NY: Spitzer endorses Paper Ballot OpScan

[Nite Owl]

Just got this email. I didn't see this posted here.

PRESS RELEASE

Spitzer Circulates Statement Calling Paper Ballot Optical Scan Voting
"Proven Technology"

Democracy For New York and NYS Gubernatorial Candidate voice concerns about electronic voting

Gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer produced a statement voicing concerns about the reliability and even the potential for election fraud with electronic voting after speaking with local activist groups around New York state. In the statement Spitzer asks the state to
implement "a vigorous testing regime" or consider an alternative to electronic machines called 'Paper Ballot with Precinct Based Optical Scan', also known as PBOS.

"Albany's implementation of the Help America Vote Act has been a well-publicized disaster," Spitzer said in the statement, "State government's failure of leadership is especially disconcerting in light of widespread reports of the unreliability and potential for fraud of electronic voting machines."

The statement is a direct result of conversations with activists from Democracy For New York (DFNY). The group is actively engaged in
efforts to protect the voting rights of the people of the State of New York. DFNY points out that a Paper Ballot and Optical Scan voting system provides many advantages over electronic "touch screen" technology, or "DREs". Optical Scan systems are popular in a number of other states. Within the past year, the states of New Mexico and Connecticut have decided to use statewide optical scan systems to comply with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The complete Optical scan system includes ballot marking technology which allows a paper ballot based system to provide accessible, private and independent voting for voters with disabilities. HAVA requires new voting machines for New York by 2007. DFNY, along with other groups, including New Yorkers for Verified Voting and the League of Women Voters of New York, have endorsed Paper Ballot Optical Scan voting technology over touch screen machines.

"Eliot Spitzer has recognized that both public funds and the integrity of the election process are better served by Precinct Based Optical Scanning of Paper Ballots", said Alan Goldston of Democracy for Westchester, a local DFNY group. "Any election officials in New York who ignore his sober advice had better be prepared to explain why they would choose to both waste public money and jeopardize the election process."

Election integrity issues have been a major issue for activists in the group. Andrew C. White of Democracy for the Hudson-Mohawk Region said that his group had long urged Mr. Spitzer to take a hard look at the issue, "Electronic touch screen machines are a fundamentally flawed technology. They are inherently unverifiable and therefore present a threat to democracy." He added that the issue is of utmost importance to the Democracy for New York Coalition and that Eliot Spitzer's recognition of the issue may well clinch a DFNY endorsement for the Spitzer/Paterson ticket.

The full text of Eliot Spitzer's statement follows:

"Albany's implementation of the Help America Vote Act has been a well-publicized disaster. It was a mistake from the start for the State Legislature to pass the buck to our counties rather than craft legislation that would have specified a single technology for adoption statewide. As a result, we're looking at the very real possibility of a patchwork of different voting machines with different levels of accuracy and accessibility throughout the State.

State government's failure of leadership is especially disconcerting in light of widespread reports of the unreliability and potential for fraud of electronic voting machines. The State must address these concerns through a vigorous testing regime or should consider certifying the proven and less expensive Paper Ballot with Precinct Based Optical Scan technology."

Democracy for New York is a coalition of over 40 groups across New York State. The working group involved in the conversations with the Spitzer campaign included: Alan Goldston of Democracy for Westchester, John McBride and Andrew White of Democracy for the Hudson-Mohawk Region, Cynthia Kouril of Democracy for Long Island and David Kogelman of Democracy for New York City.
###

As a direct result the voting members of DFHMR voted to immediately endorse the Spitzer/Paterson ticket for Governor and Lt. Governor in the upcoming elections. Other DFNY coalition groups have or are preparing to endorse as well.

[Bill Bored]

1. What a bunch of hogwash!

Spitzer:

"The State must address these concerns through a vigorous testing regime or should consider certifying the proven and less expensive Paper Ballot with Precinct Based Optical Scan technology."

Does this sound like an "endorsement" of PB/OS to you? It's like saying HAVA requires replacement of lever machines. Neither are true and DFNY were bound to endorse Spitzer anyway. Who are they kidding?

And here's a flash for you Gov., the state is ALREADY CONSIDERING certifying PB/OS!!!

The fact is that Spitzer has been a miserable failure on this issue. He was pushing the state to rush into e-voting when the right thing to do was to delay this scam for as long as possible. That's why we now have so much evidence of e-voting problems from around the country, and that evidence unfortunately, includes optical scan.

I am very disappointed in Spitzer AND DFNY.

