Restrictions set for voting machines

By: CHRIS BAGLEY - Staff Writer | Sunday, August 5, 2007 8:21 PM PDT ∞

SACRAMENTO ---- The state's chief elections official will sharply restrict electronic voting machines in the Feb. 5 elections, and a long list of new security requirements she issued late Friday night leaves questions for even the handful of voters who might need them.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen laid out new conditions for the touch-screen terminals and electronically scanned paper ballots that the vast majority of California's counties had planned to use in the February presidential primaries. Riverside, San Bernardino and a dozen other counties that use Sequoia Edge touch screens will have to limit their use to one per polling place. Similar restrictions will apply to several other counties, including San Diego, that use touch screens made by Diebold Election Systems.

Most voters who head to the polls appear likely to encounter paper ballots, to be counted either by machine or by hand.

Bowen's ruling left the door open for the 15 counties to use the Edge terminals for early voting, which Riverside County has recently offered in Temecula, Wildomar and a half-dozen other locations. But a list of stringent new security measures could make that prohibitively complicated. One requires elections staff to conduct a 100 percent manual recount, a process that typically takes three to five minutes for each ballot cast.

More than 20,000 citizens have voted early in several recent elections, according to Registrar of Voters Barbara Dunmore.

"It would be extremely labor-intensive," Dunmore said Saturday. "That basically eliminates our early voting program."

Bowen campaigned for office last fall on calls to strengthen oversight of the state's voting systems. She drew much of her support from e-voting critics who compared touch screens, particularly, to "black boxes" whose inner workings couldn't be verified or trusted by voters.

Soon after taking office in January, Bowen pledged a thorough security review. That process began in late March and gained steam in April, when she commissioned experts to examine all electronic voting systems used in the state.

University of California computer scientists reported back July 27 that they had found potentially serious vulnerabilities in the security of systems made by three of the four major suppliers: Diebold, Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart-Intercivic. ES&S, whose equipment is used in Los Angeles and several small counties, submitted its software and equipment several weeks past a deadline, and faces outright decertification as a result.

In a separate report released last week, UC computer scientists said they found potential flaws in Sequoia's source code, the underlying computer language on which its software and operating system are built. Such code is kept under tight seal by manufacturers and the secretary of state's office, but some critics have argued that insiders might still have access to it.

Tom Courbat, a leader of a group of Southwest County activists who had urged county leaders to dump the touch-screen voting system, praised Bowen's decision.

"What the secretary has decided is a very, very important series of first steps in restoring voters' confidence," Courbat said Saturday. "Her pronouncements will have national ramifications."

Bowen's orders Friday allow one touch screen in each precinct to accommodate voters who are illiterate, blind or otherwise disabled, in keeping with the 2002 Help America Vote Act. Most California counties meet the law's requirements with touch-screen terminals that have audio capabilities and special joysticks.

The orders didn't explicitly restrict those terminals to disabled voters and it wasn't immediately clear whether Dunmore and her counterparts could or would try to do that to limit the scope of the newly required recounts; those terminals face the same new conditions that apply to any terminals used in early voting. Bowen is also requiring counties' poll workers to take additional precautions in handling the cartridges that record votes.

Elsewhere, the orders require Sequoia and other vendors to beef up several areas of security on any machines that remain. Registrars will then have to reinstall the machines' operating systems and software.

Asked what would happen if the companies don't meet the new security requirements, Bowen responded, "I think they will." Bowen's announcement came in the final minutes of the day that Bowen had identified as a deadline that would give registrars six months before the Feb. 5 polling.

That late hour concerned local elections officials.

Steve Weir, president of the state association of registrars, had said the deadline to notify counties is actually today.

"This thing has been rushed at every stage, and the amount of time the public has had to review and comment is unconscionable," Weir said Friday. "This is way too important to be doing that." Bowen suggested that counties could replace the Diebold and Sequoia equipment with scanners that use paper ballots ---- the kind used to read absentee ballots. But some of the new conditions for touch-screens also apply to scanner-based systems. And some of the security gaps that computer scientists identified last month have to do with election-management software used to handle both touch-screens and scanners.

