk out of the booth and know their voices have been heard. Optical scanners will quickly and accurately provide results, while in the event of a recount, the ballots themselves will be a permanent, verifiable record of the people’s directions to their government."  (3/7)

Warren Stewart: Do You Know How Your Vote Will Be Counted?, Washington Spectator via Common Dreams, March 2, 2006

"The troubling truth about voting in America today is that a majority of the electorate casts their ballots on computers that run software that is hidden from public view and lacks any independent means of verification. The process by which our votes are cast and counted is controlled by private corporations to an extent that threatens the foundations of democracy. Last September, the Government Accountability Office released a report on the security and reliability of electronic voting machines. The report, which detailed the findings of a nine-month study, said that "concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes." The GAO reported that it had confirmed instances of "weak security controls, system design flaws, inadequate system version control, inadequate security testing, incorrect system configuration, poor security management, and vague or incomplete voting system standards." While acknowledging that efforts were under way to improve the situation, the report warned that "these actions are unlikely to have a significant effect in the 2006 federal election cycle." Not exactly reassuring. And the situation has hardly improved in the months since. In many states, it is still  unclear what kind of voting machines will be used in primaries only a few months away."  (3/7)

Brad Friedman: AP: 100,000 Errors Reported on Sequoia Voting Machines in Palm Beach, FL. 2004 Election, Brad's Blog, February 24, 2006

"AP -- yes, AP -- is now reporting the just released audit information obtained from Palm Beach County, Florida's 2004 Election. And the picture of the Sequoia paperless touch-screen voting machines used that night is not pretty. To say the least... Diebold continues to run their previously good name into the ground, as the Mainstream Media finally begins to notice what's been going on around here...Finally, the unAmerican Voting Machine Company who originally brung you the War on Democracy, seems to be getting the incredibly bad press they've always deserved...Now from coast to coast."  (See also Brad's Blog: NO, YES, NO: Alaska Now Refuses Release of 2004 Election Data Citing Security Concerns! and Jennifer Medina: Voter Groups See Flaws in Plan to Upgrade Balloting ).  (2/28)

Hemmy So: Man Pleads Not Guilty in Voting Device Case, Los Angeles Times, February 24, 2006

"A word processor accused of stealing damaging documents about electronic voting machine manufacturer Diebold Election Systems was arraigned Tuesday on three felony counts. Stephen Heller was charged in Los Angeles Superior Court with felony access to computer data, commercial burglary and receiving stolen property. He pleaded not guilty. 'It's a devastating allegation for a whistle-blower,' said Blair Berk, Heller's attorney. 'Certainly, someone who saw those documents could have reasonably believed that thousands of voters were going to be potentially disenfranchised in upcoming elections.' Although state law protects whistle-blowers from retaliation by their employers, they can still be criminally prosecuted, said Tom Devine, legal director at the Washington, D.C.-based Government Accountability Project. 'It's very rare that it's successful, he said. 'It's a tactic where the primary goal may be to scare other would-be whistle-blowers rather than a realistic attempt to obtain a conviction'."  (See also Brad Friedman: Why do Diebold's Touch-Screen Voting Machines Have Built-In Wireless Infrared Data Transfer Ports?: IrDA Protocol Can "Totally Compromise System" Without Detection, Warns Federal Voting Standards Website).   (2/28)

R.J. Eskow: Is The GOP 'shock-the-vote gang' planning to heist California?, The Huffington Post, February 21, 2006 

"The usual suspects are slipping into the Golden State. Political season is looming, there's a February chill in the Pacific breeze, and the GOP political 'family' is hard at work. California's appointed (as opposed to elected) Republican Secretary of State has recertified Diebold's voting machines, despite a damning report. Schwarzenegger is hiring a "steely" Karl Rove insider turned Dick Cheney capo, along with other national GOP campaign pols, to run his re-election campaign. The "shock-the-vote" gang is ready to roll into the Golden State with their patented blend of dishonest spin, old-fashioned dirty tricks - and easy-to-rig voting machines that are being manufactured by Republicans and purchased by other Republicans. You gotta problem with that? . . . [W]hat does this all mean? It suggests that California, with its treasure trove of congressional seats and 2008 electoral votes, is the next battleground. Yes, Gov. Schwarzenegger is wildly unpopular now. But, as the GOP proved in the 2004 Presidential race, unpopularity need not be a barrier to re-election - especially when Diebold machines are counting the votes."   (2/28)

Matthew Wheeland: Rewriting Our Rotten History of Elections, AlterNet, February 15, 2006

"Depending whom you ask, the state of the union's elections are either peachy-keen or in dire straits. With voting irregularities fast becoming the norm, election officials moonlighting as campaign leaders and highly suspicious differences in polling places from region to region, there is an ill-disguised sense that perhaps our democracy is not quite as strong as politicians and their mouthpieces would have you believe. As of now, with Republicans in control of every branch of the federal government, much of the finger-pointing is aimed at the GOP. After all, if election reform has stalled in Congress since the 2000 election, it's likely that Republicans have built and maintained the roadblocks holding it up."  (2/21)

Kathy Dopp: Statisticians recommend new measures to ensure vote count accuracy, release "Ohio’s 2004 exit poll analysis for novices”, Free Press, February 17, 2006, February 16, 2006

"On February 14, 2006, the National Election Data Archive, a group of volunteer mathematicians, released a report asking that new measures be taken immediately in order to assure the integrity of future U.S. election results. Their new report discusses why current measures to ensure vote count accuracy, such as testing and certification, are inadequate; discusses how evidence of vote miscounts are hidden by current election reporting procedures; and recommends independent vote count audits, public detailed election data monitoring, and public exit poll data."  (2/21)

Andrew Gumbel: Excerpt: How to Steal an Election, AlterNet, February 15, 2006

"What, after all, was to be done with a country whose newest voting machines, unlike Venezuela's, couldn't even perform recounts? A country where candidates, in contrast to the more promising emerging democracies of the Caucasus or the Balkans, were denied equal, unpaid access to the media? There were a number of reasons, in the sharply partisan atmosphere surrounding the Bush-Kerry race, to wonder whether campaign conditions didn't smack more of the Third World than the First." (See also Carlos Miller: Documents show Maryland held election, primary on uncertified, illegal Diebold voting machines,  Crooks and Liars: Bush is Unpopular Across the Entire Country, and  Patricia Goldsmith: Use Your Imagination).  (2/21)

Patricia Goldsmith: Imagine, Democratic Underground, February 15, 2006

"I'm tired of playing the self-defeating electoral game. We have no reason to expect that in 2006, after six years of rigged elections, everything is suddenly going to work. In 2006, HAVA will really kick in; our situation could well be worse. . . . Now imagine what we're going to do without the vote. The sooner we face the truth, the better. When we are finally able to digest the fact we have lost the vote, it will become obvious that we have to take a page from the Greens and concentrate on the corporations. If and when the sleeping giant wakes, we have to make damn sure John and Jane Q. Public know who to blame. We need to channel that energy, and we better start now. But I'm betting that on that fateful day, Dems and Rethugs will be able to agree on one very important thing: big money is behind all of it."   (2/21)

Mark Crispin Miller Connects the Dots on Election Problems, BuzzFlash Interview, February 9, 2006

Mark Crispin Miller "concludes that team Bush wants to permanently disenfranchise the majority. In his "J'accuse" book on the 2004 election, Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them), Miller documents how the Republicans likely stole a second presidential election, just in a more complicated way than they did in 2000. To those who dismiss such claims as "over the top," BuzzFlash responds, if the Republicans stole the presidency in 2000 by hot-wiring the Supreme Court of the United States, why wouldn't they do it again? They would -- and they probably did. If we could transplant Mark Crispin Miller's passion and stamina into the backbones of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, we wouldn't have a silent coup taking place now in the United States. In this, Part 2 of a two-part interview, Miller looks at the voting machines, and at our collective refusal to see and acknowledge what has happened to our democracy." ( See also Black Box Voting: Vendor Nondisclosure Requirements Block EVERYTHING,  Kathy Dopp: Surprising Pattern of Florida's Election Results , Lisa Demer: State [Alaska] rebuffs raw vote demand and Associated Press: Study: New Machines Await 4 in 5 Voters ).  (2/14)

