Military bases to help troops register and vote, thanks to Sen Coryn & Schumer, DEMOS, OVF and NC State Board of Elections

Finally, the Dept of Defense will act as a Voter Registration Agency. Thanks go to US Senators Schumer and Coryn . Thanks also to Gary Bartlett and the North Carolina State Board of Elections for writing a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. 3 other states also sent similar letters to the DOD: Ohio, Kansas, and Missouri.

Schumer, Cornyn secure voter registration at military bases
Dec 18, 2009. The designation means that military bases will offer the same kind of voter registration services provided at motor vehicle departments and state agencies all around the country under the so-called “motor voter” law of 1993.

On Oct 8, 2009 the NC State Board of Elections sent a letter to Robert Gates, Secretary of DOD enlisting their cooperation. See Letter to DOD, help us help troops vote says North Carolina State Board of Elections Gary Bartlett also explained that costs would be minimal and the NCSBE would assist in training and materials.

An excerpt of the letter sent by Gary Bartlett, Director of the NC State Board of Elections:

"I request that the Department of Defense, in its operation of military pay/personnel offices in North Carolina, agree to be designated as a voter registration agency. This designation would allow military citizens helped by your agency to be offered the same voter registration services given by state and county public services agencies to the persons they serve. "

Designating the Department of Defense as a Voter Registration Agency will alleviate many of the problems military voters have in voting. Troops have to be registered to vote before they can vote. Problems of troops not getting the right ballot or the ballot being sent to the wrong place will be reduced as personnel will have help keeping their voter registration updated and get help in obtaining a ballot and getting that ballot returned. Thanks to the MOVE act, troops will be able to download blank ballots and then return the ballots via free expedited mail service.


Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

Buncombe County choice of voting machines in 2006 saved votes in 2008

Letter to Buncombe County Commissioners, Asheville City Council members, and the Buncombe County Board of Elections: Buncombe County's voting machine decision in 2006 has paid off. Buncombe County purchased new optical scan voting machines in 2006 in order to comply with state and federal laws. The county chose not to purchase the more expensive, less reliable touchscreens with a less than reliable "paper trail".

Buncombe chose well. A professor's study of North Carolina's 2008 Presidential election shows that optically scanned paper ballots were better at registering the intent of the voters than touch screen voting machines. Buncombe County's residual rate for President in 2008 was a low .8 %.

Touch Screens Show High Rate of Unrecorded Votes for President in 2008
Paper Ballots Found More Efficient at Recording Voters' Choices
June 26, 2009 - A professor's study of North Carolina's 2008 Presidential election shows that optically scanned paper ballots were better at registering the intent of the voters than touch screen voting machines.

Mark Lindeman, an assistant professor of political science at Bard College in New York, found that in the 67 North Carolina counties where the voting method is optically scanned paper ballots, 0.78% of ballots failed to register a vote for President last November. The 24 counties where touch screens were the principal method of voting saw 1.36% of ballots fail to register a vote for President, a difference of over 7000 votes in the 2008 election.

"The evidence available to me indicates that in fact, optically scanned paper ballots fared better than DREs [touch screens] in recording and tabulating voter intent," Prof. Lindeman wrote.1

Lindeman also analyzed demographic differences among the counties that might explain the higher number of unrecorded votes in the counties that used touch screens. He found, in fact, that paper ballot counties measured higher in factors such as less education and poverty that would be expected lead to a high rate of unrecorded votes, meaning that the "effect " of touch screens on the unrecorded vote rate was even greater than the raw numbers suggest.

Voting experts believe that a small number of voters, usually less than 1%, decide deliberately not to cast a vote for President, but that if the number of ballots that show no vote for President is higher with a given voting technology, it is a sign that the technology was less easy for voters to use, or may not have functioned properly. The percentage of ballots that fail to register a vote for a given office is called the "residual vote rate."

"DRE boosters say the residual vote rate should be lower on touch screens than on scanned paper ballots, but the performance doesn't match the promises" said Lindeman.

Prof. Lindeman's findings are consistent with previous studies showing that precinct-based paper ballot scanners have a lower residual vote than touch screen machines. A study of the Brennan Center for Justice showed that precinct-based optical scanners had the lowest residual vote rate of any type of technology in the 2004 Presidential election.2 In 2006, Iowa's election results for all contested statewide races showed a consistently higher residual vote rate for touch screens than for optically scanned paper ballots.3

"Optical scan has a strong track record, and these findings just make it stronger," said Pamela Smith of the Verified Voting Foundation. "This is why we fought so hard for optical scan back in 2005 and 2006," said Joyce McCloy, director of the North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting. "It turns out that the lower-tech way best serves the voters," McCloy added.

-30-

1Professor Lindeman's study is available at:
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Lindeman_Analysis_NC08_Tech_Effect_on_Undervotes.pdf
2 The Machinery of Democracy: Voting System Usability,” p. 5.
http://brennan.3cdn.net/bb59042f6839b7fee2_njm6bcl84.pdf

3“Residual Votes in Iowa November 2006,”
http://www.iowansforvotingintegrity.org/Residual Votes in Iowa November 2006.ppt

The Asheville Citizen Times ran an op/ed about the need to reform our election system to better enfranchise the voters, and technology was mentioned:

Reform would strengthen rights of voters
Robin Cape • November 29, 2009 Since N.C. rules state that a vote will be counted IF the intent of the voter can be determined, what happens if the person writes in or circles a name and does not fill in the bubble? Should determining the intent of the voter be solely dependent upon the machine's recognition of the vote?

How do we further increase the number of write in ballots counted? Practical and inexpensive measures include better ballot design, clearer ballot language, and additionally, through voter education:

Better Ballots
By Lawrence Norden, David Kimball, Whitney Quesenbery, and Margaret Chen – 07/20/08 ...when it comes to ensuring that votes are accurately recorded and tallied, there is a respectable argument that poor ballot design and confusing instructions have resulted in far more lost votes than software glitches, programming errors, or machine breakdowns. As this report demonstrates, poor ballot design and instructions have caused the loss of tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of votes in nearly every election year.

We know that good voter education works - we saw the results of voter education aimed at helping voters deal with North Carolina's odd straight ticket voting law. Thanks to voter education ordered by the NC State Board of Elections, media attention leveraged by advocacy groups (including the NY Times), and the political campaigns (even YouTube videos) - our state cut the undervote rate for President in half of what it has been for the 2004 and the 2000 Presidential elections. [Straight ticket does not count for President http://www.ncvoter.net/straightticket.html ]

In 2005, North Carolina passed a law banning paperless voting machines following the November 2004 election debacle. The AP described the 2004 election as "A Florida-style nightmare has unfolded in North Carolina in the days since Election Day, with thousands of votes missing and the outcome of two statewide races still up in the air." AP Newswire, Nov 13.

