Choice Point in CA?! THOUSANDS already kicked off of voter rolls.

[nicknameless]

Oh my, it's those darned "glitches" again. :grr:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rejected29mar29,1,2998644.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

New ID System May Block Voters
A statewide database has rejected otherwise valid registrations because of computer glitches or slight discrepancies in the spelling of names.
By Jordan Rau, Times Staff Writer
March 29, 2006

SACRAMENTO — Thousands of Californians who register to vote or update their records may not receive sample ballots or be able to vote as absentees because of the state's new method of verifying identities, election officials say.

A new statewide database designed by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson to authenticate voter registrations has blocked otherwise valid registrations because of computer glitches, slight discrepancies in spelling or incomplete applications.

<snip>

In Los Angeles County, the database rejected 14,629 people — 43% of those who registered from Jan. 1 to March 15. Officials are trying to resolve the problems in time for municipal elections April 11 in 14 cities in the county. They say the challenge will be far larger for the June 6 primary, which will involve many more voters.

<snip>

Ashley Snee Giovannettone, spokeswoman for McPherson, who oversees elections, said a sampling of statewide registrations found that 74% were immediately verified. She said state election law requires county officials to resolve the discrepancies for the others, which might mean fixing a typo or contacting the voter to obtain missing information.

<snip>

State Sen. Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey), who chairs the Senate elections committee and is running in the Democratic primary to challenge McPherson, said: "We're looking at the potential for thousands and thousands of people to lose the right to vote."

So are rethugs giving themselves an instant 26% lead? What's next?! :grr:

[derby378]

1. So, does McPherson owe Choicepoint or Diebold any favors?

I smell something very rotten here.

[nicknameless]

2. Everything about that guy is rotten.

:nuke:

[John Barrett]

3. Honest Accurate Voting & Elections

I don't look at it from a partisan viewpoint. I want election machines that are accurate, non-hackable, and provide a paper verification ballot and are above reproach. We need the same from voters and I see nothing wrong with verifying the legitimacy of voters just as with the machines. I see nothing wrong with requiring voter ID either.

We need honest elections .... period.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. Why, has there been a big problem with the voters? You know, cases

where voters have ripped of elections by voting illegally?

I haven't seen any articles about that. Have you?

I do know that when Florida and Ohio (2 other Republican Secs. of State) did simular things they denied the right to vote of hundreds of thousands of people, and it benefited bush by putting him in office illegally, twice.

Don't be fooled by what they say, look at what they do.

[shance]

6. You know thats not what their doing John. Have you been around the last

six years?

[John Barrett]

7. Two Rights...make a right.

I go back to my original point. Two rights make a right. But two wrongs don't make a right. I would have no problem providing ID before I vote and would encourage it. I am working hard for Common Cause and others on voting integrity, but would be a hypocrit if I said I didn't care if illegals voted as long as they vote Democratic. It's about integrity of the process, not winning and the end never justifies the means. I agree that the elections have been very suspect since 2000.

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. just as a point of information about the article

If I understand this rightly, it means exactly what the lede says: folks whose forms don't exactly match the database records will not be allowed to vote absentee. They will be allowed to vote in person if they present identification, or they can cast provisional ballots even if they don't present identification.

So far, that isn't as bad as Florida 2000. Like you, I don't object in principle to fair efforts to verify that someone is eligible to vote -- but after Florida 2000, I am pretty damn allergic to database-matching myself. I think the exact-match standard is just ridiculous.

[AndyTiedye]

43. We Know What they Do With "Provisional" Ballots

:hurts:

[OnTheOtherHand]

67. in Ohio in 2004, they counted over 3/4 of them

and, yes, it should have been even more, if Blackwell hadn't imposed arbitrarily restrictive rules. Still, many Ohio election officials accepted and counted provisional ballots in good faith -- over 120,000 of them. Nationwide, over a million of them, about 68% of all provisional ballots cast. That's a lot of votes.

If anyone here is "educating" people that their provisional ballots are unlikely to be counted, then please stop. There are already enough folks discouraging citizens from voting. They do not need reinforcements!

Now, that said, obviously it's important to get the registration lists right before the election, so that people aren't asked to jump through additional hoops for no good reason, and with considerable risk that their legitimate votes still won't be counted. I am not encouraging complacency: I am warning against fatalism.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. ID's are easily faked. Poll workers tend to be seniors who don't

necessarily know how to spot a fake ID

To make your system fool proof we need a national biometric card system. Take DNA from all voters at the poll. Then there's the problem of identical twins or triplets committing voter fraud. (identical DNA)

I ask you again, what is the problem you are trying to fix. Do you have any data on a lot of people voting illegally? Do you believe there is a problem with non-citizens or non-registered citizen voting?