Weir said he was concerned that there may be too few vendors to produce the scanning machines or paper ballots needed to fill the gaps left by Bowen's order.

"We're talking about tens of millions of additional ballots for three elections next year. You do not just go to Kinkos," he said.

Bowen was undeterred by the challenges or the criticism she has faced from local election officials.

She compared her mission to ensure the integrity of voting machines to the federal government issuing a recall when it determines a consumer product is unsafe.

The same standards should be applied to voting systems, she said, to "make sure they are secure, accurate and reliable." A statement from Sequoia described company officials as "disappointed."

"Today's voting systems used in California and throughout the United States are the most tested, secure, accurate, auditable and accessible voting systems in our nation's history," the statement read.

A Sequoia spokeswoman declined to comment further, saying managers and technical staff will need several days to assess Bowen's decision.

Dunmore said she expects to meet with Sequoia representatives in the next two weeks and then meet with members of the county's governing board to formulate specific plans for the February election.

Bowen's orders do not apply to Nov. 6 elections, when voters will choose governing board members in several local community college, water and school districts.

Dunmore and Supervisors John Tavaglione and Marion Ashley had expected to meet later this week to discuss a response to a local advisory panel's recent recommendation that Riverside County replace its voting machines.

That panel urged the county last month to replace most of the Sequoia Edge II voting terminals, saying they never fully won the trust of enough voters.

The panel's report last month noted that the $30 million the county has spent on the terminals since 2000 far exceeded what election officials had expected. Like supervisors and former registrar Mischelle Townsend before her, Dunmore has touted the costs that touch-screen systems would cut by taking countless reams of paper out of the elections budget.

But those savings quickly disappeared as new state regulations required that each terminal produced include a $1,000 printer. Known in elections lingo as "voter-verified paper audit trails," the spooled receipts are intended as a double-check that each machine is recording votes accurately.

The local panel also noted that California voters have also voted absentee in growing numbers ---- nearly 50 percent of the turnout in several recent elections ---- thanks partly to unrelated changes in state elections law. Critics of electronic voting have argued that widespread distrust of e-voting has accelerated the trend, though a national Gallup poll last year showed the machines faring slightly better than paper on the trust scale.

Many e-voting critics have argued that paper ballots have become much more reliable since 2000, when the infamous "hanging chads" wreaked confusion on several Florida counties. Some in the movement have argued for paper ballots that are marked with ink and then optically scanned, as in Orange County, or used to create a digital image, as some computer scientists have urged.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. Contact staff writer Chris Bagley at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2615, or cbagley@californian.com.

A timeline of touch-screen voting in Riverside County

Aug. 24, 1999: Voters in five San Jacinto precincts use touch-screen voting terminals to vote on the recall of City Council members. Election officials had borrowed the terminals on a trial basis from the manufacturer, Sequoia Pacific Voting Equipment Inc.

Oct. 26-30, 1999: Special voting stations at six locations, including one in Murrieta, allow Riverside County voters to cast early ballots on Sequoia touch-screens. A total of 616 voters make Riverside the first county in California to use e-voting on a large scale.

Nov. 2, 1999: Poll voters in Riverside and other counties continue to use punch-card ballots in local elections. On the same day, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors votes to set aside $15 million to buy 4,250 Sequoia touch-screen machines for the following year's elections.

February-March, 2000: Early voters in Riverside County continue to use touch-screens while poll voters in the county use punch-card ballots for the last time in primary elections.

Nov. 7, 2000: Voters use Sequoia touch-screen machines at every polling place in Riverside County. Voting and counting proceed with no major glitches; meanwhile, various paper ballots help cause chaos in several Florida counties.

Feb. 7, 2006: Riverside County Board of Supervisors approve the $13 million purchase of 3,700 new touch-screen voting terminals with attached printers. Sequoia Voting Systems' Edge II terminals are similar to the Edge I model by Sequoia's predecessor company but print paper receipts that voters and auditors can use to verify that the system is recording votes accurately, as required by a new state law.