Lynn Landes: Voting Systems Lawsuit Reaches U.S. Supreme Court, OpEdNews.com,  February 1, 2006

"A little-noticed voting rights lawsuit has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court (Docket No. 05-930).  It constitutes the first legal challenge to the widespread use of nontransparent voting systems. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges the use of voting machines and absentee voting in elections for public office. The lawsuit was originally filed by freelance journalist Lynn Landes in July of 2004 in Philadelphia federal court (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania).  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Landes on November 2, 2005. In her lawsuit Landes claims that, as a voter and a journalist, she has the right to direct access to a physical ballot and to observe the voting process unimpeded.  Voting by machine or absentee, Landes claims, introduces obstacles and concealment to a process that must be accessible and transparent in a meaningful and effective manner."  (See also Bob Fitrakis/Harvey Wasserman: As Alito Takes Supreme Court Seat, Ohio GOP Guts Election Protection,  Vote-Pad USA: Wisconsin Approves the Vote-PAD Assistive Device and William Sell: A National Defense Issue ).  (2/7)

Zachary Goldfarb: As Elections Near, Officials Challenge Balloting Security, washingtonpost.com, January 22, 2006

"As the Leon County supervisor of elections, Ion Sancho's job is to make sure voting is free of fraud. But the most brazen effort lately to manipulate election results in this Florida locality was carried out by Sancho himself. . . . Four times over the past year Sancho told computer specialists to break in to his voting system. And on all four occasions they did, changing results with what the specialists described as relatively unsophisticated hacking techniques. To Sancho, the results showed the vulnerability of voting equipment manufactured by Ohio-based Diebold Election Systems, which is used by Leon County and many other jurisdictions around the country. Sancho's most recent demonstration was last month. Harri Hursti, a computer security expert from Finland, manipulated the "memory card" that records the votes of ballots run through an optical scanning machine. Then, in a warehouse a few blocks from his office in downtown Tallahassee, Sancho and seven other people held a referendum. The question on the ballot: "Can the votes of this Diebold system be hacked using the memory card?" Two people marked yes on their ballots, and six no. The optical scan machine read the ballots, and the data were transmitted to a final tabulator. The result? Seven yes, one no. "Was it possible for a disgruntled employee to do this and not have the elections administrator find out?" Sancho asked. "The answer was yes." Diebold and some officials have criticized Sancho's experiments and said his conclusions about the vulnerability of electronic voting systems are unfounded. . . . But the questions raised by Sancho, who has held his post since 1989, show how the concerns are being taken more seriously among elections professionals." (1/24)

Chris Floyd: Loot the Vote: The Bush Faction's Future Victories are Already in the Bag, Information Clearing House, January 19, 2006

"Things are looking a bit grim for the Bush Faction these days. Their chief bagman, Jack Abramoff, is in the clink, naming names. Their top congressional enforcer, Tom Delay, is in the dock, sinking fast. Their "war of choice" in Iraq has stalled in murderous quagmire. Their poll numbers are plummeting , as scandal after scandal -- corruption, despotism, torture, incompetence, deceit -- turn the American people against them. What then will be the fate of these brutal, bungling, bloodstained goons when they face the voters in the coming elections? Why, victory, of course! In fact, this year's congressional races and the presidential contest in 2008 are already over, and the Bushists have won. It's true that some of the candidates have not yet been chosen – including whatever front man the goon squad picks to replace the kill-crazy klutz from Crawford – but the vast machinery of electoral malfeasance that propelled this extremist faction to power over the wishes of the electorate in both 2000 and, yes, 2004, is not only still in place, it's growing stronger all the time." (1/24)

Daily Kos: Richardson calls for paper ballots in NM (Updated),  Daily Kos, January 13, 2006

"Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico just cut the Gordian Knot of election reform here in New Mexico. In response to lawsuits by various New Mexico groups concerned over the integrity of the vote-counting process, and crediting those groups and citizen action with bringing this to the public consciousness it deserves, Richardson yesterday announced that New Mexico would adopt a uniform paper ballot for elections, and select approved optical scanners for the count. The paper ballots will ensure the verifiability of election results. ... If the legislation is adopted by the legislature and implemented before the next election, inaccurate, unreliable and insecure electronic voting machines that produce no voter-verifiable and auditable paper record will be a thing of the past." See also James Odato: Feds Warn [N.Y.] State Over Vote Systems, Rob Kall: Sue Diebold,  MidHudson Alliance: Think Tank Writer Pushes for the Vendor's Perspective and Robert Lockwood Mills: It's Been a Long Trek Since November 2, 2004 -- Now Getting Shorter). (1/17)

Cheryl Gerber: Voting 2.0: Will your e-vote count?, Chronogram, January 8, 2006

"Imagine this: A Trojan Horse unleashes thousands of illegitimate votes and disappears without a trace, election commissioners bypass laws, uninvestigated computer glitches and easily picked locks in voting systems, no federal oversight holding e-voting vendors accountable—yes folks, elections can be stolen. Since the 2000 Presidential election, problems stemming from the use of electronic voting machines have called into question the foundation of American democracy—the US voting system. At the forefront of concerns are security issues surrounding the use of Direct Recording Electronics [DREs], better known as touch screen computer voting machines, and their lack of a paper trail in the form of an auditable paper ballot. Widely reported irregularities from voting districts around the US have alarmed many and opened claims of stolen elections. Some even doubt the legitimacy of the outcome of recent US elections. A team of top computer scientists has been working diligently to resolve the many underlying design problems in the e-voting system that leave it open to cheating. Stalled by the federal government, and with doubts about e-voting continuing to spread, these scientists have instead turned to state governments and the National Science Foundation for help."  (1/10)

Avi Rubin: The Dirty Little Secrets of Voting Systems Testing Labs,  Huffington Post, December 16, 2005

"When pressed about whether or not the ITAs [Independent Testing Authorities] would fail a system if a serious flaw was found, the reply was that a memo would be written, but that the system would still pass. I couldn't believe it. The company that was tasked with certifying machines for elections in the United States would still pass them, even if a serious flaw was found, as long as the machine did not violate any aspects of the standard. Unbelievable. Now, let me talk a bit about the conflict of interest. As a friend of mine put it, the ITAs are not independent and they have no authority. So Independent Testing Authority is a misnomer. Thankfully, NIST is going to change the name next year. Here's where it gets bad. The ITAs are hired by and paid by -- the vendors. That is, when a vendor has a voting machine that they want certified, they find an ITA who is willing to certify the voting machine. Any memos about flaws that are discovered remain confidential. There is no requirement to disclose any problems that are found with the machines. In fact, the entire ITA report is considered proprietary information of the voting machine vendor. After all, they paid for it. This provides an incentive for ITAs to certify machines, to satisfy their clients."  (See also Brad Friedman: CA Sec. of State Threatened Decertification for ES&S After Failures in Recent Election! ).  (1/3)

Joel Bleifuss: Ghosts in the voting machines, In These Times, December 31, 2005

"The GAO highlights one major problem with electronic voting systems: They can be hacked because of woefully inadequate security systems. The report notes, "Regarding key software components, several evaluations demonstrated that election management systems did not encrypt the data files containing cast votes (to protect them from being viewed or modified). ...If exploited, these weaknesses could damage the integrity of ballots, votes and voting system software by allowing unauthorized modifications." The report goes on to say that flaws in electronic voting security protections 'could allow unauthorized personnel to disrupt operations or modify data and programs that are critical to the accuracy and the integrity of the voting process.' "  (1/3)

