Democracy 4 Sale -HuffPo runs internet voting vendor press release as op-ed

Huffington Post runs a internet voting vendor press release as an OpEd - again. This time it is Scytl's press release. The other time was EveryoneCounts press release as an OpEd.

Huffington Post: Digital Democracy: Scytl, MySociety Secure Funding

Sheila ShayonPresident/Founder, Third Eye Media
Posted: July 14, 2010

If internet voting really is a 1.5 billion $ industry, will all of our votes be for sale? [ See Online Voting Company Scytl Raises $9.2 Million "Analysts believe that the public sector market for electronic voting systems is worth approximately $1.5 billion."

Internet voting is the most dangerous way to run elections and removes the secret ballot. With internet voting, there's no way to validate the election and results are open to hackers on a global scale. If votes are lost, then there's nothing tangible to recount:

Finnish E-Voting Results Annulled By The Supreme Administrative Court
22 April, 2009 http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.8/evoting-annuled-finland
[2% of results missing. Scytl was involved.
Finnish EVoting CoE Comparison

Scytl website

Internet voting isn't accessible to people who do not have easy computer or internet access, so less privileged people are left out.

When Honolulu Hawaii had an internet voting experiment, turnout dropped by 83%!

Low Turnout In Hawaii's Internet Election

See testimony from leading computer scientist at Verified Voting's blog on internet voting

Voter Action has some testimony from leading computer scientists about electronic ballot transmission, articles from mainstream media and a sample letter to your legislators.

Computer scientist Internet voting statement.
Statement on Internet, Email and Fax voting in Washington State by leading computer scientist, Dr. Barbara Simons.
Internet Voting, Still in Beta, The New York Times.
Broad Concerns About Internet Voting, The New York Times.
Pentagon Cancels Internet Voting Test, MSNBC.
Electricity Grid in US Penetrated by Spies, The Wall Street Journal.
A New Approach to China, The Google Blog.
Voter Action Internet voting statement.
Sample cover letter to legislators.
Talking Points on HB 2483 and SB 6238.
Hackers Attacked Colombian Vote Count

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

Professor Doug Jones on National Popular Vote - two possible outcomes

There's a push by some groups to promote adoption of the National Popular Vote. Some say a way to do this is by a "compact". The idea is very appealing, but getting there could have some serious and unanticipated consequences. National e-voting expert Doug Jones has granted permission to share his comments on the National Popular Vote.

on July 12, 2010, Douglas Jones wrote:

I believe that the National Popular Vote opens a can of worms.

Specifically, despite the fact that the NPV is being adopted on a state-by-state basis for the election of state electors, I believe it will face a challenge under Federal law because the different states have differing standards for who can vote and differing standards for what votes are counted. In effect, NPV under current state election laws is not consistent with one-man-one-vote.

I believe this will lead, invariably, to a court challenge as soon as a presidential election is held with NPV rules selecting enough electors to determine the outcome. I can only see two possible outcomes:

1) A court ruling against the states' right to use NPV.

2) A court ruling requiring uniform election standards nationwide.

Option 2 would effectively federalize the conduct of elections for President, requiring the federal government to put into place a system of strong regulation, preempting the states right to set standards for voter registration, ballot interpretation and election conduct.

Option 2 would traumatic. The Federal government does not have the machinery in place to do what would be required, and the states have deeply entrenched election administrations and a deep tradition of states rights in this domain.

Doug Jones

Disclaimer: These opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any institutions with which I may be affiliated, including but not limited to the University of Iowa and the Technical Guidelines Development Committee.

# # #

Doug Jones Bio from Wikipedia: Douglas W. Jones is a computer scientist at the University of Iowa. His research focuses primarily on computer security, particularly electronic voting. He has also contributed to the field of computer architecture, including an implementation of a one instruction set computer.

Jones' involvement with electronic voting research began in 1994, when he was appointed to the Iowa Board of Examiners for Voting Machines and Electronic Voting Systems. He chaired the board from 1999 to 2003, and has testified before the United States Commission on Civil Rights[1], the United States House Committee on Science[2] and the Federal Election Commission[3] on voting issues. In 2005 he participated as an election observer for the presidential election in Kazakhstan. He is currently a member of the ACCURATE electronic voting project.

