Key to our votes! Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News Tuesday, 1/30/07

[Melissa G]

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News Tuesday, 1/30/07



Diebold Key Hack Updates from Bradblog available in post number 1!

Bad Diebold... Bad Diebold!
Putting keys to the votes of Americans out on the internet for hackers to copy.
What an incompetent security breach... Revoke Diebold's contracts Now!


All members welcome and encouraged to participate.



Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.

If you can:
1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.


2. Post stories using the new Spring 2006 Edition of "Election Fraud and Reform News Directory" listed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x407240

3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.


4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.




Please "Recommend" for the Greatest Page (it's the link just below).

[Melissa G]

1. Diebold Key Hack Story Updates...

Thank YOU, Brad!

BLOGGED BY Brad ON 1/29/2007 11:05AM
Diebold Key Hack Story Updates...
If You Missed 'Em, Here They Are Again...
You're Welcome Diebold!
Blogged by Brad from on the road...

There were a number of notable updates added, in the subsequent 24 to 48 hours after we published our piece on the idiots at Diebold who gave away the keys to the kingdom (literally).

The story, btw, shot to the top of a bunch of sites --- no easy feat for an Election Integrity-related story which doesn't feature Ann Coulter --- and was even picked up by the rightwing "news" site, WorldNetDaily who (unlike CNet's coverage, tsk tsk) gave us the appropriate attribution. Should I be pleased or horrified?

Anyway...As we reported initially, Diebold --- incredibly --- posted a picture of the actual key which --- incredibly --- opens all Diebold touch-screen voting systems on their website. Not so incredibly, the photo was subsequently used to hack the key and create working duplicates by an IT expert. Just the latest jaw-dropping chapter in the incredible series of blunders by one of America's largest, and most irresponsible, voting machine companies...the same ones who are --- incredibly --- contracted to protect the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence at the National Archives and who, in early January, --- incredibly --- received certification from George W. Bush's U.S. Homeland Security department for high-security contracts.

As the notable updates to the original story came after you may have read it, but they deserve to be noticed, we re-run them here in full just to make sure everyone is able to play along at home and that Diebold enjoys the maximum amount of shame that they've worked so hard to earn.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4082

[Melissa G]

2. Secret EAC Reports Reveal Sloppy, Incomplete and Non-Existent Testing by Federal Test Lab

More Great Bradblog!



Secret EAC Reports Reveal Sloppy, Incomplete and Non-Existent Testing by Federal Test Lab for Voting Machines Used Across the Country Last November
Federal Voting Machine 'Oversight' Committee Finally Releases 'Soiled Laundry' on Banned Test Lab, CIBER, After Subpoena Threats...
Guest Blogged by Michael Richardson

"Cross checking between CIBER and Wyle reports has revealed at times that neither has performed certain tests, expecting that the test was done by the other."- From EAC Report on CIBER, Inc.
Hours after our report last week on threatened subpoenas against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and its banned voting machine test laboratory, CIBER, Inc., by the New York State Board of Elections, the company supplied information concerning its lack of accreditation to New York officials. Enraged NY State Election Commissioner Doug Kellner called the secret reports “soiled laundry” that both the company and EAC had been trying to hide.

Friday, the EAC reacted to the disclosure by CIBER of confidential EAC documents by releasing the assessment reports upon which last summer’s decision for non-accreditation of CIBER was based. The documents, kept secret by the EAC for half a year, reveal a shocking level of incompetence and negligence by the “independent testing authority” (ITA) lab which tested electronic voting machines used by 68.5% of the registered voters in the November 2006 election.

By way of reminder, CIBER is one of three labs that had been testing all American voting machines as part of the ITA structure; the group of labs selected and paid for by the voting machine companies themselves to test their hardware and software --- in secret --- for Federal "authorities."

The EAC assessment report from July 2006 of the CIBER test lab in Huntsville, Alabama --- also kept secret until the matter was reported by the NY Times last month --- found “critical processes were not implemented nor procedures followed.”

Secret EAC Reports Reveal Sloppy, Incomplete and Non-Existent Testing by Federal Test Lab

[Melissa G]

3. Election Assistance Commission Exposes Severe Flaws in Voting System Testing

Thanks to Bill Bored for the post and the DU discussion here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2707970

Original message
Election Assistance Commission Exposes Severe Flaws in Voting System Testing
Please feel free to submit to news outlets.



For Immediate Release
Contact: Susan Greenhalgh

votetrustusa.org

January 29, 2007


Election Assistance Commission Report Exposes Severe Flaws in Testing of
Electronic Voting Systems


Last Friday the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) released a
highly critical assessment of CIBER Inc., an Independent Testing Authority
(ITA) responsible for testing voting system software. The report was
received and reviewed by the EAC in July 2006 and was used as the basis to
deny CIBER interim accreditation as a testing lab under the EAC last summer.
“CIBER has not shown the resources to provide a reliable product,” the
report concludes.

