WOO HOO NEW YORK CITY!!! Resolution for Paper Ballots and Op Scans

[Melissa G]

Resolution 131 for paper ballots and optical
scanners
passed the New York City Council
by unanimous vote, March 14, 2007. :woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

Read the resolution, the supporting quotes
from 19 national, state, and local organizations,

http://www.wheresthepaper.org/ny.html#Announce

Res. No. 131-A



Passed by the New York City Council by unanimous vote, March 14, 2007



Resolution urging the New York State Board of Elections to promptly certify Precinct Based Optical Scan voting systems that are compliant with the New York State Board of Elections voting system standards for procurement by the county Boards of Elections and urging the Board of Elections in the City of New York to select a Precinct Based Optical Scan system that is compliant with the New York State Board of Elections voting system standards as the new voting technology for the City of New York.



By Council Members Barron, Arroyo, Baez, Foster, Sanders Jr., Stewart, Jackson, Martinez, Gonzalez, Palma, Katz, Vallone Jr., Comrie, James, Mendez, Nelson, Mark-Viverito, Avella, Vacca, Seabrook, Dickens, Addabbo Jr., Koppell, Liu, Monserrate, Lappin, Garodnick, McMahon, Gennaro, Gioia, Sears, Brewer, de Blasio, Weprin, Gerson, Mealy, Vann, White Jr., Dilan, Oddo, Gentile, Reyna, Gallagher and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum)



Whereas, Honest, observable, and easily-verified public elections constitute the foundation of representative democracy; and



Whereas, Public confidence in the outcome of elections depends on voting technology that is easy to use and enables citizens to observe, understand, and attest to the reliable and secure handling of votes; and



Whereas, The federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was intended to address concerns with the manner in which elections were conducted following the Presidential Election of 2000; and



Whereas, HAVA requires states to undertake various measures to modernize elections and increase voter participation; and



Whereas, In 2005, the New York State Legislature enacted the Election Reform and Modernization Act (ERMA) in order to comply with HAVA; and



Whereas, ERMA requires county boards of election to select new voting technology to replace the mechanical lever machines, which are currently used throughout the state; and



Whereas, Under ERMA, county boards of election may select either a Precinct Based Optical Scan (PBOS) voting system or a Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting system; and



Whereas, Further, under ERMA, the New York State Board of Elections is responsible for certifying that voting systems are compliant with its standards and can be procured for use by the county boards of election; and



Whereas, ERMA requires that New York be fully HAVA compliant by 2007; and



Whereas, To date, the New York State Board of Elections has not certified that any of the voting systems under consideration is compliant with the State Board of Elections' voting system standards, and therefore can be procured for use by county boards of election; and



Whereas, Given the approaching deadline for full HAVA compliance, the Board of Elections in the City of New York must continue to work diligently to be prepared to select and procure a permanent voting system as soon as a voting system(s) is certified by the State Board of Elections, and begin planning immediately to make a transition to the use of a such system; and



Whereas, Voter and public confidence would be strengthened by the use of a PBOS system, which is easier to use because the ballot is marked directly by the voter, whether manually by pencil or pen, or by the use of an accessible ballot marking device; and




Whereas, The additional advantages to a PBOS system are that when it is used in conjunction with an accessible ballot-marking device it can be used by voters with disabilities, voters for whom English is not their primary language, and any other voters who prefer the technology; and



Whereas, A PBOS system would enable the Board of Elections in the City of New York to avoid many issues related to the prevention, detection and correction of errors and tampering because the paper ballots can be securely stored and handled and would enable election observers and the public to meaningfully witness election procedures and vote-counting; and



Whereas, A PBOS system would also facilitate easy and observable recounts; and



Whereas, Optical scanners and ballot markers in the polling site would make it easier to detect errors in ballot-marking such as overvotes and undervotes, and enable voters to correct such errors before their ballot is cast; and



Whereas, Optical scanner systems have proven their reliability by being successfully used in elections nationwide for over thirty years, and are currently used by approximately forty-nine percent of American voters in fifty-six percent of counties nationwide; and



Whereas, Optical scanner systems have been successfully programmed, operated, and maintained by public employees in New York State in agencies such as the Division of the Lottery, the New York State Education Department and the Department of Motor Vehicles, as well as by our county boards of election in all boroughs of the City of New York for use in counting absentee ballots; and



Whereas, To the highest extent possible, public employees should perform all work related to the conduct of elections; and