Jones received a B.S. in physics from Carnegie Mellon University in 1973, and a M.S. and Ph.D. in computer science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1976 and 1980 respectively.




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

Calif voting vendor integrity bill like tough North Carolina law

If California's SB 1404 passes, voting vendors will risk heavy fines if they hide or lie about flaws, failures or defects in their voting systems. Various voting vendors have been caught hiding serious flaws in many different states, with voters being the victim. North Carolina set similar but perhaps tougher standards in 2005 in our Public Confidence in Elections Law, SL 323. We need lemon laws for voting machines.

Calif. bill increases scrutiny of voting systems (SB1404)
(05-17) 16:30 PDT Sacramento, Calif. (AP) --

Companies that make the voting systems used throughout California would face fines if they fail to report problems quickly under a bill that has passed the state Senate.

The measure, SB1404, would require vendors to notify the secretary of state and local election officials of any product defects within 30 business days of discovering the flaws.

A vendor that fails to report known problems could face fines of up to $50,000 per violation. Opponents say the penalty is too stiff and will hurt the industry.

The bill's supporters say it will help ensure the integrity of California's election system.

The Senate voted 21-12 on Monday in favor of the measure, which now moves to the Assembly.

Here's the section of North Carolina's Public Confidence in Elections Act, passed in August 2005 setting strict standards and penalties for voting vendors.

This is the section that made Diebold run:

SECTION 2.(a) Part 2 of Article 14A of Chapter 163 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:

"§ 163‑165.9A. Voting systems: requirements for voting systems vendors; penalties.

(a) Duties of Vendor. – Every vendor that has a contract to provide a voting system in North Carolina shall do all of the following:

(1) The vendor shall place in escrow with an independent escrow agent approved by the State Board of Elections all software that is relevant to functionality, setup, configuration, and operation of the voting system, including, but not limited to, a complete copy of the source and executable code, build scripts, object libraries, application program interfaces, and complete documentation of all aspects of the system including, but not limited to, compiling instructions, design documentation, technical documentation, user documentation, hardware and software specifications, drawings, records, and data. The State Board of Elections may require in its request for proposal that additional items be escrowed, and if any vendor that agrees in a contract to escrow additional items, those items shall be subject to the provisions of this section. The documentation shall include a list of programmers responsible for creating the software and a sworn affidavit that the source code includes all relevant program statements in low‑level and high‑level languages.

(2) The vendor shall notify the State Board of Elections of any change in any item required to be escrowed by subdivision (1) of this subsection.

(3) The chief executive officer of the vendor shall sign a sworn affidavit that the source code and other material in escrow is the same being used in its voting systems in this State. The chief executive officer shall ensure that the statement is true on a continuing basis.

(4) The vendor shall promptly notify the State Board of Elections and the county board of elections of any county using its voting system of any decertification of the same system in any state, of any defect in the same system known to have occurred anywhere, and of any relevant defect known to have occurred in similar systems.

(5) The vendor shall maintain an office in North Carolina with staff to service the contract.

(b) Penalties. – Willful violation of any of the duties in subsection (a) of this section is a Class G felony. Substitution of source code into an operating voting system without notification as provided by subdivision (a)(2) of this section is a Class I felony. In addition to any other applicable penalties, violations of this section are subject to a civil penalty to be assessed by the State Board of Elections in its discretion in an amount of up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per violation. A civil penalty assessed under this section shall be subject to the provisions of G.S. 163‑278.34(e)."

The only reason voting vendors could hate the bill is they don't want to admit how flawed and defective their software is. Its easier on them if the voters find out the hard way....

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

Federal Election Legislation to Consider for 2010

Federal Election Legislation to consider supporting in 2010

This is just a list of bills that may be worth supporting this year. Still we do need to think outside of the box if possible.