Because CIBER Inc. and Wyle Laboratories work together - CIBER testing the
election management software and Wyle testing the individual voting units -
the report assessed the two labs together but found “they have distinctly
different quality management programs and different levels of proficiency
about following those programs.” The report was considerably less critical
of Wyle, which received interim accreditation by the EAC, however it noted
that “Cross checking between CIBER and Wyle reports has revealed at times
that neither ITA has performed certain tests expecting that the test was
done by the other.”

The report faulted CIBER claiming “critical processes were not implemented
nor procedures followed.” It also found that CIBER’s “testing for a product
tends to either use vendor developed tests or new tests developed
specifically for the product - they have no standard test methods defined.
This makes their testing dependent on the vendor input and vulnerable to
unique vendor interpretations”.
This report exposes the testing and certification of voting system software
to date as little more than a charade,” said Joan Krawitz, executive
director of VoteTrustUSA.org, a watchdog group that advocates for increased
security and safeguards for electronic voting systems. “We have repeatedly
raised concerns about the relationship of the vendors and the testing labs
and this report confirms the grim reality that the voting machine vendors
were often in control of the testing process.” Under current EAC
guidelines, the testing labs are hired and paid directly by the voting
system vendors to assess compliance with federal standards in order to
receive federal certification.

CIBER’s failure to receive interim accreditation first came to the public’s
attention January 4, 2007 when it was reported in The New York Times. The
New York State Board of Elections requested CIBER’s assessment report
several weeks ago and has criticized the EAC for not publishing it last
summer. New York State currently has a $3 million contract with CIBER to
conduct state certification testing on voting equipment.

“Before the EAC denied their accreditation, CIBER tested the software that
tabulated at least 70% of votes cast in the November mid-term elections,”
said Warren Stewart, policy director for VoteTrustUSA.org. “It is extremely
troubling that the EAC chose not to inform election officials and the public
of their concerns with CIBER’s testing process last summer.”

The report was prepared by Steven V. Freeman for the EAC and is available
here http://www.eac.gov/docs/Ciber%20&%20Wyle%20Assessment%20(July%202006).pdf



Editor’s Note: VoteTrustUSA is a non-partisan, not-for-profit network
organization, serving more than 50 state and county-based election integrity
groups in 33 states.

[Melissa G]

4. Feds to Let Two Firms Test E-voting Machines

Feds to Let Two Firms Test E-voting Machines
NIST certifies iBeta, SysTest Labs under latest requirements guidelines
Marc L. Songini

January 29, 2007 (Computerworld) --

The federal government this month took the first step in certifying two laboratories for testing electronic voting machines.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in its role as a scientific adviser to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), said that the labs of iBeta Quality Assurance in Aurora, Colo., and SysTest Labs LLC in Denver meet the technical requirements of the latest federal testing guidelines.


Federal rules for testing of e-voting machines are still in flux.A decision on final accreditation will come after the EAC conducts a nontechnical evaluation of the companies, including reviews of their conflict-of-interest policies, organizational structures and record-keeping procedures, said an EAC spokeswoman.

The agency has not set a timetable for finishing its part of the certification process, the spokeswoman said. However, she added, “completing this process in a timely fashion is a top priority.”

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=280790&intsrc=hm_list

[Melissa G]

5. CA- Moving state primary another bad decision?

Moving state primary another bad decision?
Article Last Updated: 01/30/2007 05:25:53 AM PST


GOV. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers seem bent on shifting California's presidential primary election next year from June to February, although their motives are a little unclear.
The public rationale they offer is that it would give California a greater role in selecting presidential candidates, thus forcing would-be occupants of the White House to pay more attention to its needs and to be less inclined to treat it only as a source of campaign financing.

An unspoken motive, however, is creating a venue for asking voters to reform the system of redrawing congressional and legislative boundaries, removing or reducing the role of the Legislature, and simultaneously modifying legislative term limits. Capitol insiders consider changing term limits for the 2008 elections an enticement for Democrats to accept redistricting reform.

Either motive notwithstanding, any change in the voting system has collateral consequences, which California should weigh before willy-nilly changing the election date.