Marc Caputo and Gary Fineout: New tests fuel doubts about vote machines, Miami Herald, December 15, 2005

"A political operative with hacking skills could alter the results of any election on Diebold-made voting machines -- and possibly other new voting systems in Florida -- according to the state capital's election supervisor, who said Diebold software has failed repeated tests. Ion Sancho, Leon County's election chief, said tests by two computer experts, completed this week, showed that an insider could surreptitiously change vote results and the number of ballots cast on Diebold's optical-scan machines. After receiving county commission approval Tuesday, Sancho scrapped Diebold's system for one made by Elections Systems and Software, the same provider used by Miami-Dade and Broward counties. The difference between the systems: Sancho's machines use a fill-in-the-blank paper ballot that allows for after-the-fact manual recounts, while Broward and Miami-Dade use ATM-like touchscreens that leave no paper trail. ''That's kind of scary. If there's no paper trail, you have to rely solely on electronic results. And now we know that they can be manipulated under the right conditions, without a person even leaving a fingerprint,'' said Sancho, who once headed the state's elections supervisors association. The Leon County test results are likely to further fuel suspicions that the new electronic voting systems in Florida, in place since the 2002 elections, are susceptible to manipulation. . . . Sancho agrees that good security is key, but said he's not sure he won't also have problems with the $1.3 million ES&S system, which he'll also test."  (12/20)

Black Box Voting: Black Box Voting Report on Diebold Voting Machine Test: Grade: "F" for Complete Failure,  OpEdNews, December 14, 2005

"Due to contractual non-performance and security design issues, Leon County (Florida) supervisor of elections Ion Sancho has announced that he will never again use Diebold in an election. He has requested funds to replace the Diebold system from the county. On Tuesday, the most serious ÒhackÓ demonstration to date took place in Leon County. The Diebold machines succumbed quickly to alteration of the votes. This comes on the heels of the resignation of Diebold CEO Wally O'Dell, and the announcement that a stockholder's class action suit has been filed against Diebold by Scott & Scott. Further 'hack' testing on additional vulnerabilities is tentatively scheduled before Christmas in the state of California."   (12/20)

Brad: Securities Fraud Litigation Filed Against Diebold, Inc. Brad Blog, December 13, 2005

"The BRAD BLOG can now report that a Securities Fraud Class Action suit has been filed against Diebold, Inc. (stock symbol: DBD) naming eight top executive officers in the company as co-defendants. The suit has been filed by plaintiff Janice Konkol, alleging securities fraud against the North Canton, Ohio-based manufacturer of Voting Systems and ATM machines on behalf of investors who owned shares of Diebold stock and lost money due to an alleged fraudulent scheme by the company and its executives to deceive shareholders during the "class period" of October 22, 2003 through September 21, 2005. The suit was filed today in U.S. Federal District Court in Ohio and alleges the company "artificially inflated" stock prices through misleading public information designed to conceal the true nature of Diebold's financial and legal situation. The defendants are also alleged to have attempted to disguise well-known and ongoing problems with Diebold's Voting Machine equipment and software. Additionally, the suit alleges insider trading by defendants resulting in proceeds of $2.7 million. Remedies are sought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934." (See also Diebold Announces Management Changes).  (12/20)

Avi Rubin: The Dirty Little Secrets of Voting System Testing Labs,  Huffington Post, December 16, 2005

"There were several overriding themes that emerged at the voting systems testing summit. Perhaps the most prevalent one was that the [Independent Testing Authority (ITAs)] consistently decline to appear at these meetings. Why? Well the main reason is that they are fraught with conflict of interest and incompetence. In fact, had they shown up, they would have been raked over the coals by some of the voting system examiners that attended the summit.... The ITAs are not independent and they have no authority. So Independent Testing Authority is a misnomer. Thankfully, NIST is going to change the name next year. Here's where it gets bad. The ITAs are hired by and paid by -- the vendors. That is, when a vendor has a voting machine that they want certified, they find an ITA who is willing to certify the voting machine. Any memos about flaws that are discovered remain confidential. There is no requirement to disclose any problems that are found with the machines. In fact, the entire ITA report is considered proprietary information of the voting machine vendor. After all, they paid for it. This provides an incentive for ITAs to certify machines, to satisfy their clients. Two years ago, my research team got our hands on the code that runs inside of Diebold's Accuvote machines. We performed a source code analysis and reported all kinds of serious security problems (see http://avirubin.com/vote/analysis/ ).  It was incredible to me that such machines were actually deployed and used in elections."  (12/20)

Brian Bergstein: Voting Machines Under Scrutiny, Associated Press, December 7, 2005

"The potential perils of electronic voting systems are bedeviling state officials as a Jan. 1 deadline approaches for complying with standards for the machines' reliability. Across the country, officials are trying multiple methods to ensure that touch-screen voting machines can record and count votes without falling prey to software bugs, hackers, malicious insiders or other ills. These are not theoretical problems - in some states they have led to lost or miscounted votes. One of the biggest concerns - the frequent inability of computerized ballots to produce a written receipt of a vote - has been addressed or is being tackled in most states. An October report from the Government Accountability Office predicted that steps to improve the reliability of electronic voting "are unlikely to have a significant effect" in the 2006 off-year elections, partly because certification procedures remain a work in progress."  (12/13)

Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman: With new legislation, Ohio Republicans plan holiday burial for American Democracy, The Free Press, December 6, 2005

"A law that will make democracy all but moot in Ohio is about to pass the state legislature and to be signed by its Republican governor. Despite massive corruption scandals besieging the Ohio GOP, any hope that the Democratic party could win this most crucial swing state in future presidential elections, or carry its pivotal US Senate seat in 2006, are about to end. House Bill 3 has already passed the Ohio House of Representatives and is about to be approved by the Republican-dominated Senate, probably before the holiday recess. Republicans dominate the Ohio legislature thanks to a heavily gerrymandered crazy quilt of rigged districts, and to a moribund Ohio Democratic party. The GOP-drafted HB3 is designed to all but obliterate any possible future Democratic revival. Opposition from the Ohio Democratic Party, where it exists at all, is diffuse and ineffectual. HB3's most publicized provision will require positive identification before casting a vote. But it also opens voter registration activists to partisan prosecution, exempts electronic voting machines from public scrutiny, quintuples the cost of citizen-requested statewide recounts and makes it illegal to challenge a presidential vote count or, indeed, any federal election result in Ohio. When added to the recently passed HB1, which allows campaign financing to be dominated by the wealthy and by corporations, and along with a Rovian wish list of GOP attacks on the ballot box, democracy in Ohio could be all but over. The GOP is ramming similar bills through state legislatures around the US, starting with Georgia and Indiana."  (See also Tova Andrea Wang:  Judge allows lawsuit challenging adequacy of Ohio election system).  (12/13)

Miriam Raftery: Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends "sterling" record, Raw Story, December 6, 2005

"The Diebold insider, who took on the appellation 'Dieb-Throat' in an interview with voting rights advocate Brad Friedman (BradBlog.com), was once a staunch supporter of electronic voting's potential to produce more accurate results than punch cards. But the company insider became disillusioned after witnessing repeated efforts by Diebold to evade meeting legal requirements or implementing appropriate security measures, putting corporate interests ahead of the interests of voters. 'I've absolutely had it with the dishonesty,' the insider told RAW STORY. Blasting Wally O'Dell, the current president of Diebold, the whistleblower went on to explain behind-the-scenes tactics of the company and its officers. 'There's a lot of pressure in the corporation to make the numbers: "We don't tell you how to do it, but do it." [O'Dell is] probably the number one culprit putting pressure on people,' the source said."  (See also Brad Friedman: Potential Securities Fraud Class-Action Lawsuit Against Diebold in Progress).   (12/13)