• Curtailing Citizens United - The Shareholder Protection Act H.R. 4790 and the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826), and Public Citizen has a petition in favor of a constitutional amendment entitled "Free Speech for People Amendment"Outlaw
• Voter Caging - Caging Prohibition Act of 2009 H.R. 103 and S. 528.
• Re-enfranchising ex-felons -The Democracy Restoration Act H.R 3335 and S. 1516 of 2009 If you are living in the community you have right to vote.
• Veteran Voting - Veteran Voting Support Act H.R. 6625 S. 3308 of 2008 The VA acts as voter registration agency, helps vets vote, and allows reg drives.

Curtailing Citizens United The Shareholder Protection Act H.R. 4790 and the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826), and Public Citizen Petition

Letters to Congress in Support of the Shareholder Protection ActBy Brennan Center for Justice – 04/12/10The Brennan Center urges adoption of the Shareholder Protection Act (H.R. 4790). The Act would provide shareholders with notice of corporate political spending, as well as providing shareholders with the ability to vote on future political spending by corporations.

Today we sent two open letters to Congress urging support of the bill.
Citizens United: What Would Justice Brennan Do? (WWJBD)By Ciara Torres-Spelliscy – 03/30/10...So it is in the spirit of Justice Brennan that the Brennan Center has urged Congress to take strong policy responses to Citizens United including adopting public financing for congressional elections through the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826). ...But we have also urged another approach which is consistent with Justice Brennan’s clearly stated belief in shareholder protection: providing shareholders a vote on future corporate political spending as embodied in the Shareholder Protection Act (H.R. 4790). This is a constitutional way to honor the rights of the investors who may be otherwise pulled into political battles after Citizens United against their will. This is precisely what Justice Brennan would do

More about the Fair Elections Now Act from HuffPo.
"Justice Thomas' Reasoning -- Dangerous for Democracy" ~ Frances Moore Lappe"
...One immediate step we can take right now step is to ensure passage of the bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act--S.752, H.R.1826. It establishes a workable system of small donations combined with voluntary public financing for congressional races. It builds on an approach that's already proven itself in three states. (Watch this inspiring example of its impact.) The Fair Elections approach has not been blocked by the Supreme Court. While it can't avert all the threats embodied in the Count's decision, it enables a candidate to run for office without becoming beholden to corporate money."

Public Citizen proposes an amendment to the US Constitution:...we must pass a constitutional amendment to ensure corporate money does not overwhelm our democracy and clarify that the First Amendment is for people -- not corporations. Add your name to the petition to Congress today! http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190 http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190#Petition

Outlaw caging and purging

Voter Caging Legislation in the 111th Congress HR 103 and S528
H.R. 103 Caging Prohibition Act of 2009 [view bill text]Rep. Conyers and 10 co-sponsors [view all]January 6, 2009 [view status] S. 528 This bill would prohibit election officials from preventing individuals from registering to vote or voting in any federal election or from permitting formal voter challenges to voters' registration status or eligibility if the basis of information gathered from voter caging documents or lists or unverified match lists. It would also establish requirements of individuals who wish to challenge the voter eligibility of another individual and prohibit challenges based on voter caging documents or lists or unverified match lists.

Deceptive Practices S 453 and HR 1281

Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act 2007 (S. 453 & H.R. 1281) The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act (H.R. 1281 and S. 453) would criminalize the knowing and intentional communication of false and misleading information about the time, place, or manner of elections, and the rules governing voter eligibility and voter registration. It would also ensure that voters affected by deceptive or intimidating practices are provided with correct information from a reliable source in a timely manner.

Re-enfranchisement HR 3335 and S1516

The Democracy Restoration Act, is now pending before Congress. That bill would restore the right to vote in federal elections to every American citizen who is out of prison, living in the community.

The Democracy Restoration Act (DRA) is federal legislation that seeks to restore voting rights in federal elections to the nearly 4 million disenfranchised Americans who have been released from prison and are living in the community. The bill was introduced by Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Representative John Conyers (D-MI) as H.R 3335 and S. 1516 on July 24th, 2009.