What NY will need is an auditing protocol in excess of the 3% required by law, regardless of which technology is ultimately chosen. Otherwise, we are better off keeping levers. Paper ballots without hand counts to check the machines is like a tree falling in a forest. No one will hear the sound and no one will actually count those paper ballots either.

This is a shameless campaign ploy by Spitzer and DFNY should be ashamed of themselves for going along with it. Basing their endorsement on this? WTF? Tom Souzzi came out for paper ballots some time ago, so they have to come up with a better reason for their endorsement of Spitzer than this!

I'm not saying Spitzer would be a bad governor, but this is just disingenuous. If he wants to pander to election integrity activists, he should come out for a meaningful statewide auditing protocol to check these bloody machines and scanners that can otherwise spit out whatever totals they are programmed to!

At least Spitzer won't be elected by computers. Thanks to the state Board of Elections and Legislature, we will still be using lever machines this year. And LOVING it!

[Nite Owl]

3. I was a bit confused when I was reading this

somehow it didn't sound that good. Maybe it was the 'optical scan' part...

Why can't we keep the old lever machines anyway and just have one machine that would accomodate handicapped voters? Why do we need to replace all of them?

[Bill Bored]

4. We can!

Nothing in either state or federal law bans lever machines. However, if there can be sufficient auditing of the paper ballots, optical scan can work. That's the only thing I would trust at this point because there have been too many instances of bogus logic and accuracy tests, scanner failures, memory card hacks and failures, etc.

Paper ballots are great if they're actually looked at but otherwise they're about as fraud prone as any other technology, IMO. At least they CAN be looked at, however we've seen how hard it is to get a proper audit or recount in races across the country. This is something the next Governor could work on in NY if the Board of Elections fails to.

My major beef with this is that it seems like a campaign ploy and I think it's a bit dishonest on the part of either Spitzer, who actually didn't say much at all, or DFNY who should be able to come up with better reasons to endorse him than a lukewarm support for PB/OS.

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. yeah, it's hard to figure

Spitzer's statement is not very good, for all the reasons you've mentioned. It certainly doesn't seem to merit this level of enthusiasm from DFNY.

[Bill Bored]

8. I agree. I think Spitzer was already a shoe-in for their endorsement.

That's why this is so annoying.

[garybeck]

6. Every time I see a politician say great things about OpScan

I get a bad feeling in my gut. I love most of what i've heard about Spitzer but he obviously DOESN'T GET IT.

all the independent studies show the OpScans have significant problems. It's been several months since the Hursti Hack, the CA/Berkeley report, and the Brennan report, all of which show clearly that the memory cards on the opscans are wide open to fraud.

he should know better.

by the way, I noticed that you said there's a 3% audit law in NY now? When does this come into affect? Cool!

[Bill Bored]

7. It's in effect now, but there are no precinct count scanners or DREs yet,

except for a few DREs in one county that will have to add VVPAT printers or be replaced.

Actually Gary, the misinformation about the safety of optical scan is being promoted by some activists even more than by politicians. The pols are just parroting what they think the people want to hear.

No one disputes that scanners are preferable to DREs, but while there will be a 3% audit, other checks and balances are necessary and they have not been designed yet.

There is a law requiring 800 test votes a year to be cast on every machine but that's not necessarily using the actual ballots for a given election. So there are still a lot of things to be worked out by regulation before we replace a single lever machine.

That's why in 2006, we will be hand counting paper ballots marked by Automark, Avante and Populex ballot markers for the disabled.

That said, op scans are used to count Absentee ballots, which in our state is considered the number 1 potential source of election fraud! It's unthinkable to us that there are states where you can cast absentee ballots without actually having to be ABSENT or disabled! And early voting is almost as bad.

On eidt: I'm pretty sure that since the absentees are not a LOT of ballots, they are hand counted in close elections where they might change the outcome.

[garybeck]

9. yup, i agree, the audit alone is not enough

can you give us a link to your law about the audit and the 800 vote test, if it's not too much trouble? do you have anything on open source code?

sounds to me like NY is one of the best states, with that law in place, even before the evoting systems come on line. used to be VT was one of the best, with our "DRE Ban" but I've completely lost faith with our SoS.

I debated our state's Director of Elections tonight. I was told I made her look foolish.

[kster]

2. Great news! Now if he can add

that if groups of concerned Americans want to sit at the precinct and hand count them "Optical scanned ballots" in there entirety, if they so choose, with no restrictions as to how many they can count, He's got a deal.

He's got a great bargaining chip to make that happen, If the scanner manufactures want to keep their proprietary software protected, then they have to let any group of concerned citizens, count as many of those op scanned ballots in as many precincts they choose "no questions asked"......... Sorry bhad to add, Kick and Recommended