Clean Money hearing in Sacramento on Tuesday 4/17/07

If you can be in Sacramento on Tuesday, be in Sacramento on Tuesday! Loni Hancock's AB 583, The California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, is having it's first hearing in the Assembly Elections Committee at 1:30(ish) in Room 444 of the old rotunda of the state capitol building.

If you can't be in Sacramento, it's a good time to remind your state representative that it's time for real campaign finance reform in California.

California Clean Money is leading the charge again. This bill is very similar to the legislation that was pulled last year when Prop 89 made it on to the ballot. I like this much better. It's straight forward, and will work like the already working systems that have been in effect in Arizona and Maine since 2000. Candidates can voluntarily chose public financing, and qualify by showing a broad base of support in the form of $5 "seed money" donations. The level of funding depends on the office, and if a candidate is running against a opponent that is going the traditional campaign donation route, they can receive additional funds (to a set limit) to offset some of that imbalance.

I hope to see clean money, public campaign financing in California sooner rather than later. The results in Arizona and Maine have shown this is a viable system that allows ideas to trump fundraising, and promotes equity and democracy. Voters have more choice, more women and minority candidates are able to run for office, and politicians create better public policy. In Arizona, they're now able to pass budgets that provide real services to their citizens rather than funding special interests for campaign purposes...to the tune of nearly a billion dollars. Maine was finally able to pass a form of universal healthcare. Until now, lobbyists were always able to stop it. Not anymore.

Clean money pays for itself. Poke around the California Clean Money website for a bit if you want to learn more about it. I think it's peachy.

Clean Money is back....It's a good thing I understand the concept of delayed gratification.

Petition to the CA Secretary of State

A complaint has been filed with the office of the CA Secretary of State requesting there be an investigation of elections in San Diego. Over the course of this past year, it has become increasingly obvious that there are flaws in the system that need to be addressed if we are to have full faith in our election process. The complaint documents numerous problems in the election system here in San Diego, and asks Debra Bowen's office to investigate the issues associated with "sleepovers", violations of the chain of custody, poor auditing procedures, and the undermining the ability of voters to choose paper ballots.

The Help America Vote Act pushed inadequate and wholy inappropriate technology into our elections. Electronic voting machines (particularly the touchscreen DREs) are prone to error, easy to manipulate, and do not produce a paper ballot. It has been proven time and again that they are not only hackable, but the potential exists for a person with nefarious intent to completely change the results. The software is propriatary (owned by the manufacturers of the voting equipment) which means it is secret and not available for public inspections, despite the fact that our elections should be nothing less than fully open and transparent. This situation forces us to put our trust in the private corporations that now control our elections. We can't see our vote. We can't count our vote. We have stepped into an age of faith-based voting, and that is not acceptable.

Adding fuel to this fire, the San Diego Registrar of Voters office has stonewalled efforts by citizens and election integrity activists to bring transparency to the election process. They have also violated the required chain of custody and security measures that the state has put in place to protect our vote, by allowing these hackable machines to be stored in the homes, cars and garages of poll workers for weeks at a time before election day. Security issues were ignored or minimized, In addition, the required post-election audit was compromised by the fact that it was not truly random since the precincts to be audited were known before the votes were counted.

The registrar also made efforts to avoid informing voters about their right to vote on paper ballots, and in court they opposed a voter’s request to ensure that sufficient quantities of paper ballots be made available and to require that notices be placed at the polls informing voters that they could vote on paper ballots. It seems the San Diego Registrar of Voters views the public as an impediment and an inconvenience, when elections really belong to US. Elections are the method by which citizens confer power our government. It is not a gift from them to us. We own it, and it's time to take it back.

Please take a moment to review the complaint and/or sign the petition Petition to the CA Secretary of State.