Correcting a Centuries-Old InjusticeBy Brennan Center for Justice – 04/11/10 by Deborah J. Vagins and Erika WoodOriginally published at ACS Blog.In our recent Issue Brief for the American Constitution Society, The Democracy Restoration Act: Addressing a Centuries-Old Injustice, we examine an ongoing and deeply problematic barrier to the fundamental right to vote for millions of Americans. Currently, 5.3 million American citizens are denied this right because of a criminal conviction in their past. Nearly 4 million of those who are disfranchised are out of prison, working, paying taxes, and raising families, yet they are without a political voice.

Supporting info: Kentucky’s Disturbing Disenfranchisement NumbersBy Benjamin Rattner – 03/12/10A new report by the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights finds that nearly one-in-four African Americans has lost the right to vote in Kentucky.Kentucky is one of the last two states [see pdf map] in the country (Virginia is the other) that denies the right to vote for life to anyone with a felony conviction, unless the current Governor restores the right through his clemency powers

Helping Veterans Vote HR 6625 and S 3308

Veteran Voting The legislation would would open the VA to registration drives and require the VA to make voter registration services available at VA facilities in states that request it. It would require the VA to help veterans request and cast absentee ballots. And it would open VA facilities to non-partisan groups and election officials, so that they could provide veterans with information on registration and voting. All these services will go a long way to ensuring that veterans are able to exercise their most fundamental right as citizens: the right to vote....

Veteran Voting Support Act H.R. 6625 S. 3308
Brennan Center Letters in Support of Veteran Voting Support Act
Letter to Senate Rules Committee in Support of S. 3308 (7/24/08)
Letter to House Administration Committee in Support of H.R. 6625 (7/29/08)
Letter to Sen. Feinstein in Support of S. 3308 (9/12/08)
Letter to Rep. Brady in Support of H.R. 6625 (9/15/08)
Letter to U.S. Senate in Support of S. 3308 (9/25/08)
Blog Entries
Adam Skaggs, "Help Vets Vote; They Deserve No Less" (8/1/08)
Adam Skaggs, "Congress Considers Reversing VA Ban" (9/19/08)
Adam Skaggs, "No Time to Vote" (1/7/09)

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

Disenfranchising Our Wounded Warriors

We now help our active duty troops register to vote, why don't we help our wounded warriors? Yesterday I received an email from Attorney Scott Rafferty about a client of his who wants to help veterans institutionalized on VA campuses have the opportunity to register to vote.

Wounded veterans shouldn't have to rely upon outside help to register to vote. The VA would be the best choice to help its own clients register to vote. Not only does the Veterans Administration fail to assist our wounded and also homeless veterans in registering to vote, but "During the 2004 and 2008 campaigns, the VA banned both individuals, party organizations, 501(c)(3)s and even the SoS of Connecticut herself from entering VA campuses for the purpose of individually registering voters."

As a federal agency, the Veterans Administration falls under the "Motor Voter Act" and should offer voter registration assistance to its clients. The executive order implementing motor voter requires federal agencies to accept designation by state's top election official to perform motor voter registration duties. But loopholes exist that can allow the VA to refuse to help register voters.

Why doesn't the VA help veterans register to vote? It is purely a policy decision - there is no law to prohibit assisting our veterans in voting. Who can right this wrong? Eric K. Shinseki, The Secretary of Veterans Affairs could immediately order the Veterans Administration to act as a voter registration agency.

The United States government policy has been to disenfranchise our active duty military and veterans. Only this past December 2009 did the Department of Defense agree to act as a voter registration agency and assist our military personnel in registering to vote, updating their registration and casting a ballot.
[ NY Times: "All Military Installations to Aid in Voter Registration" Dec 18, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us/politics/18vote.html?_r=1 ]

Who can right this wrong? Eric K. Shinseki, The Secretary of Veterans Affairs could order the Veterans Administration to act as a voter registration agency.

