Verified Voting and the Disabled

[Bill Bored]

Dear friends,

I am visiting here from the DU Election Forum where most of us think the integrity of our electoral process has been compromised through various means or at the very least is currently at high risk.

Without debating the above issue too much here, I'd like to ask you for your views on the use of voting machines accessible to the disabled. We believe that while such technology is very important, desirable and federally mandated by HAVA, our democracy can no longer afford the kind of non-transparent electronic voting systems through which the vote cannot be verified.

This means that for most people we favor a voter-verified paper ballot (VVPB), either printed by an electronic machine or filled out by hand, which can be randomly audited and hand counted if necessary. In the event of any discrepancies between the voter-verified ballot and the electronically stored record, or in the event of a full recount as required by election law, the paper ballot is the ballot of record because there is proof the voter has verified his or her intent. The idea is to have a backup of every vote cast, verified by each voter, independent of the software in the machines which may be subject to alteration through various means (i.e. computer hacking).

But of course, there are those who for various reasons cannot use a paper ballot. While there are machines that the blind can use to work with paper, and of course Braille, there is now legislation in Congress requiring what we call Multimedia E-voting Machines, offering Audio, Pictorial, Electronic or other means of casting and storing various formats of voter-verified ballots of record. We believe that the wide-scale implementation of such equipment without the proper safeguards is a risk to our democracy, but we also acknowledge the need for the disabled to cast their votes privately and independently just like everyone else.

As you might imagine, this is all complicated by various lobbying efforts, particularly those by e-voting companies aimed at, among others, the disabled community.

So where do we go from here? As Internet activists, one way we may be able to solve this problem is to fix proposed Congressional legislation requiring these Multimedia E-voting Machines, in addition to VVPBs.

Various methods are discussed in this thread:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=316718&mesg_id=316718>

In short, it comes down to this:

Do you, as disabled voters, want your own dedicated machines with multimedia interfaces? We think this will result in shorter lines and less waiting for you, while the rest of us will be restricted to a larger number of machines that use or produce only VVPBs.

If so, how could we restrict access to multimedia machines to those who truly need them? For example, would the ability of signing a poll book without assistance be enough to disqualify a voter from going multimedia? Is this too restrictive, or not restrictive enough? How would you do it?

Or, would you prefer that anyone be allowed to use ANY type of ballot, as suggested in some of the current legislation before Congress. If so how could the vote be verified with so many different ballot formats on such a large scale?

I'd love to hear your comments either here or in the linked thread above. We have actually had the opportunity to discuss some of the proposed legislation with a staffer from Congressman Conyers office on DU, and as always, we have the ability to write to Mr. Conyers and other representatives to request improvements in the legislation. This is why your input is vitally needed and we are looking forward to working with you!

BTW, in case you are not aware, some of the recent events you have seen in Congress, such as the objection to the electoral votes of the state of Ohio on Jan 6, and the grilling of Bush's nominees for Secretary of State and Attorney General, have come about at least partially as a result of Internet activism. So we are having an impact.

Let's work together now to fix our electoral system before it's too late!

Thanks!

[Banazir]

1. I can't comment extensively at the moment.

Which is unfortunate, and I should try to find out more about this issue. But a few things:

1. I remember disabled people talking about accessible private voting (which has been a huge problem for ages and is a problem disabled people ourselves have talked about, not just been egged on by other people) being nearly instituted and then taken away from us in some way. I don't remember what exactly the scenario was, but disabled people I know of were not happy with the voting machines this time around.

2. It is unfortunate that lately when I see disability issues debated by progressives, disability rights perspectives on completely different issues have been viewed as something akin to those poor helpless disabled people being exploited by big bad Republicans. Reality is that neither progressives nor conservatives tend to have a handle on disability issues and most disabled people (progressive or otherwise) know it. (You're actually asking our opinion, which is more than most do. I wish I could give you more of an answer than I'm giving.)

3. It's fairly patronizing on the part of some posters to assume that non-disabled people are entitled to secret ballots but disabled people should just accept the fact that our family or someone can help us. (Not all disabled people vote the same as our family. Among other things.) This isn't a self-esteem or psychological issue, it's a political and civil rights issue. Disability itself is a political issue. Most people don't realize that. And progressives don't tend to win disabled supporters, including supporters among disabled progressives, by trivializing this fact. It's a bad political move to alienate what's probably the largest minority in the country.

4. I've heard stories from cognitively disabled people about being hassled in the polls for taking too long to figure out the voting machines. One didn't even get to vote for more than one issue before being forced to leave.

5. My own preference is to go for universal accessibility (blind and dyslexic people are not the only people who have trouble voting -- there's also cognitive and motor control issues that can make it difficult despite knowing who we want to vote for) at the same time as real voting with paper ballots (as in not this insecure Diebold bullshit). Any machine that made voting more accessible would have to output a paper ballot and that paper ballot would ahve to be what was counted.

6. I unfortunately don't currently have other information, but hope that others do.

7. In the above complaints about many progressives, I am not talking about all, or about you in particular, but more of a trend in not taking our issues all that seriously or even understanding that they exist or what they are. Access is commonly considered a nuisance (just as racial desegregation was -- it forces people to do things differently), or simplified to mean only one kind of access, and our political issues aren't taken very seriously (they're generally seen as health care or other individualized issues rather than issues of social oppression). I'm glad you asked here, and hope that others have more specific information on how accessible voting should work. Certainly it's not just evil Republicans making disabled people complain, though -- frankly we get equal amounts of crap politically from both major parties.