Paperless voting machines like those in Buncombe County had to decommissioned. Not long after North Carolina implemented our new machines, other states like Florida banned them.

States rush to dump touch-screen voting systems
States are increasingly abandoning touchscreen voting, scrapping multimillion-dollar systems purchased since 2000.
Arstechnica. August 20, 2008 It's a good time to pick up an electronic voting machine on the cheap—provided you're not a stickler for things like "accuracy" or "security." States are scrapping tens of thousands of pricey touchscreen systems in response to mounting concerns about the machines' reliability...

Touchscreen machines are becoming obsolete - voting vendors are no longer developing new systems since states around the country are banning touchscreens and scrapping the ones they have.

What happened to Buncombe's decommissioned touchscreen machines? Buncombe's former machines were purchased by computer scientists at Princeton U, were hacked and also reverse engineered.

Here are some reports on the first hack of Buncombe's old machines:

For more on the "hack" of Buncombe CO's former machines see
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/avc/
For more on the reverse engineering of Buncombe's former machines see
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/sequoia_evoting_machine_felled/

To learn about the reverse engineering of Buncombe's old Sequoia touchscreens, done for around $100,000:

Insecurities and Inaccuracies of the Sequoia AVC Advantage 9.00H DRE Voting Machine
Studies five machines bought from Buncombe County (North Carolina) Reverse engineering allows construction of fraudulent firmware even without access to trade-secret source code
http://citp.princeton.edu/voting/advantage/advantage-insecurities-redacted.pdf

Buncombe County voters can be proud of the voting system they have, of their County Commissioners who fought for that system, and of the County Board of Elections for implementing that system.

Best regards;

Joyce McCloy, Director
North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone 336-794-1240 and email joyce (at) ncvoter.net website www.ncvoter.net

Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

Internet Voting Trojan Horse in Law in MOVE Act, 3 states take the bait

There's an Internet Voting Trojan Horse in a law intended to help Military Voters.
Three states have already taken the bait: Alabama, Colorado, and Massachusetts. Additionally Franklin County, Washington officials wish to have full blown internet voting IF the state will lift the requirement for paper ballots. Experts say that internet voting is not safe and also would put our military vote at risk.

If internet voting takes root and spreads, the consequences are far worse than paperless electronic voting. Internet voting is about to get its nose in the tent. If that happens, it likely will be thanks to the Move Act, a law intended to help military voters.

The Move Act, or Military and Overseas Voters Empowerment Act (S. 1415) was added to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390) the Federal MOVE Act has sent a message - internet voting is ok, lets start by experimenting with the military vote.The Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) will oversee the program. FVAP sent a letter to all 50 states election offices with a 2010 legislative agenda that recommends states adopt internet voting pilot programs for military.

Alabama: State may be on fast track to pass military voting bill (military internet voting) The Alabama military voting bill, House Bill 30, hasbeen pre-filed by Rep. Jimmy Martin, D-Clanton, for the legislative session that begins in January. He sponsored the bill last year as wellThis week, we see that Colorado has passed legislation to allow internet voting pilots for military, and the pilots will be partially funded by "private" parties. Will these private parties be identified? Could any of these private parties have a conflict of interest?...

Colorado: Colorado ranks high in its effort to count military ballots 11/06/2009... In June, Gov. Bill Ritter signed into law House Bill 1205, an overseas election reform measure introduced by Rep. Marsha Looper, R- Calhan, and endorsed by Colorado Secretary of State Bernie Buescher....The legislation also approves a pilot program to allow overseas military personnel to vote via the Internet. The program, which is being studied, will be funded by grants and private contributions.Massachusetts Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth hopes to have their troops voting over the internet this December, 2008.

Massachusetts: Expanded bonus for combat vets gets an OK (push for internet voting this year)No additional state funding is needed to provide the bonuses this year, according to David Falcone, spokesman for Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth....Mr. Falcone said depending on how quickly the state can set up a secure Internet voting system, Massachusetts service members may be able to vote over the Internet as soon as the Dec. 8 primaries for the special U.S. Senate election.

Franklin County Washington: Online voting makes progress in Franklin County
Oct 9, 2009. Diana Garza Killian, Franklin County elections administrator, sits near a computer monitor showing a sample screen for an online voting pilot project they will use for the first time in November. Voters will mark ballots electronically, print them out and then submit them in the traditional manner. Officials say it’s a first step toward online voting."Lenhart hopes the project will show lawmakers that online voting is the wave of the future, and that they'll change the law that requires paper ballots."

Still want to try Internet Voting? Think *twice *about it:

Hackers cracked military systems and cut mains power
10th November 2009...Retired Admiral Mike McConnell, who oversaw organisations including the CIA and NSA, told the CBS News programme 60 Minutes that not only do attackers have the capability to bring down the US power grid but that the country is not prepared for such an attack....This time last year, an attacker was able to access US military computer systems that were directly involved in war operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This access allowed the perpetrator to spy and potential control systems. They were, in the words of Lewis, "part of the American military command."

RELEASE OF RESEARCH REPORT ON "CHINESE CYBER WARFARE & ESPIONAGE"
Oct 22, 2009: The Commission has approved for public release a contracted report entitled: Capability of the People's Republic of China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation.The government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) is a decade into a sweeping military modernization program that has transformed its ability to fight high tech wars.

Security expert: no way to secure Internet voting WBBM Newsradio 780 CHICAGO (WBBM) -- An Internet security expert says there's no way Internet voting can reliably replace paper ballots to ease the expense of election day.John Hopkins University computer science professor Avi Rubin spoke one day after Lake County, Ind., sat out a transit referendum because county commissioners didn't have a spare half million dollars to fund the election....The ultimate problem, he says, is one of authentication: there's just no guaranteed way to tell who is who at either end of the voting connection.Rubin says banking transactions are fine on the Internet because there's a back-office trail that can always be followed. But he says there's no secure way to ensure whether the person casting or counting a private ballot, is who they claim to be.6. VerifiedVoting.org : Computer Technologists' statement on internet voting

Finnish Internet voting election thrown out by court
In this election, which is referred to in the article as an "e-voting" election but was actually an Internet voting election, 2% of all ballots (232 ballots) were simply lost, unrecoverably, by the voting system. A lower court had accepted the loss of 2% of the ballots as an acceptable error, even though the lost ballots would almost certainly have affected who won and who lost municipal seats since they are frequently decided by 1 or 2 votes.

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - ph 336-794-1240


Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

Internet Voting Too Dangerous -ESPECIALLY for Our Military

Our overseas troops need help voting, and while internet voting sounds like a good idea, even a pilot is too dangerous to consider in this new age of Cyber Warfare. We cannot ask our troops to put their personal safety at risk by the act of casting a ballot. We must carefully ask - what problem are we trying to solve, exactly and how do we solve it?