Please see below Attorney Rafferty's email which brought the issue to my attention:

From: Scott Rafferty
Date: 12 April 2010
Subject: Helping Wounded Warriors Register to Vote


We had an opportunity to work together during the Kerry for President campaign. On behalf of my client, Santa Clara County Democratic Chair, Steve Preminger, I am asking for advice on how we can resolve a piece of unfinished business - getting homeless and institutionalized veterans the opportunity to register. The matter raises important issues for veterans rights, voter registration, and administrative law. But italso raises a policy issue - why do the Civil Division and the United States Attorney continue to defend a former administration policy that Senator Obama called "shameful" and introduced (with Senators Kerry and Feinstein) legislation to overturn? My client would be grateful for any assistance in obtaining policy review by the new Administration. And I would be grateful for legal guidance that any of you may be able to volunteer.

In 2007, after three years of litigation over a 2004 incident in Menlo Park, Steve filed a rulemaking petition seeking some solution that would comprehensively register veterans who live on VA campuses. In the middle of the 2008 campaign, the VA circumvented an adverse Federal Circuit decision (and notice-and-comment procedures) by issuing a "directive" that allowed 1400 facility heads to restrict voter registration according to their own local policies, none of which has been published. According to the VA, this directive resulted in the registration of 350 veterans nationwide in 2008, since only 176 volunteers had been "authorized" nationwide. Former VA Secretary Peake waited until 5 days before the election before denying it, stating that the unpublished directive was adequate.

During the 2004 and 2008 campaigns, the VA banned both individuals, party organizations, 501(c)(3)s and even the SoS of Connecticut herself from entering VA campuses for the purpose of individually registering voters. Additionally, the VA provides no affirmative voter registration services, and most of these wounded warriors do not get motor-voter aid from DMVs or state health and welfare agencies. The Kerry Obama bill to extend motor-voter passed the House by voice vote, but did not come to a vote in the Senate.

This basis for these restrictions was originally a Nixon-era rule that provides six months in jail for conducting an "authorized demonstration." The VA interprets this to include any private political conversation, even voter registration. After four years of litigation, Judge Fogel dismissed the "as applied" case because the Federal Circuit held the rule was "facially" constitutional. The Federal Circuit decision later recognized a Circuit conflict on unfettered discretion in non-public forums and granted rehearing.

On rehearing, the Federal Circuit held, as a matter of regulatory interpretation, that this particular rule cannot be used as a prior restraint to censor any subject matter or to discriminate based on party affiliation. In the Ninth Circuit, Preminger prevailed on standing. However, without briefing or reference to the intervening Federal Circuit decision, the Court "affirmed on the merits" the district court judgment, which had not addressed the injunctive claim. On rehearing, the Ninth Circuit amended this decision to acknowledge that it was limited to the single incident, which had given rise to a damage claim. Judge Fogel acknowledges that the issue of injunctive relief is unadjudicated and has indicated that he would entertain a Rule 60(b) motion.

The Federal Circuit heard argument last Thursday for more than an hour. The Civil Division took the position that the Federal Circuit could neither review the directive, nor require a rulemaking, but could only send Preminger's petition back for more reasons to be stated for its denial. "There is no end to this," Chief Judge Michel observed. The Rule 60(b) motion was filed Friday before Judge Fogel, with
hearing sought before the May 2010 registration deadline.

Again, my client and I would be grateful for your help reversing this "shameful" policy and guaranteeing our wounded warriors an opportunity to register.

Scott Rafferty
4730 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20016
mobile 202-380-5525

Respectfully yours;

Joyce McCloy, Editor
Voting News Blog
http://votingnews.blogspot.com/
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

Press Release: Prestigious Pinocchio Award Goes to Maryland Elections Chief Linda Lamone

PRESS ADVISORY

#

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Prestigious Pinocchio Award Goes to Maryland Elections Chief Linda Lamone

North Carolina, Wednesday April 14, 2010/NCVVNewswire/ The NC Coalition for Verified Voting is pleased to present the first ever Spring 2010 Election Pinocchio Award to Maryland State Election Director Linda Lamone, for her "creative" elections budget forecast.

"Maryland's top elections chief deserves to be recognized for her ability to spin her state's expensive, buggy, paperless voting machines as accurate, reliable, and affordable in spite of the facts." said Joyce McCloy, Director of the North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting. McCloy went on to say that: "These misleading claims have been used in other states, but nowhere as successfully as in Maryland. Ms. Lamone has truly outdone herself and all other defenders of paperless voting systems." says McCloy.