Nov. 7, 2006: State Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, is elected secretary of state over incumbent Republican Bruce McPherson. The campaign focused largely on Bowen's calls for closer scrutiny of counties' voting systems and McPherson's warnings that Bowen would wreak havoc on registrars who had only recently begun to settle into new combinations of equipment mandated by various court rulings and state laws.

March 22, 2007: Bowen gives tentative details of a "top-to-bottom review" of voting systems, including her intention to have computer experts examine computer-based systems and attempt to hack into them. The review is scheduled to conclude by Aug. 3. The timetable was designed to allow local election officials exactly six months to overhaul or replace systems that Bowen deems deficient. The California Association of Clerks and Election Officials responds that the six-month window, while technically legal, could cause chaos for registrars and voters in counties that have to make changes by the Feb. 5 presidential primary.

July 28, 2007: Computer scientists at UC Santa Barbara, who examined voting equipment and software by Sequoia, say they identified and tested seven ways to hack into the systems. Computer experts who tested other systems at Bowen's behest issue similar reports. Sequoia and other companies respond that the tests prove nothing because they weren't conducted under real-world conditions.

Aug. 3, 2007: Just before midnight, Bowen issues directives that sharply restricts the use of electronic voting machines for the February election. In addition, counties will have to meet new security requirements. For example, only one voting machine will be allowed at each polling location, and each ballot cast will have to be manually recounted by elections staff after the election.

Next

More Stories

Tags:

Bookmark and Share

Ads by Yahoo!

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

Awesome wrote on Aug 5, 2007 1:52 AM:This article is excellent. I am heavily involved in this issue and can say no more than to offer kudos on some excellent reporting.

concerned wrote on Aug 5, 2007 2:07 AM:So Sequoia and other companies responded that the "tests prove nothing because they weren't conducted under real-world conditions." The real-world conditions here in San Diego County would mean elections supervised by Deborah Seiler, who as Diebolds top salesperson, sold ten thousand two hundred of the machines to the county before being hired as the Registrar of Voters. Time to change the real-world conditions AND the Registrar of Voters. Give our democracy back!

Charlie wrote on Aug 5, 2007 9:11 AM:Hooray - Secretary of State Debra Bowen's decision eliminating electronic voting machines in Riverside County is the right one. Opinion is HACKERS had a field day in the last election. Here in Lake Elsinore the last election was one of the most corrupt elections that I have ever seen in my 31 years living here. Yes, opinion is by many voters there was HACKING in the EVMWD Division 3 election. Thousands were spent putting out dirty nasty lying flyers and billboards on getting rid of the Division 3 incumbent Chris Hyland all because of her being against the LEAPS project. It is the opinion of many the HACKERS found a person who could be bought to vote YES on LEAPS. Yes - opinion by many is Division 3 was HACKED INTO and we have our suspicions as to who had their hands on the computer. Let's hope they are caught. Think about this - 12 precints in Division 3 were NOT counted. However the Registrar of Voters stated they were combined. Well according to the California Code 12241 no consolidation can be done in a General Election. This was a General Election and the bottom line is they violated the Code. I quote from that code "Not more than six existing precincts may be consolidated into one election precinct". However,the 12 Precints were left off the "Riverside County Statement of Vote 2006 General" so what shredder did the HACKERS or Registrar of Voters put those votes in???? Some areas that were not counted could only vote by paper ballot and according to the report they were not counted. Documents were submitted to the Voters Fraud concerning this issue; we do not feel proper investigation was done based on todays decision by the Secretary of State. In view of the Secretary States conclusion this should definitely be investigated. In the past 15 plus years there has been a constant change in the Registrar of Voters office based on questionable handling of elections which more or less forced them to leave the office. Now - opinion is Barbara Dunmore should be HACKED OUT and placed on that list.