"An overwhelming majority of military and overseas voters did not return ballots to the United States in 2006, costing local election offices staff time and money" Greensboro N-R.

Seeking to remedy that, congress passed a law that contains "pilots" allowing for internet voting for our military. The pilot is in the Federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, (Move) in Section 589. The Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) will oversee the program. FVAP sent a letter to all 50 states election offices with a 2010 legislative agenda that recommends states adopt internet voting pilot programs for military. Unfortunately, legislatures in Alabama, Colorado, and Massachusetts are taking action to participate in the internet voting pilots for military. Additionally Franklin County Washington officials wish to participate and ultimately have full blown internet voting and eliminate the state's paper ballot requirement.

The problem is that Internet voting cannot yet be made secure and opens our elections and troops to cyber warfare. And internet voting opens up the troops' ballots and the personal information on them, as well as possibly exposing troop location. It also does not solve the real problem identified by the Pew Foundation in the report No Time to Vote and creates many new problems.

The national Verified Voting Foundation lists several serious technical and non technical issues that have to be addressed BEFORE any internet voting pilots are implemented. See excerpt of Verified Voting's statement signed computer technologists:

Computer Technologists’ Statement on Internet Voting

...Several serious, potentially insurmountable, technical challenges must be met if elections conducted by transmitting votes over the internet are to be verifiable.

A partial list of technical challenges includes:
• The voting system as a whole must be verifiably accurate in spite of the fact that client systems can never be guaranteed...
• There must be a satisfactory way to prevent large-scale or selective disruption of vote transmission over the internet....
• There must be strong mechanisms to prevent undetected changes to votes, not only by outsiders but also by insiders...
• There must be reliable, unforgeable, unchangeable voter-verified records of votes that are at least as effective for auditing as paper ballots, without compromising ballot secrecy....
• The entire system must be reliable and verifiable even though internet-based attacks can be mounted by anyone, anywhere in the world...

...Before these conditions are met, “pilot studies” of internet voting in government elections should be avoided, because the apparent “success” of such a study absolutely cannot show the absence of problems that, by their nature, may go undetected. Furthermore, potential attackers may choose only to attack full-scale elections, not pilot projects.

Still want to try Internet Voting? Think twice about it:

1. Hackers cracked military systems and cut mains power
10th November 2009 ...Jim Lewis, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who prepared a report on cyber security for President Obama. Lewis claims that in 2007 an unknown foreign power penetrated "all of the high tech agencies" including the Department of Defense and "probably the NSA". The attackers downloaded terabytes of data.

This time last year, an attacker was able to access US military computer systems that were directly involved in war operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This access allowed the perpetrator to spy and potential control systems. They were, in the words of Lewis, "part of the American military command."

2. Cyber attacks traced to N. Korea
The Associated Press Friday Oct 30, 2009 SEOUL, South Korea — The North Korean government was the source of high-profile cyber attacks in July that caused Web outages in South Korea and the United States, news reports said Friday.

3. RELEASE OF RESEARCH REPORT ON “CHINESE CYBER WARFARE & ESPIONAGE” Oct 22, 2009: *The Commission has approved for public release a contracted report entitled: Capability of the People’s Republic of China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation.The government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is a decade into a sweeping military modernization program that has transformed its ability to fight high tech wars. [Read THE PDF REPORT http://tinyurl.com/ygcmh9b

4. Preparing for cyber warfare The scramble for position on a new, global battlefield has begun, but it's not clear yet if state secrets, financial data and privacy can be defended...But, in truth, cyber spying is equal opportunity and has an amazing wealth of targets to go after.

5. Security expert: no way to secure Internet voting WBBM Newsradio 780 CHICAGO (WBBM) -- An Internet security expert says there's no way Internet voting can reliably replace paper ballots to ease the expense of election day.John Hopkins University computer science professor Avi Rubin spoke one day after Lake County, Ind., sat out a transit referendum because county commissioners didn't have a spare half million dollars to fund the election....The ultimate problem, he says, is one of authentication: there's just no guaranteed way to tell who is who at either end of the voting connection.Rubin says banking transactions are fine on the Internet because there's a back-office trail that can always be followed. But he says there's no secure way to ensure whether the person casting or counting a private ballot, is who they claim to be

6. VerifiedVoting.org : Computer Technologists' statement on internet voting

7. A comment on the May 2007 DoD report on Voting Technologies for UOCAVA Citizens (pdf)
David Jefferson, Avi Rubin, Barbara Simons
In 2003 the Department of Defense engaged our services to review its SERVE Internet voting project. The project was subsequently killed because of the numerous and fundamental security problems with it that we documented in a report we issued in 2004 (http://www.servesecurityreport.org/ ).
We are concerned that this new report appears to be trying to persuade readers that SERVE was a successful project and that Internet voting can be made safe and secure. Unfortunately, it does not accurately reflect the degree of concern that we and
many others have expressed about Internet voting....

8. Finnish Internet voting election thrown out by court
In this election, which is referred to in the article as an "e-voting" election but was actually an Internet voting election, 2% of all ballots (232 ballots) were simply lost, unrecoverably, by the voting system. A lower court had accepted the loss of 2% of the ballots as an acceptable error, even though the lost ballots would almost certainly have affected who won and who lost municipal seats since they are frequently decided by 1 or 2 votes.

Internet voting doesn't address the real problem anyway. According to the Overseas Vote Foundation:

"The number one reason that many overseas and military citizens are unable to vote is missed registration and ballot request deadlines."

SO HERE ARE SOME PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS

In North Carolina, the State Board of Elections has come up with a simple way to address this issue of registering military, updating their registrations when they move and getting them the right ballots. On Oct 8, 2009 the NC State Board of Elections sent a letter to Robert Gates, Secretary of DOD enlisting their cooperation. An excerpt:

"I request that the Department of Defense, in its operation of military pay/personnel offices in North Carolina, agree to be designated as a voter registration agency. This designation would allow military citizens helped by your agency to be offered the same voter registration services given by state and county public services agencies to the persons they serve. "

This idea makes sense and should work. Govt agencies are very good at voter registration when they try. We saw this when North Carolina enforced Section 7 of the Voting Rights Act more vigorously in 2008, resulting in government agencies assisting increased numbers of their clients in registering to vote.

We can also enact some of FVAP's 2010 Legislative Initiatives:

• expand the use of the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot,
• removel of notarization and witnessing requirements, and
• enfranchise the overseas voting age children of U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote under UOCAVA.
• allow faxing or emailing blank ballots to troops - but never fax/email voted ballots

With those four FVAP initiatives, plus having the DOD assist troops with voter registration issues and voting, we can greatly improve the military franchise while protecting the secrecy and security of their votes.