Linda Lamone is famous in her own right for her tireless advocacy of expensive unverifiable elections run on paperless machines. Lamone has overcome opposition of voters, nationally recognized computer experts, voting rights advocates, two Governors and even the Maryland State legislature. Lamone's battle is a matter of life or death, with Lamone on record saying the state would have paper ballots "over my dead body."

Now Lamone's achilles heel may be the bad economy. Lamone delayed the implementation of paper ballot systems by arguing that it would be far less expensive to keep the current paperless system. This tact has worked before, but in this bad economy Lamone has to account for her numbers.

The Maryland group SAVE our Votes found discrepancies in Lamone's cost claims:

The SBE provided cost projections ... to Board of Public Works members last October showing that the cost of switching to a new optical scan voting system would be roughly $19 million for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 while the cost of using the existing equipment would be about $6 million. However, after procurement of the new system was postponed, the SBE requested nearly $11 million to operate the existing equipment in this year’s elections.

The Maryland General Assembly has ordered an independent study of voting system costs:

"The study will examine the current and projected operating and maintenance costs and the projected lifespan for the state’s existing touch-screen voting equipment as well as the costs of procuring and implementing an optical scan system in the most cost-effective manner. It will also review the voting system costs and contracts of other jurisdictions that currently use paper ballot/optical scan voting systems. The report is due December 1, 2010...." ~ SaveOurVotes.org press release.

More background:

Read
Why Maryland STILL Does Not Have Paper Ballots
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Maryland-STILL-Does-No-by-Joyce-McCloy-100320-69.html

# # #

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/

Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at

http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

NC SBoE says Alamance Co. in violation of Voter Registration Act

Alamance County is in the doghouse with the NC State Board of Elections. According to the State Board of Elections, the Alamance Dept of Social Services has "substantially failed to comply with the requirements of Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act.” Burke and Johnston Counties have also been a problem until recently. Is Alamance County, North Carolina's Department of Social Services helping clients register to vote (as required by law) or not? The problem is that we don't know, since the Department of Social Services (DSS) has not been sending in the required paperwork to the North Carolina State Board of Elections. The DSS has made excuses but that dog won't hunt since 97 other counties complied without whining. If the DSS truly is assisting clients in registering to vote, then why not send the paperwork in?

DSS, state elections board still at odds
April 03, 2010 3:20 PM
Robert Boyer / Times-News

The squabble over voter registration record-keeping continues between the Alamance County Department of Social Services and the state Board of Elections.

This week, the county DSS sent 560 voter preference forms to the county Board of Elections. Among other things, the forms list whether clients register to vote or decline to register.

Osborne said until this week, the DSS has been storing the preference forms, but hasn’t been sending them to the county Board of Elections.

A 1993 federal law requires agencies that provide public assistance to ask clients if they have registered and help them register if clients wish.

Don Wright, the state elections board’s top attorney, said such practices violate state and federal election law.

According to a Feb. 25 letter from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the DSS offices in Alamance, Burke and Johnston counties “have consistently and substantially failed to comply with the requirements of Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act.”

The letter went on to ask the agencies to comply. “The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring compliance with the NVRA and will, where appropriate, bring enforcement actions in federal district court to ensure such compliance ...” wrote T. Christian Herren Jr., the acting chief of the division's Voting Section.

Osborne countered Wednesday that her agency has “always” complied with Section 7 requirements. “We have lots of work to do, work that we are mandated to do. We’ve been meeting the mandate of the law. We just haven’t been doing some of the extra steps” the state Board of Elections is requiring. The state requirements are policy and are not law. Wright said they are part of state law.

But Gary O. Bartlett, the state board’s executive director, continues to side with his attorney.

In a March 17 letter to Herren, Bartlett wrote that his “office continues to have difficulty in working with” the Alamance County DSS. “We will be happy to provide you with any data you request about voter registration statistics coming from Alamance County and specifically generated at the Alamance County Department of Social Services.”

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