Brad Friedman: Potential Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Against Diebold in Progress, The Huffington Post, December 7, 2005

"The BRAD BLOG has received exclusive detailed information about a developing potential class action securities litigation against Diebold, Inc. (stock symbol: DBD). The class for the suit will involve shareholders who purchased or owned stock in the Ohio-based company any time from October 22, 2003 though September 21, 2005. Though we are not at liberty at this time to discuss the specifics of the potential litigation and the causes of action in the complaint being compiled, The BRAD BLOG has learned that the class action lawsuit, currently being drawn up, will involve securities fraud violations and other troubling matters for the controversial company, its CEO as well as current and former members of its Board of Directors."  (12/13)

Gary Robertson: N.C. Judge Declines Protection for Diebold, Associated Press, November 28, 2005

Note: Even in the face of this court decision, the state's elections board (presided over by a former GOP operative) approved the Diebold certification. "One of the nation's leading suppliers of electronic voting machines may decide against selling new equipment in North Carolina after a judge declined Monday to protect it from criminal prosecution should it fail to disclose software code as required by state law. Diebold Inc., which makes automated teller machines and security and voting equipment, is worried it could be charged with a felony if officials determine the company failed to make all of its code - some of which is owned by third-party software firms, including Microsoft Corp. - available for examination by election officials in case of a voting mishap. The requirement is part of the minimum voting equipment standards approved by state lawmakers earlier this year following the loss of more than 4,400 electronic ballots in Carteret County during the November 2004 election." See also Brad Friedman: "Immaculate Certification:" Diebold Allowed in North Carolina After All and Brian Bergstein: Electronic Voting Examined; Deadline Nears ). (12/6)

Susan H. Pitcairn: When Democrats Ask For Money, Common Dreams, November 29, 2005

"It happens daily: Letters and emails arrive unbidden, one after the next, urgently seeking money for various Democratic causes, great and small. Message after message warns me of what will happen if Democrats fail to win in 2006. Because I share these concerns, I have opened my wallet time and again. Yet never do these appeals mention the one peril that most endangers Democrats, as well democracy — corrupt elections. Ever since Bush's alleged victories challenged by countless election watchers and analysts, I have doggedly sent dozens of messages to Congress, urging an end to "black box voting." I have joined protests and I have passed petitions. The response? Little but thundering silence, especially from those who should be leading this charge —the likes of John Kerry, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Hillary Clinton.  Finally, I have seen the light. It is time to send the ultimate message — no more money for Democrats until they speak out united for serious election reform."  (12/6)

Dave Johnson: Challenge: Prove that electronic voting machines accurately record votes, Seeing The Forest, December 2, 2005

"Suppose you could get every bug out of every program that runs every company's electronic voting machines. Suppose you can make sure that there is no way a technician has installed new chips the day before the election. Suppose you can absolutely guarantee that no hacker can get into the system. Suppose you can show me every line of the code from the machine AND prove to me that is the same code that is in every machine on election day. Suppose you find a way to assure me that every official, employee, etc. that comes into contact with any machine is not corrupt. Suppose that the disk drive and memory in the machine could be manufactured in a way that it never, ever dropped a bit. Suppose there were a way to safely transmit the results from every machine to the county's vote tabulator without possibility of error or compromise. And the suppose you can guarantee all of the SAME conditions for the country's vote tabulator machines. When all of that is done there is still a problem. You still can not prove that the voting machine correctly recorded the way I voted. You can not prove this because there is no method for proving it -- no way to double check. I'm supposed to touch a screen and then just trust that the machine correctly records my vote. Right. . . . There is still a problem. You still can not prove that the voting machine correctly recorded the way I voted. You can not prove this because there is no method for proving it. There is no way to double-check. . . . So if even one person accused that the election was fraudulent, there would be no way to prove that it was not. And that necessarily brings into question the legitimacy of the election - at least for that one person. Now, suppose that after the voter touches the screen and finishes voting the voting machine prints a paper ballot. The voter takes that paper ballot out of the voting booth, inspects it, decides that the ballot shows the same votes as the voter intended it to show and drops it into a ballot box. This changes everything."  (12/6)

 Patricia Goldsmith: False frames, Dissident Voice, November 29, 2005

"When it comes to e-voting, the corporate media have put out a couple of narrative frames that have been successful in throwing even voting reform advocates off the track. The most obvious is the conspiracy frame. Stephen Pizzo, who ultimately advocates the abolition of e-voting in order to restore voter confidence, nevertheless believes "[t]he party caught fixing a major race would be out of power for a generation. Also, if I learned anything from a quarter century of unraveling real and alleged conspiracies it's that getting caught is always in the cards." In this, he finds himself in substantial agreement with conservative columnist and former Reagan administration official James Pinkerton. It seems to me their argument would be a lot stronger if the GOP hadn't already been "caught" attempting to fix every single election since 2000. Hell, they do it out in the open, proudly. People like Katherine Harris, Glenda Hood, and Ken Blackwell have made whole careers out of purge lists, voter intimidation, and aggressive partisanship in the administration of elections. That's because what we are seeing in operation is not a conspiracy, but unchecked monopolies and corporate combinations, and there is nothing fanciful or farfetched about it. . . . The revolving door transforming election officials into corporate voting machine lobbyists, and vice versa, has never twirled faster. Only a grassroots effort of the type used to alert the public to the lies behind the war in Iraq will do the job. With two-thirds of the American people finally realizing that George W. Bush is a liar, now is the time to educate the public about e-voting."  (12/6)

Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman: Ohio's Diebold debacle: New machines call election results into question, Columbus Free Press, November 28, 2005

"Massive Election Day irregularities are emerging in reports from all over Ohio after the introduction of Diebold's electronic voting in nearly half of the Buckeye State's counties. A recently released report by the non-partisan General Accountability Office warned of such problems with electronic voting machines. Prior to the 2005 election, electronic voting machines from Diebold and other Republican voting machine manufacturers were newly installed in 41 of Ohio's 88 counties. The Dayton Daily News reported that in Montgomery County, for example, "Some machines began registering votes for the wrong item when voters touched the screen correctly. Those machines had lost their calibration during shipping or installation and had to be recalibrated" . . . Election Day news coverage from the 41 counties that adopted Diebold touch-screen machines makes it clear that poll worker ignorance about how to use the high-tech equipment and machine glitches were widespread problems in 2005. Diebold technicians in many areas were key in producing the final vote results. Use of e-voting machines has resulted in two elections with improbable results in Ohio, with potentially catastrophic outcomes for American democracy - especially if they are ignored."  (11/29)

Robert C. Koehler: Poll Shock, Common Wonders, November 24, 2005

"One of the most wildly inaccurate pre-election polls in memory, which was off by over 40 points on some predictions, may prove to be deadly accurate as an indicator of the problems we face as a nation with our voting process — and democracy itself. But you won’t learn this by reading the Columbus Dispatch, the newspaper that conducted the poll just prior to Ohio’s Nov. 8 election. . . . Here’s the telling thing. The Dispatch, member in good standing of the mainstream media, has no interest in raising doubts about the integrity of the U.S. electoral system, and so hasn’t looked in that direction for an explanation of what voting-rights activist Bob Fitrakis called a polling error of “Landon beats FDR” proportions."  (11/29)

Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman: Supreme Court stabs another GOP knife into US democracy by upholding ex-felon vote ban, Columbus Free Press, November 16, 2005

"With nary a peep from the mainstream media, the US Supreme Court has stabbed yet another partisan knife into the American electoral system. This time the court has let stand Florida's infamous 137-year-old ban on voting rights for ex-felons. It was this same Jim Crow ban that the GOP used to disenfranchise thousands of Floridians in 2000, providing the margin by which George W. Bush took the presidency. The ruling continues to take the vote from millions of African-Americans and non-violent offenders----and, in practice, others who have broken no laws at all. It is highly likely to strengthen the lock of the Republican party and its future candidates on the US presidency. In Florida 2000, Republican Governor Jeb Bush used the ban as a pretext for disenfranchising tens of thousands of mostly black voters who committed no crime at all, but whose names allegedly resembled those who did."  (11/22)