Our troops deserve a secure, accurate, auditable ballot that they may cast in secret. They should not be asked to put their own personal security at risk in order to vote. Internet voting cannot be done safely at this time. Internet voting should be the last resort after solving all the other problems which hinder prompt return of ballots, not the first.

Lawmakers and policy makers can learn more about improving the military voter franchise as well as risks of internet voting from the national organizations Verified Voting and the Overseas Vote Foundation

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting (ph)336-794-1240

Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

Instant Runoff Voting Survey in Hendersonville: did you understand it?

There's an Instant runoff voting in Hendersonville North Carolina, last day to vote is Tuesday November 3rd. The NC Coalition for Verified Voting is doing an informal voter survey on Instant Runoff Voting in Hendersonville. We hope to raise awareness about Instant Runoff Voting in Hendersonville North Carolina. We believe that the informal survey below is a good step in that direction. Could you please share this survey with voters as you see fit? It is also posted on the home page of our website, http://www.ncvoter.net/. Thanks, Joyce McCloy, Director, NC Coalition for Verified Voting.

IF YOU VOTED IN HENDERSONVILLE NORTH CAROLINA'S NOVEMBER 2009 IRV MUNICIPAL ELECTION WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR EXPERIENCE.

1. Did you vote on election day, during early voting or absentee by mail?
   
2. Did you know that you would be asked to rank choices on the ballot?
   
3. Did you understand how to vote?
   
4. Were the instructions clear?
   
5. Did you like this new ranked choice voting method?
   
6. What was source of your voter education about Instant Runoff Voting?
   
7. Describe any problems you had in voting.
   
8. Did you rank choices?
   
9. If you ranked choices, how many did you rank?
   
10. Do you understand how instant runoff votes are counted?
    
11. Did you know that if your choices are not for the top two candidates, you will not be voting in the "runoff"?
    
12. Did you know that your additional choices may go uncounted if there is a winner in the first round of voting?
    
13. Do you want all votes, including the additional ranked choices - to be counted and publicly reported, so you can see how much support each candidate received?
    
14. Do you prefer traditional one-to-one runoff elections or IRV?May we use your name? (Your name will be kept anonymous if you prefer)

Please email your response to joyce@ncvoter.net and thank you for helping us.

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone 336-794-1240

The Problems with Vote Centers

This article is to address the push for Vote Centers. Any jurisdictions considering Vote Centers must be warned that they run an increased risk for voting machine malfunction and error and an increased risk for fraud. Officials also must consider the impact on vulnerable populations when their neighborhood polling places are eliminated.

Some readers may not be aware of or even believe in the problems with electronic voting. Please visit this link for this sortable database of voting systems problems, failures, malfunctions etc in the United States. You only need to glance at it to get the picture.

The bar has been set very low for voting machines and their vendors. These voting machines are not “ATM” quality! And we voters do not hold “accounts” with which to check our “vote” account, either, due to the secrecy of the ballot. While computers count quickly, they also suffer from “garbage in, garbage out” syndrome, and exponentially increase the risk of error, malfunction and fraud.

Its shocking but true that the machines sold in just 2006 have technology that is over a decade out of date. It is truly shocking to know that the machines in use in the United States are considered to meet federal standards as long as they do not exceed a 9.2% failure rate in a 15-hour election day.

So one reason not to push for vote centers is that they would require these same machines to run day after day, increasing the likelihood of problems.

But lets say that YOU don’t believe the computer scientists or activists like me when I say we need to minimize our exposure on these machines.

Lets say – that you DO care about the voters, especially the vulnerable segments of the population. Say you think voting should be fair to the elderly sick or poor….Then if so, please read on:

Vote Centers do not “add” to choices for voters, but instead reduce choices for voters.

To pay for Vote Centers, sacrifices are made: Which precincts will be eliminated? Who decides? The number of voting locations and voting machines are cut by as much as 66% or more. Neighborhood election day precincts are often eliminated.

Certain segments of the population have a bigger burden in trying to exercise their right to vote. Vote Centers or Super Precincts don’t serve the voter’s needs or the precise requirements for democratic elections — transparency being one of them. Vote Centers remove places from the neighborhood locations where voters without the means can have easier access.

With Vote Centers, you will see as many as 10,000 votes concentrated at one location, making it easier to commit fraud on a large scale in one fell swoop. The smaller neighborhood polling places offer a buffer against election fraud by keeping the number of votes in one location down to an average of 3,000 ballots or fewer. Voting machine malfunction or a rogue election worker can affect far fewer votes in a neighborhood precinct than in a consolidated vote center.

Larimer County, Colorado is an example of how vote centers can disenfranchise large numbers of people when just one thing goes wrong:

Rocky Mountain News: Elections Nov. 7, 2006. Voters at many of the city’s new 55 voting centers have been encountering long lines, computer problems and an inadequate number of computers to check proof

If the goal is to improve access to voting, then the best solution is to offer a 2 week period of early voting which ceases the week-end before election day, and to continue with neighborhood polling places on election day. This provides the best of both worlds, without creating a barrier to voting for the elderly and poor, and without exposing extremely large numbers of votes to software malfunctions and fraud.
See http://www.ncvoter.net/votecenters.html

1. Will Vote Centers be on private property, and if so, a) how will voting machines be secured, and b) will electioneering be allowed?

2. How will the poor, elderly, or sick or those with transportation issues get to the vote centers? Do you know what a bus ride across town is like, since vote centers end up being across town. It can take a person hours to get across town and back, and then there’s the wait in line.

3. What is the backup plan in the event of a Larimer County style meltdown?

I wouldn’t expect these Vote Centers to be very busy during small elections, but in General Elections and especially Presidential (the one more voters pay attention to) alot can go wrong and the lines will be a mess.

Will your county provide some sort of transportation for voters that won’t take hours out of their day? Often it is the poor who can’t miss any work time, they won’t get reimbursed.

And when all of your neighborhood polling places are eliminated, who decides where the vote centers will be?

If the goal is to enfranchise the most voters in the fairest way possible, Vote Centers do not meet the goal.

Hendersonville Instant runoff voting in Nov - Will your vote be counted? Surprising answer

Will Hendersonville voters' instant runoff votes in the November election count or even be counted? Does Hendersonville's IRV counting method rob some voters of their say in the runoff? How will Hendersonville North Carolina tally the upcoming instant runoff voting election for Mayor and City Council? Will voters understand how votes are sorted, allocated and reallocated? Will voters help or hurt their favorite candidate by ranking choices? The answers are discouraging if you care about every vote counting, about election integrity, transparency and about fairness to voters.

I sent an email to Henderson County's Board of Elections to find out: what votes will be counted and reported, which IRV votes will be counted, and how will the IRV votes be counted and reported? Henderson BoE Director Beverly Cunningham promptly provided these answers below in 2 emails on October 16, see lower down the page.