We, the undersigned, believe that citizens of a democracy are self-governing. Because citizens are the source of all government power, we demand that our government be responsive to our concerns and answer our questions.
We are concerned about the conduct of our elections in San Diego County as reported in the Complaint to California Secretary of State And Petition from San Diego County Citizens to Investigate Compliance with Election Laws filed regarding the November 7, 2006, election.
We hereby petition the California Secretary of State to exercise the authority given to her by the citizens of this state to investigate and report on the issues raised in the complaint.

The petition
The Complaint

Amend the Holt Bill

Progressive Democrats of America has an Action Alert on their website where you can write a letter to your Congresscritter telling them you want amendments and changes to the Holt Bill that will ban DRE technology and require paper ballots.

As I've mentioned before, there are lots of reasons to like the Holt bill (HR 811), but it further entrenches the faulty DRE-type voting machines into the election system, AND it does't draw a clear distinction between a paper trail vs a paper ballot. Those are serious defects in the bill as it currently stands. A big enough "but" to keep me from enthusiastically endorsing the bill or signing the petetions being circulated about the issue by MoveOn and PFAW. I would strong support the Holt bill if it were amended as suggested in this PDA Action Alert. Once again, yay for PDA. They consistantly get it right.

These issues are also why Maxine Waters is withdrawing her co-sponsorship of the bill.

And since I've not mentioned it in a few days, here's a reminder to sign the petition asking Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, to investigate election practicies in San Diego that are outlined in this complaint.

The complaint reports on the violations of the certification requirements under state and federal law, the failure to properly test the machines pursuant to official procedures, the policy of undermining the right to vote on paper ballots, and the disregard of basic auditing principles in conducting the required one percent manual tally. - Ken Simpkins

All good reasons for the Secretary of State to take a closer look at the process.

Ken Simpkins guest blogs at Brad Blog

Attorney Ken Simpkins guest blogged at Brad Blog this afternoon, writing about the complaint filed with the CA Secretary of State and the accompanying petition.

The complaint documents numerous problems in the election system here in San Diego, and asks Debra Bowen's office to investigate the issues associated with "sleepovers", violations of the chain of custody, poor auditing procedures, and undermining the ability of voters to choose paper ballots.

Bowen has already opined that the "sleepovers" are illegal, so I hope she uses this opportunity to investigate the whole shoddy mess.

Petition to the California Secretary of State

The following is the executive summary from a complaint and petition to be filed with the California Secretary of State by Ken Simpkins. The complaint covers many of the problems with recent elections in San Diego county, and requests that Debra Bowen investigate the situation. Please give it a look, and if you're from SD region, sign the petition. Let's show that citizens ARE concerned about the process and the security of our elections.

The complete complaint can be found here, and there are copies of the petition that can be printed out for signatures, and forwarded to Ken Simpkins. You can write to sospetition at yahoo.com for further details.

Executive Summary

The conduct of elections in San Diego County has raised significant concerns for the electorate. This complaint is meant to address some of the most serious concerns raised by the November 7, 2006, election, and to request that the Secretary of State’s Office investigate and report on the issues raised.

The perceptions of citizens are that the requirements for the certification of the Diebold election machines used in San Diego County have not been complied with. Requirements for acceptance testing and logic and accuracy testing have not been fully complied with. Requirements for maintaining a strict chain of custody for securing memory cards (ballot boxes) put in place to address vulnerabilities to tampering revealed by public and private studies have been violated. The requirement for removing election machines from service when security seals are discovered to be removed was ignored. Voting machines without seals were allowed to continue in service without regard to the risk that votes cast on the machines could be deemed illegal and discarded. The requirement that all available reports are to be printed from each machine at the end of the election and before the memory card is removed from the machine was not complied with. In San Diego County, all of the available reports are not printed, or are printed after the cards are removed from the machine.

While the People own their elections, elections officials in San Diego County appear to view the public as an adversary to an official agenda that seems more aligned with partisan and corporate interests than with democratic values. Citizens attempting to observe the conduct of the November election report interference by poll workers and elections officials in a way that undermines citizens’ rights. Attempts to document problems at the polls were subverted by poll workers and elections officials by misinterpreting and misapplying election protocols.