Or is it just a solution to a non-problem?

[MissWaverly]

42. I had to show a photo ID and a voter registration card

which is not supposed to be the rule for repeat voters and my machine still defaulted
to GWB 5 times to help him win the election. I say we ship the voting machines to
Iraq to stay the course and let the insurgents shoot at them. I notice that the Israelis
all voted with paper ballots in their last election.

[glitch]

4. Surprise! Isn't this what Choicepoint excels at? Isn't that exactly why

they are hired? I wouldn't doubt it.

I would bet cash money the "statewide database" is outsourced to a private vendor. It's weird that the LA Times doesn't mention who it is.

I would definitely NOT bet against it being Choicepoint.

[EFerrari]

9. I'm going to call and ask. n/t

[glitch]

19. I see below you called and it's Rexall or something - NOW how much do you

want to bet they have the same RW roots as Choicepoint?

Damn! edit to add: damn fine work getting the info.

[EFerrari]

20. You know what my bet would be, glitch.

There was 'way too much tap dancing for this to be a straight answer.

Or else, why was the nice young man at the reception desk forbidden to discuss this with me.

:eyes:

[glitch]

31. So true. They can't help but act guilty. Bet they long for the old days,

before active citizen participation. :hi:

[liam_laddie]

10. In Ohio...

Every BoE office, 88 in OH, is connected to the SOS office by a dedicated fiber-optic line.
Hmmmm...are other states similarly equipped?

Who's to guarantee that the original data entry is correct? That is, if the data is re-typed
by a human, error can certainly occur. Or is there "translation" software which will create
a digital record from a scanned image? Is the database digital images of the original
hand-signed card? Microfilm translations? I've no idea what the techniques are. I am
just very leery of how this scrubbing is done, as well as the quality of the original record.

In Ohio, the rule is: If voters miss two quadrennial elections in a row, they are mailed a
card telling them to re-register via the card. if card is not returned (30 days?) to the county
BoE, the voter is removed. Of course, partisan clerks might choose to ignore that rule...or
scrub someone by mistake, intentional or not. There were too many voters scrubbed in the
last couple cycles to not be suspicious about the system, IMHO.

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. oh, exact-match is a farce, for sure

Even setting aside human error, a system that assumes that "Sam" isn't the same person as "Samuel" -- even though "Sam" and "Samuel" have the same Social Security number -- has a problem. (As I understand it from the Brennan Center, that is one implication of the CA policy.)

Now, this problem is sort of the opposite of Florida 2000 as I understand it. There, registered voters were checked against felon lists (and scrubbed if they "matched") with far too loose a matching criterion, and seemingly no manual intervention to override even the most egregious false matches. In the California case, prospective registered voters are checked against a master list with far too strict a matching criterion -- which has the same effect of reducing the electorate. On the plus side, there does seem to be a good faith effort (at least in some jurisdictions) to correct these errors. Also, importantly, as I understand it, folks who submit these problematic registration applications by mail are considered registered and can vote if they provide identification, or can vote provisionally without ID. That is far from a failsafe solution, but it helps.

Check out the Brennan Center roundup, with links to summaries for each state: http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/downloads/HAVA/svrd/SVRD%20matching%20report.pdf

[EFerrari]

11. Called McPherson's office and the guy told me he's not

authorized to disclose the vendor but has to have someone else call me back.

I'll try the LA Times.

[EFerrari]

14. Okay, I talked to a spokesman for the SOS's office.

I asked him directly if Choicepoint is the vendor and he said no. He said the database uses DMV files in conjunction with a company's name that I never heard of but sounded like "Rexall Security Systems".

He also said that an exact match was not required and that, that part of the story was not accurate.

It sounds like they are getting a lot of heat over this because he was very willing to take time with me AND the person who answers the phone in that office has been instructed not to talk about it.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Good work! When the flak flies they always make nice... n/t

[rumpel]

46. DMV

contractor:

http://www.gensa.com/successmcp.asp

appears to be a Sacramento company...

[paineinthearse]

16. Ashley Snee Giovannettone spins 74%

.740 would be an awsome batting average, but it stinks as a verification percentage.

And isn't it typical that a rethug would take negative news and spin it around? 74% instant verification sure sounds a hell of a lot better than a 26% rejection rate.

[nicknameless]

30. Could you believe that? Like she was proud of it.

"But that only puts us rethugs ahead by 26 percentage points."

For new registrations it's even worse -- 43%.