The answer -not all Instant runoff votes get counted. It is a fact that some or all 2nd and 3rd choice votes cast will be kept secret and hidden from the public and never counted. Just because second and third round votes are not needed or utilized in determining an outcome does not mean that they were not cast by a voter. It is a bad practice for government to keep any expression by voters secret.

If there is a winner in the first round of voting, then officials will not count or even report the voters 2nd and 3rd choice votes. If there is not a winner in the first round, then only votes for the top two candidates will be considered from the 2nd round. 2nd choice votes for any other candidates will not be counted or reported.

Not only will candidates and voters be in the dark as to how much support each candidate got, but voters will not be able to look at the results and see if they hurt or helped their preferred candidates by ranking. It is a fact that Hendersonville voters can hurt their preferred candidates just by ranking them, according to Dr. Steven Brams of New York University. But if Henderson's Board of Elections does not count and report all 2nd and 3rd choice votes, we have no way to know if this happens.

Nothing about how Hendersonville's election is typical of IRV - IRV is for single seat election contests, Hendersonville is using it for multi-seat elections and thwarting the use of bullet voting also called "single shot" voting.

Downsides with Hendersonville's Instant runoff voting procedures:

1. Voters are handicapped by IRV because they do not know who the top 2 candidates are that they should vote for, so there vote might not count in the "instant runoff". In a traditional runoff, voters would all have an equal opportunity to vote for the runoff candidates.

2. Candidates, supporters and IRV advocates will not know how IRV benefited or hindered their 2nd and 3rd choice votes since Henderson's BoE doesn't plan to count or report these votes. Democracy and transparency are weakened when all votes are not counted.

Most IRV jurisdictions count and report all of the voters choices. Only Hendersonville, NC will not do so. Below is an example of how San Francisco reports all of the vote data:

Henderson BoE Director Beverly Cunningham 2 emails on October 16:

1) In Hendersonville's 2007 IRV election, did the Henderson County BoE count or record or report any of the 2nd or 3rd choice votes? No, we stop counting when a threshold of victory is met.

2) What plans does the Henderson County Board of Elections have in order to count, record and report the 2nd and 3rd choice votes for the 2009 IRV election? I understand we will follow the same procedures as explained in No. 1).

3) In the 2009 IRV election, which if any of the 2nd and 3rd choice votes will be publicly reported and or counted? Only votes needed to determine the threshold of victory will be reported.

4) Provide the method, algorithm and spreadsheet that will be used to report and tally the IRV results. Still waiting on state to provide info.

5) Provide the "rules" to sorting and re-allocating the IRV 2nd and 3rd choice votes. (this is a second request) Still waiting on state to provide info.

Beverly W. Cunningham, Director
Henderson County Board of Elections
828 697 4970

Email 2, info requests continued:

4) Provide the method, algorithm and spreadsheet that will be used to report and tally the IRV results. The method of tabulation is a manual process utilizing Microsoft Excel to augment the sorting and totaling.

5) Provide the "rules" to sorting and re-allocating the IRV 2nd and 3rd choice votes.

1. Tabulation

o Determine the two (2) candidates with the most votes that are in the instant runoff.
o The candidates retain all the votes from the 1st round of tabulation. All ballots for the contest that have votes for candidates in the runoff are removed from the tabulation (they have
already been tabulated).
o Review (2nd Choice) to determine ifthere is a vote for either runoff candidate. If yes, add the vote to therunoff candidate and no further examination of the ballot is necessary.
o If there is no vote for either runoff candidate in (2ndChoice) then
review (3rd Choice) to determine if there is a vote for a runoff candidate.
If yes, add the vote to the runoff candidate and no further examination of the ballot is necessary.
o End of ballot examination. The runoff candidate with the most votes is declared the winner.

Beverly W. Cunningham,Director
Henderson County Board of Elections
828 697 4970

Hendersonville Contests and Candidates for November IRV election:

CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE MAYOR
Timm Kurtz
Mary Jo Padgett
Barbara G. Volk

CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE COUNCIL
Diane Caldwell
Jeff Collis
Ralph Freeman
Jerry Smith
Ron Stephens

Want to see what Hendersonville's ballot will look like?

If you vote in person, you will cast your ballot on a touchscreen machine. Here are screen shots of that ballot. Its easy to see how confusing the ballot would be when presented on a touchscreen machine.

If you cast an absentee by mail ballot, here is a copy of the paper ballot and some information: CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE w/ Instant Runoff Voting

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone 336-794-1240 website http://www.ncvoter.net/ and also http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/

FVAP recommends 4 changes to NC law to help overseas military voters

Four good ideas, one really bad one. A Federal agency is recommending four changes to North Carolina law to help our overseas military vote. The Federal Voting Assistance Program also endorses having troops send voted ballots by "unsecure electronic means" as long as the troops volunteer.

The Federal Voting Assistance Program has recommended four changes:

1. Expanded Use of Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot,
2. Participation with Uniform Law Commission Effort and Adoption of Recommendations,
3. Removal of Notarization and Witnessing Requirements...
4. Enfranchise Citizens, Who Have Never Resided in the U.S.

In the meanwhile, the NC State Board of Elections is seeking ways to immediately help our military voters. On Oct 8, 2009, the NC SBoE recently sent a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Defense, Robert Gates asking the DoD to designate the DOD as a voter registration agency in our state.

Details of The Federal Voting Assistance Program Recommendations
FVAP recommendations are in this letter dated Oct 7. See excerpts below, and note that a long term goal is to transmit voted ballots electronically :

Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) letter to North Carolina State Board of Elections, dated October 7, 2009

Given our new focus, FVAP is realigning in Legislative Initiative recommendations to the States. The enclosed initiatives focus on sending ballots to voters at least 45 days before the election. FVAP also recommends the expanded use of email and online retransmission for all election materials throughout the entire absentee voting process, replacing fax and postal mail where possible. Until secure electronic transmission of voted ballots has been established, we recommend that States allow voters to return static copies of voted ballots through available electronic means. However, the decision to send a voted ballot by unsecure electronic means must rest with the individual voter based on the voter's desire to cast his or her vote electronically or to ensure the secrecy of their ballot.

Email and online capabilities are widely available to Uniformed Service members and overseas citizens, vastly eclipsing the usefulness of faxing. After a September 2008 visit to military bases in the Middle East, Asia and Europe, a delegation of six State Chief Election Officials reported that "the system of delivering ballots and returning them by mail is archaic compared to the pace of modern military operations" and "...reliance on fax machines to speed the voting process....is largely unworkable for deployed troops." The delegation also reported that individual service members and overseas citizens confirmed that in overseas locales fax capabilities were not readily available and "indicated a strong preference for, and almost universal access to, email or internet based voting procedures."