We've strolled this path before. In the 1990s, California's presidential primary was shifted from June to March for the same reasons now being cited, and a little-noticed change in the legislation made it apply to non-presidential primaries as well. The change, incidentally, was made by Democratic strategists to thwart a Republican referendum on what they expected would be a Democratic gerrymander of legislative and congressional districts after the 2000 census.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/oped/ci_5117249

[Melissa G]

6. First Criminal Convictions From Ohio’s Stolen 2004 Election Confirm Recount Was Rigged

Thanks to 'kpete the magnificent' for the post and the DU discussion here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x466180

FITRAKIS: First Criminal Convictions From Ohio’s Stolen 2004 Election Confirm Recount Was Rigged
First Criminal Convictions From Ohio’s Stolen 2004 Election Confirm Recount Was Rigged
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
January 27, 2007

The first felony convictions of two Cleveland poll workers stemming from Ohio’s stolen 2004 election confirm that the official recount in that contested vote was, in the words of county prosecutors, “rigged.” The question now is whether further prosecutions will reach higher up in the ranks of officials who may have been involved in illegalities throughout the rest of the state.

The convictions have come down in Cuyahoga County, where Democratic candidates traditionally run up huge majorities. Suspicious vote counts and other irregularities cut deeply into John Kerry’s margins in 2004. Official vote counts gave the state—and thus the presidency—to George W. Bush by about 118,000 votes out of 5.5 million counted.

A statewide recount, paid for by the Green and Libertarian Parties, was marred in 87 of the state’s 88 counties by the types of illegalities that led to this week’s convictions. Only in Coshocton County was a full, manual recount performed.

Throughout the rest of the state, under the direction of Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, mandatory random sampling was not done, as prescribed by law. Instead, poll workers illegally chose sample precincts for recounting where they knew there would be no problems, and then routinely recounted the rest of the ballots by machine, rendering the recount meaningless.

more at:
http://fraudbusterbob.com/blog/2007/01/29/first-criminal-convictions-from-ohios-stolen-2004-election-confirm-recount-was-rigged/

[Melissa G]

7. New York Halts E-voting Machine Testing

New York Halts E-voting Machine Testing
Marc L. Songini


January 29, 2007 (Computerworld) -- The New York State Board of Elections has suspended the testing and certifying of electronic voting machines after learning of flaws in the test methods of the company it hired to do the job.

For several months, Ciber Inc. had been testing machines under evaluation for purchase by the state under a $3 million contract signed in 2005.

The Ciber testing process had gained accreditation under federal guidelines set in 2002 but has yet to be certified for meeting updated requirements created in 2005.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission last summer failed to grant Ciber’s request to gain special interim accreditation that is available to companies whose application for 2005 certification has yet to be acted upon.

That failure, first reported by The New York Times earlier this month and confirmed last week by the EAC, was blamed on undisclosed problems with Ciber’s documentation process, said an EAC spokeswoman.
The EAC has so far declined to provide a report on its audit of the Ciber process to New York officials or to make it public.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=280967&intsrc=hm_list

[Melissa G]

8. kster's DU discussion here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x466166

[Melissa G]

9. New York: Election Monitors Needed for Special Election

Thanks to garybeck for the post and the DU discussion here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x466192
Original message
New York: Election Monitors Needed for Special Election
From the New York Democratic Lawyers Council

----------------------------------------------------------------

Protecting Voting Rights Isn't Just For November Anymore!
January 30, 2007
Dear Colleague,

This past November, almost 500 of us came together to stop Republican suppression tactics and protect New Yorkers' voting rights. As a result of our efforts, more New Yorkers' votes were properly counted, electing Democrats across the state.

But there is still work to be done. Governor Spitzer has appointed Republican State Senator Michael Balboni to a position in his administration, leaving open a hotly contested seat in northwest Nassau County. Winning this seat is vital to Democratic efforts to take over the State Senate, and the Democratic candidate, Nassau County Legislator Craig Johnson, will do just that in a fair and honest election.

On Tuesday, February 6th, the NYDLC will be working to ensure that this very close and extremely important special election is run fairly and securely. We need a strong team of volunteer monitors to help us put forth the same effort that we exhibited this past November in Yonkers and across the state. Please join us for another opportunity to protect voting rights this February 6th! To join our special election monitoring team, log in or register on our website, www.nydlc.org and volunteer through your member page!

There will be a mandatory short training addressing specific issues that may arise in the special election. We are holding several training sessions:

January 31st, 7PM at the law firm of LeBeouf Lamb
125 W 55th, Manhattan

February 1st, 6PM at the Nassau County Democratic Committee Headquarters
1 Old Country Rd, Ste 430, Carle Place, NY (Mineola LIRR stop)

[Melissa G]

10. Up-to-date compendium of TIA's work on 2004 election fraud.

Thanks to bleever for the post and the DU discussion here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x466081

Original message from bleever
Up-to-date compendium of TIA's work on 2004 election fraud.