[flyarm]

17. calif welcome to our world..from your friends in fla!!...n/t

[glitch]

18. We're all Floridians now. (Or soon will be...) nt

[Kurovski]

21. K&RECOMMEND.(NT)

[nicknameless]

22. I'm not sure if it's specifically Choicepoint.

Einsteinia had posted this in January. "ChoicePoint Responds":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=411369

CEPN had submitted a letter to McPherson about the centralized database and ChoicePoint in particular:
http://www.electionassessment.org/Submissions/2005-06-29EAH/Healy_S/extdoc/Healy_S%20Centralized%20Voter%20Reg_sm.pdf

[EFerrari]

24. If it is, McPherson's spokesman blew it today because I asked

him pointblank, "Is the vendor Choicepoint?"

And he said, no.

I kept notes.

[nicknameless]

26. Can we believe ANTHING they say?

Thank you for making those calls.

[EFerrari]

27. I don't think so. So, I keep a paper trail of the calls.

If I'm wrong, fine, I'll cop to it.

If I'm right, I have a record.

[nicknameless]

28. Having a record is a very good idea.

:thumbsup:

[rumpel]

37. Thanks sfexpat2000. What happened to our sunshine law?

I will check on the company you heard him mention.

[EFerrari]

40. Thanks, rumpel. n/t

[nicknameless]

23. League of Women Voters letter to McBastard:

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA

801 12th Street, Suite 220, Sacramento, California 95814
[phone] P Fax [phone]
Web site: www.lwvc.org P E-mail: [e-mail]



March 28, 2006

The Honorable Bruce McPherson
Secretary of State of California
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Secretary McPherson:

The League of Women Voters of California is concerned that under new state procedures for adding registered voters to the CalVoter state database, it appears that a large number of registrations are being inappropriately rejected.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 requires each state to implement, by January 1, 2006, “a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list.” Recognizing that the state of California would not have such a database in place by that deadline, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the California Secretary of State entered into a memorandum of agreement to update and use the existing CalVoter registration system for HAVA compliance. Emergency regulations were adopted by the Secretary of State to implement that memorandum.

Judging from statistics compiled since the first of this year for Los Angeles County, most of the rejected registrations and re-registrations fall into one of two categories. One type of problem occurs when individuals provide a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number (SSN) on their registration form, but their name or birth date is not exactly the same as in the DMV records. Another type of problem occurs when individuals do not provide a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their SSN on the registration form although their other information can be matched with DMV or other state agency records.

Since many registrations are in fact re-registrations prompted by a voter’s change of address, party, etc., many of these individuals have already been on the voter registration rolls in California. However, in both types of situation, the current system does not allow any of those individuals to be included in the statewide registration list.

We must object. Our procedures should guard against inappropriate elimination of legitimate voters from the system. It is not enough to allow them to cast a provisional ballot if they make it to the polls. Being excluded from the registration list means that they will not receive a sample ballot or a ballot pamphlet, they will not receive notice of the location of their polling places, and they will not be permitted to request an absentee ballot.

We hope that a resolution to this problem can be reached quickly. We urge you to find alternatives to the current rules (data standards and match criteria) for processing registrations. If possible, that would be done by administrative procedures available to you. However, if it proves that legislation is needed, the LWVC would support that approach.

Under HAVA, it is intended that information provided by other databases, such as DMV data, will supplement the information provided by voters when they register or re-register, thereby helping to correct an application so it can be processed and accepted, if the applicant is eligible, instead of rejected.

It is a well-known problem that mistakes are made in database administration and management. Applicants transpose or forget numbers and letters, and make other noncritical errors as well. Officials likewise inadvertently make data entry errors. Databases themselves maintain these errors over time, compounding problems if databases are compared and matched with each other.

A well-run system will use the wide variety of information that is available from a number of sources to make corrections in order to maintain an accurate system. If, for example, the applicant transposes digits in his or her driver’s license number, as evidenced by the driver’s license record, a correction is made and the application is processed.

The corollary is that a failure to match the applicant or his/her data with another database must not result in the rejection of the applicant. This is important for a variety of reasons. First, matching is not an eligibility requirement under HAVA or state law. Second, the database information is likely to have significant errors. The Social Security Administration acknowledges that its data is not foolproof, data entry and other errors in DMV and voter registration agencies are well known, and simple matching mistakes—from the use of different forms of names to transposed or missing numbers—are significant. Third, the absence of information does not suggest a problem. Only positive information of a disqualifying characteristic should result in the rejection of a voter in a database matching system. Rejection must be based on a positive match of the identity of the voter, and a positive match with a disqualifying characteristic.