We realize that universal adoption of email and online applications to deliver voting materials will not happen immediately, as State governments must engage the legislative and policy decision making process to implement such changes (that is also why, for the first time, FVAP is sending this letter to both the State Chief Election Officer and the leaders of State legislative chambers, in recognition of the role of both branches of government play in resolving these problems). In the interim, FVAP will encourage and assist Uniformed Service and overseas voters to greatly increase the use of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot (FWAB). Given the inherent delays in sending ballots by mail, the FWAB represents the only ballot readily available for many of these voters. Therefore, FVAP recommends that States expand its use to include simultaneous registration, ballot request, and voted absentee ballot for all elections at all levels: general, primary, special, and runoff elections for Federal, State, and local offices. In expanding the use of the FWAB in this manner, individually developed State Write-In Ballots will no standardize the "emergency ballot" process for these voters, reduce confusion as to which form to use, and allow election officials to focus their education on one form and its processes.

Additionally, FVAP strongly supports standardizing the voting process for Uniformed Services and overseas voters across all States...
...
This year, FVAP evaluated its legislative initiatives with regard to the impact they have on absentee voting by uniformed service members and overseas citizens, as both separate populations and collectively. FVAP sorted these initiatives according to the degree which each affected these populations. That analysis indicated that three initiatives provided the most benefit to the voters: 45 day ballot transit time prior to the election, the use of electronic transmission, and expanding the use of the Federal Write-In Absentee ballot to include, in addition to general elections, primary, run-off and special elections for federal, State and local offices. These three initiatives, therefore, received the highest weighting, totaling 8-%. Based upon this weighted measure, FVAP is providing a State-by-State score representing FVAP's success in convincing States to adopt our legislative initiatives.

...North Carolina's score is 71.5%.
.....
After reviewing North Carolina's existing election code and procedures, we have identified four initiatives for your legislature to consider during the upcoming legislative session. These Initiatives are discussed in detail with suggested working in the enclosed Legislative Initiatives document. Information available to FVAP indicates that there are 32,718 Uniformed Service members, an estimated 78,832 family members of voting age, and approximately 116,200 overseas citizens who claim North Carolina as their voting residence....

2010 Legislative Initiatives

Expanded Use of Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot
...
...the FWAB should be accepted simultaneously as a voter registration application, absentee ballot request, and absentee ballot. This provision will allow highly mobile population to participate in elections far in advance of a deployment, reassignment or move. Finally, FVAP is recommending a new policy that the FWAB be the only write-in ballot used for Uniformed Services and overseas voters, the authorization and use of both a FWAB and a State Write-In Absentee Ballot introduces greater complexity and opportunity for error for Uniformed Services and overseas voters. Using the single FWAB will allow future technological solution by FVAP to incorporate State and local races into online FWAB solutions, further extending this franchise opportunity.
...
Participation with Uniform Law Commission Effort and Adoption of Recommendations

The Uniform Law Commission (ULC) is drafting the "Military Services and Overseas Civilian Absentee Voting Act" to be presented for future adoption by the States. FVAP
...
Uniformity and standardization of voting laws for the Uniformed Services and overseas voters would substantially ease the burden of compliance and improve voter success. Furthermore, FVAP recommends that the State Chief Election Official work closely with the State legislative body to enact the Act when it is presented to the
States for adoption. ...

Removal of Notarization and Witnessing Requirements
...
Enfranchise Citizens Who Have Never Resided in the U.S.
...
Many U.S. citizens, who have never resided in a State or territory, are not entitled to vote under current State law. These citizens are voting age children of U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote under UOCAVA themselves...

complete letter here
(pdf)

Letter to DOD, help us help troops vote says North Carolina State Board of Elections

Our overseas troops need help voting, and the North Carolina State Board of Elections is seeking options.

Election boards wonder if military ballots are too costly Saturday, September 26, 2009 By Gerald Witt Staff Writer GREENSBORO — An overwhelming majority of military and overseas voters did not return ballots to the United States in 2006, costing local election offices staff time and money

According to the Overseas Vote Foundation:

"The number one reason that many overseas and military citizens are unable to vote is missed registration and ballot request deadlines."

The North Carolina State Board of Elections is doing what it can right now to address the issue of military voter registration and voting.

On Oct 8, 2009 the NC State Board of Elections sent a letter to Robert Gates, Secretary of DOD enlisting their cooperation. An excerpt:

"I request that the Department of Defense, in its operation of military pay/personnel offices in North Carolina, agree to be designated as a voter registration agency. This designation would allow military citizens helped by your agency to be offered the same voter registration services given by state and county public services agencies to the persons they serve. "

The State BoE is also offering help and materials in order to do this.

Their solution, if implemented - will help alleviate some of the problems military voters have in voting. Troops can more easily keep their voter registration updated and get help in obtaining a ballot and getting that ballot returned.

One big problem for troops is that they move around frequently, their registrations are not updated, and we keep sending ballots to the old addresses.

This makes sense. North Carolina enforced Section 7 of the Voting Rights Act more vigorously in 2008, resulting in government agencies assisting increased numbers of their clients in registering to vote.

It is efforts like these, often successful ones, that make me appreciate our officials at the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

ES&S back like a bad penny in Sarasota County Florida

ES&S is back like a bad penny in Sarasota County. The ES&S purchase of Diebold is causing Sarasota officials major heartburn. The county ditched ES&S as a vendor in the wake of the disastrous 18,000 undervotes in the 13th Congressional District race in 2006. That same year, a referendum to ditch the paperless voting machines was passed. ES&S was thrown out even though they were the lowest bid for new paper ballot systems.
It looks like Sarasota is stuck with ES&S, but are they stuck with Kathy Dent?

3 years after vote furor, machine vendor is back
MERGER: ES&S, once again the provider in Sarasota, now dominates the field
By Doug Sword September 24, 2009 at 1:00 a.m.
Two years after being shown the door for its role in an election that local officials would just as soon forget, voting machine maker ES&S is once again overseeing the system Sarasota County residents will use to cast their votes. ...Opposition locally, though, is less legal and more emotional, stemming from the role of the ES&S iVotronic voting system in the disputed November 2006 election.

Feelings toward the company among locals has not changed much since July 2007 when county commissioners, still smarting from the controversy over the 18,000 undervotes in the 13th Congressional District race in 2006, replaced ES&S with Diebold, which later changed its name to Premier.

Sarasota should have ditched the Elections Supervisor, Kathy Dent, instead of or along with the vendor. All voting systems have bugs, and Dent was warned in plenty of time, and what did she do to protect voters? If that had happened in our state, it is quite possible Dent would have been relieved of her job.

The vendor had warned Election Supervisor Kathy Dent ahead of time of issues that might cause problems voting.

ES&S sent a "software bug" memo to Florida SOEs in August of 2006 that there was a problem with a "smoothing filter" that would possibly delay the recording of the voter's selections. This delay would be longer than expected, and the voter might move on before the vote was recorded.