Dan Eggen: Criticism of Voting Law Was Overruled: Justice Dept. Backed Georgia Measure Despite Fears of Discrimination,  Washington Post, November 17, 2005

"A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice, according to department documents. ... An Aug. 25 staff memo obtained by The Washington Post recommended blocking the program because Georgia failed to show that the measure would not dilute the votes of minority residents, as required under the Voting Rights Act. The memo, endorsed by four of the team's five members, also said the state had provided flawed and incomplete data. The team found significant evidence that the plan would be 'retrogressive,' meaning that it would reduce blacks' access to the polls."  (11/22)

Angry Girl: 20 Amazing Facts About Voting in the USA, Nightweed.com, current

Among the facts are: "80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S. . . . There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry. . . The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers. . . . The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." . . . Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines." Each of the facts is followed by several links to supporting sites.   (11/15)

Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman: Has American Democracy died an electronic death in Ohio 2005's referenda defeats?, Columbus Free Press, November 12, 2005

"While debate still rages over Ohio's stolen presidential election of 2004, the impossible outcomes of key 2005 referendum issues may have put an electronic nail through American democracy. Once again, the Buckeye state has hosted an astonishing display of electronic manipulation that calls into question the sanctity of America's right to vote, and to have those votes counted in this crucial swing state. The controversy has been vastly enhanced due to the simultaneous installation of new electronic voting machines in nearly half the state's 88 counties, machines the General Accounting Office has now confirmed could be easily hacked by a very small number of people. . . . The November 6 Dispatch poll showed Issue Two passing by a vote of 59% to 33%, with about 8% undecided, an even broader margin than that predicted for Issue One. But on November 8, the official vote count showed Issue Two going down to defeat by the astonishing margin of 63.5% against, with just 36.5% in favor. To say the outcome is a virtual statistical impossibility is to understate the case. For the official vote count to square with the pre-vote Dispatch poll, support for the Issue had to drop more than 22 points, with virtually all the undecideds apparently going into the "no" column. The numbers on Issue Three are even less likely. Issue Three involved campaign finance reform." (11/15)

Lynn Landes: Scrap the "Secret" Ballot and Return to Open Voting,  Online Journal, November 4, 2005

"Secret ballots are anonymous ballots. They can be easily replaced, altered or destroyed, particularly if voting machines are used. Even if voters 'verify' their ballots and even if audits are performed, widespread vote tampering can still occur with relative ease and little risk of discovery because there still remains no effective method to 'certify' the authenticity of ballots, no way to identify an individual ballot and link it to an individual voter. With few exceptions, election officials around the world are certifying election results based on anonymous and untraceable ballots. And contrary to a growing legion of election statisticians, exit polls are not an adequate check on election results. It's ridiculous when you think about it, using anonymous exit polls to verify anonymous ballot results.  The entire voting process should be 100 percent transparent. To that end, I am proposing a protocol for Open Voting with Total Transparency (OVTT)." See also Daily Kos: Sen. Obama: End Deceptive Voting Practices And Voter Intimidation , Angry Girl: 20 Amazing Facts About Voting in the USA, and Bob Fitrakis/Harvey Wasserman: What John Kerry Definitely Said about 2004's Stolen Election and Why It's Killing American Democracy.  (10/15)

GAO Report Finds Flaws in Electronic Voting,  truthout, October 21, 2005 

"Rep. Waxman led twelve members of Congress today in releasing a new GAO report that found security and reliability flaws in the electronic voting process. In a joint press release, Rep. Waxman said, 'The GAO report indicates that we need to get serious and act quickly to improve the security of electronic voting machines. The report makes clear that there is a lack of transparency and accountability in electronic voting systems - from the day that contracts are signed with manufacturers to the counting of electronic votes on Election Day. State and local officials are spending a great deal of money on machines without concrete proof that they are secure and reliable'. The GAO report found flaws in security, access, and hardware controls, as well as weak security management practices by voting machine vendors. The report identified multiple examples of actual operational failures in real elections and found that while national initiatives to improve the security and reliability of electronic voting systems are underway, 'it is unclear when these initiatives will be available to assist state and local election authorities'." (See also the voluminous research at TruthIsAll: The Numbers Don't Lie  Anne Broache: GAO: E-Voting Systems Not Secure ).  (10/26)

Anthony Wade: Invisible Ballots, Confirming Our Worst Fears About Democracy in Decline, opednews.com, October 8, 2005

"No matter how honest and forthright you or I may be, history has proven one inescapable truth about the human condition. Given motive and opportunity, many people will choose to take whatever short cut is available, to achieve their objectives. Translation, they will cheat. One of the hallmarks of our democracy has always been free and fair elections. That hallmark is in grave danger as we enter into a cyberspace method of voting. The documentary, “Invisible Ballots”, investigates this growing crisis. The history of these changes to our voting systems was birthed during the “pregnant chad” debacle following the 2000 presidential election. Images of people holding up punch cards to the light to interpret the intent of the voter frightened the electorate and the push toward computerized ballots was on. Invisible Ballots correctly points out however that Florida was an aberration, not a microcosm of our voting system. Nonetheless, soon an unholy alliance was born between voting machine companies and governmental officials, where ridiculously expensive voting machines were now being mandated in the country through the Help America Vote Act, which unfortunately does very little to actually protect America’s votes. Thus, in just five years, we have gone from being unable to divine our votes, to being unable to trust them." (10/11)

Debra LoGuercio: Sadly, Dieb-Throat Doesn't Disappoint,  Arizona Republic, October 10, 2005

"Forwarded to me was a 255-page PDF of a voting machine security analysis prepared by Compuware for the state of Ohio in January 2004. There's a thorough explanation of how the studies were conducted and a blow-by-blow analysis of Diebold security risks. The analysis reveals several ways to alter votes and, in particular, issues concern over the Compuware team's ability to guess the PIN numbers for Diebold's voting cards (with which you can change tallies) in less two minutes. Their summary: 'During the course of our study, Compuware has identified several significant security issues, which left unmitigated would provide an opportunity for an attacker to disrupt the election process or throw the election results into question.' Also forwarded to me was a RABA Technologies study conducted for the state of Maryland in 2003. Their analysis of the so-called 'Smart Cards' (which are used in the voting process) was even more disturbing: 'Initial guesses on the team's part provided instant access to the card's contents. Given access to the cards' contents, it became an easy matter to duplicate them, to change a voter card to a supervisor card (and vice versa) and to reinitialize a voter card so that it could be used to vote multiple times.' With a Diebold supervisor card, you see, you can change vote tallies."  (10/11)

Scoop: National Summit to Save Our Elections, Day 1, Scoop, October 3, 2005

Here is an invaluable summing-up of the national electoral-integrity summit, held in Portland, Or. " The National Summit to Save our Elections is the logical follow up in a process begun at the Nashville Conference on Election Reform in April of this year. Organized by activist Bernie Sanders, that meeting featured Rep. Cynthia McKinney, Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, among others. The emphasis was on blatant fraud discovered in the 2004 Presidential Election. Journalist Bob Koehler said, "I had a rebirth in outrage" as a result of attending that event. Largely a reaction to the irregularities in 2004 Presidential elections, the voting rights movement has matured significantly in the five months since Nashville. The current meeting agenda looks more like a professional or trade association meeting than a political function. The messages are offered with conviction and passion yet the approach seems to be addressing consistent themes based on extensive research. These themes appeared in every presentation on the first day of the conference. The conference is jointly sponsored by Alliance for Democracy, Portland; Democracy for Oregon; the First Unitarian Church, Portland; Campus Pacific Greens; and Democracy Matters."  (10/4)