Relieved wrote on Aug 5, 2007 9:29 AM:Let's see, so this may mean Joe Pollworker, average age about 72, will be hand counting my vote. That's a comforting thought. I tell you what, put me in a room for about 3 weeks with them and I'll use the same "UC Crack Team" methods (screwdrivers, inserting viruses internally, etc.) to prove how you can influence the outcome of a paper ballot election.

Local precincts questioned wrote on Aug 5, 2007 9:38 AM:What happened to San Diego County ? Are they involved in this mess. I think those machines were used in my voting place. It was kind of funny because they did not want to hand out paper ballots. Some of the results of some of our local elections just did not make sense at all. There is more than a slight possibility that the machines (since they are computerized) had been tampered with. At least the results we had in our local city race did not figure in correctly from many of the polling places that had particular track records for their voters past election habits. Were the decisions challenged ?

Doubtful of last elections results wrote on Aug 5, 2007 9:43 AM:Our last local election's outcome did not make sense at all. We were not able to vote with paper ballots easily since our polling place did not have them readily available. As far as the decisions which were supposedly the outcome of those machines, I am quite doubtful of the accuracy of our last local election, which was decided with the use of those machines. Everyone needs to insist on the old way of voting. It may take a little longer for the results, but at least it is accurate.

Relieved wrote on Aug 5, 2007 10:44 AM:Outstanding report NCT! I'm sure our Board of Supervisors will be kicking and screaming in a tantrum rage! My applause to Ms. Susan Marie Weber, Ms. Linda Soubirous and Save-R-Vote. Tom and the 'crew" saved our democracy here in Riverside County and this will surely spill out to the rest of the nation. Wow what a victory!

Question? wrote on Aug 5, 2007 10:45 AM:Bob, does this mean Linda was right? Did you toggle? You little stinker.

Joe Poll Worker wrote on Aug 5, 2007 12:13 PM:I may be a geezer, but I know how to count without using computers. I was going to quit volunteering at the polls because those voting machines, printers and other equipment are too heavy. I'm old and wise enough to know better than to trust an X-box to run an election.

Same Old Story wrote on Aug 5, 2007 12:31 PM:Once again, the will of the majority, who approved Prop 41 in 2002, has been undermined by an obnoxious vocal minority faction fortunate enough to have a liberal lackey in the right place at the right time to take this unilateral action. Bowen is a lawyer, and like most lawyers has mastered the art of creating unrealistic, far-fetched scenarios hoping there is enough "reasonable doubt" (gullibility) to win the case. The Majority, who possess common sense and sound logic, won't buy it and will prevail over the fear-mongers as usual.

Diogenes wrote on Aug 5, 2007 1:01 PM:"Same Old Story," Any person who has to use "liberal lackey" as the core of his/her argument, obviously has no real argument to present.

I am Arthur, King of the Britons... wrote on Aug 5, 2007 1:34 PM:It's back to hanging chads!!!! Yippeee!!!! But seriously, paper ballots ain't foolproof either. Voters can screw them up six ways from Sunday. The principal benefits of DRE voting are (1) that it is more objective, and therefore, fairer, and (2) it is easier to count votes. Now, as we return to paper ballots, we're going to see more subjectivity in the counting and interpretation of ballots. To give just one example, what happens if one box has an "X" and one box has a check mark? You'd be amazed how often stuff like that happens.

Won't use them anyway wrote on Aug 5, 2007 2:33 PM:I never used these machines and I am not going to. Paper ballots and absentee ballots are perfect for anyone who demands that their vote be counted. Ask the registrar to bring hundreds of thousands of them to all the polling places. And if you vote absentee, you can either mail them or drop them off at your polling place on voting day! But please, exercise your right to vote! Use paper and it will be counted and have a record!

Ahh Diogenes! wrote on Aug 5, 2007 2:56 PM:Since the times of your rabble-rousing with the ancient Greeks, wackos like you have been left in the shadows of the true great thinkers. This "Any person who has to use (insert word here) as the core of his/her argument, obviously has no real argument to present" blog is overused, unoriginal, and meaningless jibberish utilized by those who are incapable of formulating a real counterpoint. Try again.