ES&S recommended putting signs in the voting booths to warn voters, and also recommended a "software patch" prior to the November election.

I do not know if all or any Florida machines ever received that patch, or if the patch was distributed, if it was put on every single voting machine. Further, if the patch was applied, was it tested? Did it work uniformly on all machines, including those that were ADA enabled?

See the memo that ES&S sent Kathy Dent, here: http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/ESS_Aug_2006_iVotronic_FL_memo.pdf

If ballot style was the sole cause of FL 13 undervote, then we in North Carolina should have had far worse problems in our iVotronic counties.

Here is Sarasota FL 13's ballot http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/sarasota_ballot_style.pdf

Now take a look at what appears to be a more confusing ballot style
for Mecklenburg County NC, the NC 08 ballot:
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Mecklenburg_2006_ballot.pdf
(notice the nearly hidden placement of the US congressional race?)
Meckelnburg had a 4 % undervote rate for that contest.

Here is a memo from the NC State Board of Elections explaining the differences in NC iVotronics and the FL iVotronics, as well as a ballot comparison:
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Sarasota_NC_Ballot_Comparison_06.pdf

North Carolina Internet Voting Whack-a-Mole,military vote by email not secure, not private

It is Internet Voting Whackamole Time - this time in North Carolina. The Greensboro News and Record is running an OpEd that endorses having overseas military cast their ballots by email, over the internet.

Does anyone believe that if email/internet voting were allowed for overseas that it would not spread to the rest of our elections? Making military votes go over e-mail is unsafe in the first place. It makes them subject to attack and makes the military voters second class citizens. Additionally they lose their privacy and the secrecy of the ballot. Insecure voting does not honor our troops one little bit.

The Editorial Dept of Greensboro News and Record and popular progressive North Carolina State Rep Grier Martin are endorsing email balloting for our overseas military.
Please email Rep Grier Martin grier.martin@ncleg.net and tell him that email/internet voting is not a solution but a problem and we should work with computer scientists and the Overseas Vote Foundation to find the right solution. (his phone 919-733-5758)
Send a letter to the editor of the N-R too: edpage@news-record.com
Also, you can visit the article online and post a comment. (reports on internet voting at bottom of this email)

Editorial: Defending democracy
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Every American's right to vote must be protected. And there's a special obligation to guarantee ballot access for Americans serving their country overseas.

"If we do not make it possible for the folks defending our democracy to participate in our democracy, what does that say? If you're risking your life to defend our democracy, we should bend over backward and spare no expense to make it possible to vote," state Rep. Grier Martin, D-Wake, said Tuesday.

Martin served with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan in 2002-2003. As a legislator, he's pushed for easier absentee ballot access for servicemen.

A bill approved this year directs election boards to send absentee ballots earlier and allows for their return up to three days after a primary or general election. It also asks the absentee voter to include the signature of only one witness instead of two, which was previously required.

The new law adds an emergency provision that authorizes the State Board of Elections to take exceptional action to allow voting if normal procedures aren't possible. This would cover a last-minute deployment just before an election, Martin said.

These are relatively small changes that can make the difference for some military personnel and other Americans abroad. More sweeping improvements are needed, too.

Guilford County Supervisor of Elections George Gilbert last week noted the cost of mailing absentee ballots overseas and the relatively low rate of return, especially for off-year municipal elections.

The expense can be justified, but using the mail to carry ballots across oceans is outdated. In fact, North Carolina law allows electronic transmission of ballots, and voting by e-mail should be put into regular practice as soon as possible.

"It amazed me when I was in Afghanistan how connected we are," Martin said. "The technology is there."

Gilbert anticipates greater use of e-mail and the Internet in the near future. "We're told by the Department of Defense that all military personnel have e-mail addresses," he said.

The State Board of Elections is getting closer to offering full electronic transmission of absentee ballots to overseas voters, Executive Director Gary Bartlett said Tuesday. Currently, ballots can be sent by e-mail, printed by the voter, filled out and returned by fax to the state board, which then distributes them to county boards.

There are still ballot security issues to work out, but Bartlett believes North Carolina can become a leader in election technology. Besides helping voters overseas, the same technology can improve ballot access for voters with disabilities, he said.

All Americans should be guaranteed reasonable access to polling places. New technologies should make that easier, wherever they are.

Americans serving overseas deserve every opportunity to vote. If not for the defenders of democracy, no one's rights would be secure for long.

http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/09/29/article/editorial_defending_democracy

Key phrase here: "There are still ballot security issues to work out, but Bartlett believes North Carolina can become a leader in election technology. " But instead North Carolina would be a leader in jumping off of a cliff. North Carolina has already been a "leader" in things like paperless voting, and that bombed.

The Pew report points out that North Carolina is the ONLY state in the country that requires overseas ballots to be returned by the day BEFORE election day. They could add one more day to the time frame and give themselves further cushion by allowing ballots to be returned ON election day like other states, before resorting to methods which raise more ballot security issues.
North Carolina is NOT listed as one of the states which needs changes made to their existing situation in order for military voters overseas to be able to get voted ballots back.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Election_reform/NTTV_Report_Web.pdf

A solution recommended by the Overseas Voter Foundation:
"require that all UOCAVA (The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee) voters file an FPCA (Federal Post Card Application) for each election year in which they intend to vote. It should be possible to indicate which election year the ballot request form is filed for on the form itself (it is not at present possible to indicate this).
Maintain the law but add a minor provision which allows election officials to discontinue sending ballots to addresses from which the ballots are returned undeliverable, or not at all. "

Is Internet Voting Safe? Vote Here
Threat Level Privacy, Crime and Security Online.
By Kevin Poulsen Email Author; June 4, 2009
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/cfp-evote/

Computer Technologists' statement on internet voting September 11th, 2008 Because of the increasing frequency of proposals to allow remote voting over the internet, we believe it is necessary to warn policymakers and the public that secure internet voting is a very hard technical problem, and that we should proceed with internet voting schemes only after thorough consideration of the technical and non-technical issues in doing so. Please read our statement, and, if you are a "computer expert", consider endorsing it
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5867

See "Computer criminals"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_convicted_computer_criminals

NC Verified Voting Meetup Aug 26 Celebrates 4 Year Anniversary of paper ballot law

For immediate release
Joyce McCloy, North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting 336-794-1240

Please join the NC Coalition for Verified Voting for our Annual Voting Integrity Meetup

In celebration of the fourth anniversary of SL-323the Public Confidence in Elections Law

Wednesday August 26, 2009

6:00 - 7:30 PM

at the Busy Bee Cafe in Raleigh
in the upstairs room
225 South Wilmington Street

(plenty of FREE Parking nearby)

The NC Coalition for Verified Voting invites you to join other election integrity supporters in celebrating the fourth anniversary of the Public Confidence in Elections Law, SL 323.