[Wilms]

2. Thanks for the post, Banazir

In item #5 of your post, you wrote:

"5. ...Any machine that made voting more accessible would have to output a paper ballot and that paper ballot would ahve to be what was counted."

If I understand Senator Dodd, he's claiming that a Paper Ballot IS NOT what (at least some) voters with disabilities want. Rather, he seems to say, they prefer other methods such as an audio recording of the voter's choice.

Also stated was the idea that the voter's choice would be the legal record.

That ring any bells with you?

Thanks, again.

[Bill Bored]

3. Hi Banazir

Thanks for your comments. I think you get it and I hope you think we do too. We're trying!

A few questions:

1. By universal accessibility, do you mean everyone should be able to vote on every machine, or just that there need to be one or two machines that everyone can use at each polling place?

2. If the latter, we could imagine accessible machines set aside for disabled voters while the rest can use paper only. This could save a lot of money if nothing else, but how could the non-disabled be restricted from using the special machines?

3. Thanks for bringing up the cognitively disabled too. Ironically, I never thought of that! They might be able to use paper, but might be more comfortable with another format. But again, how could they be identified and given the opportunity? Maybe it's just a matter of training poll workers. The problem is how to codify something.

4. As Wilms says, Dodd's bill require ALL these formats to be ballots of record, which we find questionable. Better to audit the paper to see that it matches the other voter-verified formats and then use the paper for counting. The problem is what to do in the event of a mismatch!

I'm interested to hear other views here, which is why we asked! I honestly don't think the authors of these bills have considered all this, but I could be wrong.

There are a number of bills being introduced to deal with this so you may want to write to some of the sponsors too. But I think we all need to think about it some more and hear other views first.

[sacxtra]

4. VVPB Sucks - Here is a VVPB Flaw

The hackable FLAW with VVPB

1.) It still uses unauditable electronic packets and data across insecure modems and networks.


You could technically change votes by adjusting to low differences, where nobody will expect a damn thing. And as long as nobody complains, or expects a thing the PAPER WILL NEVER BE COUNTED.

you hear me? The paper won't be counted.

It also gives plenty of time for someone corrupt to tamper with the original paper ballots, and the electronic side of things as well.

I am suprised that more disabled do not frequent this thread.

I hate to see all of our right to vote destroyed because of a lack of direction.

Conyers means well - imo
Yet even he doesn't get it.

I believe he's making a mistake because he CARES about the disabled, which seems to be the brunt of this HAVA brick wall. (Remember HAVA never said we HAD to use electronics.)

As long as there are votes traveling in binary format they can be manipulated. As long as this is so, there WILL BE someone who tries to manipulate them.

I have been thinking a lot about the disabled's situation lately. I am not disabled myself, I'll be up front about that.

In my opinion, as long as the disabled are able to signal in some way, that they are for or against something, they ought to be able to vote.

It's JUST as important for the disable as it is for me. If I was disabled, I'd raise bloody hell.

Here's where I have problems. I am sure that someone already has researched and made into law these ideas, and at election time there is already some Standard Operating Procedure that is executed to determine if someone can vote. Each local precint being different, and myself living in only one location, I couldn't possibly understand the myriad of other SOP's. So whoever DID this research, needs to talk to the computer security guru's and the result of that filtered into something that spit's out a paper ballot EXACTLY like the same paper ballot a non-disabled person used. BUT DONT pass another damn BILL or ACT that allows unauditable electronic packets and data across insecure modems and networks.

The other thing is we need to watch out for folks that are 50 years and older who are making policy and are unqualified to understand the physics behind electronics and networking. They need FACTS presented to them.

Facts like:
1.) It still uses unauditable electronic packets and data across insecure modems and networks.


Please, Conyers, and Others, don't make stupid bills that sweep across All the states and force more of these insecure, corrupt, corporate electronic voting machines.


I know there are a lot felons using other tricks, but I focus on the unauditable electronic data portion of their tricks because it is the Supreme Diety, END ALL of dirty tricks.

It's obvious now, nobody is going to get busted for the felonies commited on the last election, (just as they say prove it, I say prove it isn't), so if nobody is accountable, and now they are allowed an ultimate set of script kiddy tools, we the people are totally screwed.

There will never be an honest election again with data being used in this method.

[KamaAina]

5. Rhode Island uses tactile ballots for voters who are blind

http://www.electionaccess.org/Bp/Ballot_Templates.htm

along with countries such as Canada and (!) Peru. It's all the work of the International Foundation for Election Access in Washington. Why they haven't weighed in on HAVA/BBV is anyone's guess.

Remember, HAVA didn't mandate the wholesale switch to BBV. In Hawai'i, for instance, we have ONE accessible electronic machine at each voting poll, with the rest being optical scan. And, that one machine is from Hart Intercivic, NOT Diebold, because elections chief Dwayne Yoshina heard the Diebold CEO comment about delivering Ohio's electoral votes to Bush** and decided not to purchase Diebold on ethical grounds.

[Wilms]

6. The blind are among voter's with disabilities...

but not the only ones who yet need "Access and Privacy".

Plus, only a fraction of the blind read Braille.