As fresh news continues to come out about the 2004 presidential election (most notably the felony convictions of two Ohio election officials for rigging the recount), people who have followed the statistical work of Truth Is All and the discussions that have followed may be interested in the current state of his work.

While it's a whole lot to read at one sitting, people interested in the debates about the statistical evidence that John Kerry actually received more votes (nationwide and in key states) will find detailed discussions about the various arguments on both sides. It was last updated January 28, 2007.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm

Anyone looking to rebut various arguments that there is not statistical evidence pointing to massive fraud will find plenty to read.

Agree with him or not, his work is exhaustive and has been very influential, and the value of understanding what really happens in our elections has never been higher.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x466081

[Melissa G]

11. Election Security in Virginia One Step Closer

Election Security in Virginia One Step Closer
By Joseph Waymack, Executive Director Southern Coalition for Secured Voting
January 30, 2007
State Senate Passes Bill That Would Prohibit Future Purchase of DREs



The citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia have spoken load and clear in their support for verified elections and the Virginia State Senate has listened. With an overwhelming vote of 36 in favor and only 4 in decent the Virginia State Senate has approved Senate Bill 840 introduced by Sen. Devolites-Davis. Now that 90% of the Senate has backed this important legislation it is up to House of Delegates to follow suit.

Senate Bill 840 provides necessary protections of our election system which are currently vulnerable to inaccuracy, malfunction, and fraud. The bill bans the use of wireless communication devices inside voting machines during election day. Wireless communication is used by the largest vendor of voting machines in Virginia and, according to computer security experts, represents a grave threat by rogue hackers or terrorists through disrupting our voting system.



Most importantly, Senate Bill 840 says no county or city shall purchase anymore Direct Record Electronics (DREs), or touchscreens, for their election needs. Instead, as machines break down, they shall phase them out and purchase an optical scan system where a voter marks a paper ballot that is then read by a tabulator, much like an SAT test.

To further safeguard the vote, Senate Bill 840 provides for mandatory random audits of the paper ballots to make sure the tabulator has not suffered any flaws or defects that cause it to miscount in any way the ballots cast by the voters of the Commonwealth.

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2225&Itemid=113

[Melissa G]

12. `None of the above' will not make public trust machines

`None of the above' will not make public trust machines

Glenn McGahee
Hollywood
Posted January 30 2007


I couldn't believe my eyes when I read your Jan. 18 editorial supporting state Sen. Mike Bennett's bill to add "none of the above" to the ballot, so we could trust the voting machines again after losing 18,000 votes from the Sarasota area.

You stated that "The machines are highly accurate." Have you not been paying attention to what has been happening? The state was not even able to audit that election, only look at the poll tapes again and say yeah, 18,000 votes are not there.

I started to list examples of the failures of these machines (there are too many) not only in Florida, but all across the country. They have been costly to jurisdictions where results have been not only suspect, but vote flipping has been documented, machines have produced more votes than voters, voters have been turned away because of malfunctions and results have been overturned when recounts were possible and allowed, mostly through court action.

A paper trail is not the answer. Mr. Bennett's bill is a cover-up of the problem of secret computer codes used by these companies. You are perpetuating the cover-up by supporting this bill. You should be demanding an investigation of how private companies have taken over our sacred right to vote. We the people will be taking that right to vote back and it will not be through so-called paper trails but through paper ballots, easily counted and recounted if necessary.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/sfl-130voting,0,648800.story?coll=sfla-news-letters

[Melissa G]

13. UK-Open Rights Group opposes e-voting plans

Check out the 4th paragraph...other countries have a clue ..It would be nice if the USA got one...


News
Tuesday 30th January 2007

Open Rights Group opposes e-voting plans
10:27AM
The Open Rights Group (ORG) has condemned the Government's decision to introduce e-voting in selected areas of the UK for the 2007 elections.
The digital rights campaign group said that there are serious questions over the security, accuracy and reliability of the technology that will be used.

'E-voting is a technology that threatens the integrity of our elections,' it said in a statement, expressing surprise that the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has chosen 'expensive' telephone and Internet voting methods.

'Such systems open the door to voter coercion and vote buying as well as potential electronic attack from anywhere in the world,' the statement said. 'They rely on commercial confidentiality, rather than explicit and accepted computer protocols, to maintain voter privacy. And they do not allow for meaningful vote audits and recounts.'

snip
'This is why Italy has ruled out e-voting, Ireland has a moratorium on e-voting, The Netherlands has withdrawn one model of machine for their elections, the Canadian province of Quebec has cancelled future use of e-voting and the US election system is in turmoil over e-voting related problems, ORG said.


http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/103343/open-rights-group-opposes-evoting-plans.html