Debra LoGuercio: Sadly, Dieb-Throat doesn't disappoint, Daily Republic, September 30, 2005

"I believe in the democratic process. I believe my vote counts. I believe your vote counts. We may not vote the same way, but the fact that we vote at all matters. It's the very foundation of everything our country stands for. If our votes are meaningless, democracy is meaningless. Our country is meaningless. All you folks out there flying Old Glory on your front porches and SUV antennae, guess what - if our votes don't mean anything, then that flag's nothing more than a piece of colored cloth. . . . 
Among the things forwarded to me was a 255-page PDF of a voting machine security analysis prepared by Compuware for the state of Ohio in January 2004. There's a thorough explanation of how the studies were conducted and a blow-by-blow analysis of Diebold security risks. The analysis reveals several ways to alter votes and, in particular, issues concern over the Compuware team's ability to guess the PIN numbers for Diebold's voting cards (with which you can change tallies) in less than two minutes. Their summary: "During the course of our study, Compuware has identified several significant security issues, which left unmitigated would provide an opportunity for an attacker to disrupt the election process or throw the election results into question." Also forwarded to me was a RABA Technologies study conducted for the state of Maryland in 2003. Their analysis of the so-called "Smart Cards" (which are used in the voting process) was even more disturbing: "Initial guesses on the team's part provided instant access to the card's contents. Given access to the cards' contents, it became an easy matter to duplicate them, to change a voter card to a supervisor card (and vice versa) and to reinitialize a voter card so that it could be used to vote multiple times." With a Diebold supervisor card, you see, you can change vote tallies. Can it be any worse? Oh yes, my friends, it can. If votes are changed electronically, it's completely undetectable. Can it get still worse? Infinitely. The federal government knew about this prior to the 2004 election. And did nothing." (10/4)

Rob Richie and Steven Hill: What Baker-Carter Got Right, TomPaine.com, September 27, 2005

"Last week’s release of the report of the election reform commission headed by Jimmy Carter and James Baker has drawn fierce fire from civil rights and electoral reform organizations for recommending that voters be required to present photo identification at the polls. Because the ID recommendations in isolation would shrink the electorate, many reformers have pronounced the Baker-Carter recommendations DOA. We believe it a mistake to condemn the entire report because of the understandable voter ID objections. Dominated by aging politicians of the creaky two-party duopoly, the Commission on Federal Election Reform certainly was less than bold in many important areas. But building on his vast experience observing elections around the world and experiencing elections in the South, Carter earned bipartisan support for several forward-looking recommendations." (10/4)

Andrew Gumbel: America's next election nightmare, The Huffington Post, September 28, 2005

"The new poster-child for how not to run elections is Cathy Cox, the Secretary of State of Georgia. Only she comes with an added twist. She won't merely be helping to run someone else's campaign in next year's mid-terms; she will be running for office herself. Cox, a Democrat, was the first Secretary of State to champion and purchase an all-electronic touch screen voting system for her state. She persuaded Georgia to spend an initial $54 million on a hitherto untried Diebold system in 2002, and has tried ever since to parlay the e-voting revolution she helped launch into a bid for the Georgia governorship in November 2006. "Advancing the e-government revolution," is the slogan on her website. . . . The documentary record shows that elections were run on software that was not only untested but also uncertified, that key components broke down during live elections, that county officials were left clueless on how to operate the new machines because of a breakdown in the training schedule, and that the cost of installing the electronic touch-screen system jumped dramatically beyond the advertised $54 million, without proper legislative oversight or approval. None of this has previously been made public." (10/4)

Bob Fitrakis/Harvey Wasserman: Carter/Baker Report Can't Face Stolen '04 Election, Scoop, September 20, 2005

"The just-issued report of a special commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and Bush family consigliere Jim Baker is of little real value. The report warns that public confidence in the electoral system is disappearing. But it fails to point out the most obvious cause: in both 2000 and 2004, the presidency was stolen, and the Republican party made a mockery of those who took the time and effort to vote. It did the same in Georgia in 2002, when it overrode the public will to install a Republican US Senator and Governor. The US Senate races that year in Minnesota and Colorado are also suspect, to say the least. ... Among the panel's 87 recommendations is also a warning that electronic voting machines must have verifiable paper trails. On paper this is important. But there are many ways to use electronic voting machines to steal elections, even with a paper trail, if the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are running the show."  ( See also Cynthia Tucker: Not American Enough )  (9/27).

Mykeru: [Poll Tax in Georgia],  Mykeru.com, September 17, 2005

"From an emergency plan that made it practically impossible for anyone without the means to get out of the city, to herding people and starving them in the SuperDome, to the Sheriff of Gretna firing shotguns over the heads of mostly black survivors to prevent them from entering that town, this is what happens when a nice, middle-class we're-not-racist-we-have-black-caddies sort of racism is allowed to thrive. And it's about to get worse. From the New York Times: 'In 1966, the Supreme Court held that the poll tax was unconstitutional. Nearly 40 years later, Georgia is still charging people to vote, this time with a new voter ID law that requires many people without driver's licenses - a group that is disproportionately poor, black and elderly - to pay $20 or more for a state ID card. Georgia went ahead with this even though there is not a single place in the entire city of Atlanta where the cards are sold. The law is a national disgrace.' ... Well, first, they've already gotten away with this sort of thing. The voter purges of the 2000 election was getting away with it. The manufactured difficulty for people in poorer, blacker and more democratic precincts to vote in Ohio during the 2004 election was getting away with it. The needless deaths in New Orleans is getting away with it. Racism is the big stinking turd in the American punch bowl and its not just that most are not just too polite to notice, but that some actually think it gives their Kool-Aid an interesting flavor." (9/20)

Brad Friedman: A Diebold Insider Speaks, bradblog, September 15, 2005

"In exclusive stunning admissions to The BRAD BLOG some 11 months after the 2004 Presidential Election, a "Diebold Insider" is now finally speaking out for the first time about the alarming security flaws within Diebold, Inc's electronic voting systems, software and machinery. The source is acknowledging that the company's "upper management" -- as well as "top government officials" -- were keenly aware of the "undocumented backdoor" in Diebold's main "GEM Central Tabulator" software well prior to the 2004 election. A branch of the Federal Government even posted a security warning on the Internet. Pointing to a little-noticed "Cyber Security Alert" issued by the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the source inside Diebold -- who "for the time being" is requesting anonymity due to a continuing sensitive relationship with the company -- is charging that Diebold's technicians, including at least one of its lead programmers, knew about the security flaw and that the company instructed them to keep quiet about it." (9/20)

Paul Krugman: What They Did Last Fall, New York Times, August 19, 2005

"In his recent book "Steal This Vote" - a very judicious work, despite its title - Andrew Gumbel, a U.S. correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, provides the best overview I've seen of the 2000 Florida vote. And he documents the simple truth: "Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election." Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore. This was true despite a host of efforts by state and local officials to suppress likely Gore votes, most notably Ms. Harris's "felon purge," which disenfranchised large numbers of valid voters.  But few Americans have heard these facts. Perhaps journalists have felt that it would be divisive to cast doubt on the Bush administration's legitimacy. If so, their tender concern for the nation's feelings has gone for naught: Cindy Sheehan's supporters are camped in Crawford, and America is more bitterly divided than ever. Meanwhile, the whitewash of what happened in Florida in 2000 showed that election-tampering carries no penalty, and political operatives have acted accordingly."   (8/23)

Jay Bookman: If Words, Deed Collide, Deeds Are Better Compass, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 14, 2005