Whereas, PBOS systems can easily be programmed by bipartisan, technical staff at the Board of Elections in the City of New York without the need for ongoing involvement of vendors; and



Whereas, The alternative type of voting system, the DRE, does not lend itself to complete public control as vendors typically retain an interest in the hardware, software, or source-code of such technologies and are largely responsible for the maintenance of and training with respect to their systems; and



Whereas, PBOS systems will be significantly less expensive than DRE systems; and



Whereas, The difference in cost between the PBOS and DRE systems relates to: (1) how many units would be required and initial purchase costs; (2) the transition costs of altering storage facilities to accommodate the system; (3) revision of training materials and procedures for training of voters and poll-workers; (4) continuing costs of storage, transportation, and logic and accuracy testing; (5) dealing with the types of lawsuits that electronic voting has engendered in other jurisdictions; and (6) costs associated with replacing parts of the system ; and



Whereas, PBOS systems are less delicate than electronic voting equipment and therefore have a longer lifespan; and



Whereas, PBOS systems can provide the advantages of quick election day results and accessibility without the risks associated with electronic voting; and



Whereas, Voter and public confidence would be lowered by the use of electronic ballots, which are recorded in a way that no voter or observer can actually witness; and



Whereas, DRE voting systems can make errors and tampering difficult to prevent, detect, or correct; and



Whereas, Computer security with DRE systems is notoriously difficult to achieve; and



Whereas, Other jurisdictions have experienced severe problems with electronic voting systems, which have depressed voter confidence and prompted lawsuits by candidates and voters as a result of the many irregularities experienced with such systems; and



Whereas, Further, jurisdictions such as New Mexico that initially purchased electronic voting systems have switched their voting system to a PBOS system; now, therefore, be it



Resolved, That the Council of the City of New York urges the New York State Board of Elections to promptly certify Precinct Based Optical Scan voting systems that are compliant with the New York State Board of Elections voting system standards for procurement by the county Boards of Elections and urges the Board of Elections in the City of New York to select a Precinct Based Optical Scan system that is compliant with the New York State Board of Elections voting systems standards as the new voting technology for the City of New York.



DJ

Res. 1301/2005

March 12, 2007

[Bill Bored]

1. This is a good thing; it was only a matter of time. But there are still

issues with auditing optical scan and the fact that no vendor has been able to produce either a DRE or an optical scanner that meets NY State voting system standards. The resolution should be used elsewhere to convince the powers that be that paper ballots are better than the vapor kind.

[Bill Bored]

2. This is when the tide started to turn against DREs in NYC:

A historical document:

<http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=298&Itemid=113>

I was there. (That's when I used to be somebody of course.)

[Melissa G]

3. Hooray for Bill Bored ! who is definitely someone in the ER discussion group

Congrats to NYC! :yourock:

[Bill Bored]

4. I'm Rec #2 on this thread anyway. Thanks for starting it Melissa G! nt

[BeFree]

7. Sweeeeet.

Looks like democracy in action..... looks like NY is gonna lead the nation in putting and end to the HAVA legislation.

[kster]

5. A Second Automatic Hand Count of the Optiscan Ballots,

Immediately, following the election, upon request, from citizen groups, who do not trust their votes, being counted on secret proprietary machines. Would be a nice add on.

And the optiscan ballots should be easy to read by the people, who, want to do the Second Count.



Thats my two cents.

Keep on pushing, Mellisa G :)

K&R

[Land Shark]

8. How about killing the whole shooting match by forcing POLITICIANS

to certify that they INSIST on having their votes counted via a secret vote counting proprietary system like opscans?

Notarized signature, please.

Might go a long long way to getting rid of secret counting opscans that nevertheless hold out the hold of MAYBE a recount someday (but fought against, in a truly disputed election...)

[kster]

9. If the "optiscan" ballots are already there, by law, then

why wouldn't the law makers make them available (well I can understand why the lawmakers wouldn't) to citizen groups that want to do a Second Hand Count of those ballots?

Not a Recount, but a Second Count, that is Automatic, immediately after the election, upon request.

Lets say your are an honest lawmaker, you decide you want a 2% hand count/audit, of the optiscan ballots, to make sure that the machines count was right.

Wouldn't you then, be TICKLED PINK knowing that a citizen group was prepared to Hand Count All the Optiscanned Ballots. I mean If you want 2%, and you can get 100%, and you are an Honest lawmaker, which one would you go for?

[Wilms]

6. .