In the voter registration context, the failure to find a match does not provide information that the voter is ineligible. If there is no match, the voter registration application should be processed on its own terms.

If the applicant is eligible to vote, then his or her name should be entered on the list. If necessary, the applicant can be placed on a “pending” list of individuals who receive the normal election materials and services but must provide identification (if a first-time voter) or swear to his or her identity in order to cast a normal ballot.

Uniform and nondiscriminatory practices are important for any process concerning the registration of voters. We must not go into this election season burdened by processes that disenfranchise voters.

Sincerely,

/signed/ Jacqueline Jacobberger
President

[nicknameless]

25. From State Sen. Bowen:

Thousands of voters dumped off California’s voting rolls
March 29th, 2006

I just learned of an alarming development in our fight for fair and transparent elections: The current Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson, launched a statewide voter registration database system last year that will disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters in California.

More than 14,000 new voter registration and re-registration applications just from Los Angeles County were recently invalidated under this new stringent set of regulations — and other counties are seeing similar results.

This is a 43% rejection rate! In fact, virtually all of these applications would have been accepted before Secretary McPherson rolled out his new statewide voter registration database. Typically rejection rates are 1-2%. This is outrageous.

And these applications were rejected for trivial matters — a name or driver’s license number not perfectly matching what was on file in the statewide database, for example. Or even technical system errors that prevented valid applications from being accepted.

We’re talking about thousands of eligible voters, many of whom have been registered for years, being thrown off the voter rolls. Unless they correct these trivial errors with their local registrar, these fellow citizens won’t receive sample ballots in the mail, notifying them of their polling place. They won’t receive absentee ballots. In other words, it will be much more difficult for them to get their legitimate vote counted.

If eligible voters are prevented from registering to vote, I view that as a huge problem for our democracy — I’m sorry Secretary McPherson doesn’t see it that way. We are aggressively looking into this serious issue — and we’ll keep you posted on what we find.

– Debra

(Boldfacing is hers)

[Amaryllis]

39. Nick, you have a link for this?

[nicknameless]

41. Oops. Here's one:

http://www.debrabowen.com/blog

[kster]

29. K&R........nt

[nicknameless]

32. This matters to the entire country! 55 Electoral Votes !!!!!!!!!

We have got to get Mc@#$%& out of that office!

[nicknameless]

33. Don't forget that Bowen will be on Al Franken's show 3/31 at 9:30 am.

Sounds like she'll have more things to say than she had planned. :(

[Jack Rabbit]

34. ChoicePoint, eh?

The same people involved in the Florida 2000 election heist.

What was the glitch? Being Afro-American and having a name similar to a felon in another state or just registering Democratic?

[nicknameless]

35. I don't know that it's ChoicePoint that's created this mess.

Although we could use their name as a verb and say that California has been "ChoicePointed".

The "glitch" may have been RWD (Registering While Democrat).

[bleever]

36. I do know that Choicepoint operates in CA, because I got a call

from them to verify previous employment of a former employee.

[nicknameless]

38. Do you know who hired them?

Your new employer?
Does that make them more likely to be the company creating this voter database?

:shrug:

(Edit: D'oh!)

[bleever]

44. They called me, as the former employer of someone they were checking

up on, in all likelihood a pre-employment check.

And I spent some time on their website, searching through all their various branches and divisions, but didn't find anything of interest.


:shrug:

[nicknameless]

45. I'll ask Bowen's office who created the database. Not sure they'll know.

Especially given sfexpat2000's phone conversations, I think the rethugs want to keep specifics hushed.

(Sorry I misunderstood your last post. My brain is in freak-out mode.)

[rumpel]

47. Here is an interesting LATimes blog on Choicepoint & DMV dec 2005

http://goldenstateblog.latimes.com/goldenstate/2005/11/golden_state_co_5.html


on edit:

Who gave these companies the right to make a buck (tons of it) on my back, while they can crush me as a consumer or potential borrower, facilitating identity theft along the way, confuse information and who knows who can plant information, that may even disqualify me to vote. These people can destroy or make your life. The whole data system needs to be heavily regulated: make it so they can not sell data.




:mad:

[nicknameless]

48. That sounds very ominous.

It's claimed that this database is based in large part on DMV records.

:(


And what is Lockyer's problem? He voted for Ahhnold, and now this? Time for him to switch parties?