"The Republican Party would never, ever try to win elections by keeping American citizens from entering the voting booth. It's hateful nonsense to even suggest such a thing. For example, the suggestion that Georgia Republicans might be trying to suppress Democratic turnout by requiring voters to have state-issued ID to vote is absurd. Party officials are just trying to prevent fraud, and who could argue with that? The fact that state GOP officials can't cite a single instance of people trying to vote by misrepresenting their identity ? that doesn't matter. As Donald Rumsfeld suggested in a different context, the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."  (See also Ian Hoffman: Diebold Hires Top Dem for PR Blitz and Associated Press: N.C. House Approves New Voting Machine Restrictions ).  (8/23)

Matthew Zimmerman: Debugging The E-vote, TomPaine.com, August 17, 2005

"Ask nearly any independent computer security expert familiar with today’s e-voting technology and you’ll likely be met with a familiar refrain: The current approach—closed technology with minimal oversight and insufficient audit capabilities—is a bad idea. Open government advocates aren’t terribly thrilled with the idea, either. Absent transparency, voter-verifiability and the ability to conduct legitimate recounts, such election systems will continue to raise doubts and foster suspicion, whatever the benefits. Eager to quickly undo the damage inflicted by the hanging chad, Congress could not have had this in mind. The solution might just emerge from New Jersey. Rush Holt, a Democratic representative from the state that just implemented its own voter-verified paper ballot requirement last month, has authored the most well-thought-out proposal to emerge on the subject and is currently making a strong push for support. . . . Co-sponsored by more than 140 (mostly Democratic) members of the House, Holt’s Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act would require that voting machines in federal elections produce paper records available for voters to inspect and confirm at the time the vote is cast. Critically, the act would (among other things) also require mandatory manual recounts, prohibit the use of wireless networking technologies, require a verified chain-of-custody record of machine software, demand more robust federal accreditation and provide much-needed funding."  (8/23)

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman: Did the GOP Steal Another Ohio Election?,  Free Press via Common Dreams, August 9, 2005

"The Republican Party has—barely— snatched another election in Ohio. And once again there are telltale symptoms of the kind of vote theft that put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000 and then kept him there in 2004. This time an outspoken Iraqi War vet named Paul Hackett led the charge for a Cincinnati-area Congressional seat, earning 48 percent of the vote. The spot was open because Bush appointed his pal Rep. Rob Portman to be a trade representative. . . . As of 1 am election night/morning (Aug. 2–3), Hackett was within 3,600 votes—-about four percent—-of [GOP candidate Jean] Schmidt. But election officials announced a mysterious "computer glitch" that delayed reports from Clermont County, which accounted for roughly a quarter of all the ballots cast in the district. When things finally settled out, Clermont gave Schmidt 58 percent, and a 5,000-vote margin and, thus, the election."   (8/16)

Anthony Wade: The gorilla in the room must be dealt with: Lack of election reform threatens to make all progress irrelevant, OpEdNews, August 7, 2005

"The unbridled arrogance of this cabal seems to know no end. When faced with the realities that the country was catching on that John Bolton may be involved with Treasongate, Bush appoints him to the UN, in defiance of Congress. In defiance of the American people. The judicial branch of government orders the release of the hidden Abu Ghraib photos, and Bush snubs his nose at them as if they have no right to check, or balance him. Nearly everyone agrees that torture is unacceptable, but Bush and Cheney make it known that any attempt to stem the tide of the United States from practicing torture will be vetoed. Halliburton has been caught over-billing the American people millions of dollars, has posted a 284% profit increase, and still they are awarded bonuses and incentives, as well as new monies, your money. This is all done with a nod and a wink, in clear view of the public because it is fairly apparent that Bush does not think he is accountable to the people, and has lost any pretense of working for us. How else can you explain his leaving for the longest Presidential vacation in decades, as our kids are dying? Why the certainty? Why the cockiness? Well, there is that gorilla.

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman: Did the GOP steal another Ohio Election?, The Free Press, August 5, 2005

"[A]long with Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, Paul Hackett has become another Democratic candidate whose campaign went suddenly and mysteriously down to defeat late in the evening of a close election. Amidst the obligatory computer glitches, the GOP candidate was declared the winner before the vote count could be investigated. Did Clermont County do for Schmidt in 2005 what it did for Bush in 2004? Did that "glitch" in the evening vote count give GOP dirty tricksters time to once again hack the machines they needed to win? Who in the Bush/Rove Justice Department or major media will even ask the question?"  (8/9)

Ian Hoffman: E-Voting Machines Rejected: State Says Diebold Failures...Translate to Problems at Polls, Inside Bay Area, July 29, 2005

"After possibly the most extensive testing ever on a voting system, California has rejected Diebold's flagship electronic voting machine because of printer jams and screen freezes, sending local elections officials scrambling for other means of voting. 'There was a failure rate of about 10 percent, and that's not good enough for the voters of California and not good enough for me,' Secretary of State Bruce McPherson said. ... 'We certainly can't take any kind of risk like that with this kind of device on California voters,' McPherson said. Rejection of the TSx by California, the nation's largest voting-system market, could influence local elections officials from Utah, Mississippi and Ohio, home of Diebold corporate headquarters, where dozens of counties are poised to purchase the latest Diebold touch screens.  State elections officials in Ohio say they still have confidence in the machines."  (8/3)

Black Box Voting: New Diebold Documents Have a "Stink" to Them, Scoop, July 22, 2005

"A huge cache of discarded Diebold documents were found in the trash, revealing all sorts of potential illegalities. "Folks, it is YOUR tax dollars that pays for these shenanigans. Diebold recently achieved statewide touch-screen sales for Mississippi, Utah and Ohio. We may not win this battle by being 'polite' and 'working within the system.' The system has been broken for some years now. ... It is the 'experts' who got us into this mess. It is the experts who certified Diebold and the other machines (follow this link for a devastating technical report showing just how flawed these systems are.) It is the 'experts' who gave us the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). With this kind of help, maybe we need to go back to basics."   (7/26)

Black Box Voting: Critical Security Issues in Diebold Optical Scan,  Scoop, July 6, 2005

"Incorporated into the foundation of the Diebold Precinct-Based Optical Scan 1.94w system is the mother of security holes, and no apparent cure will produce infertility, or system safety. ...The removable media (memory card), which should contain only the ballot box, the ballot design and the race definitions, also contains a living thing ? an executable program which acts on tthe vote data. Changing this executable program on the memory card can change the way the optical scan machine functions and the way the votes are reported. The system won't work without this program on the memory card. Whereas we would expect to see vote data in a sealed, passive environment, this system places votes into an open active environment. With this architecture, every time an election is conducted it is necessary to reinstall part of the functionality into the Optical Scan system via memory card, making it possible to introduce program functions (either authorized or unauthorized), either wholesale or in a targeted manner, with no way to verify that the certified or even standard functionality is maintained from one voting machine to the next. ... According to the Diebold optical scan user's manual, the programming of the memory card can also be done remotely by modem connection over a public telephone network."  (See also:   See also William Rivers Pitt: The Best of Us).  (7/12)

Matthew Cardinale: Rep. McKinney (D-GA) Discusses Hack as Diebold Flips Out, Buzz Flash, June 29, 2005

" 'Thebottom line is we can't trust the machines, and we can't trust the results being told to the American people,' U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) said in a phone interview for the progressive news community, adding "we are planning some as-yet-undefined events in [our] district" around the issue. The problem, the Congresswoman said, is that the machines "haven't been provided with appropriate software and safeguards. If they had the appropriate software and safeguards, then the machines wouldn't be a problem. So either [provide] that, or go back to paper ballots," she advised.  Rep. McKinney, along with Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL), had been on hand for a hack demonstration in the Leon County Elections Office, in Florida, in May 2005. The demo was one of three meetings that had been organized by Bev Harris and the team at Black Box Voting. Diebold has since issued a vitriolic letter to Mr. Ion Sancho, Leon County Elections Supervisor, for allowing Black Box Voting to conduct the hack demo on site." (7/12)