So Darned Glad wrote on Aug 5, 2007 4:38 PM:At last a politician who kept her campaign promise! I experienced one of the wacko San Diego County machines change my votes before my very eyes in the last election. Bringing this to the attention of the poll workers and the Registrar of Voters brought absolute silence and no action of any kind. These machines should never have been allowed in the first place. The only thing these machines have proved is that the campaign contributions to the Republicans paid off for the companies. Glad to see that the contract with San Diego County requires Diebold to pay for the cost of the paper balloting. All vote counting has a chance for error, but I'd much rather take my chances with paper ballots that can be checked later if required. The next thing we need to do is get "Diebold Deborah" Seiler out of the Registrar of Voters office as fast as possible.

Shaky Jake wrote on Aug 5, 2007 5:10 PM:Thank you Ms. Bowen. You just saved one voter the trouble of re registering as an independent. I guess my phone call was worth it after all. And right after we fire Deborah Seiler, we can also fire assistant registrar Michael Vu, who oversaw the worst election fraud of the 2004 election in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Dear same old story & I am Arthur wrote on Aug 5, 2007 5:17 PM:Actually there are just FIVE ways to rig a paper ballot election (not six ways from Sunday) and 120 ways to rig an electronic election, per study conducted by NYU Brennan Center, who spent over a year studying the facts. Have either of you actually studied the facts, or are you just reacting and calling names because the "fun and easy" (and easily corruptible) E-voting machine toys you love so much have been declared too risky for democracy? Paper ballot box stuffing (or tossing ballots away, etc.) is "retail" fraud, but changing 10,000 votes in the blink of an eye electronically is "wholesale" fraud. Get a grip, we cannot trust that which we cannot see - we can see paper ballots, we can't see electrons. Or do you have x-ray vision? Elections and electrons don't mix. It is not about Republican or Democrat, or right or left, it is about right or wrong!

I know! wrote on Aug 5, 2007 5:38 PM:Purple fingers and Magic Markers! Lets go! The most powerful country on the planet and we can't even agree on an election. Follow Canada's example.

Coincidence? wrote on Aug 5, 2007 5:55 PM:Bowen was able to win the office of Secretary of State primarily from an overwhelming margin of victory in her home district of Los Angeles County, home to California's largest illegal alien population. Those guys aren't so savvy with the high-tech stuff like DRE's, but they're great at forging paper documents, which will make stuffing paper ballot boxes childsplay.

Same Old Story wrote on Aug 5, 2007 7:26 PM:Yep, been there, done that. NYU Brennan Center, champion of the rights of illegal immigrants everywhere! REAL objective group. Let's make a deal - I'll concede their 5-to-120 rigging ratio if you agree that there are 14 times more people who are capable of pulling off a paper heist than hacking software. That makes us square. Regarding your last statement, truth is always somewhere in the middle - I'll meet you there. And I can guarantee that if I'm on the opposite side of the "Majority Decision" (hint, hint, o silent Diogenes), you won't see me crying about rigged votes. I'll let King Arthur provide his own response, but I'll venture to say it might have something to do with documented voting problems versus make-believe ones.

Merlyn wrote on Aug 6, 2007 1:00 AM:To Arthur, king of the britons People who mark their ballot papers twice - with an "X" and a check mark - deserve to have their votes disqualified. It's that simple.

Ben wrote on Aug 6, 2007 6:00 AM:There's no reason whatsoever for voters to have any confidence at all elections conducted with DREs. To be worthy of public trust, each and every step in the vote counting process has to be transparent. DREs conceal this process from the voter by their very nature. That makes election fraud a very real possibility at a time when bad actors with powerful motivation and means to accomplish it are rampant. As for "stuffing ballot boxes" with paper ballots, statistically, this essentially *never happens*, and the posters whose political hopes depend entirely on DRE-enabled election fraud *know* it.

SOS wrote on Aug 6, 2007 6:53 AM:You should have jumped at the deal at 14 times - too late. Make it 24 times. If any of you could count, it would have been caught. I hope you're better at math with paper ballots.