Agenda

• Introduction - North Carolina passed one of the strongest verified voting laws in the country four years ago.
• "Legislator of the Year" award.
• Guest Speaker: David Allen, member of the Joint Select Committee on Electronic Voting
• Discussion of goals for 2009/2010 in protecting the voter franchise.
• Input from attendees on their concerns about elections and voting in 2010.

There is no charge other than buy-your-own-food and or drink.
This will be a great opportunity for election integrity people to hang out face-to-face, and to meet some of new and old faces of North Carolina activists.

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone 336-794-1240 - email Join the NC Coalition for Verified Voting

New voting hack uses machines decommissioned by a North Carolina county

A bold new voting hack uses machines decommissioned by a North Carolina county. This hack demonstrates how important it was for the North Carolina legislature to pass one of the strongest verified voting laws in the country.

August 14, 2009
For immediate release
Joyce McCloy, North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting 336-794-1240

A new voting hack takes over the machine, is practical, and costs only $100,000 to replicate. Computer scientists from three prestigious U.S. universities managed to hack into and steal votes from an electronic voting machine that was designed to resist takeover attempts. The hack comes on the anniversary of North Carolina's law requiring paper ballots and regulating voting machines and vendors.The machines used in the research were decommissioned paperless voting machines from Buncombe County North Carolina.

This hack uses a return oriented program that was only developed in 2007 - scientists did not inject code into the system, they "reverse engineered" the system. They did not have to invade the ROM "read only memory". Then the researchers were able to do an extremely clever hack on the system. This "return memory" hack has consequences not just for voting technology, but for computing technology. The hack would be much harder to detect than anything seen so far.

Computer scientists who performed the hack repeat calls for paper ballots in elections to increase transparency and ensure recovery from election problems.
North Carolina's General Assembly passed such measures 4 years ago this week.

The Public Confidence in Elections Law SL 323 was ratified on August 16, 2005 and approved on August 26, 2005.
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2005/Bills/Senate/HTML/S223v7.html .

This bill was passed with unanimous vote and full bi partisan support in the wake of a true election debacle in November, 2004: "A Florida-style nightmare has unfolded in North Carolina in the days since Election Day, with thousands of votes missing and the outcome of two statewide races still up in the air." -- AP Newswire, Nov 13 - North Carolina Ballot Blues
http://www.newsobserver.com/print/friday/opinion/story/184232.html

SL323 Public Confidence in Elections Became Law 4 years ago:
08/13/2005 Senate Concurred In H/com Sub 08/16/2005
Ratified 08/19/2005 Pres. To Gov. 8/17/2005
08/26/2005 Signed By Gov. 8/26/2005
08/26/2005 Ch. SL 2005-323
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2005&BillID=sb+223&submitButton=Go

Researchers "hack the vote" in real-world e-voting attack by Ryan Paul Aug 13, 09
..Using a technique called return-oriented programming, they were able to circumvent the machine's built-in safeguards and divert votes—without having access to source code or non-public documentation. ... this study goes a step further and shows that it can be done in the wild without privileged access to source code or other specialized materials.
http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2009/08/researchers-demonstrate-real-world-voting-machine-attack.ars

Voting machine hack costs less than $100,000 August 12, 2009
Researchers use a new return-oriented programming attack to change results
By Robert McMillan IDG News Service

The hack wasn't easy -- Halderman estimates that it took about 16 man-months of work to pull it off -- but at university salaries that would still be cheaper than most U.S. election campaigns, he said. "The cost of that time was less than $100,000," he said. The work was done without access to source code or any documentation beyond what is available on Sequoia's Web site.

But using a new hacking technique, called a return-oriented programming attack, researchers were able to trick the machine into changing the results of an election, according to Alex Halderman, one of the university researchers behind the work. Halderman is with the University of Michigan, but researchers from the University of California, San Diego and Princeton University were also involved in the project. They presented their results at the Usenix 2009 Electronic Voting Workshop, held in Montreal this week.

The researchers tested their results on a machine purchased from a government auction site after Buncombe County, North Carolina, stopped using the voting machines in 2007.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/voting-machine-hack-costs-less-100000-518


Hang your head, Sequoia e-voting machine; you've been hacked again
Aug 13th 2009 Oh, Princeton University, won't you leave the poor electronic voting machines alone?
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/13/hang-your-head-sequoia-e-voting-machine-youve-been-hacked-aga

The researchers' 16 page report about the hack tells how the scientists obtained the voting machines. The machines used in the study were:

"machines decommissioned by Buncombe County, North Carolina, and purchased by Andrew Appel through a government auction site...."In 1997, Buncombe County, North Carolina, purchased a number of AVC Advantage electronic voting machines for $5200 each. In January 2007, they retired these machines and auctioned them off through a government surplus web site. Andrew Appel purchased one lot of five machines for $82 in total."

Other hacks on these machines

Princeton publishes how-to guide for hacking Sequoia e-voting machines
by Tim Stevens posted Oct 24th 2008
Sequoia is now under the microscope and, after a little quality time with the company's machines, Princeton researchers have filed a 158 page report on the ease of replacing their ROMs and winning yourself an election.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/24/princeton-publishes-how-to-guide-for-hacking-sequoia-e-voting-ma/

February 8, 2007 Princeton U prof Andrew Appel hacks machine purchased from Buncombe County North Carolina.
"The AVC Advantage can be easily manipulated to throw an election because the chips which control the vote-counting are not soldered on to the circuit board of the DRE. This means the vote-counting firmware can be removed and replace with fraudulent firmware."
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/avc/


About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone 336-794-1240 - email Join the NC Coalition for Verified Voting website http://www.ncvoter.net/

S 966:Stop Campaign Cash "Catch 22" in North Carolina

We know that some of our officials are in a catch 22 situation - accept donations from special interests - or - run an underfunded campaign. We can help officials running for office by supporting S-966 , "Expand Voter-Owned Elections for Council of State."

*Could you please take the easy, 60 second action alert prepared by Democracy For NC?

*In that action alert, please note in the comments that NC Verified Voting supports S966.

This sends a message that the verified voting folks are still out there and still care about elections.

Clean elections are part of the big picture, and that means helping candidates run without fear of conflict of interest.

Democracy for NC says:
"Right now, candidates who lead regulatory agencies (like the state Treasurer and Commissioner of Labor) get most of their campaign money from the very businesses their agencies contract with or regulate.

Voter-Owned Elections gives candidates an alternative: They can qualify for public campaign financing by first collecting lots of small donations from registered voters. VOE is working now for the Insurance Commissioner and two other Council of State offices, as well as for state judges. We must expand the program."

Thank you to all dedicated verified voting activists for your help in this matter.

The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone 336-794-1240 - email Join the NC Coalition for Verified Voting