The Secretary of State’s Office issued a requirement that paper ballots be available to voters. A policy to undermine the paper ballot requirement revealed itself through the conduct of elections officials. Poll worker training included instructions to promote the machines and not to inform voters of the availability of paper ballots. Poll workers who raised questions about the machines were dismissed from their jobs for failing to prove their loyalty to the machines. A request made in court that notice be posted at polling places informing voters about the availability of paper ballots, and that an adequate supply of paper ballots be ensured, was opposed by officials. At least one poll worker who attempted to inform voters about paper ballots on election day was forcefully instructed to stop advising voters of their rights by her colleagues and was ostracized from the group for doing so. Elections officials refused to count regular paper ballots until after electronic ballots were counted.

The value and the intent of the one percent audit of the canvass were defeated by the manner in which the audit was performed. Election officials were informed of the precincts to be audited prior to performing the canvass. The audit results suggest that a statistically significant difference between the machine count and the paper count exists. When discrepancies in the audit were reported, the Registrar of Voters refused to explain the discrepancies prior to certifying the election.

more here....

Are We A Democracy?

On 2/14 I attended a panel discussion entitled, Are We a Democracy? Vote Counting in the United States which featured Dr. Steven Freeman the author of Was The 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?

Yes, I know it was Valentines Day. I made my hubby take me to dinner first.

Freeman also appeared on Full Focus later that evening and the video can be found here.

The other speakers were Attorney Paul Lehto who spoke on "Legal and Political Standards for Verifying Democracy" and Attorney Ken Simpkins who's talk was about the need for election reform in San Diego.

It was a great presentation on the state of our system of elections, and Freeman and Lehto will be taking it on the road. I'll get more info about when and where and will post it here. It was worthwhile and interesting, and I recommend hearing them on this issue.

The Holt bill....again.

I've been reading over the Holt bill which has been introduced in the House of Representatives as an amendment to the Help America Vote Act, which sorely needs amending. I'm not finished mulling it over, and I still have questions. You should see my marked up copy of the bill! That said, I think it smells like progress. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. Some of the positive aspects include:

• It requires durable, archival quality paper ballots (more on that below)
  
• It addresses the need for a system that can be used by the disabled, non-native speakers, and those with literacy problems.
  
• It prohibits the use of "undisclosed" software in voting systems
  
• It prohibits the use of wireless communication devices in voting systems. (hello? No brainer.)
  
• It requires a chain of custody of the voting machines be tightened up, and that election officicals shall:
  

"ensure that all voting machines and related supplies to be used in the election shall remain secured within storage facilities arranged for by the election official and shall not be removed from such facilities until such time as they are to be delivered to the relevant polling place and secured at the polling place until used in the elections."

Long story short: No Sleepovers.

• It says emergency paper ballots should not only be available, but they are required to post a notice saying you have the right to a paper ballot. These paper ballots are to be treated as regular ballots, and NOT provisional ballots (which sometimes don't get counted, ya know?)
  
• It addresses conflict of interest issues with the voting machine manufactures and testing laboratories.
  
• It provides money to the states for implementation.
  
• It states that elections can not be certified until the audits are complete.
  

It also talks about audit requirements. I need to read this over and study a little more. I'll admit I don't know lots and lots about the current auditing requirements, so I don't have an opinion (yet) on whether this is an improvement or not. It does require each state to have an Election Audit Board comprised of members representing the political parties and one unaffiliated member so there are at least seven members on the state boards.

BUT...

It doesn't abolish DREs, much to my disappointment. I'm not surprised though. I imagine any politician would be hesitant, from a political perspective, to consider flushing away all the money that's been spent on DREs. I still think the voting machine companies should be held accountable for selling us a bill of goods. I want a refund.