Matthew Cardinale: Rep. McKinney (D - GA.) Discusses Hack As Diebold Flips Out,  BuzzFlash, June 29, 2005

"The problem, the Congresswoman said, is that the machines 'haven't been provided with appropriate software and safeguards. If they had the appropriate software and safeguards, then the machines wouldn't be a problem. So either [provide] that, or go back to paper ballots,' she advised. ... 'Granted the same access as an employee of our office, it was possible to enter the computer, alter election results, and exit the system without leaving any physical record of this action,' said a formal statement posted by Mr. Ion Sancho on the Leon County Election's Office official website. 'It was also demonstrated that false information or instructions could be placed on a memory card (the device used to program the individual voting machines and record the voter's votes) and create false results or election reports,' the statement said." (7/5)

Steven Rosenfeld/Bob Fitrakis: The DNC 2004 Election Report: An indictment of Incompetence,  Free Press, June 25, 2005

"The Democratic National Committee's investigation into Ohio's 2004 presidential election irregularities is the perfect postscript to the party's 'election protection' efforts last fall: it is a shocking indictment of a party caught completely off-guard in its most heated presidential campaign in years, and a party still doesn't fully understand what happened and how to avoid a repeat in the future. ... Since county vote totals are tabulated on computers and sent directly to the Secretary of State's office - who has real-time access to those figures - you might expect the report to address the question of whether the 2004 vote count was susceptible to fraud. It doesn't. The DNC says it sought access to the computers used to record and tabulate Ohio votes, but those same county boards of election that didn't control the data - and the voting machine manufacturers who did - declined, citing 'security concerns' (p.187) and 'vendors pointed out their extreme discomfort with providing this sort of access to a partisan organization.' That might sound reasonable, if you don't recall - and the report does not recall - that the chief executive of the nation's largest electronic voting machine manufacturer, Diebold's Walden O'Dell, was not only a top-tier fundraiser for George W. Bush, but also promised in an infamous August 14, 2003 fundraising letter to Republicans that he is 'committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year. Also, both ES&S and Triad corporations, the latter which tabulated ballots in 41 of Ohio's 88 counties, have well-established Republican ties."  ( See also Overseas Vote Foundation: Global Post Election Survey Reveals 'Disenfranchised' Overseas Voters ).  (6/28)

Farhad Manjoo: Bungling the vote, Salon.com, June 23, 2005

"About 5 million Ohio citizens went to the polls on Election Day in 2004 and 28 percent of them -- more than a million voters, many of them African-Americans -- experienced some kind of difficulty casting a ballot. This statistic, perhaps not surprising to people who have been poring over irregularities in November's presidential vote, was highlighted in a comprehensive new report on Ohio's election, commissioned by the Democratic National Committee. The report, the product of a six-month investigation by a team of pollsters, political scientists, computer scientists and other elections experts, paints the most detailed picture so far of all that went wrong in the important swing state on Nov. 2, 2004. It's not a pretty picture. According to the study, half of the state's African-American voters reported some problems at the polls on Election Day."  (6/28) 

Sherrod Brown:  An Unbalanced Trade Policy [CAFTA], Washington Post, May 31, 2005

"Whenever a trade pact comes to Congress, its supporters warn the American people that if we don't pass the agreement our economy will be hurt and our trading partners will be devastated. An annual U.S. trade deficit that has gone from $38 billion to $617 billion in a dozen years makes those claims hard to believe. And since Congress passed President Bush's trade promotion authority three years ago, we have lost one-sixth of our manufacturing jobs.When the proponents of trade agreements have nothing left to sell, the name-calling and misrepresentations begin. Now that the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) has been sent to Congress, its supporters are calling its opponents isolationists, or protectionists, or even anti-democratic. They claim that those who oppose this trade agreement are simply special interests opposed to trade, that they don't care about the poor in the developing world, that they want to pull up the ladder and keep out foreigners. For a change, let's look at the facts."  (6/21)

Robert C. Koehler: Underlying hysteria sets stage for vote suppression, Common Wonders, June 10, 2005

"I have pledged to stay on this story about the rot at the core of our democratic underpinnings until I'm confident that the next election will be secure. I know I won't feel this way until the alleged irregularities -- the unconscionably long lines in Democratic precincts, the untold instances of vote flipping (press Kerry, Bush lights up), the undervotes, the bogus "code red" lockdown in Ohio's Warren County while the votes were counted in secret, the Ohio precinct where 638 ballots were cast but 4,258 votes were recorded for Bush (what investigative reporter Bob Fitrakis calls the miraculous "loaves and fishes" precinct), and so much more -- are thoroughly investigated, and accountability and paper trails (better yet, paper ballots) are guaranteed by law in 50 states. And this won't happen until the country's small-d democrats, who constitute, I am positive, a large if disorganized and overly trusting majority, demand it. Right now they're in a fog that's one part denial and 99 parts ignorance." (6/14)

Gore Vidal: Something Rotten in Ohio, Common Dreams, June 9, 2005

"Asked to predict who would win in '04, I said that, again, Bush would lose, but I was confident that in the four years between 2000 and 2004 creative propaganda and the fixing of election officials might very well be so perfected as to insure an official victory for Mr. Bush. As Representative Conyers's report, Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio, shows in great detail, the swing state of Ohio was carefully set up to deliver an apparent victory for Bush even though Kerry appears to have been the popular winner as well as the valedictorian-that-never-was of the Electoral College. I urge would-be reformers of our politics as well as of such anachronisms as the Electoral College to read  Conyers's valuable guide on how to steal an election once you have in place the supervisor of the state's electoral process." (6/14)

Tony Bridges: Machines are vulnerable to manipulation, Tallahassee Democrat, June 4, 2005

"All it takes is the right access. Get that, and an election worker could manipulate voting results in the computers that read paper ballots - without leaving any digital fingerprints. That was the verdict after Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho invited a team of researchers to look for holes in election software. The group wasn't able to crack the Diebold system from outside the office. But, at the computer itself, they changed vote tallies, completely unrecorded. Sancho said it illustrates the need for tight physical security, as well as a paper trail that can verify results, which the Legislature has rejected. Black Box Voting, the non-profit that ran the test and published a report on the Internet, pointed to the findings as proof of an elections system clearly vulnerable to corruption." (6/14)

Tony Bridges: Test Shows Voter Fraud Is Possible: Machines Are Vulnerable to Manipulation,  Tallahassee Democrat, June 4, 2005

"All it takes is the right access. Get that, and an election worker could manipulate voting results in the computers that read paper ballots - without leaving any digital fingerprints. That was the verdict after Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho invited a team of researchers to look for holes in election software. The group wasn't able to crack the Diebold system from outside the office. But, at the computer itself, they changed vote tallies, completely unrecorded. Sancho said it illustrates the need for tight physical security, as well as a paper trail that can verify results, which the Legislature has rejected."   (6/7)

Jeff Horwitz: My Right-Wing Degree,  Salon, May 24, 2005

"There is no better place to master the art of mock-election rigging -- and there is no better master than Morton Blackwell, who invented the trick in 1964 and has been teaching it ever since. Blackwell's half-century career in conservative grass-roots politics coincides neatly with the fortunes of the conservative movement: He was there when Goldwater lost, when Southern voters abandoned the Democratic Party in droves, and when the Moral Majority began its harvest of evangelical Christian voters. In the 1970s, Blackwell worked with conservative direct-mail king Richard Viguerie; in 1980, he led Reagan's youth campaign. Recently, he's been fighting to save Tom DeLay's job. Yet Blackwell's foundation, the Leadership Institute, is not a Republican organization. It's a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) charity, drawing the overwhelming majority of its $9.1 million annual budget from tax-deductible donations. Despite its legally required 'neutrality,' the institute is one of the best investments the conservative movement has ever made."   (5/31)

Yahoo News: Fla. County Urged to Ditch Vot