[rumpel]

49. the blog I think is from Hiltzik

corrected his spelling

[nicknameless]

52. According to BradBlog, ***Diebold*** is writing the database software.

See reply #50

[nicknameless]

50. The answer: DIEBOLD !!!!!!!!!!!! Not ChoicePoint.

According to BradBlog entry today:

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002619.htm

DEMOCRACY CRUMBLING: New Electronic Voter Registration Database Rejects 43% of New Los Angeles Voter Applications! 26% Rejected State-Wide in California!
Applications That Don't Match EXACTLY With DMV Records are Automatically Dumped by New System!
California's League of Women Voters Sends Letter of Objection to Secretary of State

We've been dreading this. And you're not gonna like it either. It's an entirely new can of worms in the Electronic Rape of American Electoral Democracy. The next wave -...

We've been dreading this. And you're not gonna like it either.

It's an entirely new can of worms in the Electronic Rape of American Electoral Democracy. The next wave -- beyond the electronic voting machines, and perhaps even more alarming -- in the arsenal of those out to game the system for partisan advantage.

No matter what we do, no matter how many successes, the Bad Guys -- those who hate Democracy and American Values -- are always one step ahead of us, it seems.

The horrifically written and, of course, ironically named "Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002" requires, as of January 1, 2006, each state to implement "a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list."

And guess who's writing the software for it, in California, Ohio and elsewhere? That's right...our old friends at Diebold, Inc.

While we've put off reporting on much of this until now -- as prompted by story out today (in the MSM of all places!) -- we've been working on an extremely disturbing part of this story for some time relating directly to all of this out in, you guessed it, Ohio. We've yet to run the story for a number of reasons. But we hope to have much more on it, in all its troubling detail, in the not-too-distant future.

For today, however, we'll stick to the report coming out of California in this morning's Los Angeles Times which says that, since the first of year, when California's new computerized Voter Registration Database has gone state-wide, Los Angeles County has "rejected 14,629 people — 43% of those who registered from Jan. 1 to March 15."

<snip>

[EFerrari]

53. So, McPherson's liar LIED OUTRIGHT when he called me?

:mad:

Edit: really, WHY BOTHER TO CALL BACK!

[nicknameless]

54. And really, are we surprised? Mc#$%& has lied about everything.

:grr:

[EFerrari]

55. What is surprising is that he's bothering to lie.

Remember those public hearings with no public that he didn't even bother to attend?

I'm REALLY MAD tonight. But tomorrow, we need to regroup.

They WILL NOT steal California.

[nicknameless]

56. But Mc#$%& ALWAYS lies. Maybe it's a psychosis. Maybe it's an attempt

to scuttle (like the roach he is) under the radar, even if only momentarily.

I'm so furious, I can hardly see straight.

[EFerrari]

57. I'd like to know how Brad determined the Diebold connection.

I was too mad to read his article very well. It will hafta wait until tomorrow.

They are very serious about this. The liar who called me today was 'way too smooth for a state government spokes person unless he was hired by Tony Soprano. :(

[nicknameless]

58. It looked like he started following the story in Ohio.

I'll have to reread it as well.

I almost wonder if it was a diebold person who called you back. Apparently Mc@#$%& is VERY cozy with that company.

[EFerrari]

59. They went to a lot of trouble to call me back and lie.

They are being very careful.

[nicknameless]

60. I hope you'll be careful too.

I wonder if they're trying to find out who's onto them. :(

Edit: I wonder if complaints to his office automatically get callers rejected by Diebold.

[EFerrari]

61. I just HOPE they try it. We have enough media outlets

to turn it on them.

I don't put anything past these guys. I remember thinking I was paranoid when they were smearing Kevin.

But, no. We're watching a trainwreck in progress. :mad:

[nicknameless]

62. Haven't the motives for taking down Shelley become incredibly transparent?

Look what they've done to this state in just one year. Un-effing-believable.

[EFerrari]

63. I guess I'm a believer now!

I just hope we can get Debra in -- that it's not too late.

[nicknameless]

64. I hope we can get her in too.

She's not the only Dem in the Legislature, certainly more will be awakened by this news.
Those spineless wonders need to stand up and fight back. They let Mc@#$%& in to begin with.
They had every right to keep Cathy Mitchell in that office, but they caved in.

[EFerrari]

65. Let's make a pact to work for Debra. She's stood tall

against this coup.

I'm still to mad to think but, there are things we can do to help out.

:toast:

[nicknameless]

66. She is the best shot we have for restoring democracy in California.

I'm sure she'll let us know what she needs to keep fighting.

:toast:

[EFerrari]

51. Bradblod is reporting that DIEBOLD is writing the software.

OMFG.

They didn't even buy us dinner first.

:wow:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=786054&mesg_id=786054


edit: link