Anyway...we still have DREs to deal with, and unfortunately, the bill says that a DRE paper trail is a ballot! That's not a ballot!!! That's a cash register receipt!!! But, it's also not durable, archival paper....which makes me wonder if this bill would end up requiring the DREs to actually print a ballot that would then be hand counted or scanned with an optical scanner. It certainly can be interpreted that way.

"ballots..shall be marked, printed or recorded on durable paper of archival quality capable of withstanding multiple counts and recounts without compromising the fundamental integrity of the ballots, and capable of retaining the information marked, printed or recorded on them for the full duration of the retention and preservation period called for by title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 or under applicable State law, whichever is longer."

Do you think the "paper trail" from a DRE meets that standard? I don't.

As for other probems with the bill, Bev Harris of Black Box Voting has a list of her objections. I respect Bev and BBV very much, but I don't agree with all of her thoughts on the bill. I do agree that the EAC needs to be impartial and not "scandal-ridden" but if there's going to be federal involvement in elections like everyone's been begging for, there's gonna be a commission or department or agency or board or something. The fact that there's a federal board doesn't equate to a "dictatorship", but it needs to be run fairly, impartially, openly and in a non-partisan manner. As for the "mush" language, that's how most legislation is written, IME. If you read much legislation, you'll see that it's often intentionally vague. Sometimes it's for political cover, and sometimes its just about the need for wiggle room in implementation process. They're leaving the details to the administrators who are supposed to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law. It's just that it's typical, and to me, not a reason to oppose the bill. And it's not unreadable....it's a version that amends another bill and that's how bills are written....eventually it gets put right into the original bill with strike-throughs on the edits and it's easier to see the context....but for me, that's not a reason to be oppose this bill.

One bill isn't going to solve all the problems in the system. Like it or not, the government runs on incremental change. It's slow. It's plodding. It's maddening. But it's the way it is. People in my circle of election integrity compadres are mostly not very happy about this bill, but after reading it myself I see it as a mostly positive step. It's not the whole trip, by any means (I mean, we still have these damn DREs) but it's progress. I'm not completely sold on the idea of all hand counted, all paper, all the time ballots, and computers are a fact of life. I believe we can use them in our elections, but not carelessly and thoughtlessly as we have thus far.

As I hear others talking about this bill one of their biggest problem seems to be the paper trail vs paper ballot issue, but I think the fact that ballots have to be on durable, archival quality paper that can withstand an audit will make the DRE paper trail obsolete. I would be much happier with this bill if it specifically said that paper trails are NOT ballots. And I'd be much much MUCH happier if the Holt bill said the voting machine manufacturers have to take back their garbage and give the taxpayers a big ol' refund, but I don't see THAT happening anytime soon. This is pretty good for now. It still needs some work, but it's pretty good, and I'm not willing to completely toss out the good, in search of the perfect. I think we can work to improve existing legislation AND fight for hand counted ballots at the same time.

So there's my blah blah blah after a preliminary reading of the Holt bill. Please stay tuned ...

As usual, Brad Blog is the leading source of info on election integrity issues. John Bonifaz was a guest blogger today, and he makes some good points about the Holt bill that was introduced today. Long story short...it needs work. It's not ready for prime time. PFAW endorses it, but I can't agree as long as the bill says DREs with paper trails are good enough. I don't like the touch screens. I want paper ballots. It's ok with me if they're scanned, but they need to be available for recount. Those cash register rolls on the DREs are not ballots.

Here’s the bottom line: The DRE technology is fundamentally flawed for recording and counting our votes. The Holt bill, unless amended, will further codify into law the use of this technology, piling onto the disaster of HAVA (the Help America Vote Act of 2002) a new disaster.

......

We can and we should press for the principled position here: an amendment to the Holt bill that would ban the continued use of DREs and require a real paper ballot. Otherwise, we're going to wake up in 2008 realizing the new disaster we helped to create.