Electronic voting = easy route to power wrote on Aug 6, 2007 7:49 AM:What about elections in cities that were financed by labor unions funds. Big flashy signs to oust entire portions of city councils, with extremely surprising results. With all the money available to those wanting power, for powers sake, is it not possible that someone got to the electronic machines and "cooked" the results. Look at the City of San Marcos, with the mayor having given 30 years of service to the community, having lost to a newcomer - promoted with all of the union money and flashy signs. The results of the election were shocking to everyone - and the electronic voting machines were utilized. Too bad that the results of our ellections can be "fixed" - and also too bad when you actually feel the results.

ZAP and the pranks change history wrote on Aug 6, 2007 7:55 AM:As we all have seen in our society of late, young people are very clever at getting past the security measures on computers. Just look at the teen-ager who hacked into the Department of Defense computers for fun. And it is nothing short of fun to them. We can see small children able to program VCR's and all electronics with lightning speed. Just how hard would it be for a group of teens, as a test of their ability, to have each of them go into their local polling palce and ZAP, the computers are rigged. It probablly was nothing more than pranks, but the results are frightening. Power thrust into the hands of people who have real motives for being in power, and those motives DO NOT include the health and safety of the citizens.

Susan wrote on Aug 6, 2007 9:23 AM:Contrary to what some have posted, those of us against DREs are not tinfoil hat wearing nut cases but ordinary citizens who are concerned with the integrity of the voting system. There are just too many personally observed and documented incidences of breaches of the security chain for those machines and cartridges to give one confidence in the voting results.

1 Machine per polling place ? wrote on Aug 6, 2007 3:10 PM:Does the directive apply to every polling place in California, with only one of the electronic machines being allowed, or are there specifics ?

Don't do it wrote on Aug 6, 2007 4:15 PM:Just don't vote electronically- use paper or use permanent absentee. You can still drop your ballot off on voting day.

Paranoia Wins The Day wrote on Aug 6, 2007 6:51 PM:I personally vote abenstee, but only for the convenience. It's certainly not because I have any faith whatsoever in the US Postal Services ability to ensure my ballot gets where it should be when it should be. I'm simply a self-employed parent who has little to no time to stand in line at polling places. If I had my choice, I would vote online. The technology is there to make it secure and to ensure that only citizens vote and that every citizen votes only once. This will never come into fruition though because it would actually increase voter turn out and really throw a wrench in the partisan politic system. Sad but true.

To the comments (many) above wrote on Aug 7, 2007 6:30 PM:No doubt YOU work for the county or are a poll worker drunk on Ms. Dunmore's proclamation that all is well in the DRE world. The rest of the word knows these things were doomed from the start. Ask Ms. Weber. When you were standing in line "blindly" voting on a DRE, she was suing to save your butt and your democracy kept by the people, not the people in power. Duh!!!! I thank God there are people out there with the guts to take action when it is needed.

Paper is Cheaper! wrote on Aug 7, 2007 10:57 PM:Barbie D says that paper ballot counters will cost 6 mil? Dang, that sure is a heck of a lot cheaper than a truckload of DRE's. They cost 12-15 mil for the last batch our five big boys bought! And ya even get to keep the paper!

Y - Not? wrote on Aug 7, 2007 11:00 PM:Why can't we get our money back for these machines? They didn't measure up to what the manufacturer claimed. Do they come with a warranty?

RoV Election wrote on Aug 7, 2007 11:09 PM:Did you know that our Registrar of Voters, Barbara Dunmore, is appointed by our five Board of Supervisors? The RoV in Riverside County was an elected position years ago. Some years back, our Board of Supervisors decided for us that it would be "better" if our RoV was appointed by them. Funny, right after that our APPOINTED RoV opted to purchase electronic voting machines. It's amazing how we lose control of our government step by step. We lost a vote (RoV) then we lost our voice (DRE's). Time we start a revolution in Riverside County and clear the slate in the Board of Supervisors office. Cut off the head and you kill the beast!

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos