CVF in the News

 

Below is a collection of some of the news stories featuring the California Voter Foundation's activities and projects. Some of the links below go to sites that require registration in order to view their stories, and some of the links may expire after stories are moved into fee-based archives.

---

Mail-In Ballots May Slow Calif. Tally

By Allison Hoffman - Associated Press, January 18, 2008

Excerpt:

California elections officials predict that nearly 13 percent of all ballots cast for the Feb. 5 primary could remain uncounted on Election Night, possibly slowing the presidential tally in the state.

The reason is twofold: More Californians than ever are expected to vote by mail, and the unsettled nature of the Republican and Democratic campaigns may prompt many of those voters to wait until the last minute to submit their ballots.

About half the ballots cast for the election are expected to come by mail, up from 33 percent in the 2004 presidential primary. Registrars say that could lead to a backlog of ballots on Election Night, potentially delaying the announcement of winners in close races.

"If people hold on to their ballots and we don't see them until Election Day, they won't be counted until the week or so after the election," said Deborah Seiler, registrar in San Diego County.

About 4 million of California's 15.5 million registered voters are classified as "permanent absentee," meaning they automatically receive their ballots by mail. That could grow to at least 4.3 million by the time registration for the presidential primary closes on Jan. 22, according to the statewide registrars association.

- - - - - -

Possibly adding to confusion over which candidates have won is the system for allocating party delegates by congressional districts, which often cross county lines, especially if some counties fall behind on their tallies, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.

Registrars can begin sorting ballots received before Election Day and will be able to start feeding them through counting machines a week before the election. That will allow a quick release of early absentee results when the polls close. But then the focus will switch to tallying ballots from individual precincts, while late-arriving absentee ballots in some counties will simply sit in their envelopes. (full story)

Kim Alexander discussed the Statewide Ballot Measures

KFPA, January 17, 2007

(Audio clip available online)

High stakes on gambling props battle

By Edward Sifuentes - North County Times, January 17, 2008

The battle over expanded American Indian gambling agreements has become one of the most expensive ballot initiatives in state history.

Those supporting and opposing the agreements have raised nearly $94 million.

Propositions 94 through 97 would allow four Southern California tribes, including the Pechanga band near Temecula, to add a total of 17,000 slot machines in exchange for giving a larger share of their revenue to the state.

Typically, campaigns raise from a few millions to as much as $20 million, said Kim Alexander, a political analyst.

The most expensive single ballot initiative campaign in the state was 2006's Proposition 87, which unsuccessfully sought to impose a $4 billion tax on oil companies to promote alternative fuels and energy-efficient vehicles.

It raised a total of more than $155 million from both sides.

By comparison, the $94 million raised on Props. 94 through 97 is more than the $93 million that tribes and their opponents raised in 1998 on Proposition 5, which legalized tribal gambling in California (though in today's inflation-adjusted dollars, Prop. 5's $93 million would be $118.3 million). (full story)

Kim Alexander discussed how Mail Ballots Complicate the Campaign Calendar

All Things Considered, December 21, 2007

(Audio clip available online)

Hearing looks at political e-filing

By Peter Hecht - Sacramento Bee, September 27, 2007

Excerpt:

A state panel heard testimony Wednesday over whether computer technology can safely protect the public's right to know about campaign spending in California and also eliminate hundreds of thousands of paper pages documenting money-raising for candidates and causes.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the state Fair Political Practices Commission are reviewing the state's online public access system for political finance information and considering whether campaigns that file reports electronically can be exempted from submitting disclosure statements on paper.

On Wednesday, attorneys for both Republican and Democratic campaigns argued that they are burdened with excessive staff costs in submitting paper copies of political spending reports under California's disclosure laws.

But while campaign treasurers argued that the entire process can be handled electronically, they got a lecture from Ross Johnson, chairman of the FPPC, and a former lawmaker.

Johnson argued that the duplicate, paper copies that clog voluminous shelves and storage space at the secretary of state's office and state archives protect a fundamental right "to make available to ordinary citizens information on who is funding political campaigns."

He argued that people who aren't comfortable with computers can't easily access information posted on the state's campaign finance information Web site, known as Cal-Access.

He also said key information -- such as addresses of campaign contributors -- cannot be posted online under state election disclosure rules but is included in hard-copy campaign documents accessible to the public.

- - - - -

Nicole Winger, a spokeswoman for Bowen, said the secretary of state hasn't taken a position on whether to eliminate paper copies of campaign disclosure forms.

Bowen, who wasn't present at the informational hearing led by Johnson, advocated a "verifiable paper trail" for electronic voting machines after announcing that a a security review showed some machines vulnerable to hackers.

Tony Miller, head of Bowen's political reform division, said the secretary also wants to ensure the electronic system for posting campaign contribution reports is "operating safely and efficiently" and can't be compromised.

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a Sacramento nonprofit group that follows election technology issues, said the state should maintain hard-copy filing requirements -- which mandate that candidates and campaign treasurers sign paper disclosure forms.

"What I'm concerned about is the candidate would be another step removed" with only electronic filing, she said. "We have had incidents in the past when candidates have denied knowledge of their contributions and reports. Those (signed) statements under penalty of perjury come in handy." (full story) (registration required)

E-voting companies scramble to win approval before November '08

By Niraj Sheth, San Jose Mercury News, August 11, 2007

Excerpt:

Sequoia Voting Systems and other e-voting companies whose machines were decertified last week for use in February's primary elections are under pressure to design new systems that pass muster in time for the November 2008 presidential elections.

That means they'll have to meet the stricter standards espoused by Secretary of State Debra Bowen, whose decision to mothball the voting machines from Sequoia and other companies raised the bar for e-voting security requirements.

"If they don't do it by then, they will lose a lot of credibility with the counties," said Bob Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies and former elections counsel for the state. "And if there are no refunds, there will be lawsuits."

Sequoia, headquartered in Oakland, wouldn't comment on the specifics of products in development or on a definitive timeline. But a spokesperson for the secretary of state said the company has told the state a new version is forthcoming.

"We heard Sequoia in the public hearing and in other occasions acknowledge that there are security flaws in their current system and promise they would be fixing those flaws in the next version of their product," said Bowen's spokeswoman Nicole Winger.

- - - - -

When Santa Clara County bought elections equipment from Sequoia in April 2003 - including 5,500 touch-screen machines for $3,000 each - it also agreed to pay the manufacturer for technical support and service for the next 20 years. Now, even though Sequoia's e-voting machines have been decertified, that regular fee may not change.

"In our contract, we never envisioned that these machines were going to be replaced," said county Registrar of Voters Jesse Durazo.

Ultimately, voting equipment manufacturers can bank on the relationships they've formed with states, counties and cities, which often go a long way in an industry known for its close connections.

"Though the secretary of state has decertified vendors, she hasn't altered the fundamental relationship between vendors and jurisdictions," said Moon of FairVote. "I'd be shocked if this hurt their bottom line."

Meanwhile, critics of electronic voting who have been advocating for tighter security are claiming victory.

"I was there in Santa Clara in January '03 urging your supervisors to not buy an electronic voting system," said Kim Alexander, president of California Voter Foundation.

"There were predictions that every county in California would have bought electronic voting machines by now, but the reality is that counties have voted with their feet." (full story)

Meltdown at the E-Voting Machine

By Andrew Gumbel, LA City Beat, August 9, 2007

Excerpt:

Usually, politicians reserve Friday nights for making unpleasant, embarrassing announcements they’d much rather nobody heard too much about. In the case of Debra Bowen, California’s reformist secretary of state, the drama that unfolded in her Sacramento offices last weekend was more a matter of racing to beat the clock.

Bowen had set herself a midnight deadline by which she promised she would decide what to do about the state’s inventory of electronic voting machines. For four years, the studies carried out by the country’s top computer scientists had been well-nigh unanimous: The systems developed by the likes of Diebold, Sequoia, and Election Systems & Software were riddled with software-writing flaws and security holes that made the likelihood of error or foul play unacceptably high. The fact that the electronic systems had no reliable paper back-up – certainly not before one was mandated by law in many states, including this one – only made the systems’ vulnerabilities all the more unnerving. Not only could an election go badly wrong or be outright stolen; there was no guarantee anybody could prove it if it happened.

Bowen, who came into office in January promising to carry out a top-to-bottom review of the state’s voting systems, was true to her word and did not just rely on the findings commissioned by others. Starting in May, national teams of researchers, coordinated by the University of California campuses in Berkeley and Davis, conducted their own software inspection of the four major systems in use in the state (the fourth, in Orange County, comes courtesy of the Texas company Hart InterCivic). They also carried out so-called Red Team exercises – controlled attempts at hacking an election.

Two of the systems, Diebold and Sequoia, scored disastrously. Hart InterCivic was found to have gaping, but reparable flaws. ES&S, makers of the InkaVote system used here in Los Angeles which is not an electronic system but rather a hybrid between the old punch card and lever systems, did not submit the required materials in time for the tests to be carried out at all.

- - - - -

These, though, are the last gasps of a dying breed of political sycophant. Bowen is unlikely to face a Shelley-style backlash, first because she has a reputation as the straightest of straight arrows, and secondly because the terms of the e-voting debate have changed significantly in the past three years. “Dozens of researchers all over the country are now working on the reliability and security of electronic voting,” said Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation, an early critic of e-voting. “Back in 2004, a lot of it was just guesswork. Now researchers have looked inside the systems and seen where all the holes and the opportunities for error and fraud are.”

California is not alone in rejecting e-voting: New Mexico and, intriguingly, Florida have gone down the same road, as have dozens of individual counties across the country. Voters themselves have led the way on this debate: As Bowen herself pointed out, somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of California’s voters opted for a paper ballot in last November’s mid-terms.

The importance of California in the national debate remains considerable – because of our size, and also our concentration of computer science experts – and it’s a fair bet that Bowen’s ruling will greatly accelerate the nationwide trend away from electronic voting to something more transparent and verifiable. In other words, she has notched an unambiguous victory for the cause of voter rights. (full story)

Official: New Voting System Means Counts Are Slower, More Secure

Alison St John, KPBS Radio, August 7, 2007

Excerpt:

California Secretary of State's decision to pull the plug on most screen voting machines is forcing San Diego to resort to a vote counting technology that is slow and cumbersome. KPBS reporter Alison St John has more.

Instead of using touch screen voting machines, voters will have their paper ballots counted by optical scanners in 2008.

Kim Alexander is President of the California Voter Foundation. She explains voters will have to wait longer for election results using optical scanners than they did in the days of the unreliable punch card ballots.

Alexander: We've used computers to count ballots for over 40 years in California , but with a punch card you'd take a stack of cards and put them inside the counter and they would zip through. With the optical scan machines, you've got to feed them through one at a time so it takes longer.

Some California counties are faced with big bills to buy more optical scanners.

But San Diego has a contract with Diebold that requires the company to provide alternatives if its touch screens are decertified.

County Registrar Deborah Seiler says the County will use the scanners Diebold provided at polling places last June.

Seiler: Our strategy is to put a lot of scanners on, granted they are not fast but we would have a lot of them.

However, because of the new conditions set by the secretary of state, the scanners will remain in the Registrar's office, and poll workers will bring the ballots in to be counted.

That may also cause even longer delays.

Nicole Winger of the Secretary of State's office says it's worth it to restore voter confidence.

Winger: Americans like Speed but Americans also like democracy. (full story)

California Report Slams E-Voting System Security

By Robert McMillan, PC World, July 27, 2007

Excerpt:

Researchers commissioned by the State of California have found security issues in every electronic voting system they tested, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said Friday.

The report was published Friday as part of a complete review of the state's e-voting systems initiated earlier this year by Bowen's office.

Its findings were not encouraging for backers of e-voting.

"The security teams were able to bypass both physical and software security in every system they tested," Bowen said Friday during a conference call with media.

Bowen is set to decide by Aug. 3 which systems will be certified for use in the 2008 presidential primaries. She declined to comment on how the report's findings will affect this decision until she has completely reviewed the report. "The severity of it, what it means ... that's a matter for us to investigate and pull apart and analyze between now and next Friday."

But she did acknowledge that the security problems found by researchers were important. "It's a big deal for many people in this country," she said. "We are a democracy and our very existence as a democracy is dependent on having voting systems that are secure, reliable and accurate."

- - - - -

With California on the forefront of voting system reforms, the report will be closely scrutinized by state officials across the country, said Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Foundation. "Even though we've made a number of improvements to voting systems in California, doubts persist about the reliability of our voting equipment."

In 2004, for example, voting was delayed by several hours in many San Diego precincts as the city struggled to roll out a new US$31 million Diebold electronic voting system.

The report was conducted under added time constraints. In March, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger moved the date of the state's 2008 presidential primary vote ahead from June to February 5.

State law mandates that the Secretary of State must give counties at least six months' notice if machines are to be de-certified, forcing Bowen to make a decision on the matter by August 3.

She said Friday that it was unfortunate there was not more time for study and debate, but that putting off the review was not an option. "I don't want any doubt about the reliability of our voting systems come February 5, 2008," she said. (full story)

Future Tense with Jon Gordon

American Public Media, July 24, 2007

Voting machines companies, registrars await findings of security investigation

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen will soon reveal the results of a two-month study of touch-screen voting systems in her state.

Making good on a campaign promise, Bowen ordered the so-called "top-to-bottom" review to ensure California's voting systems are secure for the state's February primary election.

A team of computer security experts have been poking and prodding the systems from three companies - Diebold, Sequoia and Hart InterCivic, looking for vulnerabilities that would make them prone to error or manipulation. Bowen could decide to decertify any of the machines, a prospect that has county election officials on edge.

Guests: Brad Friedman of BradBlog, Stephen Weir of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation, and Michelle Shaffer of Sequoia (full story)

E-voting systems `hacked' for flaws

By Steven Harmon, San Jose Mercury News, July 23, 2007

Excerpt:

In a nondescript storage room, tucked deep behind layers of security doors, a handful of computer experts have just wrapped up an intense two months of hacking or otherwise manipulating electronic voting systems.

The rigorous testing for vulnerabilities in touch-screen voting machines are part of an unprecedented "top-to-bottom" review ordered by Secretary of State Debra Bowen to ensure that the state's voting systems are secure - and whether they should be certified for use.

She is expected to report Aug. 3 - six months before the Feb. 5 presidential primaries, a timeline that is making election officials nervous.

Bowen is fulfilling what her supporters and voting security advocates consider to be the mandate she received from last year's election, in which she clashed with her predecessor, Bruce McPherson, over how much scrutiny the state's electronic voting and tabulations systems needed. She won in November amid a national outcry over fears of hacking, vote flipping and election rigging with suspicions squarely aimed at touch-screen voting systems.

"Voting machine companies are quaking in their boots," said Brad Friedman, the author of BradBlog.com, which is devoted to voting security. "She's doing exactly what she was elected to do. I will be stunned if they find systems that don't have enormous, gaping vulnerabilities."

Three vendors - Diebold Election Systems of Texas, Sequoia Voting Systems of Oakland and Hart InterCivic of Texas - are awaiting the outcome of the review, as are county registrars, who worry that any decertification could lead to chaos on Election Day.

Bowen's team of hackers have worked around the clock in the third-floor storage room of the Secretary of State's Office building to intentionally try to alter votes and manipulate how they are counted. The level of testing, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, which monitors elections across the state, is beyond what has been done in any other state or in federal testing.

"Previous testing looked at whether the systems work the way vendors said they're supposed to work," Alexander said. "It didn't include scenarios that would crop up in real elections, such as a software attack or the taking down of a polling place through technical manipulation."

- - - - -

Some wonder if Bowen has a predisposition to rid the state of touch-screen machines, given her history, her campaign and the people with whom she's surrounded herself. For instance, one of her deputy secretaries, Lowell Finley, is a Berkeley lawyer who sued McPherson for approving Diebold touch-screen voting machines.

"She certainly gave every indication she'd do everything it took to get Diebold out of the state," said Matt Rexroad, who was McPherson's political consultant during the campaign. "I don't know how they get a fair hearing by the chief elections officer."

Weir, the state's top registrar, said that clerks could decide to ignore Bowen's findings and continue to use their systems, which are already federally qualified; that would almost certainly create a legal standoff.

That would be a mistake, said Alexander, the voting security expert.

"What's most important is that we have election results that are accurate and that the public has confidence in," Alexander said. "We don't audit elections for the convenience of election workers. We do it for having a representative democracy." (full story)

Hackers Test California's Electronic Voting Machines

By Nannette Miranda, July 2, 2007

Excerpt:

The hackers are the latest attempt by California to ensure voters their ballots will be counted. Paper trails and public audits are already required by law.

Kim Alexander, CA Voter Foundation: "This review and evaluation of the software that's driving our voting systems will pick up any other problems that may have been overlooked."

The stakes are high to get the vote count right, because with the Presidential Primary moved up from June to February 2008, California has the potential to affect the outcome the race for the first time in years.

Debra Bowen, (D) CA Secretary of State: "The goal of this review is for us to do that on voting systems where we can be confident that the effect we have on the Presidential Primary is the effect California voters intended."

The hackers have until July 20th. If they're successful, Secretary Bowen could de-certify those machines and counties will have to scramble to find another way for Californians to vote. (full story)

'And that's it', County dismisses critics of elections—office hires

By Kelly Davis, San Diego City Beat, May 30, 2007

Excerpt:

In the eyes of voting-integrity activists, San Diego County hit the trifecta this spring.

It all started in April with the hiring of Michael Vu as San Diego County's new assistant registrar of voters. Vu's most recent job was head of elections for Ohio's Cuyahoga County, where, this past January, two of his deputies were found guilty of tampering with a vote recount in the 2004 presidential election; both received jail time. A year ago, an audit by an independent elections review board described Vu's handling of Cuyahoga County's May 2006 primary as an "across-the-board failure." A follow-up audit of the November 2006 general election found far fewer problems, but both Vu and assistant registrar Gwen Dillingham resigned in February.

Vu's new boss is Deborah Seiler, hired by the county in May to replace Registrar Mikel Haas, who was promoted to the department that oversees the registrar's office. Haas was criticized for allowing poll workers to take electronic-voting machines home with them.

- - - - -

Kim Alexander, who heads the California Voter Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that follows electronic-voting issues, said that although Seiler is controversial, "she's also one of the most experienced people in California when it comes to election administration."

Prior to working for Diebold, Seiler was chief of elections under former Secretary of State March Fong Eu. When Eu left office, Seiler went to work for Sequoia Systems before being hired by Diebold as head of West Coast sales. In 2004, Solano County hired Seiler as its elections manager, second in command under the registrar. Like San Diego County, in 2003, Seiler sold Diebold machines to Solano County that had yet to be federally tested or state certified.

Other counties purchased their electronic-voting machines from other vendors, like Sequoia Systems, which haven't been without problems, either, though Diebold's name is perhaps the most recognized.

Secretary of State Shelley ultimately banned the Diebold machines prior to the November 2004 presidential election but not before San Diego County used them in the March 2004 primary. In that election, poll workers at some locations had trouble with the device that activates the cards voters must insert into e-voting machines to call up a ballot. This glitch resulted in just over one-third of polling places opening late.

"You cannot discount the impact of Diebold in all of this," Alexander said. "San Diego selected a vendor that has a troubling history and that has bolstered the critics' concerns and their fears." (full story)

Local governments outsource elections that puzzle voters

By Chip Johnson, San Francisco Chronicle, May 29, 2007

Excerpt:

Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation, was interviewed a few years back about an upcoming election and complained about the sheer size of the ballot and how -- and why -- California voters seem to vote on every nitpicking little thing.

As a Sacramento County resident, she said, she would have to vote for 22 different elected representatives at the local and state level.

"I mean, what the heck is the mosquito abatement district and why should we care about this?" she asked. After hearing the interview on air, her father, a retired Culver City Council member, called her to say he was a member of the Los Angeles County Mosquito Abatement District's board of directors.

Still, voters across the state are asking the same question Alexander did just about every time they look at their ballots. And this month, thousands of Alameda County property owners have been scratching their heads over not only what they are deciding in a mail election -- but who is counting the votes.

Some of them have called the county elections department, which confirms that it is not counting the ballots for the "Vector and Disease Control Assessment" proposed by the county's Vector Control Services District.

The ballots have an unusual return address -- to an accounting firm in Fremont that is, indeed, tallying the results in July.

For the record, the special district, which controls rodent and insect infestation for every city in the county except Fremont and Emeryville, is asking county property owners for a $4.08 annual increase in their property taxes. (full story)

Hackers Asked to Test E-Voting Systems

KCBS, 740AM

Despite federal promises to safeguard electronic voting systems, California's top elections chief has commissioned a panel of UC experts and hackers to review eight primary e-voting systems. It is considered the largest and most aggressive equipment review of any state so far.

Debra Bowen campaigned for Secretary of State on the pledge to do a top to bottom review of the voting systems. This panel, led by computer security experts at both UC Berkeley and UC Davis will test eight primary systems sold by the country's four largest suppliers.

The panel has until the end of July to wrap up its analysis; under state law Bowen has until the beginning of August to decertify any problematic systems before the early, February 5th primary.

"California is not the only state that's undergoing this kind of process," explained Kim Alexander with the nonprofit election reform group California Voter Foundation. "Ohio is also conducting a top to bottom review and Florida's governor has led that state to replace electronic voting altogether with paper ballot systems. So there is a lot of review of our voting systems going on, as there has been ever since the 2000 presidential election." (full story)

Being first can be costly

By Michelle DeArmond and Kimberly Trone, The Press-Enterprise, April 24, 2007

Inland voters could find themselves voting with paper ballots in future elections if the touch-screen voting machines can't be certified as secure, experts said this week.

Complaints about the security of touch-screen voting machines have been growing throughout the nation and state, including in the Inland area. Critics have charged that touch-screen machines are more vulnerable to fraud and manipulation by political interests.

San Bernardino County's top election official said she is hopeful that the county's system will pass a state review.

- - - - -

Regardless of what Bowen does, one elections watcher said she suspects growing numbers of people are going to conclude that electronic voting is not the safest system.

"I would not be surprised if other counties move in that direction as well, whether there is a federal or state mandate," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization. "I think we got ahead of ourselves in electronic voting."

She said she hopes that government officials, when deciding how to proceed, will consider reliability and voter confidence instead of the cost of replacing existing systems, if it comes to that.

Pam Smith, president of VerifiedVoting.org, said in the long run, the costs of touch-screen machines likely will exceed those of lower-tech systems. Her group is urging counties to switch to paper systems as a cheaper alternative that requires less storage and less maintenance. Many counties have made similar conclusions.

"It has been kind of a trend, and I think from our perspective a positive one," she said. (full story)

Campaign spending records go online

By Diane Dietz, The Register-Guard, March 28, 2007

Oregon voters are about to benefit from a quantum leap in the amount and quality of information available about campaign donors and the money that sways state and local elections.

Early this year, the state launched an online campaign finance database and began requiring all candidates and officeholders to report, within 30 days of receipt, all the donations they get. The deadline shrinks to seven days in the six weeks before each election.

The new system allows anyone with Internet access to easily see which individuals, companies and interest groups are donating money to politicians.

The continuous online reporting is a huge leap forward from the cumbersome paper reports that PACs and candidates previously had to file at set - and often distant - intervals.

Now, activists will be able to use the state Web site to check as often as they like on the latest receipts and expenditures of a candidate or political action committee.

If knowledge is power, the new database makes Oregon citizens more powerful than people in most - and maybe all - other states.

"Oregon is on the cutting edge of disclosure changes that many states are considering. Other states will be keeping a close eye on Oregon," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, which studies disclosure laws and practices in the 50 states.

- - - - -

Under the old system, political action committees didn't have to report the money they collected or spent until September - leaving as much as eight months of political activity in the dark.

That won't do in the Internet age, Alexander said. "Why we should have huge gaps of time between when contributions are made and when they're reported?" she asked.

This year, for the first time, voters can track how much key political action committees have in their coffers during the Legislative session. For example, the Oregon PERS Retirees is reporting $43,408; the Oregon Restaurant PAC, $63,961; and the Oregon Medical PAC $140,695.

The database system adopted by the Legislature requires candidates and PACs to enter their contribution and expenditure records in a standard format on a Web-based form.

The public, journalists and other political watchdogs then have instant access to the standardized data. Gone are the trips to Salem to dig through paper records. Watchdogs can download the data into an Excel spreadsheet with the click of a button. (full story)

Kim Alexander discussed California's manual recount process to verify election results with host Jeffrey Callison

Capital Public Radio, December 8, 2006

(Audio clip available online)

Nov. 7: Tipping point for e-voting?

By Greg Kane, Stockton Record, December 4, 2006

Excerpt:

Technically, the Nov. 7 election was a success for supporters of the touchscreen voting machines on which more than 100,000 San Joaquin County voters cast ballots.

Politically, the election's results could turn out to be their worst nightmare.

Debra Bowen, a Democratic state senator from Redondo Beach, defeated incumbent Bruce McPherson in the race for secretary of state on Election Day. Bowen is a vocal critic of the Diebold voting machines used in San Joaquin County and has promised to review all the electronic equipment McPherson certified earlier this year.

Deborah Hench, San Joaquin County's top elections official, won't speculate on what Bowen's election means to the future of the 1,625 ATM-like Diebold TSx machines the county agreed to purchase for $5.7million three years ago. And while few believe the new secretary of state will begin her tenure by decertifying the equipment, some electronic-voting opponents believe Bowen will be more open to their concerns.

- - - - -

Kim Alexander, president and founder of the Davis-based California Voter Foundation, said last week that some elections officials across the state have expressed worries about a new secretary of state taking over.

Alexander does not believe Bowen will take office and make drastic changes, although Bowen certainly has the authority to do so.

"She could decertify e-voting machines the day she takes office if she wanted to," Alexander said. "The secretary of state has a tremendous amount of authority."

Hench, San Joaquin County's registrar of voters, says the equipment performed well in November despite some problems getting them up and running on Election Day.

The machines also sped up the ballot-counting process: The county posted its final results at 12:35 a.m., its earliest tally from a primary or general election since at least 1990.

Still, Hench acknowledges that the county could be in for more questions about the system's future.

"It's hard to know what's going to happen," Hench said. "(Bowen) is going to have her staff review all the systems. What happens after that, nobody knows." (full story)

 

Bowen plans upgrades to Cal-Access

By Malcolm Maclachlan, Capitol Weekly, November 23, 2006

Excerpt:

The knock on our democracy is that it's too much like an auction. Incoming Secretary of State Debra Bowen said she wants to counter pay-for-play government by making campaign finances as easy to search as eBay.
Bowen is planning major improvements for the Cal-Access Web site. While she has yet to set a timetable, she did say the redesign will focus on factors like standardizing the formats of names, having late disclosures cataloged more quickly and making it easier to search for information around independent-expenditure committees. There are also plans to make it easier to find trace which committees are being controlled by particular politicians.

"My goal is to create a system that's as easy to use and provides as much information in a user-friendly format as possible," Bowen said.

While she doesn't have specific changes ready to announce, Bowen said the main goal will be to move Cal-Access from a "form-driven" to a "data-driven" model. Cal-Access was launched in 2000 by then-Secretary of State Bill Jones in response to legislation. It basically took existing campaign forms and put them online. While there were many usability improvements, such as offering lists of donations in Excel format, the data is not yet gathered with the Web in mind, Bowen said.

Kim Alexander, president and founder California Voter Foundation, applauded this approach, saying she hoped Bowen would enable better coordination between the information gathered by the Fair Political Practices Commission and data made available by the secretary of state's office.

"If there are going to be significant changes in Cal-Access, you'll have to change the way data is filed," Alexander said.
When Cal-Access first came online, it was the best state campaigns Web site in the country, she said. However, we ranked only third behind Washington and Virginia--with a "B+" grade--when the CVF rated the states last year. The Web site was created via 1997 legislation by then-Senator Betty Karnette when she chaired the Senate Elections Committee. This followed previous attempts by Senator Tom Hayden in 1995 and Assemblywoman Jackie Speier in 1996.

The site has been a "work in progress" ever since, Alexander said. During his time as secretary of state, Kevin Shelley added search functions and created pages for ballot propositions. Among the improvements she would like to see, Alexander said, are better labeling of the sections on the Web site and the release of finance summaries for campaigns and propositions. (full story)

Hand Recount Underway In California

By Ellen Ciurczak, Capital Public Radio, Nov. 22, 2006
(Audio clip available online)

New Tools Help 2006 Campaigns

By Jenny O'Mara, Capital Public Radio, Nov. 20, 2006

(Audio clip available online)

Latest vote count expected

By Michelle DeArmond And Kimberly Trone, The Press-Enterprise, November 21, 2006

Excerpt:

Election workers were counting the last of Riverside County's absentee ballots Monday as they prepared to post their first results update since Nov. 8.

The registrar's office had fewer than 10,000 ballots left to count Monday afternoon and planned to update the results sometime this week, said Rebecca Martine, Riverside County's deputy registrar.

Workers started counting about 100,000 outstanding absentee ballots Thursday and worked through part of the weekend to finish them. The ballots were turned in just before or on Election Day two weeks ago and have left a few races hanging in the balance.

Although the registrar has until Dec. 5 to complete and certify the results, some candidates and others have been critical of Registrar Barbara Dunmore for having so many ballots uncounted so long after the election. The absentee ballots that were turned in late accounted for about a third of the votes cast.

One candidate, Phil Paule, criticized the registrar for not releasing the late results as the ballots are counted.
"The public perception of this election has been that of a colossal failing for your office," Paule wrote to Dunmore. Paule is an Eastern Municipal Water District Division 1 candidate with a 74-vote lead.

- - - - -

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said many counties may be taking the full month to tabulate results this year, although candidates tend to pressure registrars for faster results.

"The only thing worse than a slow vote is a hasty and incorrect vote count," Alexander said Monday.

Alexander said she was concerned in general about problems with the Nov. 7 election, including reports of long lines and technological problems in counties across the state.

"Cumulatively, that can greatly erode voter confidence, and that's what concerns me," Alexander said. "Voters can be left with the impression that the results from the election may not be reliable."

Riverside County supervisors, who meet today, also said they are concerned about long waits at polling sites on Election Day and shortages of paper cartridges that contributed to the delays. (full story)

California officials report only minor voting problems

By Paul Elias, San Jose Mercury News, November 8, 2006

Excerpt:

he voting nightmare that California registrars feared didn't happen Tuesday.

Instead, a series of isolated malfunctions and technological hiccups forced some voters in the nation's most populous state to cast provisional ballots. Some sites opened later than 7 a.m., and technological glitches made for 90-minute lines in Riverside County as polls closed.

Riverside technicians couldn't change printer cartridges fast enough to keep up with demand, and some voters who arrived before the 8 p.m. closing time didn't cast ballots until 9:15 p.m. - after some races had been called.

"I would rate the performance as 'needs improvement,'" said Riverside registrar Barbara Dunmore. "We need to get more printers out there so voters can vote in a timely manner."

Dunmore blamed the system overload on a lengthy ballot and high turnout among the county's 758,000 voters. The secretary of state predicted 55 percent turnout.

California appeared free of more worrisome reports in other states, including allegations of voter intimidation. In Arizona, three men, one of them armed, stopped Hispanic voters and questioned them outside a Tucson polling place, according to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

- - - - -

"There are chronic problems with voting that can greatly erode voter confidence," said Kim Alexander, president of the watchdog group California Voter Foundation. "Just because it's not worse than last election doesn't make it all right."

The recent ballot listed candidates for eight statewide offices, 13 propositions and local ballot measures in nearly all 58 counties. Given the complexity, many absentee voters postponed filling out and mailing their ballots until Monday, and others dropped off ballots at polling stations Tuesday.

Those ballots won't likely be counted for several days.

"It takes a longer time to process absentee votes, especially the ones that come in at the last minute," Contra Costa County Clerk Stephen L. Weir said before the election. "It drives everyone crazy."

About 44 percent of Californians were expected to turn in absentee ballots.

Printers used to provide voter-verifiable paper records on Diebold machines temporarily jammed Tuesday morning at some San Diego County sites. (full story)

E-voting anxiety drives key race

By Steven Harmon, San Jose Mercury News, November 4, 2006

Excerpt:

At the core of the campaign to decide the state's next top election official is a question troubling many voters: Will each vote be counted accurately?

The issue has sent Secretary of State Bruce McPherson scrambling to reassure voters that the election system he oversees is working. But Debra Bowen, his Democratic challenger, has seized on voters' anxieties over potential abuses of electronic touch-screen voting machines -- just when more voters than ever will be using them.

"This election is about addressing the incredible loss of confidence in the whole voting system,'' said Bowen, a Redondo Beach term-limited state senator. ``It's a serious problem when you have the potential for tampering and it's even a bigger problem when people lose faith in the machinery of elections.''

"The major difference between us,'' said Bowen, who leads McPherson 40 percent to 34 percent in this week's Field Poll, "is that he trusts the system and I don't.''

McPherson accuses Bowen of fear mongering, saying he has put in place a number of security measures that will ensure the integrity of the vote, particularly in the 23 counties -- including Santa Clara and San Mateo -- that will use various touch-screen machines.

"We can't, as Bowen would like to, go back to the days of hanging chads and butterfly ballots,'' McPherson said. "I'm very serious that we do this the right way. The integrity of the vote is the most important thing I need to protect. I'm not going to certify a system that doesn't meet the highest standard.''

- - - - -

"I want to assure all California voters,'' McPherson said, ``that their vote will be counted and recorded accurately.''

McPherson has gone farther than any of his predecessors in testing touch-screen voting systems, though there are still significant concerns, said Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Foundation, a non-partisan organization that advocates responsible uses of voter technology.

"On the one hand, McPherson has implemented more rigorous testing than we've ever seen in California,'' Alexander said. ``But on the other hand, the Diebold touch-screen is physically insecure. It's easy to open the machines, take out the memory card and replace it, opening up the possibility of hacking.''

Computer scientists around the country have found that the Diebold TSx machine's security is vulnerable. This summer, a Princeton computer-science professor and two of his graduate students showed how easily it can be hacked and manipulated with unauthorized software that could alter vote tallies -- later demonstrating the hacking at a congressional hearing.

That came after McPherson certified the Diebold machines in February.

But it's not as if he wasn't aware of the potential for problems. His own office's Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board identified 16 security flaws in the Diebold machines the very day he certified them.

The panel cited "a number of security vulnerabilities,'' but it also concluded that ``they are all easily fixable'' and ``manageable.''

Whether or not that's the case may be one of the more important questions answered Tuesday -- and, coupled with whom voters choose to oversee the state's elections -- may go a long way in determining the future of electronic voting in California. (full story)

E-voting safer -- but safe enough?

By Chris Bagley, North County Times, November 4, 2006

Excerpt:

When some 200,000 voters in Riverside County go to the polls Tuesday, they'll cast votes on a computerized voting system that is subject to an ever-larger number of safeguards, but that continues to generate controversy and demands for additional security.

Riverside County used touch-screen voting terminals in a San Jacinto municipal election in August 1999, and became the first county in California to do so on a large scale that November. By the 2000 presidential election, every polling place in the county was equipped with them.

The chaos that paper ballots created elsewhere that year ---- most notably in Florida ---- hastened the adoption of touchscreens around the country, but it also showed Americans how flaws in voting systems could leave even the results of a presidential election in question.

Since then, more and more U.S. cities and counties have begun using touchscreens. By November 2004, about 50 million ---- or 29 percent ---- of the nation's voters were registered in counties that use touchscreens, according to Election Data Services Inc., a consulting firm. Recent studies have estimated that another 10 million to 20 million U.S. voters will use touch screens for the first time Tuesday.

At the same time, voters' distrust of them remains surprisingly strong. Several states and counties have abandoned touchscreens in the last two years.

About 80 percent of Americans believe that election officials shouldn't rely solely on the machines and their proprietary software, according to a poll of 1,018 adults conducted in August by Zogby International.

In a Gallup survey of 526 likely voters last month, 46 percent of registered voters expressed a "great deal" of confidence in electronic voting machines, with 34 percent expressing a "fair amount" and 19 percent expressing "not much." Paper ballots fared slightly worse, with 38 percent of voters expressing "great confidence" and 22 percent expressing "not much."

The distrust has been fueled by people ranging from conspiracy theorists to voters who have experienced actual glitches with the machines. Additionally, several computer scientists have demonstrated how ---- in the absence of thorough oversight ---- the computers can be hacked and vote tallies changed on a large scale, though no such hacking attempt has been documented in an actual election.

In California, new regulations have aimed to boost confidence and provide reliable backup to the electronic machines. This year's primary elections, in June, were the first to require a paper printout of each vote cast on the electronic machines. Such printouts stay inside the machines and are fished out in the event of a recount.

- - - - -

A random 1 percent of those printouts are counted in every race as a check of the reliability of the electronic tally. A similar requirement has existed for 40 years, but it was just last year that the state Legislature applied it explicitly to touch-screen systems.

"We've made a huge amount of progress in California over the last six years," said Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation. "But we still have a long way to go."

The entire nation is a patchwork of voting systems. In several states, such as Georgia and Nevada, every county uses touch screens.

Alabama, Michigan and several other states don't allow them. In Oregon, a voter marks and then mails in a paper ballot or hand-delivers it to the local county elections office.

Many other states are themselves patchworks of voting systems. California's secretary of state has certified a range of voting machines. Most counties use touchscreens made by Sequoia Voting Systems of Oakland, as Riverside County does; by Ohio-based Diebold Inc., which San Diego County uses; or by Election Systems & Software of Omaha.

Some of the same counties ---- and others ---- use what are known as "optical scan" ballots. Voters indicate their choices by filling in circles or squares on the ballots; an electronic machine scans and counts them.

California's voting systems, as a whole, compare favorably to most other states' in terms of security and ease of use, Alexander said. Still, she bemoaned the wide variations among the counties, saying that too many have low security standards or don't make voting as easy as they could.

One example of that variety is in the practice of posting the vote counts from each precinct at the polling place. The California Elections Code appears to require the practice, which goes back at least to the 1960s, but elections officials in more than half of the counties in the state have given it up, saying the requirement applied only to machines in use in the 1960s.

Such posting is intended to allow citizen watchdog groups to doublecheck the tallies generated by machines at the precinct against the tallies produced by a central counter. (full story)

Mail-in ballots arriving slowly; officials say voters undecided

By Stephanie Hoops, Ventura County Star, November 4, 2006

Excerpt:

Election officials suspect it will take a full week to count the votes after Tuesday’s election because absentee voters seem to be waiting to send their ballots in.

While the mail-in ballots have been available to voters since Oct. 9, they came in more slowly than usual, said Gene Browning, assistant registrar of voters for Ventura County.

As of Friday, the county had about 57,724 (40 percent) of the 144,000 absentee ballots it mailed out.

Of course, many of the absentee ballots might simply go unused, removing the need to count them, but voting experts suspect many voters are holding out to vote, on the fence with their decisions.

"It may be that people are waiting to make up their minds," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan Davis-based organization that provides online voter information.

Shirley Cobb has her mind made up. She filled her absentee ballot out, but she’s driving it to the elections office Tuesday from her home in Camarillo because she doesn’t want to take a chance on the mail.

"I want to be sure it’s OK," she said.

With more and more people voting from the comfort of home, Alexander said more time will be necessary for counting.

That’s something that campaigns and news organizations need to keep in mind, she said, as they demand quick information from elections officials.

"They feel rushed to get it out quickly because of the demand, but with tightly contested races decided on narrow margins, it can take a day or two — or even weeks — before results are finalized," Alexander said.

Ballots cast at the polls get processed faster, but absentee ballots have to be sorted into precincts, screened for errors, sliced open and flattened before they get scanned. At the polls, voters just stick them in the scanner and go.

"It’s great to give voters convenient ways to vote, but we have to remember that doing so can result in slower vote counts," Alexander said. "When votes are brought to polling places, they get counted last."

The mail-in absentee ballots get counted first, polling-place votes second and then provisional and late absentee ballots. (full story)

California Songs: "The Proposition Song"

California Report, KQED-FM, November 3, 2006

(Audio clip available online)

Voting machine CEO denies allegations, He says Venezuela is not an investor

By Greg Lucas, San Francisco Chronicle, October 31, 2006

Excerpt:

A company that provides electronic voting machines in the United States -- including those in 21 California counties -- is formally asking the U.S. Treasury Department to investigate what it says are untrue accusations that its ownership by Venezuelan investors is tied to the leftist government of President Hugo Chavez.

Antonio Mugica, the CEO of Smartmatic Corp., owner of Oakland-based Sequoia Voting Systems Inc., said at a news conference Monday in Washington that the Venezuelan government has never invested in either company nor have they been influenced by Chavez.

"No foreign government, from any country, has ever owned a stake in Smartmatic," said Mugica, adding that the same charge has been leveled against the company since 2004 when it won the bid to handle the Venezuelan recall and referendum, which Chavez won.

"We have the most secure and advanced voting system out there. We want to make sure we can keep being successful, Mugica said. "That's why it's important for us to clear these allegations once -- and hopefully -- for all."

Questions about being able to manipulate a voter's ballot choices on a Sequoia machine -- which are used in 16 states and the District of Columbia -- is just the latest complaint about the reliability of electronic voting machines, complaints that tend to get louder as elections get closer.

- - - - -

"This investigation illustrates why private corporate ownership of voting equipment is problematic. We shouldn't have to wonder if our election results could be influenced by corporate or foreign interests," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a nonprofit group that promotes responsible use of voting technology.

Smartmatic asked for a formal review of its Sequoia purchase by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the same federal entity that examined a proposed purchase by a Dubai company that would have placed Dubai in charge of some operations at six U.S. ports. (full story)

Who's on your answering machine?

By Elizabeth Fitzsimons, San Diego Union-Tribune, October 31, 2006

Excerpt:

It's that time of year again. Halloween costume shops suddenly appear in strip malls, Santa Anas start to blow, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is leaving messages on your answering machine.

“This is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. You will be receiving your ballot for the November election by mail this week,” began a recent message.

Didn't get that call? Well, maybe you heard from Barbara Boxer. Bill Clinton's been leaving messages, too.

The automated call, or “robocall,” has become a staple of political campaigns, if not their most annoying play for your attention. They fill up your answering machine, interrupt your dinner. Some calls are programmed to hang up if a live person answers, leaving you to wonder: Wrong number? Stalker?

“It's distancing and it's not interactive, and everything we know about communications is it's not satisfying,” said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at California State University Sacramento.

For most voters, they are a minor nuisance, like the political pieces that go straight from the mailbox to the trash bin. People hit delete the moment they realize the message is canned.

“I don't mind them, I just don't generally listen to them,” said Dana Levy, 60, a retired plumber who for the past couple of weeks has been receiving about two robocalls a day at his University Heights home.

Yet, political campaigns, exempt from the constraints of the do-not-call registry because their messages are protected free speech, find the automated call hard to resist. Calls can target voters by party affiliation, age, race, gender, how often they voted in the past few elections. They can home in on absentee voters, or voters who haven't yet made it to the polls on Election Day.

- - - - -

The calls caused such a furor that some states have cracked down. Indiana law requires a live voice on the line, not a recording, unless the receiving party previously agreed to receiving a recorded call.

Last week, a federal judge ruled that the state could prohibit a California company from making robocalls against a Democratic congressional candidate. The company, FreeEats.com, was hired by the Economic Freedom Fund, which was supporting the candidate's Republican opponent.

FreeEats.com argued the ban was an unconstitutional restraint on free speech and interstate commerce. The company said it was reviewing the decision, but did not say whether it would appeal on First Amendment grounds.

In Colorado, state legislator Bernie Buescher has made robocalls a campaign issue. Buescher pledged to run a robocall-free campaign.

There's been no move by lawmakers to ban the calls in California.

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, finds the calls dehumanizing and exclusionary.

“The campaigns are precisely targeting the message to the voters they find most desirable, so a lot of voters aren't getting those calls,” Alexander said.

She advises voters to call their registrar of voters office and ask that their phone numbers be stricken from records. Few people know that they are not required to provide their telephone number on a registration form, Alexander said. It's not an immediate solution, she said, but something that could help down the road. (full story)

Voters facing new problems in mix-up

By Charles Levin, Ventura County Star, October 31, 2006

Excerpt:

Absentee voters in parts of the Conejo and Ojai valleys will have a few more days to request new ballots if they were mailed ones listing the wrong races, the county's election chief said Monday.

Warning letters went out last week explaining the ballot problem to voters in both areas. But 870 Conejo Valley residents who registered as absentee voters got the wrong warning letter, Gene Browning, Ventura County's assistant registrar, said Monday.

The printing company mistakenly sent letters to the Conejo Valley that discussed the Ojai Valley problems, Browning said.

Under state law, officials can start opening absentee ballot envelopes and counting votes today, marking an unofficial deadline for requesting a new absentee ballot.

Now, however, the Elections Division will not open absentee ballots for the two valley areas until later this week, giving people a few more days to get a new ballot. Browning, however, declined to be more specific on a new deadline.

"It's going to depend on how the rest of my workload goes and if I get many more calls" about the problem, Browning said.

Browning seemed confident that the absentee problem, which surfaced last week, had not spread to other parts of the county. "It's just isolated to that handful," Browning said.

Absentee ballots come as two cards. Candidate races and measures are listed on both sides of each card.

- - - - -

County Clerk-Recorder Phil Schmit and a Sequoia official said last week that they don't believe the mix-up will affect the outcome of any races.

Several voting experts contacted last week by The Star were not so sure.

The problem is not out of the ordinary, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. Many counties contract out for their voting services, and "vendors ... are overburdened at this time of year," Alexander said.

Alexander noted that voter participation drops off in low-profile contests such as park districts or water boards.

"So the voters who do vote in those races do have a lot of influence," Alexander said. Such races "can be decided by a relatively small margin."

Schmit vowed last week to ensure that the problem doesn't happen again. A Sequoia official said the company would meet with county officials about the matter.

County Supervisor Linda Parks, who represents the Conejo Valley, said Monday that she wants to make sure that every absentee voter gets a correct ballot.

"If it takes an official knocking on everyone's door, giving everyone a correct ballot, then that's what needs to happen," Parks said. (full story)

Electioneering Goes Digital

By Emily Alpert, Gilroy Dispatch, October 28, 2006

Excerpt:

As election day nears, campaign plugs weigh down the mailbox, blare from the radio and the TV, and now, clutter your e-mail.

Years ago, California added e-mail to its voter registration form. It's not a required field, and the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters doesn't use it, but some campaigns are snapping up the data to send campaign information online.

"If you look at the way campaigns are won and lost, it's all about the number of ears you reach," said David Oke, a campaign consultant for district attorney candidate Dolores Carr. "The traditional ways of reaching ears" - television, radio, and direct mail - "have been very expensive. E-mail is being driven by how many people you can reach for how little money."

Oke wasn't sure if Carr's campaign has used e-mails harvested from the county registrar's lists. The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society has used the technique to promote Measure A, noting on its e-mails that the addresses were accessed through the county registrar. The e-mails also give them the option to click on a button and have their addresses removed from the mailing list.

"They say you need to reach out to people seven times for your message to get through, so using different techniques we try to do that," said Peter Drekmeier, spokesman for People for Land and Nature, the environmental consortium that proposed Measure A. "We put signs on sides of buses, ads on television, mailers, e-mail, phone calls and ads in newspapers."

- - - - -

That worries Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, a public interest research group based in San Diego. When registrars sell voter data, purchasers promise the data won't be used illegally - to market a product, for example.

"But once it's in a database, it's hard to control who has access to it," said Dixon. "That information can get resold, and used for all kinds of flat-out marketing."

She named AnyBirthday.com, now defunct, as an example. Dixon said the Web site gathered birthdates from voter rolls, then charged for the information on its site. In 2003, a Wired News investigation found that Aristotle International, a voter database firm, was selling its lists online without confirming buyers' identities or intent. A reporter purchased data on 1,700 California voters and 900 South Carolina voters under the names 'Condoleezza Rice' and 'Britney Spears.'

Noel Alonzo, 30, provided his e-mail address to the registrar. He hasn't gotten any campaign e-mail yet, and he says he hopes he doesn't. Privacy doesn't worry him: spam does.

"It's junk mail to me," said Alonzo. "It's just more things for me to delete."

California Voter Foundation's Alexander cautioned against dismissing all political e-mail as spam. E-mail is quick, it's convenient, and in low-budget campaigns, it's useful to drum up grassroots support.

"E-mail has been a pivotal tool for engaging millions of people in this country in the political process," Alexander said. "As much as voters may complain about political e-mail spam, the fact is that campaign speech is protected under the First Amendment, and campaigns have the right to contact voters via e-mail. (full story)

Election Day… or Month?

By Emily Alpert, Gilroy Dispatch, October 27, 2006

Excerpt:

For more than 44,000 Santa Clara County voters, the election is over. That's the number of absentee votes already returned to the county Registrar of Voters. If 50 percent of registered voters cast ballots - a high turnout - that means almost 12 percent of votes countywide are already in.

Thirty-five percent of registered voters were mailed absentee ballots this year, according to estimated figures provided by Elma Rosas, the county registrar's media officer. Of the roughly 262,000 absentee ballots mailed in the county, 206,000 were sent to permanent absentee voters, who are automatically mailed their ballots each election.

"We now have a month-long election day," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "People are busy, and a lot of them have a hard time getting to the polls."

Margaret Ryan, a Gilroy Senior Center volunteer, said she signed up as a permanent absentee voter three or four years ago. She's handicapped, and sometimes walking can be painful. Ryan plans to send in her ballot this weekend.

Absentee voting has stretched the timeline for electoral campaigns, once an endgame blitz of advertising and door-to-door pleas. The last few weeks are still crucial, said Mark Zappa, a Republican campaign activist, but "when absentee ballots are first mailed, you have to hit it hard.

"If you don't," he cautions, "you'll be out in the cold." (full story)

Electronic Voting Reliability in Question

By Emily Alpert, Gilroy Dispatch, October 27, 2006

Excerpt:

Silicon Valley is ground zero for technological innovation, but some say they still don't trust the county's high-tech voting systems.

The county signed a $19-million contract with Oakland-based Sequoia Voting Systems in 2003, bringing touch-screen voting machines to polling booths from Palo Alto to Gilroy. This June, the machines were upgraded to include a voter-verified paper audit trial, said Matt Moreles, a Santa Clara County Registrar spokesperson. Each voter makes their selection on the touch screen, then looks at a paper printout to make sure it's correct. The printout is stored inside the printer, where it can be referred to in a manual recount.

"Electronic machines are the most accurate platforms for voting," said Howard Cramer, Sequoia's vice president of sales. "They're generally faster, generally more secure, and as elections get more complex, it's the only tool available for dealing with that increasing complexity."

- - - - -

Sequoia's machines have had fewer problems than those produced by the much-maligned Diebold Election Systems, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, and the voter-verified paper trail is a significant step. But she's still "not a fan of electronic voting."

"Anytime you put high-tech equipment into a polling place, there is likely to be some kind of problem," Alexander said.

She cited a case in 2004 in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, where voters had to correct their votes multiple times before the Sequoia AVC Edge machines registered the correct choice. The problem was reported in the Albuquerque Journal. (full story)

Kim Alexander and Friends Perform the "Proposition Song"

KOVR News, October 26, 2006

(Video clip available online)

Secretary of State's Race not exactly a vote machine

By Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times, October 19, 2006

Excerpt:

The secretary of state contest typically attracts sparse media coverage, scant financial resources and little voter interest. This year is no different; nevertheless, it is shaping up to be one of the most competitive statewide races on the November ballot.

Incumbent Bruce McPherson and his challenger, termed-out state Sen. Debra Bowen of Marina del Rey, are in a virtual dead heat among likely voters, recent polls show.

At first blush, they appear similar — two respected politicians with long tenures in the state Legislature, where they showed a keen interest in the state's electoral system. They support many of the same principles, such as making the office nonpartisan and pressing for campaign finance reform. But they disagree sharply on whether the state's elections are run properly, and particularly on the trustworthiness of electronic voting machines.

Voting advocates say that whoever is elected will play a vital role in the future of the state's and the nation's elections.

"California has provided a lot of leadership for the nation in the area of voting-technology reform," said Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Foundation, which does not endorse candidates. "Secretary of State McPherson has provided that leadership; Debra Bowen has provided that leadership in her role on the Senate Elections Committee." (full story)

Song highlights ballot measures

By Chris Riva, KCRA News, October 18, 2006

(Video clip available online)

Some fear California's bulky ballots may intimidate voters

By Rachel Konrad, Associated Press, October 17, 2006

Excerpts:

Voter guides are landing with a big thud on doorsteps across California, where residents are confronted with an unusually large number of ballot measures and candidates in next month's election.

Election officials worry that the state's largest guides - 192-page books sent to 12 million homes - will overwhelm and discourage would-be voters.

The array of complicated issues on the ballot could also lead to long lines and delays at polling sites if people haven't done their homework.

-----

Kim Alexander, president of the Davis-based California Voter Foundation, created a jingle to summarize the maze of issues for voters. The catchy tune with banjo accompaniment includes the chorus: "It's the proposition song/because the ballot's too darn long."

"Voting in this state can sometimes feel like doing your taxes," said Alexander, who emphasized that the song isn't meant as a substitute for reading the literature. But she said voters should at least skim the guide - and, if rushed, vote only on issues that are meaningful to them.

"You don't have to have encyclopedic knowledge of a ballot measure to make an informed choice," she said. (full story)

The Buzz: Campaigns Strike Up the Bandwagon

By Steve Wiegand, Sacramento Bee, October 16, 2006

Excerpts:

If "music hath charms to soothe a savage breast," as the 17th-century poet William Congreve observed, then California voters should be going to the polls next month with very docile bosoms.

There's been a spate of campaign songs lately, designed to persuade or educate the electorate on behalf of various political causes.

-----

For you folkies, there's "The Proposition Song." Composed by Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. It condenses all 13 ballot measures into a three-minute Pete Seegerish ditty that can be heard at www.calvoter.org. A sample:

"Oh, there once was a proposition, its number was 1A/ The first of 13 measures to decide by Election Day/ Arnold and the lawmakers want the first 5 props to pass/ 1A would mandate road funding from the sales tax on gas." (full story)

Big Money Is Drawn to Issues

By Virginia Ellis and Dan Morain, Los Angeles Times, October 15, 2006

Excerpts:

In the world of politics, the race for money is as intense as the race for votes because often — not always — the politician or proposition with the most money wins.

In the competition for cash, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Phil Angelides are taking a back seat to two tax measures affecting some of the richest industries in America.

Oil and tobacco interests are investing millions in campaigns opposing Proposition 87's proposed increase in the oil extraction tax and Proposition 86's $2.60-a-pack leap in the cigarette tax. The two battles are the most expensive in this year's election.

------

In California, the dollars collected for candidates and initiative campaigns occupy a stratosphere of their own, dwarfing amounts raised in any other state. In 2004, the most recent nationwide elections, ballot propositions drew $600 million in contributions across the country, more than half of it — or $304 million — in California, according to a study by the Institute on Money in State Politics in Helena, Mont.

Florida ranked next, with $57.8 million raised for ballot measures.

This year, more than $447 million has been amassed for both proposition and candidate races, with the election still weeks away.

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a nonprofit voter education group, said big money flows into California because it's a bellwether state. Propositions that are successful here are likely to be copied elsewhere.

"A lot of political trends begin in California and take root here through the initiative process," Alexander said. "Stakes are high, and interest groups and corporations are aware the impact California initiatives can have nationally and even internationally."

Stem cell research, term limits and Proposition 13 property tax cuts were California-born initiatives that spread to other states.

"The real tragedy of campaign financing in the initiative process is that hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to 'educate' voters, and yet most of the money is used to buy television ads that confuse, mislead or scare voters and do just about anything but inform them," Alexander said. (full story)

Get Yer Banjos Out -- it's the Proposition Song!

By Lynda Gledhill, San Francisco Chronicle, October 12, 2006

Excerpt:

If the weighty voter guide that arrived in your mail has become your dog's favorite chew toy, the California Voter Foundation has musical way to try get across what the 13 ballot propositions on the November ballot are all about: The Proposition Song.
The catchy folksong was written by the foundation's president, Kim Alexander and can be found at their web site.

It's hard to argue with the chorus: "It's the Proposition Song; Cause the ballot is too darn long!"

If you don't have the audio, here are the lyrics:

Oh, there once was a proposition, its number was One-A

The first of thirteen measures to decide by Election Day. (November 7th!) (full story)

 

Republicans Have Eyes on Keeping Secretary of State Seat

The Sacramento Union, September 20, 2006

Excerpt:

The race for secretary of state this fall could be the Republicans’ best hope of retaining a statewide office, and it has left the Democratic challenger struggling to find a weakness she can exploit in her moderate opponent.

Incumbent Secretary of State Bruce McPherson has steered a centrist course since being appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in March 2005 after Democrat Kevin Shelley resigned amid allegations of financial impropriety.

That has helped him win over many Democrats and left-leaning organizations. He has received the endorsement of groups such as the California Teachers Association, an influential player in statewide political campaigns. He is the first Republican the group has supported for statewide office.

A McPherson win would boost the spirits of his fellow Republicans, who haven’t seen significant victories in California statewide races since 1994.

Such an outcome also could have implications for McPherson beyond the next term, said Mark Baldassare, director of research for the Public Policy Institute of California.

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

Although their methods differ, both Bowen and McPherson use the same language to describe their goals for voting reform _ reliability, transparency and accessibility.

That will be a tall order for whoever wins in November, said Kim Alexander, president of the Davis-based California Voter Foundation, a nonprofit group that advances electronic-voting reforms.

“Carrying out that responsibility is increasingly challenging because of competing pressures by groups who want more accuracy and more security and by election officials at the local level who are often reluctant to increase their workload,” she said.

A longtime privacy advocate, Bowen’s other campaign priorities include adding sexual assault victims to the state’s Safe at Home program, which allows abortion clinic workers and victims of domestic violence to keep their addresses confidential and vote by mail.

Both candidates said they would try to engage young voters and further campaign finance reform.

Meanwhile, McPherson and Bowen are trying to persuade undecided voters and drum up enthusiasm for an office that often fails to capture broad public interest.

McPherson enjoys an advantage with heavily stocked campaign coffers. At the end of July, he had $708,000 in remaining funds, compared to Bowen’s $180,000, according to Cal-Access, the state’s online database of candidates’ financial information.(full story)

Political fray includes domain names

The San Jose Mercury News, August 25, 2006

Excerpt:

Call it a case of cyberantics with a cause. The dueling camps over Proposition 87, the November initiative that would impose a fee on oil extracted in California, have been duking it out all week over control of Web site domain names.

In what's being acknowledged as a stunt to drum up support for the initiative, campaign backers got control of a number of Web site addresses with names more suited for the opposition. This week, Web users who clicked on www.noon87.com or www.noonprop87.org, for example, were led to a site created by backers of Proposition 87. The opposition's own site is www.nooiltax.com.

Supporters of the controversial initiative include Silicon Valley venture capitalists, environmentalists and Hollywood liberals. But the cyber prank was no barrel of laughs for opponents that include major oil companies and the powerful California Chamber of Commerce. They sued.

Turns out in California there is a law against such pranks, the California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act. The legislature passed it in the wake of reports of Web profiteers snapping up politician's names and initiative numbers to create mischief, such as diverting Web surfers to pro-marijuana or white supremacy groups and selling off the sites to the highest bidder.

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

Several major oil companies contributed most of the more than $30 million raised by opponents, including $25 million from Chevron, Exxon and Shell. Supporters of Proposition 87 include Hollywood producer Steve Bing, who contributed more than $10 million, and Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla. Khosla and other backers have investments in companies that could benefit if the initiative passes.

"It's a good chunk of change,'' said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, who predicted that, despite the substantive policy issues surrounding the initiative," guerrilla tactics by millionaires'' might dissuade voters. Still, backers ended up with a spate of hard-to-get coverage.

"Campaigns engage in this kind of activity online to get people's attention and get their message out through the clutter,'' said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.(full story)

Candidates priced out of ballot pamphlets

The Capitol Weekly, August 24, 2006

Excerpts:

With its big cities, the skyrocketing costs of television advertisements and the impracticality of campaigning door-to-door, running for statewide office in California has long been an expensive endeavor.

But this year, for the first time, down-ticket campaigns are getting slapped with one more small expense: Candidates for statewide office must now pay for their ballot statements--at the rate of $20 per word--in the state's
official voter guide.

Some activists and candidates are saying the new fee prices them out of what was once their best shot at communicating with a statewide audience.

"Democracy shouldn't have a price tag. Why don't we start charging voters for the cost of voting in elections?" says a sarcastic Larry Cafiero, the Green Party candidate for insurance commissioner. "I am very dismayed that the state thinks they have to charge candidates for this because it doesn't provide a level playing field, especially for third-party candidates."

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

"There are very few nonpartisan resources for voters available and the ballot pamphlet is the most important one there is," says Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "The ballot pamphlet is the one piece of voter information that goes out to every voter. It's a shame that the policy was changed [to make candidates pay]."

The new fee for ballot statements is a consequence of Proposition 34, the 2000 campaign-finance measure approved by voters. That measure created a voluntary spending cap, $6.69 million for down-ticket races and $11.15 for gubernatorial candidates in 2006, and allows every candidate who promises to abide by those limits a ballot statement--at a cost.

The rate of $20 per word was chosen by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson "to recoup production and distribution costs," according to spokeswoman Nghia Nguyen.

McPherson's Democratic opponent in the fall, Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Marina del Rey, declined comment for the story.

Every major-party candidate for office who accepted those spending limits has submitted a statement--except for Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who is running for insurance commissioner. (full story)

New voting machines questioned

The Sacramento Bee, August 15, 2006

Excerpts:

While the November election marks the first time all counties in California will be in compliance with the federal Help America Vote Act, county elections officials are frustrated with the disabled access component of the law.

Even though state and federal officials allocated millions of dollars to reimburse counties for the cost of new voting machines, some county registrars argue they'll be outdated in a few years, leaving local governments with antiquated systems, millions of dollars in maintenance and replacement costs -- and frustrated voters.

"It's a disaster," said Freddie Oakley, Yolo County registrar. "We're sinking millions, nationwide billions, of dollars into technology that is not ready for the marketplace and that will be obsolete even earlier.

"We are all purchasing gold-plated shovels with rope handles. They look great, but they're not going to do the job for long."

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that counties nationwide replace punch-card systems -- the ones blamed for the problems during the 2000 presidential election -- and that access to voting be improved for disabled voters at every polling location.

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

Various advocacy groups and private citizens with disabilities filed a complaint Aug. 1 in U.S. District Court against California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, as well as registrars in four counties.

The complaint alleges that use of three of the systems violate the 14th Amendment and the Help America Vote Act because voters with disabilities are unable to "vote privately, independently and without assistance like all other voters."

Kim Alexander, president and founder of the Davis-based California Voter Foundation, said the legislation is troublesome because counties have to rely on the few private companies that make the machinery.

"I'm all for free market, but this is an area where we need more government and oversight," she said.

Alexander said she sees a solution in a hybrid voting approach, one that would have high-tech voting centers where there would be trained poll workers to assist people, and those who wish to vote absentee could mail their ballots in or leave them at ballot drop-off sites.

Placer County Registrar of Voters Jim McCauley said the mandated systems come with many unanswered questions, but that doesn't override the premise of the law.

"I think we're all concerned, but there's just no way around it," he said. "I believe everybody has the right to vote." (full story)

Coalition calls for election recount

San Diego Union-Tribune, June 29, 2006

Excerpt:

A coalition of election watchdog organizations is calling on the San Diego County Registrar of Voters to conduct a full manual recount of the June 6 primary election because of alleged security breaches involving touch-screen voting machines.

Specifically, the California Election Protection Network contends the county violated federal and state regulations requiring "secure custody" of voting machines by allowing poll workers to take them home before election day.

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

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said she shares the California Election Protection Network's concerns about electronic voting equipment, but not the basis of its complaint against San Diego County.

Alexander said the secretary of state's regulations "did not include prohibiting election officials from allowing machines to go home with poll workers before and after an election."

But she added: "I continue to believe we're not ready for electronic voting systems. The fact is these high-tech voting systems are being used in a primitive process and that is a recipe for disaster." (full story)

California Primary Tests Electronic Voting System

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, June 15, 2006

Excerpt:

SPENCER MICHELS: As director of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation, she spent Primary Election Day trying to find out how well new touch-screen electronic voting machines were working.

KIM ALEXANDER: And what do you think about using the touch-screen voting machines?

VOTER: I think it's wonderful myself.

SPENCER MICHELS: While some voters told her they liked them, Alexander was dismayed by security problems she found.

KIM ALEXANDER: The other polling place I went to had a little sticker there.

POLLING PLACE WORKER: Yes, one of my workers pulled them off. I had it written it down.

KIM ALEXANDER: Oh, how come they pulled it off?

POLLING PLACE WORKER: They didn't know which one they were talking off. It looks like they got the wrong sticker.

KIM ALEXANDER: Oh, which sticker were they supposed to take off?

At this polling place here this morning, they had trouble getting the machines started, and one poll worker told me that they had an anxiety attack and they started tearing all the seals off all of the machines. And three out of the four machines in this polling place do not have those security seals on them right now.

SPENCER MICHELS: Those security seals are designed to prevent tampering by anyone, and that's a concern now that much of the country has switched to electronic voting machines.

The switch was made in response to problems voters had with punch-card voting systems in the disputed and protracted 2000 Florida presidential election. Two years later, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act and appropriated $3.8 billion to buy new voting machines and to otherwise improve elections.

KIM ALEXANDER: A lot of states rushed out and bought new electronic-voting machines thinking that that would solve all of their problems. What we found is that those systems are not only more expensive than paper-voting systems, they're also less transparent and they're hardly glitch-free. (full story, including transcript and audio)

Barnett takes heat for ballot troubles

The Bakersfield Californian, June 8, 2006

Excerpts:

Newly re-elected Kern County Auditor-Controller Ann Barnett was under fire Wednesday after overseeing a bumble-filled election on Tuesday.

"The six-six-six election was one of the worst elections we have had in our county," county Supervisor Michael Rubio said.

Supervisors are calling for control of the Kern County Elections Department to be stripped from Barnett's office.
Barnett said she isn't ready to give up elections, which is tied to separate duties as county clerk, auditor and controller.

"I love every part of my job and I think that, even though we have had bumps along the road, we have done a pretty darn good job," Barnett said.

Elections should be a stand-alone county agency, said Supervisor Don Maben, who was also re-elected Tuesday.

But any attempt to take elections away from Barnett could face serious legal challenges, according to a county memo from February 2005.

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

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said Kern County allowed poorly handled technology to short-circuit people's right to vote.

"There's no good reason for anyone to be turned away at the polls. Problems are inevitable," she said, but the scale of the problems in Kern County was very troubling.

Alexander's organization advocates for voter rights and has been critical of uncontrolled implementation of new voting technology.

Maben said that next week, he will ask fellow supervisors to draft a letter asking McPherson to take control of the Kern County Elections Department.

Maben said Barnett has proven she should not have control of the county's elections.

"I was one of the guys that stood by her a couple years ago," he said. "I said 'If it's not broke don't fix it.' Well it's broke."

Rubio and Supervisor Jon McQuiston tried to remove elections from Barnett's control in early 2005.

But Maben and Supervisors Barbara Patrick and Ray Watson voted the idea down.

Rubio said the elections process is too critical to be stuck under the authority of the Auditor-Controller's office, which is already responsible for the critical task of auditing the county's mammoth budget.

Everyone needs to answer for Tuesdays' problems, he said.

"The responsibility lies with the person in charge and last night, that was Ann Barnett," Rubio said. But "where the buck ultimately stops is with the Board of Supervisors and that's myself and my four colleagues."(full story)

Tallying the lessons

The Stockton Record, June 8, 2006

Excerpts:

The county's top election official is re-evaluating how democracy is waged in the wake of Tuesday's primary election, which was riddled with voting machine problems and delays.

Before November's general election, in which more voters are expected to decide on more issues, elections officials likely will beef up poll worker training, make sure more tech-support staff is available and could reduce the number of polling locations in order to prevent problems that delayed some polls opening by more than three hours, said Deborah Hench, San Joaquin County's registrar of voters.

"You have to compare it to having the Asparagus Festival in 330 locations," Hench said of the effort to train and deploy poll workers at 333 polling locations spread throughout the county.

Counting the ballots also took longer than in all but six other counties statewide, lasting until 3:28 a.m. Wednesday.

Poll workers complained that the Diebold TSx electronic voting machines used for the first time in two years Tuesday were too difficult to set up and training that the workers received did not adequately explain how to assemble or disassemble the machines.

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

"Even with the paper trail, those security concerns are in the hands of poll workers who receive limited training and work 15-hour days," Kim Alexander said Tuesday after surveying polling places in Stockton. "And I think it's too much to ask of people."

Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation, said she saw "a lot of confusion" among poll workers. At some polling locations, she said, voters were not examining paper records of their ballots because they did not know to lift a privacy screen that covers the printouts.

"I wouldn't say that San Joaquin County was a meltdown today, ... but there are many people in this state and this county who are concerned about the security of electronic voting machines, and nothing I saw today eased my concerns," Alexander said.(full story)

California Adds Paper Trail to Electronic Voting

National Public Radio , June 7, 2006

Excerpts:

California's primary election Tuesday was the first serious test for a new kind of electronic voting machine. The devices produce a paper-trail record of every vote cast by touch-screen. The major shift in technology was prompted by concerns that the electronic voting machines the state had been using were vulnerable to fraud.

The reform of California's voting system led it to replace 40,000 paperless voting machines. While resembling the unit it replaced, the new machine has a printer on its side. A voter's choices are printed out, and if they see an anomaly, they can report it, or re-enter their vote.

While the first use of the printer-enabled voting machines reportedly went smoothly, critics of the machine say Tuesday's vote wasn't heavy enough to test the new technology. A key flaw, they said, is that the machine doesn't provide voters with a receipt of their ballot.(full story)

State primary endures minor snags

The Alameda Times-Star, June 7, 2006

Excerpts:

California primaries are among the most complicated elections in the nation, and with elections officials rushing to field the latest voting machinery, Tuesday's races were an invitation for snafus big and small.

There were plenty of those, especially in Kern County, where a technical oversight kept workers from opening many polling places for hours, and in San Joaquin County, where several poll workers never showed up.
A Kern County elections official called the delays "a nightmare," and San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters Debbie Hench said, "It was a hell of a morning."

But viewed statewide, California had no election daymeltdowns — only "minor hiccups," as spokeswoman Nghia Nguyn Demovic of the Secretary of State's Office put it — and the concern was less the mechanics of voting than the voters themselves: Where were they?

Gubernatorial primaries traditionally don't bring out lots of voters. But polling place anecdotes and early returns suggested Tuesday's statewide turnout may have dipped to the historic 2002 low of 36 percent. In 1981, it was 61 percent.

"It's like, 'Oh, my God, it's not there,'" said Contra Costa County clerk and elections chief Steve Weir, who usually sees strong voter participation. "I thought I'd have a 47 percent (turnout), and now I'm thinking 40 percent."

"This one may be the same or lower" than in 2002, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "Part of it may be the absence of any hot-button initiatives or candidates on the ballot."

The depressed showing at the polls eased strain on lots of new and experimental voting machinery statewide. In the last two months, elections officials raced to field enormous amounts of new or upgraded voting equipment, mostly to meet changing state and federal laws.(full story)

Diebold machines pressed into service

The Contra-Costa Times, June 6, 2006

Excerpts:

Nearly two years after suing Diebold for faulty, uncertified voting equipment, Alameda County may cast its vote with the Ohio-based company yet again.

County supervisors are scheduled to hold a special meeting Thursday to choose a new voting system expected to be in place for this fall's election. County elections officials are recommending the board choose a "blended" voting system -- consisting of paper ballots with optical scanners, plus a touch screen at each polling place -- made by either Diebold or Oakland-based Sequoia Voting Systems.

Although the new system would be different from the all-touch-screen Diebold system the county embraced five years ago, it could commit the county to contracting with a company that already has left a bad taste in the mouth of voters and county officials alike.

"I am not supportive of Diebold," said Keith Carson, president of the board. "I've said that many times. And at a number of meetings on this topic, the people who speak are in overwhelming opposition to Diebold, too."

The county's relationship with Diebold started in 2001, when the company helped lead a rush to touch-screen voting after the Florida ballot-counting fiasco during the 2000 presidential election.

The county purchased 4,000 Diebold touch-screen machines for $12 million, but the move soon proved troublesome. The equipment had various glitches, including once assigning votes to the wrong candidate.

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

"There certainly is a rocky history with Diebold and Alameda County," said Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Foundation. "That history certainly factors into voters' confidence and how secure the public feels with these machines."

Concerns about Diebold have not kept others from using the company's equipment. Twenty counties will use Diebold systems as the primary voting system for today's election. That includes Alameda County -- the only Bay Area county using Diebold -- which is borrowing 50 touch-screen machines and 60 optical scanners from another county since its old Diebold system did not produce a paper record and was rendered inadequate by the state at the beginning of this year.

Both Solano and Contra Costa counties use Election Systems & Software's optical scanners, an option Alameda County officials looked into, but did not recommend because of complaints about the company's support of its systems and references.

"Is there a negative reaction from some people to the name Diebold?" asked David MacDonald, the county's acting registrar. "Clearly, but people are going to have a concern no matter who the maker is."

Alameda County is anticipating buying 1,000 scanners to put at polling places in November, along with 1,000 touch-screen machines to be used mainly by the disabled. The Diebold system could cost as much as $17 million, while the Sequoia system could run as high as $13.5 million. However, Diebold will give the county a $6.1 million trade-in allowance -- stemming from the county's 2001 purchase -- if the county chooses its system. If the county goes with Sequoia, Diebold will buy back its old machines for just $3 million.(full story)

For-profit 'voters guides' called misleading

The San Diego Union-Tribune, June 4, 2006

Excerpts:

Ronald Bonn doesn't belong to a political party, so it probably came as no surprise when the “Official Nonpartisan Voter Guide of California” turned up in his mailbox last week.

In the days leading up to tomorrow's primary, unofficial slate mailers such as this one have flooded mailboxes in California. But Bonn quickly became irate as he examined the card and even checked out its Web site.

The mailer recommended nothing but Republican candidates and the Web site advertised itself as “your first choice in reaching conservative and independent voters.”

“Right-wing skullduggery,” concluded Bonn, who teaches journalism at the University of San Diego.

“It calls itself the 'Official Nonpartisan Voter Guide of California,' which would lead the unwary recipient to believe it is official, nonpartisan and a voter guide,” he wrote in an angry note to The San Diego Union-Tribune. “In fact, it is none of these.”

Jess Durfee was equally incensed when he received the “Voter Information Guide for Democrats.” It recommended Phil Angelides, Dianne Feinstein and a full slate of Democrats for statewide offices and Congress.

The “Voter Information Guide for Democrats” also recommended the re-election of San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts, a Republican.

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

Kim Alexander is president of the California Voter Foundation, whose Web site contains a compendium of voter information. Like many, Alexander admits to having mixed feelings about commercial slates.

She criticizes slate vendors who engage in mercenary and deceptive practices. But she said slates serve a useful purpose in California, where ballots are jammed with candidates for obscure offices that even the most sophisticated voters know next to nothing about.

“I have 22 people I elect to represent me here in Sacramento and I can't tell you who they are and what they do, in some cases,” Alexander said. “And I'm the California Voter Foundation, for crying out loud.”

Tim Hodson, who directs the Center for California Studies at California State University Sacramento, regards slate mailers as a legitimate campaign tool no more subject to abuse than any other.

“It can be useful to a voter who, rationally, doesn't spend a huge amount of time on politics to get a mailer from a political party or organized group that says surfers believe these candidates will support surfer rights,” Hodson said.

Slates are a huge business in California, so much so that some political professionals believe they are losing their impact because of their sheer numbers.(full story)

More voters skip polls, mail ballots

The Contra Costa Times, May 24, 2006

Excerpts:

Contra Costans voting by mail may, for the first time, outnumber those who walk into their polling places June 6.

The trend mirrors a statewide uptick in voting by mail that hits election officials' budgets, alters campaign strategies and inches California closer to a day when it may have to choose between tradition and convenience.

"We're right now in the worst possible combination of both worlds," said Contra Costa County Registrar Steve Weir and incoming president of the California Association of Clerks and Registrars.

"We have to run a full precinct operation, and with the tremendous amount of turnout coming in the mail, I don't have the economy of either scale benefiting us."

Based on absentee ballot return rates thus far, Weir predicted Contra Costa could see mail-in voters overtake Election Day voters for the first time.

If it happens, Weir said, it may foreshadow a tipping point where most Californians vote by mail, and lawmakers may rethink whether it makes sense to deploy a massive and costly Election Day operation.

Like many California counties, the East Bay's vote-by-mail rate has risen steadily since the state's expanded permanent absentee voter program took effect in 2002.

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

Voting by mail is a convenience for upper- and middle-class voters, Gans said, that hurts the poor and disenfranchises people who may vote before relevant information surfaces about a candidate or an issue. Domineering family members may also exert pressure on spouses to vote their way, he added, which the voting booth privacy precludes.

The more likely outcome, said California Voter Foundation President Kim Alexander, is a hybrid network of convenient, high-tech voting centers coupled with mail voting and improved security at the U.S. Post Office.

"I don't see polling places going away," Alexander said.

"For many people, voting on Election Day is one of the last remaining spaces in public life where people convene and participate in democracy."(full story)

Polls on the move?

The San Bernardino Sun , May 23, 2006

Excerpts:

If voters can't go to the polls, says county Registrar of Voters Kari Verjil, the polls should go to them.
To that end, the mobile-voting vehicle is part of an $8 million package of election equipment up for a vote by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors at today's meeting.

The board is expected to approve a Help America Vote Act funding agreement with the state, providing the county's Registrar of Voters with funds for upgraded elections equipment, increased voter education and the voting vehicle equipped with touch-screen voting machines.

The county has had plenty of time to think about how to spend the money: It made its request for state funding in 2002.

Verjil said that, assuming the board approves her request, the voting vehicle will likely be rolling through the county before the 2008 state primary.

"We are leaning toward something of a motor-home-type vehicle" similar to the ROVER vehicle that Riverside County operates, Verjil said. The portable-polling places would be dispatched to senior centers, civic events and remote areas of the county during the three weeks of early voting leading up to election day.

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

San Bernardino County has a mixed record with electronic voting, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a voting-rights watchdog group.

"The county was one of the first in the state to implement a voter-verified paper-trail printer on all of their electronic-voting machines," Alexander said. "That happened even before the law took effect."

But that's not to say the county's Election Day operations haven't hiccupped in the past, she said.

In a March 2004 election, an error by the registrar's office forced the county to start counting the electronic ballots over, delaying the release of results by several hours.

And in 2001, the office announced erroneous results in 13 local races after it failed to adequately test a machine that tabulated paper ballots.

Those problems occurred before her time and before the county had its current safeguards in place, Verjil said.

"I would be confident to vote in San Bernardino County," Verjil said. "From the past elections I've seen, voters are becoming comfortable with the units, and I've had nothing but positive response with the Voter Verification Audit Trail."

That voters take advantage of the opportunity to confirm the accuracy of their vote is crucial, Alexander said.

"In light of the history of corruption at the local level in San Bernardino County, it's important for voters to be vigilant about any voting system the county uses," Alexander said. "Voters everywhere in e-voting counties can help ensure the security of the systems by carefully checking their ballot."(full story)

Enlisting Internet's aid

The Orange County Register, May 22, 2006

Excerpts:

Having trouble understanding Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed state budget for 2006-07? Or the whopping public works package Californians will vote on in November? The governor is happy to explain it all – via the Internet.

His administration has launched six taxpayer-funded Web sites in recent months to help people navigate the complexities of his proposals. The sites employ a blend of popular Internet fare, including videos of his speeches and Web logs by his advisers, all at catchphrase Web addresses like buildingabettercalifornia.com.

Each site is devoted to a single subject matter and the writing is anything but government-speak. Under "The Bloginator" – a name recycled from last year's special-election campaign Web site – Finance Director Mike Genest compares the $7.5 billion in extra revenues flowing into state coffers over two years to a surprise increase in a California family's tax refund, and asks, "So sitting around the kitchen table, what do you decide to with this unexpected windfall?"

------------
His sites are part of a growing nationwide trend that political experts say was born with the success of Howard Dean, a little known, former Vermont governor who used the Internet to leap onto the national stage as a Democratic presidential contender in 2004.

Dozens of similar official Web pages are used by leaders in other states and often bear the similar, nonofficial Web addresses.

"The fact is that the (Schwarzenegger) staff are using the Internet in creative ways to provide information that is beneficial to the people of California," said Kim Alexander, founder of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation.(full story)

Voting system decision delayed

The Argus, May 18, 2006

Excerpts:

Facing a use-it-or-lose-it situation on $9 million in federal money, Alameda County supervisors put off choosing a new voting system Wednesday night under pressure from voting activists.

The county largely has ended its three-year experiment as the first big West Coast jurisdiction to gamble on Diebold and its electronic touch-screen voting machines. The question is what is next, and when?

County executives pressed supervisors Wednesday night to settle on a "blended" voting system supplied by either Diebold or Oakland-based Sequoia Voting Systems, with primarily paper ballots run through optical scanners, plus a touch-screen at each polling place to guarantee accessibility for disabled voters.

The price tag is $13 million to $17 million, and with a budget deficit already on the horizon, county officials are eager to use federal grants for more than half the purchase. The grants come with conditions and tight deadlines.
"I know this has been a longand painful process," David McDonald, the county's information technology director and interim elections chief, told the supervisors. "One thing I'm positive of is we're running out of time."

But some voting activists say the urgency is manufactured and that they prefer waiting on better, more secure voting systems, even if it means losing federal grant money.

Throughout the nation, counties are in the same boat. By year end, they must weigh cost, accuracy, security and accessibility across a handful of imperfect voting systems or risk forfeiting millions in federal dollars.

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

Activists point to recent discoveries of security holes in Diebold optical scanning systems and touch-screens, such as one first reported last week by The Argus, which computer scientists have called the worst vulnerability ever found in a voting system.

County officials and their consultants did not weigh the various voting systems for security and transparency, as many activists wished, but primarily for cost and compliance with state and federal laws.

Alameda County officials say they still are countering those security weaknesses by locking up or sealing the voting machines with tamper-evident tape. State law also requires a hand count of ballots in 1 percent of precincts as a check on the machine counts. The county plans on doubling that, for a hand tally of 2 percent.

Jessica Lehman, a representative for the disability group Community Resources for Independent Living, said no voting system offers everything — complete security, full accessibility and transparency.

But, she told county supervisors, "We have decent machines out there. We need to get them out so everyone has a chance to vote."

To buy machines for November, county executives say they need to sign a purchase contract in early June. Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said a small delay could be a good idea and give Alameda County a look at how the various voting systems perform in the June 6 primary.(full story)

In secretary of state primary race it's a Debra vs. a Deborah

The Daily Breeze, May 15, 2006

Excerpts:

They hold down the same job, belong to the same political party and even have similar first names.

So it's no surprise that state Sens. Debra Bowen and Deborah Ortiz are working to strike distinct chords with Democrats in a low-key primary campaign to be California's elections chief.

"In many respects, we are alike," said Ortiz, of Sacramento. "What distinguishes us is independence."

Bowen, of Marina del Rey, said it's her experience pushing election reforms that sets her apart.

"These are the issues I've worked on in the Legislature," Bowen said.

There are major divisions, however. The two Democrats part ways on same-day registration and whether voters should cast ballots on weekends. While Bowen has zeroed in on elections and privacy, Ortiz's career is marked more by health issues.

The survivor of the June 6 primary will go up against incumbent Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, a Republican and former state senator appointed by the governor to serve out the term of Democrat Kevin Shelley, who resigned amid scandal 14 months ago.

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

The secretary of state is primarily responsible for upholding the integrity of the ballot box for nearly 17 million voters in 58 counties.

"The secretary of state decides whether voting systems are safe," said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation.

"It's such an important function that many states don't have it (elections) as part of the secretary of state. They have a separate elections board," she said.

Beyond the elections division, the secretary of state maintains a vast online database of campaign contributions and lobbyist earnings.

The site helps the public track where money is being spent to influence elections as well as legislation and holds a trove of elections data. The office also runs California's domestic partners registry and is the keeper of many corporate filings.

Like many other statewide races, the secretary of state campaign features a pair of entrenched Democrats about to be booted out of the Legislature by term limits. Bowen, 50, and Ortiz, 49, are in their eighth and final year in the Senate.(full story)

Santa Clara Co. Introduces Electronic Voting Paper Audit Trail

CBS 5, San Francisco, May 12, 2006

Excerpts:

The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters demonstrated an upgraded version of the Sequoia Electronic Voting System Thursday, which for the first time includes a paper audit trail that allows users to verify the accuracy of their selections in print.

The Direct Recording Electronic voting machines used by the county since 2003 have been modified to include the new VeriVote printers, which store a voter-verified paper audit trail, called VVPAT.

Efforts to reinstate voter confidence in the electronic voting process brought about the now state-mandated requirement that all ballots cast leave a record on paper. The law, passed in 2004, took effect Jan. 1 and will be applied for the first time at the June 6 gubernatorial election.

"The VVPAT will let voters see on paper that their ballot is being recorded correctly, and it will also serve as a back-up record of the vote that can be used to conduct manual recounts," Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Jesse Durazo said.

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

Election officials are not allowed to interfere with or open the VeriVote printers, which are equipped with a security seal in the back that reads void if tampered with. If a printer malfunctions, an inspector would replace it at the precinct. The votes already cast would remain in the box for storage.

Durazo said that preliminary numbers indicate the printers are capable of storing 300 votes each. In addition to the VeriVote printers, the ballots are also stored in the DRE machines and a computer cartridge, leaving the registrar of voters with three back-up memory locations.

"Even if we lost power, there are redundant votes captured in our memory bank," Durazo said.

The new system is a step in the right direction, according to the California Voter Foundation, a nonprofit organization that has fought for a paper trail requirement since the electronic voting machines were introduced.

"California's June primary ushers in a new era of accountability and transparency in state elections," Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Foundation, said in a statement released last week. "Election officials rely on proprietary software produced by private companies to count the votes. The voter verified paper trail requirement ensures that election officials have a meaningful, independent audit trail to use when they publicly verify the vote."(full story)

Absentee ballots popular as June 6 primary approaches

The Record, May 11, 2006

Excerpts:

A growing number of voters are signing up to cast their ballots early in this year's elections as political parties stress the benefits of voting by mail.

With the primary election less than a month away, both major parties are trying to sign up new voters before a May 22 deadline and make sure those already registered get to the polls or send in their absentee ballots, which should be hitting mailboxes over the next few days.

Democrats and Republicans have been pushing for voters to register permanent absentee - meaning they receive ballots in the mail several weeks early and have until the day of the election to return them - believing that will make people more likely to vote and allow them time to study the candidates they're choosing and the issues they're deciding.

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

The number of permanent absentee voters has increased dramatically since voters could begin registering to vote by mail for any reason in 2002; prior to a new law being passed, voters had to give a reason why they couldn't go to the polls, such as a disability, to register permanent absentee. Leading up to the 2004 primary, there were 42,202 permanent absentee voters, Hench said.

But a statewide study released last year by the California Voter Foundation found more than half of infrequent voters - those who have voted in no more than one of the previous four elections - are not familiar with how to vote absentee.

"I think that indicates that there's a lot of education to be done," said Kim Alexander, president of the foundation. "There's a whole additional universe of voters who could greatly benefit from absentee voting."(full story)

Immigrant activists focus on political participation

The Daily Bulletin, May 8, 2006

Excerpts:

Even as Latinos in recent weeks have pushed for immigration reform on the streets and over the airwaves, another goal has emerged among a broader immigrant community: Translating street activism into political participation.

Latino and Asian civic groups last week reignited voter-registration drives by calling upon the thousands who participated in protests to take their enthusiasm to the ballot box in November.

But experts said that if history serves as any guide, short-term gains are likely to be few, while long-term gains will be significant.

‘‘If the next step and what we are seeing in the streets moves toward citizenship, voter turnout and registration, if that has any kind of legs beyond this year it will make California the darkest shade of blue possible and give rise to more Latino candidates at all levels,'' said Jaime Regalado, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute at California State University, Los Angeles.

Such is the case in California where, since January 1, nearly 25 percent of voter registration forms submitted for verification have been rejected by the statewide database. In Los Angeles County, 43 percent of voter registrations have been rejected.

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

‘‘This will have an effect on turnout on registration if there is a convincing case that there is threatening legislation against the community,'' said Karthick Ramakrishnan, an assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Riverside, and author of ‘‘Democracy in Immigrant America.''

But although register rolls could spike, turning voters out may prove difficult in upcoming state elections where new voters, both Latino and Asians, cannot clearly see their issues spelled out as they did in 1994, he said.

And organizers will continue to face challenges registering immigrants, which proportionally vote less than their white counterparts, partly because of what a 2005 California Voter Foundation survey suggests is a lack of ‘‘a pro-voting culture.''

Statewide, only 30 percent of Latinos eligible to vote are registered, according to the William C. Velasquez Institute, a think tank examining Latino voting trends. That compares to 72 percent of all whites and 68 percent all blacks.

Latino and Asian populations are heavily dominated by immigrants. Nationally, about 64 percent of Asians are foreign born as are 40 percent of Latinos, compared to just 3 percent of whites, according to a 1994 study by the Urban Institute on Latino and Asian Voters.

‘‘The population of the state is growing young and more diverse but the electorate has been stagnate, it continues to be those that are older, white and better educated that are voting. Those trends can be turned around and they need to be turned around,'' said Kim Alexander, president of the foundation, a non-profit group that tracks voting trends.

Even in areas like Los Angeles where Latinos played a pivotal role last year in electing Villaraigosa to the city's helm, they turned out in far lower numbers than the general voting population.(full story)

Changes behind scenes in voting

The Argus, May 5, 2006

Excerpts:

Most voters in California will not see much of a difference, but behind the scenes many counties are fielding new or upgraded voting machinery for the 2006 elections.

Gone is the punch-card ballot that, until 2000, was a mainstay of California polling places. For voters with disabilities, local elections officials are trying new blends of voting machinery to meet federal law on accessibility.
But in the biggest change, every county for the first time will have a paper ballot or backup record of votes as insurance against inaccuracy, fraud or breakdown of computerized voting systems. That means voters will see printers and paper, and lots of them.

This year, California will become the first entire state to have such a backup record, said Kim Alexander, a paper-trail proponent and president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation.

"Election officials rely on proprietary software produced by private companies to count the votes," Alexander said in a statement. "The voter verified paper trail requirement ensures that election officials have a meaningful, independent audit trail to use when they publicly verify the vote."

According to data collected by the foundation and released Thursday, 18 counties are putting new voting systems before voters in the primary this June. Most are swapping optically scanned paper ballots or punch cards for electronic, touch-screen voting machines that meet state and federal laws requiring paper trails and unassisted voting for people with disabilities.

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

Yolo County planned on buying ES&S' accessible ballot-marking devices, known as AutoMarks and selling for about $5,000 each. But contract negotiations soured, and Yolo officials instead are using VotePad, a series of plastic ballot-marking booklets that come with an audiocassette guide for the voter.

State elections officials question the legality of the idea, since the VotePad has not formally been certified for use in California.

"I think it's a clever work-around," said Alexander of the California Voter Foundation. "I think a lot of counties are just trying to get through one election at a time. They're using this election to try out a system without making a long-term commitment to one system or vendor."

In many counties, manufacturers now are racing to deliver new software, new or rebuilt machines or new parts such as the printers that will supply paper trails for touch-screen voting machines. Warehouses where voting machines are stored are hives of activity these days, testing the newly arrived equipment and getting it programmed for the June 6 election.

"It truly is chaos out there," said Tom Stanionis, director of technology for the Yolo County clerk/recorder's office.
But two-thirds of the counties, including most of the large ones, are sticking with or returning to optical scanners, upgraded to the latest version.

"They are trying to play it safe. They don't want to be the guinea pigs," said Alexander. "There are some who are willing to experiment with the accessibility requirements, but they're mostly sticking with the systems they're familiar with."

Many elections officials also are eyeing the rise in absentee voting, already close to 50 percent in the Bay Area, and all of those votes are optically scanned.(full story)

Database Troubles Arise in California, Elsewhere

electionline.org, April 13, 2006

Excerpts:

While much of the recent election hand-wringing has focused on documented and potential problems with voting systems, recent troubles in several states have shifted some of the focus to another major election change – newly implemented statewide voter registration databases.

The voter lists, mandated by the Help America Vote Act with the aim to eliminate voter registration problems related to inaccurate or haphazard rolls, have raised concerns that list problems in some states could potentially disenfranchise large numbers of voters.

Thousands of registration applications rejected in California

Such is the case in California where, since January 1, nearly 25 percent of voter registration forms submitted for verification have been rejected by the statewide database. In Los Angeles County, 43 percent of voter registrations have been rejected.

In a letter to Secretary of State Bruce McPherson (R), Conny McCormack, L.A. County registrar-recorder/county clerk cited several examples of some of the thousands of applications rejected by the “CalVoter” system. They included some forms being rejected because of spaces in last names, such as "De Leon," or a last name that is two words with no hyphen, such as "Weaver Cardona." Some new residents had applications rejected because the DMV records CalVoter uses for verification can be up to six months old.

“The challenge of setting up a statewide voter registration database that complies with HAVA requirements has been well-known to election administrators and activists for years,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. “This particular problem that California is experiencing is a result of the terms of an agreement made between the Secretary of State and the Department of Justice that is unique to California and a handful of other states. This form rejection problem itself is a surprise that I don’t think anyone anticipated.”(full story)

State working to address rejected voters

The San Jose Mercury News, April 4, 2006

Excerpts:

Elections officials around the state say thousands of voters may not receive ballots before the June 6 election because they have incorrectly filled out or omitted information from their registration forms.

In January, a new federal law took effect to combat fraud, requiring voters to provide their driver's license or state ID numbers or, absent those, the last four digits of their Social Security numbers.

Eligible voters who have had their forms rejected can still go to the polls with identification, but will receive a provisional ballot -- often counted weeks after the election.

About one-quarter of those who registered or re-registered this year have been rejected statewide, the Associated Press reported. When a state database kicks back the registration form, local election offices have the extra burden of contacting voters to get the information.

Under pressure from election officials and voter advocates, California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson said last week he would push for a compromise that would eliminate that step by matching voters' names with records from the Department of Motor Vehicles.

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

Voting groups hope lawmakers can push through the emergency legislation in time for the June primary.

``It's the kind of issue that can bring legislators together in a bipartisan way,'' said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. ``It's in their best interest to resolve it quickly.''

The move to strengthen identity verification is another phase of the federal 2002 Help America Vote Act. Congress passed the law in response to the Florida recount debacle during the 2000 presidential election.

It's ironic that a law to improve voter integrity could actually discourage some people from going to the polls, Alexander said.

The law ``was intended to ensure voters would not be unfairly disenfranchised. Here's an unintended consequence,'' she said. ``It's a fine line to walk. You want to make sure that as many people as possible can vote and you want to make sure there is integrity in the process.''(full story)

Ventura County Plugs Hole in Voting System With Ink

Los Angeles Times, March 25, 2006

Excerpts:

Ventura County election officials are replacing their decades-old punch-card voting system in time for the June 6 primary election.

After more than 30 years of voting with punch cards, most county voters will now mark their choices with ink. Those who have trouble seeing the ballots or using the pens will be able to vote on computer touch screens.

County officials say their new systems will serve Spanish-speaking voters better and ensure that those who are disabled can cast secret ballots.

The county has used punch-card technology for more than three decades, but officials agreed in 2004 to replace the system under a federal consent decree.

The U.S. Department of Justice had accused the county of discriminating against Latinos, who make up about a third of the population, by failing to employ sufficient numbers of bilingual poll workers or to provide adequate Spanish-language voting materials.

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

California passed a law in 2004 requiring electronic ballot machines to also use some form of paper verification. Counties have until June 2006 to comply.

To meet the deadline, Riverside County in January agreed to spend $14.2 million to replace its 6-year-old touch-screen voting machines with newer models that provide paper confirmation.

By never abandoning paper-based voting, Ventura County showed its fiscal prudence, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.

"Counties that go all electronic typically spend three times more to purchase new equipment," Alexander said.(full story)

New CA Lawsuit Against Diebold's Electronic Voting Machines

Government Technology, March 24, 2006

Reprinted from Kim Alexander's Weblog.

On Tuesday, the nonprofit group Voter Action filed a lawsuit against California's Secretary of State Bruce McPherson as well as eighteen counties for certifying and using voting equipment made by Diebold. The lead attorney on the lawsuit is Lowell Finley, who previously brought a successful case against Diebold on behalf of Bev Harris and Jim March of Black Box Voting. That case was joined by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and Alameda County, and settled out of court for $2.6 million. (See my November 11, 2004 blog entry for details on the settlement).

Given Mr. Finley's track record, it's worthwhile to pay attention to his claims, which include that the equipment in question, the Diebold TSX electronic voting machine (with voter-verified paper audit trail printer) does not adequately meet the needs of disabled voters, nor does it meet the current, 2002 federal voting system standards, which prohibit the use of interpreted code in voting equipment software.

Other compelling claims include one that the voter-verified paper record produced by the the TSx cannot fulfill the demands of California's one percent manual count law, which is designed to publicly verify the accuracy of software vote counts, and another that counties are circumventing the one percent rule by omitting absentee and early-voting ballots in the manual count. Voter Action has provided the legal documents filed today on its web site. See this AP story by David Kravets for more details.

County tries to develop voting plan

The Argus, March 15, 2006

Excerpts:

Four years after buying new Diebold voting machines for $12 million, Alameda County is headed back into the market to negotiate for as much as $17.8 million of new voting machinery.

With an impassioned debate spanning two days, county supervisors anguished over sagging public confidence in voting and uncertainty in the technology, then found themselves divided about how to handle elections for coming years.

"This is not the purchasing of a new vehicle fleet," said board President Keith Carson, "this is fundamental to all the rights of every citizen in the county."

"There's too many unknown things," said Supervisor Gail Steele. "This $17 million is a huge amount of money with the uncertainty that we have."

But when the county's elections chief warned that delays could trigger new federal requirements and force the county to fill its polling places with more electronic-voting equipment, Alice Lai-Bitker joined Supervisors Nate Miley and Scott Haggerty in pressing ahead with purchase negotiations.

"There's a consequence to waiting," said acting Registrar of Voters Elaine Ginnold. "If we're going to change voting systems, we have to change now, so we can train voters and workers."

County elections and contracts officials say they will negotiate with Allen, Texas-based Diebold Election Systems Inc. and Oakland-based Sequoia Voting Systems, the two voting-machine makers rated highest by a panel of voting advocates, residents and county officials. The winning company would provide a system that principally handles paper ballots with optical ballot scanners plus two, ATM-like touch-screen voting machines in each polling place such as those the county uses now, the latter to meet federal mandates for handicapped-accessible voting equipment. The touch screens would print a backup record of the electronic ballot for voters to check and elections workers to use in recounts.

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

Others said any voting system using commercial, proprietary software to count ballots is unacceptable, and only paper ballots, counted by hand, would be trustworthy.

"How could you even consider Diebold? Diebold is well-known (to be) partisan." said activist Phoebe Sorgen. "It's a $17.8 million scam. Please say no to the machines that count our ballots in secret."

Ginnold, the elections chief, said if the county failed to buy its planned "hybrid" system of mostly optical scanners by January 2007, the federal Help America Vote Act would require any new system be fully accessible to disabled voters. In general, that would mean every machine in every polling place would have to be a touch screen, she said.

Negotiating for a new system "essentially leaves us more options," said Haggerty. "We need to advance into the future."

What the law actually says is that after January 2007, no federal funds may be used to purchase new voting systems that are not fully accessible to disabled voters.

"That statement took some options off the table that several supervisors wanted to consider," said Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation. "This board in Alameda has put more into trying to understand this issue than any other board in the state. They asked good questions, and I'm not convinced they got good answers."(full story)

Incumbents depend on gerrymandering to save their jobs

Capitol Hill Blue, February 26, 2006

Excerpts:

While technically all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are up for grabs in November, handicappers expect a mere 33 to be competitive, in part because many incumbents already have picked the voters they hope will return them to office.
Across the country, lawmakers will run for re-election in bizarrely shaped congressional districts carefully drawn to include voters who support them and exclude those who don't.

In Chicago, Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez will face voters in several Hispanic neighborhoods but not the predominantly black neighborhood that sits between them.

South of the city, Republican Rep. Jerry Weller's parents will get a chance to vote for their son, whose district was redrawn five years ago to encompass their house.

Critics of the practice known as gerrymandering -- named for Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry, a master of tortuous redistricting two centuries ago -- say it produces a legislative body that doesn't accurately represent the country.

"We now have a system where too often our representatives are selecting their voters rather than voters selecting their representatives," Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said at a recent conference on election reform.

-----------

In most cases, the party that controls the state legislature runs the show. Democrats in Maryland gained two congressional seats in 2002 after they drew the state's political boundaries to their advantage. In Michigan, Republicans who redrew their state map picked up three seats that year.

In states where neither party has a clear advantage, such as Illinois, leaders often work out a compromise that protects as many incumbents as possible.

"Every legislator knows where their political strengths are, where the greatest number of votes comes from, and with the ability to draw the maps themselves they can carve out districts that are very precisely drawn to favor their future political interests," said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundatiion.(full story)

Campaign disclosure forms trickling onto the Internet

Charleston Post Courier, January 11, 2006

Excerpts:

A quick click on "Sanford, Marshall" on the new State Ethics Commission Web site brings up the campaign disclosures for the governor's race listed by itemized contributions of cash and services, expenses and loans.

Candidates are required to file the forms every quarter, and until the online system was unveiled Tuesday, most of them filed hand-written forms.

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

Ethics Commission Director Herb Hayden said the online system is in the first of two phases of development.

In this first phase, visitors to the Web site can view filings for 21 candidates for statewide offices, including attorney general, lieutenant governor, secretary of state and treasurer.

By early next year, phase two of the project will make the records available for every candidate at the county and municipal level.

According to Hayden, the system is being run by South Carolina Interactive, the same company that builds systems for paying taxes or renewing driver's licenses online.

Since 2003, The California Voter Foundation's Campaign Disclosure Project has given South Carolina an "F" for the lack of online availability for even the most basic state campaign disclosure information.

This was enough to garner a 2005 ranking of 49th out of 50 states, above only Wyoming.

After an initial look, Saskia Mills, executive director of the foundation, said she was impressed.

She wanted more searchable data, but Mills doubted her group would give the state an "F" next year.(full story)

Paper trail law for e-voting has fans, foes

San Francisco Chronicle, January 10, 2006

Excerpts:

California will require all electronic voting machines to produce a printed record of votes in the June election, but there are still concerns that the expensive overhaul may cause more problems than it solves.

The Pacific Research Institute, a free-market think tank, has called the paper trail requirement one of the state's top 10 policy blunders of 2005. The new law "may force California to relive the mistakes of America's punch-card voting past,'' the group said, and will make voting "increasingly difficult and negate the original virtues of e-voting: speed, cost-savings and efficiency.''

"We're moving in the wrong direction,'' said Sonia Arrison, director of technology studies for the institute. "The whole point of e-voting is to move away from paper.''

In a briefing paper written last year, Arrison and Vince Vasquez, a fellow at the institute, argued that a system of printouts that allows voters to verify their choices and election officials to do a physical recount to confirm the results is not the perfect solution its supporters proclaim.

"Passing sweeping laws ... to require voter-verified paper trails for touch-screen machines, though well-intentioned, could bankrupt cash-strapped counties and may erode the efficiency of electronic voting management,'' they said in the paper.

Arrison and the institute are swimming against the tide. Growing concerns about the vulnerability of the complex electronic voting systems to hacking, electronic glitches and simple errors by local election officials have persuaded an increasing number of states to require paper backups for election results.

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

"We've created a system where the oversight of elections is by private companies, and that's not acceptable in a democracy,'' said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. Without a paper verification system, "you're at the mercy of the vendor to tell you who won and who lost.''

Despite concerns about the power of the voting machine manufacturers, there's been no evidence that an electronic voting machine was ever hacked or election results purposely changed.

"These same people worried about electronic voting machines are perfectly fine using an ATM machine or being in an airplane that uses computers for everything,'' Arrison said. "Experts know how (voting machines) can be hacked, but they also know it's not as dire as it's made out to be.''

The paper backup systems come with problems of their own, Arrison said. In a special test of electronic voting machines in Stockton in July, officials from the California secretary of state's office ran 10,000 ballots through 96 printer-equipped machines from Diebold Election Systems. The results weren't encouraging.

More than 20 percent of the machines had problems, including 10 with paper jams or other printer problems. The results convinced Secretary of State Bruce McPherson to deny certification of the voting system.

While McPherson has been a longtime supporter of paper verification, he has listened to concerns about the program and is keeping a close watch on the performance of the printing systems, said Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state.

"The secretary has a duty to uphold the law that requires a paper trail for voting and helps counties enforce that requirement,'' she said. "But he's heard media reports on both sides of the issue. ... He's in the position of being the referee.''(full story)

Del. unveils online campaign finance filing

The News Journal, January 9, 2006

Excerpts:

Election officials hope an improved electronic filing system will lead to more online filings of campaign contribution reports from candidates and political action committees this year.

State Election Commissioner Frank Calio said the new system will be available for candidates and PACs, starting with the filing of 2005 annual reports, which are due by Jan. 23.

The system is designed around campaign finance rules, and Calio said it should be more user-friendly, on par with home bookkeeping systems. He hopes it will encourage more candidates and PACs to file by computer, which would cut down on staff time needed to handle paper forms.

-----------

Calio said he wanted to improve Delaware's system after 2004, when the state got bad marks from the Campaign Disclosure Project -- a nationwide study of state laws and public access to finance reports.

The study gave Delaware a D-minus rating for its financial disclosure system, and F's for its electronic filing program and content accessibility.

The project is a joint effort of the California Voter Foundation, the Center for Governmental Studies and UCLA's law school.

"We got an [overall] F in 2002 and in 2004 we were only able to bump up to a D-minus," Calio said. "So we hired a consultant and a company to do the programming and developed this new program."

The new system, he said, was developed with grant money provided through the federal Help America Vote Act.

Saskia Mills, the California Voter Foundation's executive director, said Delaware's new system is a good first step, but she'd like to see the state develop searchable finance databases that would allow better tracking of who's giving money and where it's going.(full story)

Voting act puts counties in bind

The Sacramento Bee, January 2, 2006

Excerpts:

Mikel Haas is running out of time and patience, but he says he'll give it one more month before he really starts to panic.

With an April 11 special election fast approaching, the San Diego County registrar of voters still doesn't have any California-certified machines to meet the requirements of the 2002 U.S. Help America Vote Act.

Most counties in California - and many across the country - officially fell out of compliance Sunday with rules mandating that election systems be accessible to voters with disabilities. But the San Diego County special election puts Haas at the head of the line when it comes to compliance.

While the legal deadline has passed, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson has tried to assure county officials and voters that California will resolve its Help America Vote Act issues by the June primary, the first statewide election with federal races.

But McPherson has not certified any new accessible voting machines since August, making some registrars nervous and others downright angry.

"He says we'll be ready by June, but I think there's a lack of understanding that June is here now," said Conny McCormack, president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials. "It takes months to prepare for an election. We don't have equipment in our offices because it hasn't been ordered or can't be ordered."

For his part, McPherson said at a conference last month that he does not want to sacrifice testing of elections equipment for the sake of meeting a deadline.

McPherson's spokeswoman, Jennifer Kerns, said that at least six election systems are "in the pipeline" and that McPherson is confident multiple options will be available for the June primary.

But registrars like Haas are torn. They say they respect McPherson's need to put controversial equipment through a battery of tests. But they also face the practical need of having to run an election in a matter of months.

"It's a squeeze," said Haas, who is preparing for a special election to replace U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who resigned in November after he was convicted of accepting bribes from defense contractors. "Registrars and county clerks are in a squeeze because we're going to be held accountable for an election. We're dying for the tools."

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

As McPherson reviews Diebold, he faces mounting criticism from electronic-voting opponents and one potential Democratic opponent in his own 2006 race, state Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Marina del Rey.

Some registrars suggest that the criticism has led to McPherson's protracted review process of Diebold.

But McPherson aides insist they are only trying to ensure new voting equipment is as secure and accurate as possible.

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, praised McPherson for delaying certification, because she said he has uncovered serious concerns with Diebold.

California is not alone in missing the Help America Vote Act accessibility deadline. Some 21 states will be out of compliance, according to Dan Seligson, editor of Electionline.org, a nonpartisan organization tracking election reform.

"We think the next step will be that states will provide their various explanations to the (U.S.) Department of Justice for why they're missing the deadline," he said. "Those explanations in California will be fairly straightforward, and we're assuming the Department of Justice will acknowledge a best effort given and then nothing will happen."

McPherson recently has pointed to a November agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice to establish a statewide voter database as an example of California's strong relationship with federal officials. The database is another Jan. 1 Help America Vote Act requirement.

If accessible equipment is not in place by the next federal election in California, Seligson said the Justice Department or private groups representing voters with disabilities could sue McPherson or counties.

That's one of the biggest fears for registrars such as William Schultz of El Dorado County, which still has to replace its outdated punch-card machines.

"It puts every county in this state in an untenable position," Schultz said. "What we'll do, we don't know."(full story)

S.J. voting machines' fate up in air

The Record, December 12, 2005

Excerpts:

A statewide test in which a Finnish computer expert will attempt to hack electronic voting software would have little impact on San Joaquin County, state and county officials said last week.

California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson invited hacker Harri Hursti earlier this month to test the security of a memory card produced by elections equipment manufacturer Diebold. The test, which will be in Sacramento but has yet to be scheduled, is a response to criticism the cards contain a security flaw that allows outsiders to access and manipulate ballots. Hursti has performed similar tests on elections equipment in other parts of the country.

But those cards aren't used in the ATM-like touchscreen machines San Joaquin County bought from Diebold three years ago, said Deborah Hench, the county's registrar of voters. The county agreed to buy 1,625 TSx machines for $5.7 million in 2002, a fact Hench believes is an advantage over other counties rushing to meet a Jan. 1 federal deadline to have voting equipment accessible to people with disabilities.

-----------

The problem is that TSx and several other electronic systems still haven't been certified by the state, said Kim Alexander of the Davis-based California Voter Foundation. Counties are left in a situation where they either own or need to purchase equipment to meet federal standards but aren't guaranteed the ability to use it for elections.

"This is a classic example of the federal government putting the cart before the horse," Alexander said last week.

McPherson told The Record in November that a decision on TSx certification would likely be made by mid-December. Nghia Ngyuen Demovic, a spokeswoman for McPherson's office, said last week officials are still reviewing the equipment. She couldn't say whether such a decision would be made by the new year.

McPherson "would rather do it right the first time than compromise the integrity and security of a vote," Ngyuen Demovic said. "He takes these testing and certification processes very seriously, and he's taking his due diligence to ensure the security of the voting machines."

The U.S. Department of Justice has threatened to sue if the disability requirements aren't met by the deadline, Hench said. It's not clear, however, whether states or counties would be targeted.

San Joaquin County voters used the TSx system in the March 2003 primary, but it was decertified soon after when other counties experienced problems. Its recertification isn't guaranteed: More than 50 people spoke against the equipment during a Nov. 21 hearing in Sacramento, calling it undependable and vulnerable to voter fraud.

Disability rights activists also said during the hearing the equipment is difficult to use for quadriplegic and blind people as well as those with limited reach. Alexander believes such criticism hurts the TSx's chances for certification but cautions it is difficult to accommodate all disabilities in one system.

"There is no voting machine that can provide for totally independent voting for every disability that exists," Alexander said. (full story)

Voting-machine deadline at risk

The Sacramento Bee, November 29, 2005

Excerpts:

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson conceded Monday that he might not certify any more electronic voting machines this year, leaving many of the state's 58 counties at risk of missing a Jan. 1 federal deadline requiring upgrades for voters with disabilities.
But McPherson promised that the state would work with federal officials to comply with the Help America Vote Act by the next statewide election in June. He spoke to reporters during a two-day summit on voting systems tests in Sacramento attended by 100 elections officials and experts from throughout the country.

"Jan. 1 might be a difficult date to hit," McPherson said. "But the Department of Justice and others have said you're moving in the right direction ... . We think we are going to be right on target. We hope to be there certainly by June."

HAVA requires by Jan. 1 that voters with disabilities be able to vote independently and privately with at least one accessible machine per polling place. Voting systems also must allow users to review selections before they cast their ballot and inform them if they mistakenly mark off more than one candidate.

The state has certified only one elections system for use by voters with disabilities in the 2006 primary: an optical-scan technology made by Election Systems & Software. Sacramento County is one of at least eight counties planning to meet federal requirements by using the ES&S machines, according to a July secretary of state report.

At least 15 counties not using the ES&S technology have urged McPherson to approve another system made by Diebold Election Systems. Many of those counties have either purchased or negotiated to buy Diebold's touch-screen technology to comply with the federal mandate.

State elections officials this month recommended that the Diebold system be certified after a recent round of volume testing in San Diego County.

But Diebold has become a lightning rod for electronic-voting critics who say any computer-based system is vulnerable to hackers and others who consider the company too partisan because some of its officials have backed Republicans.

In response, McPherson announced last week that he invited Finnish expert Harri Hursti to attempt to hack into the Diebold system. McPherson said Monday that if the Diebold system does not pass the as yet unscheduled test, "then we'll have to go back to square one."

While he hopes it will occur before the end of the year, he said it could happen as late as January. That would mean counties that want to purchase the Diebold systems would fall out of compliance once Jan. 1 passes.

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

U.S. Election Assistance Commission Vice Chairman Paul DeGregorio called the Jan. 1 date "a firm deadline."

"States have been on notice for three years that this deadline is coming up," he said. "If they don't (comply), we fully expect the Justice Department to get involved, to look at this issue."

DeGregorio added that DOJ could file a lawsuit or use a consent decree to get states and counties to update their voting systems. He also said he would not be surprised if voters with disabilities pursue private lawsuits.

Kim Alexander of the California Voting Foundation said federal testing procedures are flawed - and that California should use more rigorous standards to ensure that elections are safe in California. She said California at the very least would have a paper trail next June after a law passed in 2004.

"That's the saving grace, right there," she said. "Because there will be a paper record of every ballot cast and because the voter has the right to inspect it, and because the county elections officials have to use that record to audit the results, I think California voters can have a reasonable degree of confidence."(full story)

Campaigns to file online

The San Jose Mercury-News, November 28, 2005

Excerpts:

With the fundraising season for San Jose elections fast approaching, the city is on the verge of finally casting aside paper documents in favor of using the Internet to report who contributes how much to which candidates.

Electronic filing combined with online disclosure is ``digital sunlight,'' said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, whose mission is to advance the responsible use of technology in the democratic process.

In San Jose, candidates running for office may start raising money Dec. 8.

The city's new campaign Web site is being established and maintained by NetFile of Mariposa. City Clerk Lee Price and NetFile Vice President Tom Diebert expect it to be up and running by Jan. 31, the first of five reporting deadlines before the June 6 primary election.

After each deadline, opposing candidates, watchdogs and the merely curious will be able to view and analyze financial disclosure statements. With the computer doing the searching and sorting, questions like these should be easy to answer:

Who gave to the ``San Jose's Next Great Mayor'' campaign?

Did Joe Developer contribute to the campaign?

How much did Maria Attorney give to all candidates in San Jose?

How much in total have employees of Mega-Corporation given?

Still, Terry Christensen, professor of political science at San Jose State University, suspects that the general public won't be the most avid users of the Web site.

``The people who are going to use it most are the candidates themselves, who will look up to see who's giving the other candidates money,'' he said.

Uncovering that information now requires a trip to the clerk's office to pore over paper records.

San Jose trails Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento and the California Secretary of State's Office by five years in offering online access to reports in a format that enables sophisticated searching. Old records will not be entered into the database.(full story)

Voting machine deadline nears

The Sacramento Bee, November 27, 2005

Excerpts:

William Schultz has to replace a county's worth of outdated punch-card voting machines, but he's unsure how to proceed. The El Dorado County registrar of voters faces a Jan. 1 federal deadline to retool more than 110 polling places. Yet Secretary of State Bruce McPherson has not certified some of the controversial machines Schultz plans to buy from Diebold Elections Systems.

"We can't do anything until the system is certified," Schultz said. "We're just waiting to see what the secretary of state is going to do, and we're rapidly running out of time."

McPherson's staff earlier this month recommended that the Diebold TSx machines be conditionally certified, but critics raised security and accessibility concerns last week at a public hearing in Sacramento.

McPherson is still reviewing public comments and plans to allow a Finnish expert to try to hack into the Diebold system soon, said Nghia Nguyen Demovic, a secretary of state spokeswoman. McPherson has given no indication as to when he will decide on certification.

Electronic voting critics say the federal Help America Vote Act deadline requiring local officials to replace outdated and inaccessible voting machines should be extended. They suggest that electronic voting machines approved by federal officials are flawed.

And they insist that deadline fears raised by county registrars should not trump the need for secure elections.

"The next election is not until June, so the real goal should be to have it conducted with equipment that meets the standards of California and federal law," said Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Marina del Rey. "There is no requirement that every polling place be filled with electronic voting equipment. The requirement is to make the polls accessible to disabled voters and there's more than one way to do that."

County registrars are uncertain what will happen if they do not have new voting machines in place by the Jan. 1 deadline. They say they could face lawsuits or lose federal funding.

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

But advocates last week criticized the Diebold electronic voting machine for a lack of accessibility.

Dan Kysor of California Council of the Blind said the Diebold machines are incapable of reading printed text to visually impaired voters who want to verify their selections. While sighted voters can read the paper trail, he said, visually impaired voters don't have the same protection.

Kysor said that blind and visually impaired voters in the past have sought help from a sighted person. But he believes HAVA allows all voters to vote independently with the same rights.

Teresa Favuzzi, executive director of California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, also criticized the Diebold machine for lacking a sip-and-puff mechanism for people who have impaired dexterity. She added that it is not portable enough for use in curbside voting at polling places that are inaccessible.

Kim Alexander of the California Voting Foundation said legitimate concerns by voters with disabilities could delay certification of the Diebold system because the HAVA standards are meant to make voting systems accessible.

McPherson rejected Diebold certification this summer when a volume test of 96 TSx machines in San Joaquin County resulted in screen freezes and paper jams. A subsequent test this fall in San Diego had few problems - leading to recommended certification by secretary of state staff.

But electronic voting critics last week said all machines - Diebold's included - are vulnerable to computer hackers. Jim March, an electronic voting investigator with nonprofit Black Box Voting, said that an errant elections official or company official could tamper with results.

Such concerns prompted McPherson to allow for a hacking test in the near future.

Diebold spokesman David Bear denied that the voting machines could be hacked.(full story)

State official to seek full term

The San Jose Mercury-News, November 17, 2005

Excerpts:

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, who was appointed after Kevin Shelley resigned the post earlier this year, announced Wednesday he will run for a full term next year.

McPherson, 61, a former newspaper editor and state senator from Santa Cruz, was unanimously confirmed after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed him in February.

But next year, he will face a challenge from one of two Democrats who have filed to run for the job: state senators Debra Bowen, of Redondo Beach, and Deborah Ortiz, of Sacramento.

As secretary of state, McPherson has helped the office climb out of the hole it was in following Shelley's resignation. Shortly after taking office, he convinced officials in Washington to release $169 million in federal funds they had frozen because of Shelley's mismanagement.

Since then, California has become the first state to meet the stricter standards enacted by the Help America Vote Act, the federal law passed after the 2000 Florida presidential election debacle. That included creating a statewide voter database to prevent fraud.

``On those issues I think he's made some good progress,'' said Kim Alexander, founder of the non-partisan California Voter Foundation.

However, she faulted him for opposing a new law, sponsored by Bowen, that requires public auditing of vote counts from electronic voting machines. County registrars of voters opposed it, but Schwarzenegger signed it.

After last week's special election, in which voters turned down all eight measures on the ballot, McPherson said he had called a meeting to review the initiative process with the Legislative Analyst's office and the Attorney General's office. (full story)

Paperless e-voting era ends

The Argus, November 9, 2005

Excerpts:

Elaine Ginnold awoke in a darkened home with no electricity a harrowing way for the Alameda County elections chief to launch Tuesday's special election with fully electronic voting machines.
No power, no votes.

Ginnold muttered an epithet but relaxed later when driving past her local polling place, a fire station with its lights blazing. Her Election Day opened with the usual headaches: no-shows of poll workers, polling places still locked and a smattering of technical problems such as inoperable electronic voter cards and a few inoperable e-voting machines. The days of those last glitches, and worrying about power outages, are on their way out. The era of paperless, fully computerized voting machinery ended Tuesday in California.

Ginnold for one isn't sorry to see a return to paper balloting.

“I'm looking forward to it,” she said. “I don't see that we're going backwards at all.

Soon after voters in Piedmont tried their hand at paperless, touch-screen voting in 1999, electronic voting soared in popularity. It was easy as an ATM. The curses of paper balloting multiple languages, multiple districts, multiple parties, paper jams would vanish, along with the hanging and pregnant chad so reviled from the 2000 elections.

E-voting had none of these ambiguities: The memory either stored a vote for, a vote against or none at all.

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

In California, voters wary of politics and government latched onto the controversy and to one solution proposed by computer scientists: Add printers to the electronic voting machines and provide a printed record of the ballot for voters to check and elections officials to recount.

In six months, the state became the first to require a voter-verified paper trail for all e- voting machines. Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill requiring elections officials to use the paper trail in recounts.

“It's been a long road to get where we are now, where the use of paperless electronic machines is on the decline,” said Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation and a leading advocate of paper trails. “I say goodbye to e-voting, and good riddance.

On Tuesday, the governor confronted his own voting glitch.

When he appeared at his polling place in Brentwood, poll workers looked up his name and reported that he already had voted, according to the Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles County elections officials said that a worker testing touch screens for early voting in Pasadena apparently had cast a test ballot in the governor's name.

Schwarzenegger was told that he would have to cast a provisional ballot, meaning that his votes might not be counted for weeks. He objected and was allowed to cast a regular ballot.

It was unclear whether the governor and his alter ego in Pasadena ended up voting twice or canceling each other's votes.

Starting Jan. 1, all electronic voting machines must produce a paper trail that will be used in automatic recounts of 1 percent of precincts, as a check of computerized vote tallies, and in full recounts in the event of an election challenge.

Alfie Charles, an executive with Oakland-based Sequoia Voting Systems and a former state elections official, said he thinks paperless e-voting is gone for good.

“It worked well and served its purpose but unfortunately was not trusted, for either perceived or valid reasons,” he said. “And in elections, perception is critical.”(full story)

A measure of anxiety for new voters

The Sacramento Bee, November 2, 2005

Excerpts:

Claudia Balderas has never voted before, but she's done her homework.
The 19-year-old has flipped through the 78-page official voter information guide. She's seen political ads with nurses, firefighters and teachers, and a couple of others on prescription drugs.

She even attended a student debate Thursday at Sacramento City College on Proposition 73, which would require minors' parents to be notified before they have an abortion.

But Balderas still has questions. Like, if she isn't sure how she feels about a certain initiative, what should she do?

"I'm for parental consent," Balderas said. "The other propositions, I'm not too sure. Can you skip some of the questions? I'd probably do that."

The Nov. 8 special election is daunting enough for even the most sophisticated of voters. But first-timers feel particularly anxious as they slog through an initiative-only ballot pamphlet that reads like your worst textbook nightmare.

Overall turnout is expected to be relatively low this election - a rare instance where no statewide candidates will appear on the ballot and voters will decide on only eight issue-based questions and a handful of local races.

In the last two initiative-only elections in 1993 and 1979, turnout sank below 38 percent of registered voters, according to the secretary of state's office.

If history holds true, turnout could be even worse for the youngest voters, considering that they head to the polls at a lower rate than their elders.

This election in particular doesn't lend itself to inviting new voters into the electoral process. There is no national frenzy over red states and blue states or George W. Bush and John Kerry. Few young people have as much fervor over drug-discount programs or redistricting as they do over the Iraq war.

At Natomas High School, government teacher Janet Mann said the campus in 2004 held a mock presidential election in which 75 students voluntarily cast votes. But the school won't have one this year.

"It is much more exciting for them when there is a Bush and a Kerry," Mann said. "This year we're not having an election because, honestly, kids don't know as much about the propositions."

While campaigns are spending record amounts of money this year, little will be directed at new voters. Most get-out-the-vote efforts are spent on reaching voters with track records, not those learning how to fill out their ballots.

"One of the big problems for young people is that they're not courted by campaigns," said Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation. "It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Campaigns don't want to spend money on people not likely to vote."

But despite the confusing nature of this election - and the lack of controversial candidates - plenty of newly minted voters are getting their first real taste of democracy this year. (full story)

Capitol Notebook: Times Sacramento Bureau

The Contra Costa Times, October 30, 2005

Excerpts:

Alternative To Electronic Voting Machines: The California Voter Foundation is urging voters in Santa Clara and Alameda counties -- and seven other counties that use paperless, electronic voting machines -- to opt for absentee ballots instead.

"Studies continue to find that electronic voting machines are prone to error," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation (CVF), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that is pushing paper backups and public auditing of computerized vote counts.

"Many voters do not trust electronic voting equipment," Alexander said. "We want them to know that they have a choice. They can request an absentee ballot and vote on paper."

The deadline to request an absentee ballot is Tuesday. Voters can then mail in their completed absentee ballots any time prior to the election or return them to their polling places on Election Day.

For more information, about California voting systems, see the California Voter Foundation's Web site, calvoter.org. (full story)

Both sides in all-out effort to reach voters

San Francisco Chronicle, October 30, 2005

Excerpts:

"California Military Voters Join Me in My Fight to Reform California!'' read a mailer sent from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign that featured a photo of the governor shaking hands with soldiers.

The glossy brochure was part of a unique global get-out-the-vote effort. Schwarzenegger shipped more than 50,000 mailers to eligible voters abroad, including those in the military serving in the most remote corners of Iraq and Afghanistan, asking them to cast absentee ballots in favor of the governor's propositions.

In a special election in which voter turnout is both critical and unpredictable, Schwarzenegger and his foes in organized labor are mounting massive voter outreach campaigns to tip election day in their favor. A ballot with no candidates and eight initiatives has rallied bases on both sides but left political experts unsure about whether the less-partisan majority will show up and how they will vote.

"Both sides have pitched this as a do-or-die situation for their team,'' said Kareem Crayton, an assistant professor of law at USC who studies election law and voting patterns. "The people in the middle, who don't really have a team, might just be frustrated.''

Schwarzenegger won his job because of support from the middle. But after a year in which he has been portrayed as a power-hungry right-winger by Democrats and labor interests, the unanswerable question is whether he can win enough of those voters back.

Turnout is a major question mark and therefore a major key to both campaigns.

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

Most political experts don't expect a recall-type turnout, which could help Schwarzenegger: Conventional wisdom in California politics suggests a lower turnout typically helps Republicans, who are outnumbered but have a hardcore group of supporters who always vote.

And other factors away from the main debate over Schwarzenegger's four propositions could also help the governor. Prop. 73, which would require teenage girls to get parental permission for abortions, is likely to attract conservative voters to the polls, which would seem to favor Schwarzenegger. A mayoral race on the San Diego ballot might also help, as turnout could be higher in that city, which leans Republican.

And Democrats and unions opposing Schwarzenegger's agenda have a somewhat difficult challenge, in that they are essentially urging voters to take the time to cast a negative vote.

"A lot of would-be voters don't vote if there's nothing to vote for. People want to vote for something,'' said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation.

But because Schwarzenegger called the election, and after a year's worth of union attacks, Nov. 8 isn't just about ballot measures. It's a referendum on the governor, which Democrats and labor hope will boost turnout in their favor.

"Animosity can drive turnout,'' noted Michael Alvarez, a professor of political science at the California Institute of Technology. (full story)

TV ad blitz costly, but to what effect?

The San Diego Union-Tribune, October 30, 2005

Excerpts:

California's television airwaves are being devoured in a multi-sided political advertising war of unprecedented proportions leading up to the Nov. 8 statewide special election.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent for and against various combinations of the eight ballot propositions being promoted by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, organized labor and the pharmaceutical industry.

Whether that spending frenzy is swaying significant numbers of voters is highly questionable.

A statewide poll released Friday by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California showed a spike in public interest in the special election, but little change in voter sentiment about three of the four Schwarzenegger-backed propositions despite weeks of nonstop ads.

"It's a tragic waste of resources because we could probably be feeding a small country with all this money," Democratic political consultant Darry Sragow said.

Campaign finance reports filed with the Secretary of State's Office show that more than $200 million had been spent as of Oct. 22 on the eight ballot measures.

"We are going to break all previous spending and fundraising records," said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, which monitors campaign financing. "It will break the record for the single initiative, and it will break the record for overall spending."

Who benefits from this spending orgy? Television stations that can charge whatever the traffic will bear in a seller's market plainly do. Political consultants who take a 15 percent cut on ad placements aren't complaining either. But what about the intended audience? (full story)

Shell Games Hide Sources of Donations

Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2005

Excerpts:

When Californians vote Nov. 8 after what may turn out to be the costliest initiative battles in state history, they won't fully know who was behind the campaigns: Politicians and their backers are using holes in state law that help hide the source of donations.

Despite restrictions implemented in California in recent years, political money is being raised and spent with scant public disclosure by the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars.

In this high-priced fight over the eight initiatives on the special election ballot, advocates on all sides can transfer money from one campaign committee to another, use committees that do not have to report their donors right away and route money through nonprofit corporations that are not required to reveal donors' names at all.

There won't be full accountings for some campaigns until January, long after the votes are counted. Contributors to others won't be disclosed until a few days before the election — after many early voters have cast ballots.

Even experts at tracking political money are stumped this year. Kim Alexander, director of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, has spent 15 years following donations in Sacramento. But the volume and the speed with which money is moving from one account to another this year has made the task harder than ever, she said.

"Political players get better and better at playing the money shell game," said Alexander, whose group provides information about campaign measures, including the largest donors.

Elizabeth Garrett, director of the USC-Caltech Center for the Study of Law and Politics, said that because voters take cues from groups they trust when deciding issues, timely disclosure of donations is crucial.

"If the information is not available at the moment the voter is making her decision," Garrett said, "then disclosure is irrelevant."

"Only when you know who is behind an initiative and how much they're spending can you competently vote," she said.

In some ways, political donations have never been more transparent in California. Anyone with Internet access can track most of the $200 million-plus being raised in this year's campaign. (See cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Other/) (full story)

Federal analysts: E-voting holds promise, problems

The Argus, October 22, 2005

Excerpts:

In a report Friday, the investigative arm of Congress found that completely electronic-voting machines are full of promise for U.S. elections but still have security and reliability problems.

E-voting failures in elections have been a problem in California, and the state's experiences are mentioned several times in the latest report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Analysts for the GAO found that crucial vote-recording and tallying files could be altered, that voting software often had weak or nonexistent password protections and that manufacturers had installed unapproved software in several places, including California.

Yet fixing those problems could be years away.

The GAO called on e-voting manufacturers to design these instruments of democracy with security in mind, and to devise better paper trails so the public and elections officials can verify accuracy of their machines without sacrificing voter privacy. All levels of government, the GAO concluded, need stronger rules and testing for electronic-voting systems.

But few of those things are likely to happen until after the 2006 elections and some not until after most states have held the 2008 presidential primary.

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

"It's the first report to come out and say this job isn't happening the way it should be," said Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation. "It lays bare the inadequacies of federal oversight of our voting systems."

The GAO's report also marks the strongest federal statements to date favoring the use of multiple ballot records, such as paper trails, to make sure electronic-voting systems work properly and vote tallies are accurate.

"That's really neat. It's sort of a burden on election administrators, but if you really want to cross your T's, it needs to be done," said Joseph Lorenzo Hall, a University of California, Berkeley, graduate student researching voting technologies as part of ACCURATE, a federally funded project involving several U.S. universities.

Hall wishes federal analysts had seen the need for more transparency in voting-system testing and purchases. At present, testing labs don't share their methods or findings with state and local elections officials, and vendors insist that much information about their machines and software are trade secrets that can't be revealed to the public.

Still, Hall said, "It's great to see these things on paper and recommended that we take this more seriously, that we do auditing and incident reporting that a lot of us feel should be part of the process anyway. (full story)

Some counties testing electronic vote machines

San Francisco Chronicle , October 19, 2005

Excerpts:

California voters may notice changes at their polling places during this year's special election as several counties test electronic voting equipment that will be required in 2006 to verify ballot choices and allow the disabled to vote unassisted.

Seven counties, including Monterey County, are using new technology that lets voters double-check their selections before casting a ballot electronically.

State law requires all counties using touch-screen voting systems -- 14 of the state's 58 -- to offer voters this option starting with the June 2006 primary.

"This is the perfect opportunity for us to introduce these printers to voters. It gives us an opportunity to find out if there are any problems with the units and start to make voters familiar with how they work," said Kari Verjil, registrar of voters for San Bernardino County. "And if we have the units, why wait for the June primary? Let's roll them out."

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said the counties are doing the right thing.

"Many counties are wisely choosing to implement this new equipment sooner rather than later so they and their voters and their poll workers can gain experience with it," Alexander said.

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

Also beginning next year is a requirement established by the Help America Vote Act in 2002 that every county have at least one voting machine in each polling place equipped to allow disabled voters to cast their ballot without assistance.

Touch-screen systems like those used in Santa Clara, Alameda and Napa counties satisfy the accessibility requirement because they are designed for use by the disabled and offer an audio ballot for the blind.

Sacramento and Contra Costa counties are introducing a device which marks optical scan ballots for disabled voters using a variety of methods, including Braille keyboard, foot pedal or oral prompts. The machine reads back the choices the voter has made before the ballot is cast.

Sacramento County is introducing the device countywide, Contra Costa County only in 20 percent of its precincts.

"The (manufacturers) were not prepared to roll this out in a lot of counties," said Stephen Weir, Contra Costa County's registrar. "We had to kick, scream, yell, fight, cajole to get our system up and running in time to do just this limited rollout."

San Mateo County is also using technology to help absentee voters, an increasingly larger bloc of the electorate, find out if their ballot arrived safely.

A bar code system already placed on ballots to compare signatures to those on absentee ballots now will also let a voter know the ballot was received if they log onto the county's Web page, www.shapethefuture.org, and click on "track and confirm." (full story)

All voters will benefit from one woman's crusade

The Desert Sun, October 13, 2005

Excerpts:

Susan Marie Weber did what she always does. She raised her hand and asked a question. Why couldn't she have paper proof that she had voted and for whom?

She could get a receipt at the bank or the hamburger stand, she reasoned, why not at the ballot box?

Good questions, and ones that would land the Palm Desert accountant in the center of the debate on electronic voting.

After the dangling chads and court fights and Supreme Court hearings that were the 2000 presidential election, electronic touch-screen voting was the future and Riverside County - the nation's first county to use electronic touch screen voting machines - was its vanguard.

Paperless, easy, efficient and cheaper, elections officials hailed the benefits for voters and themselves alike.

Now, voting was as easy as pushing a button. What was wrong with that?

We're the government, they said. Trust us.

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

Today, the changes stretch across the e-voting landscape.

Twenty-five states now require a voter-verified paper audit trail on electronic voting machines, according to the California Voter Foundation. Two years ago, none did.

One year ago, California was one of only four states with laws requiring public auditing of election results, according to the foundation. Today there are 12.

"She's passionate about the issue. She has such sincere conviction," said Kim Alexander, executive director of the California Voter Foundation. "She got the ball rolling. It takes a lot of strength and character to challenge the powers that be. She got a lot of people inspired on the issue."

For Weber, it was common sense, she says now. Computers develop glitches and crash and can be hacked, data manipulated. Computers are fallible. So are the humans who operate them.

It's pretty simple, Weber said. The only, best way to preserve the integrity of voters' choices, Weber said, is a ballot voters can hold, a count voters can see.

"Voting is so precious," Weber said. "If you don't have confidence in voting, you don't have confidence in anything."(full story)

Touchscreen optimism grows

Stockton Record , October 13, 2005

Excerpts:

San Joaquin County's top elections official hopes a recent test of touchscreen voting machines in San Diego will lead to the equipment's certification for June's primary election.

State elections officials in late September tested 100 Diebold TSx machines to monitor how they'd hold up in an actual election, county Registrar of Voters Deborah Hench said. It was the second large-scale examination in three months of the ATM-like machines, which haven't been cleared for use since the March 2004 primary.

More than 1,600 of the TSx machines have sat in a Stockton warehouse awaiting certification since that election. The county agreed to buy the equipment for $5.7 million three years ago, although only $858,000 has actually changed hands, Hench said.

California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson refused to certify the machines after a similar test in Stockton in July exposed paper jams and screen freezing problems. In the most recent exam, however, no freezes and only three jams were reported out of more than 11,000 votes cast, Hench said Wednesday.

"I'm cautiously optimistic," Hench said, adding that "there's a good chance" the machines will be certified.

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

The action will have little effect on San Joaquin County and its touchscreen equipment, since all of the requirements have already been met, said Kim Alexander, president and founder of the Davis-based California Voter Foundation. The new set of rules ensures that companies have all the bugs worked out before they market equipment to California counties, she said.

McPherson "wants to make sure that counties aren't stuck with a lemon," Alexander said.

San Joaquin, San Diego and Kern counties are the only state jurisdictions to hold onto the TSx machines. Alameda County used the equipment in 2004 but has since switched to another provider.(full story)

County voters say they'd prefer to mail it in

The Oakland Tribune, October 12, 2005

Excerpts:

In an Alameda County opinion poll on voting and voting technologies, 45 percent of people preferred mailing their vote from the comfort of home, underscoring a state and national trend away from the tradition of heading to the polls on Election Day.

Thirty-five percent of voters enjoy the ease and speed of voting on ATM-like touch-screen voting machines, particularly in cities in the south and east, while 20 percent prefer having paper ballots in the polling place.

The preference for paper surprised county elections chief Elaine Ginnold.

"Twenty percent is significant," she said.

Taken together, the poll's findings of high public interest in voting by mail and on paper ballots support the move by Alameda County away from full electronic voting.

By mid-December, county supervisors will vote on buying a so-called blended system — mostly optical scanning machines for paper ballots, plus a couple of electronic touch-screens — to put in each of its 700 polling places.

Five vendors are vying for the contract, and local voters will get to test drive their voting machines in mid-November.

Voting advocates applauded the county for sampling voter opinion before buying new voting machinery, the first such survey of its kind in California.

"I think it's terrific," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, based in Davis. "I think the county's going to make better equipment purchases because of it.

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

The California Voter Foundation and others have made similar findings in surveys of voters and non-voters. Almost one in three Californians eligible to vote doubt their vote will be counted accurately, according to a foundation survey in the spring.

"A lot of voters are unregistered because they don't have faith that their votes are counted accurately," said the foundation's Alexander.

The federal Elections Assistance Commission found in a recent study that voter turnout in counties using electronic voting was slightly lower than in places using other voting technologies.(full story)

Campaign fundraising surges in special election

San Jose Mercury News, October 12, 2005

Excerpts:

A spokesman for the political committee supporting the governor's slate of ballot proposals predicted that public employee unions and other opponents of Schwarzenegger's initiatives would spend far more money in the campaign.

Schwarzenegger's campaign set a $50 million fundraising goal. But spokesman Todd Harris on Tuesday said unions and other opponents had raised twice that amount, with the Nov. 8 election still about a month away.

"We are being significantly outspent," Harris said.

Campaign finance reports show that unions have raised more than $80 million to fight Schwarzenegger's initiatives, according to a report in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times.

State legislators and California's congressional delegation have raised an additional $8.6 million to defeat Proposition 77, which would strip lawmakers of the power to draw legislative boundaries.

The governor's campaign also is counting $9.4 million that unions have spent on lobbying.

Schwarzenegger has raised $34 million to promote his initiatives, and separate campaigns for the initiatives have raised about $8 million more, according to the Times report.

Experts have said they believe the campaign will set spending records.

"This is going to be most expensive ballot in California history," said Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation, a Davis-based nonprofit that provides nonpartisan information about elections.(full story)

California to put e -voting to the test

The Oakland Tribune, October 8, 2005

Excerpts:

California is putting the tools of democracy to perhaps the most rigorous testing of any state, ordering voting-machine makers to surrender their proprietary software for security reviews and supply dozens of their machines for mass, mock-election tests.

In memos this week to voting-machine makers and local elections officials, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson laid out the new requirements and ordered the creation of a new office, led by a savvy computer technician, devoted to putting voting machines through their paces before California voters use them.

"We can do it, and I think we should do it," McPherson said Friday.

The move comes as huge sums of federal and state money are feeding voting-system purchases nationwide, and manufacturers increasingly are supplying high-tech computers to record and count the vote.

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

Vendors, voting advocates and other states watched this summer as McPherson ordered Diebold Election Systems to offer its latest touch screen, the AccuVote TSx, up for mass testing in a San Joaquin County warehouse. For nearly a full day, local elections officials and consultants tapped votes into 96 machines. They found numerous instances of paper jams in the touch screens' paper-trail printer and software crashes of the sort reported by voters nationwide in the last presidential election.

Kim Alexander, president of the Davis-based California Voter Foundation, called the episode "an eye-opener for state regulators."

"To see those screen freezes firsthand is important for understanding how vulnerable these systems are to error and fraud," she said.(full story)

Ballot official calls for tough machine test

Sacramento Bee, October 6, 2005

Excerpts:

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson said Wednesday he will create a new office to test voting technology and will require future machines to undergo an Election Day simulation comparable to one failed by a leading manufacturer this summer.

The changes should have little effect on the Nov. 8 special election but could put new equipment under more stringent tests before they can be used in elections as soon as the June 2006 statewide primary.

While most of McPherson's 10 certification requirements for new voting machines were in place before his tenure, the most notable addition is "volume testing," a simulation involving dozens of machines to mirror Election Day circumstances.

The state ran such a test this summer on a San Joaquin County system using 96 voting machines manufactured by Diebold Inc. McPherson rejected the machines when multiple paper jams and screen freezes occurred.

The Diebold machines faced another volume test last week in San Diego County, but the secretary of state's office has not yet released the results. Diebold officials would not comment Wednesday.

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

A Field Poll last year found that more than one-third of California voters lack confidence in electronic systems. Touch-screen voting technology has emerged in recent years as an alternative to paper ballots, such as the controversial chad-based system used in Florida in 2000.

McPherson, a former Republican state senator from Santa Cruz, became the state's top elections official in March. He replaced Democrat Kevin Shelley, who resigned amid allegations that he misused his office for political purposes.

McPherson's plan comes as the state works with counties and manufacturers to meet a requirement that by next year all electronic voting machines have a paper trail voters can use to double-check their ballots.

An estimated one-third of California voters will use electronic voting this fall, but only a fraction of those will use a machine that creates a paper stamp for each vote, said Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation.(full story)

California must retain election transparency

Alameda Times-Star, September 24, 2005

Excerpts:

OUR elections are held to transfer political power between the voters and the government, not for the convenience of local election officials.

That's the belief of Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation. Her comments came after members of the California Association and Clerks and Elections Officials wrote to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger claiming that computerized touch-screen voting has made the state's manual recount law obsolete.

The clerks don't want to resort to recounts, as they have for 40 years, if the accuracy of the vote comes into question.

State Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Marina del Rey, chairwoman of the Senate Elections and Apportionment Committee, said that doing away with protections and vote recounts that check accuracy is "an enormous mistake."

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

Computer scientists voiced concerns as early as 2003 about relying entirely on computers for voting, as it opens the door to new problems with programming error and fraud. Their solution was the voter-verified paper trail.

But the election officials, whose responsibility it is to check and make sure that the votes are recorded and tabulated correctly, say that is what makes their job "onerous." They would prefer to do parallel monitoring.

Instead, we suggest local election officials use their insider's knowledge and insight to recommend how vendors can make such machines more accurate and verifiable. We must find ways of checking the accuracy of individual votes, the results and whether or not the process has been tampered with. If we can't, we need a simpler system of voting that can be checked for accuracy.

We need more — not fewer — checks on the accuracy of votes and tabulations. In this new era, we must preserve California's manual recount law.(full story)

Federal panel looks to Congress for e-voting paper trail

Oakland Tribune, September 20, 2005

Excerpts:

For American voters to regain faith in their elections, voters should be given a unique identification card, and electronic voting machines need a paper record that voters can check and elections officials can recount, a prestigious federal panel reported Monday.

The Commission on Federal Voting Reform's call for Congress to require a voter-verified paper trail for recounts nationwide comes as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger considers signing a similar bill for California.

Election officials from Secretary of State Bruce McPherson to local registrars of voters are opposing the measure because the paper printouts don't fit the state legal definition of a ballot and because recounting them would be "onerous and time consuming."

The federal panel, chaired by former President Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, concluded that e-voting machines need to produce paper trails for recounts "to instill greater confidence" and ensure transparency in U.S. elections.

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

Paper trails are now mandatory in 25 states, and legislation is under consideration in an additional 14 states.

"If we fail to require that electronic voting machines be subject to the same audit requirements as other voting machines, then California voters' confidence in our elections is likely to continue to erode," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.

Civil rights advocates were less impressed with the Carter-Baker report, saying the panel didn't go far enough in encouraging voter participation.(full story)

Drug companies fight ballot measure

North County Times, September 7, 2005

Excerpts:

Voters will face two competing initiatives to regulate the price of prescription drugs on the Nov. 8 special election ballot: one supported by the pharmaceutical industry, the other backed by a coalition of labor organizations and a consumer advocacy group.

If voters approve both initiatives, the one with the most "yes" votes would become law; the other would die.

Prescription drug manufacturers have anted up $72 million to get Proposition 79 defeated and the measure they support, Proposition 78, passed, according to news reports. And, as of June 30, reports filed with the California secretary of state show that a coalition of labor organizations have raised $10.2 million to get Prop. 79 passed.

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

Both measures propose reducing the cost of prescription medications to many low- and moderate-income Californians by allowing the state to negotiate discounts on the price of prescription drugs. Of the two, however, Prop. 79 stands to cost drug companies much more as it gives the state more clout in negotiating those price reductions.

One of Prop. 79's most important features would allow the state to punish those companies that do not discount their drug prices to its satisfaction, by removing their drugs from a list of medications that allows doctors to prescribe Medi-Cal patients without prior state approval. The state already uses that same buying-power leverage to negotiate deep discounts on medications for Medi-Cal patients.

A spokeswoman for "Yes on 79" said the amount of money the pharmaceutical industry has raised to defeat Prop. 79 is unprecedented.

"(It) has raised more money for this campaign than for any other ballot initiative in the history of the country," said "Yes on 79" spokeswoman Sarah Leonard.

A spokeswoman for the nonprofit California Voter Foundation said last week that $72 million would in fact be a California record for one side investing in an initiative campaign, and it probably would be a record for the country, as well, she added.

To date, the record amount spent to campaign for an initiative was the $68.6 million spent by the gaming industry in 1998 to secure passage of the Indian Gaming initiative, Proposition 5, California Voter Foundation Executive Director Saskia Mills said last week.

A spokeswoman for "Yes on 78" said the reason the industry is investing so much money is because there are two measures involved ---- both on a very complex issue ---- and it's expensive to educate voters. (full story)

San Joaquin keeps its touch-screen voting

Oakland Tribune, August 31, 2005

Excerpts:

San Joaquin County is going to stay with the Diebold Inc. touch-screen voting system and let the company iron out its problems, said the county's registrar of voters, Deborah Hench.

"The state is willing to retest them at any time," she said.

During a test in July, the secretary of state determined there were problems with the Diebold system.

Hench said the problems — paper jams and screens freezing up during the voting tests — weren't as bad as reported.

During the July test, about nine of 96 machines had paper jams, and 21 screens froze, she said.

Kim Alexander, president of California Voter Foundation in Davis, said Hench is using the same math that Diebold is using.

"The secretary of state was looking at the performance of all 96 machines," she said. "The truth is that none of them worked flawlessly."

The problems with Diebold's machines have forced Alameda County to look elsewhere, Alexander said.

In fact, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors is expected to vote today on finding another vendor for electronic voting.

Solano County already has scrapped its Diebold machines, she said. (full story)

Paper trail may clog e-voting advances

Oakland Tribune, August 16, 2005

Excerpts:

California's secretary of state, a proponent of backup paper records for electronic-voting machines, is nonetheless opposing their use in vote recounts as legally problematic and impractical, an opinion that could influence national voting reforms.

After months of collecting public opinion, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson recently urged rejection of a new bill that would mandate counting of paper-trail records on e-voting machines.

That, according to voting activists, would render paper trails useless as an independent check on voting computers and software.

"We're at risk of losing the one form of independent verification that we have when counting electronic votes," said Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation. "Unless it's used in a recount, there's no reason for voters to be confident in the accuracy of software vote counts."

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

For 40 years, elections officials have been required to recount 1 percent of the ballots cast in an election, selected at random. With the emergence of touch-screen machines, officials are having the machines print out images of the electronic ballots, and they are recounting those.

University of California, Berkeley, law professor Deirdre Mulligan said it is hardly surprising that paper trails do not meet the legal definition of a ballot. "It's true," said Mulligan, who teaches law at Boalt Hall and directs the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic. "We have these laws that haven't kept pace with technology."

But if the governor agrees with McPherson's opposition based on a "technicality," she said, "you're kind of left with a poor choice. The electronic ballot images that they're talking about counting are less likely to provide a check on the machine."

McPherson proposes pooling federal voting-reform money for several states and devoting it to research on the best way to verify electronic voting.

The paper trail still would have value, he argued, "just to give any voter who might go into the booth a double-check: 'This is how I voted.' It's just to give voters more assurance." (full story)

California tightens rules for e-voting vendors

San Francisco Chronicle, August 5, 2005

Excerpts:

Makers of electronic voting machines will have to certify that their systems meet federal guidelines to ensure that voters don't get "stuck with a lemon" as technology and regulations evolve, the state's top election official said.

The new rule, announced this week by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, will clarify for counties which systems are approved for use in the June 2006 presidential primary election.

Manufacturers of e-voting machines will have to sign contracts stating that their equipment meets the requirements of the federal Help America Vote Act.

The guidelines for HAVA won't be finalized until October, McPherson said in an interview Friday. The new rule will protect counties financially if they buy a system touted as HAVA-compliant, only to learn it doesn't meet the final regulations.

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

In addition, California requires e-voting machines to have a paper trail.

It can be difficult for counties to stay up-to-date on the status of e-voting machines, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.

"It's a very fast-paced, technical and detailed process," she said. "It's hard to keep up with what's going on and it's very easy for vendors to mislead officials on qualifications."

With the HAVA guidelines expected in October, that puts a lot of pressure on counties to chose a compliant system by the Jan. 1 deadline, McPherson said.

California counties will have $350 million in HAVA funds to spend on voting machines, he said. "It can be spent only one time and we want the voting machines compliant from the get-go." (full story)

E-voting machines rejected

Oakland Tribune, July 29, 2005

Excerpts:

After possibly the most extensive testing ever on a voting system, California has rejected Diebold's flagship electronic voting machine because of printer jams and screen freezes, sending local elections officials scrambling for other means of voting.

"There was a failure rate of about 10 percent, and that's not good enough for the voters of California and not good enough for me," Secretary of State Bruce McPherson said.

If the machines had been used in an election, the result could have been frustration for poll workers and long lines for thousands of voters, elections officials and voter advocates said Thursday.

"We certainly can't take any kind of risk like that with this kind of device on California voters," McPherson said.

Rejection of the TSx by California, the nation's largest voting-system market, could influence local elections officials from Utah, Mississippi and Ohio, home of Diebold corporate headquarters, where dozens of counties are poised to purchase the latest Diebold touch screens. State elections officials in Ohio say they still have confidence in the machines.

But McPherson's decision did send California counties from San Diego to Alameda to Humboldt hunting for potential alternatives to their plans to use the TSx.

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

Elections officials and voting activists said they had never heard of more extensive testing for a single voting system, outside of an actual election. Kim Alexander, president of the Davis-based California Voter Foundation, said McPherson deserves credit for ordering rigorous testing.

"It's the first ever conducted in the state and, to my knowledge, in the country that simulated a real-world experience with these machines in a voting booth," she said.

Ordinarily, states and the National Association of State Elections Directors approve voting systems after labs hired by the manufacturers perform tests on a handful of machines. The Diebold TSx managed to get through those tests — twice. But none of the testing standards addresses printers on electronic voting machines, even though more than 20 states either require a so-called paper trail or are debating such a requirement. (full story)

When a governor shouldn't moonlight

Time, July 18, 2005

Excerpts:

Nobody can buy me," California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger boasted last week at Yahoo!'s headquarters in Silicon Valley.

Just two days later, the wealthy Republican -- who campaigned on his self-proclaimed independence from special interests, and forgoes his $175,000 state salary -- was trying hard to prove it after the Sacramento Bee reported that he had accepted a mondo free-lance gig from a muscle-magazine publisher.

According to documents filed with the SEC, just days before taking office in 2003, Schwarzenegger signed a five-year consulting deal, worth at least $1 million annually, with a subsidiary of American Media Inc., publisher of Muscle & Fitness and Flex.

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

But after a couple of days of attacks, he announced he would sever ties with the magazines.

"I don't want there to be any question or doubt that the people have my full devotion," he said in a statement.

It remains to be seen whether the people of California harbor such doubts; his approval ratings have already plummeted to 37%, down from 57% a year ago.

"A lot of voters were looking to him to be their hero," says Kim Alexander of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation. Now he's looking dangerously like a politician. (full story)

California's Never-Ending Election Cycle Takes Toll On Voters

NBC4.tv News, July 9, 2005

Excerpts:

Is there such a thing as too much democracy?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's determination to get a tighter grip on the state budget and reshape a Legislature known for its political extremes will send California voters to the polls for the fourth statewide election in two years.

The collateral damage might be voters themselves.

The cavalcade of candidates and ballot propositions -- dating to the October 2003 election that put Schwarzenegger in office -- has left many weary of all that goes with them.

In short, "People are tired," said Trudy Schafer, a lobbyist for the League of Women Voters of California.

To many voters, "There is a never-ending campaign," said Democratic consultant Kam Kuwata, who has advised Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn. "People scratch their heads and say, 'Why are we doing this?"'

Polls have revealed as much. Voters are in a cranky mood, with most viewing Schwarzenegger's special election as unnecessary, according to a May survey by the Public Policy Institute of California.

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

"Confusion about issues on the ballot is a considerable barrier for voters in the state," said Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation, an advocacy group. "My fear is people who are burned out may choose to sit home." Californians have long prized their system of direct democracy, in which any group that collects enough signatures can place a proposal on the ballot. At least 86 initiatives were proposed this year -- a record -- although most never qualify for the ballot.

But at times it can seem like too much.

What have voters been through? Schwarzenegger barely finished the oath of office in November 2003 before the presidential election kicked into gear. There was a spring 2004 primary, followed by the November election, in which voters had to wade through a list of candidates for president, U.S. Senate, the state Legislature and 16 ballot questions that touched on issues ranging from slot machines to DNA databases.

Then there were local elections. Los Angeles residents, for example, had a primary and runoff election for mayor this year. That means a voter could have been to the polls five times since October 2003, or an average of about once every four months.

Beyond possible voter fatigue, the state's perpetual election cycle has led to resentment about the expense -- the November special election is projected to cost taxpayers more than $50 million.(full story)

Activists rip Diebold voting units

San Diego Union-Tribune, June 17, 2005

Excerpts:

Scores of activists urged a state advisory panel yesterday to reject a bid by Diebold Elections Systems Inc. to win approval for use of voting machines that were decertified last year.

Diebold is the maker of a $31 million touch screen voting system that malfunctioned in San Diego County during the March 2004 primary, causing more than one-third of polling places to open late.

"Diebold has a checkered past in this state, and that alarms many activists," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "That's why this room is packed today."

Activists testified yesterday at an informational meeting of the Voting Systems and Procedures Panel at the Secretary of State's headquarters office, frequently booing, clapping and cheering various speakers.

Many of them had the same message: Diebold lacks credibility.

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

Last year, then-Secretary of State Kevin Shelley banned San Diego and three other counties from using the Diebold machines for the fall general election. He gave counties using electronic voting technology until November 2006 to develop a system that produces a paper trail.

Since then, the company has worked on improvements and submitted the new system for state and federal tests.

This month, a staff report released by the Secretary of State's office recommended approval of the system, saying that it had performed accurately.(full story)

State likely to overlook Diebold flaws

Alameda Newspaper Group, June 10, 2005

Excerpts:

In less than a week, state officials are poised to approve a new Diebold electronic-voting system that several large counties, including Alameda, want to use.

But the system showed problems in security, protection of voter privacy and printing of a paper trail during testing this spring.

State elections authorities have obscured the full nature of those problems by blacking out parts of test reports that have been released under the state Public Records Act and declaring other documents too full of Diebold "trade secrets" for public release.

During tests in late April and early May, a chief feature of Diebold's new computerized voting machine — the ability to print out voters' electronic choices so they could be verified and, if needed, recounted — performed so poorly that the state's testing consultant concluded "this version is not ready for use in an election."

Assistant Secretary of State Brad Clark, a former Alameda County registrar, said Thursday that those problems have been fixed, and the Diebold system desired by county elections officials is ready for state consideration.

A panel advising Secretary of State Bruce McPherson is to vote on approval of the new Diebold touch-screen voting system next week.

--------

Before applying to California for approval, voting-system makers are required by state election rules to get their machines through lab tests and federal approval, then draw up procedural and training manuals for using them. None of this was done in October 2003, and none of it was done before Diebold applied for approval again in March.

"We're going through the same kind of scenario, not only from Diebold but from the (Secretary of State's) elections division," said Jody Holder, a voting activist who unearthed reports on state tests of the new Diebold machines and e-mails between the state and Diebold through a public-records request. "You can see from the e-mails between them that they're bending over backwards."

"There's a sense of deja vu in this rush," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Davis. (full story)

Smoothing the Way to the Polls

Los Angeles Times, May 14, 2005

Excerpts:

Voter apathy? It's just not that simple. For nearly a year now, I've been overseeing a nonpartisan voter education and mobilization program in low income L.A. communities where voter turnout is lowest. I've learned that what some people call "voter apathy" is a misnomer that masks a whole range of problems and discontents.

As the director of LibertyVote!, I work with about a dozen community organizations in Pico-Union, downtown Los Angeles, South L.A., Boyle Heights and Pacoima. A recent survey of California voters by the California Voter Foundation reinforces much of what I've learned from working with these groups. The survey found that the main reason why infrequent voters don't go to the polls is because they're "too busy." More than half of infrequent voters and nonvoters in California work more than 40 hours a week; 16% of infrequent voters work more than 50 hours a week.

What I saw in the November elections and again this past March made clear to me that many prospective but infrequent voters don't know that their employers are obliged to give them time off to vote or they don't exercise this right for fear it would jeopardize their jobs. Nor do most of them know about absentee ballots or how to get one, according to the survey.(full story)

State to join ballot probe

Los Angeles Daily News, March 17, 2005

Excerpts:

The California Secretary of State's Office announced Wednesday that it will investigate why City Clerk Frank Martinez changed the software on the voting system used in Los Angeles' mayoral primary without state approval -- one of several steps he took that slowed the count and raised questions about the integrity of the process.

Martinez said he ordered a change in computer code in the scanner that "reads" InkaVote ballots in order to reduce uncertainty in what was anticipated to be an extremely close race. And on election night, he ordered workers to hand-sort the ballots and re-ink thousands of votes that might be too faint to scan.

But the change was made without getting the required approval of state officials, said Secretary of State's Office spokeswoman Caren Daniels-Meade.

"I'm really surprised to hear this," she said. "We were not alerted to any changes. We did not approve any changes.

"There is a provision in the elections code that says no change or modification to a voting system that has been previously certified can happen without written notification to the Secretary of State. We'll obviously be contacting (election officials) to determine if there indeed was a modification without our knowledge."

Martinez, who has been criticized for not telling the candidates or allowing independent observers to watch the over-writing of ballots, said his office tested the new InkaVote system about a month before the March 8 primary and required a change in computer software telling the system to proceed to the next ballot. He thought the change was so minor it did not need to be approved by the state.

--------

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said the fact that the city clerk made a change in the software before the election isn't evidence that "someone tried to cheat."

"Whether it's illegal to do that depends on whether the city has to follow state law that only certified election equipment be used."(full story)

Apathy wins!

Los Angeles Daily News, March 10, 2005

Excerpts:

Nearly three-fourths of Los Angeles' 1.47 million registered voters sat out Tuesday's mayoral election, allowing Antonio Villaraigosa to make the runoff with the backing of 8 percent of those eligible to vote and James Hahn with just 6 percent.

The dismal turnout - 100,000 fewer voters than in 2001 - allowed Hahn to come in second with less than 90,000 votes and left pundits and politicians grappling Wednesday with this question: Did the Hahn campaign successfully suppress the vote with its negative attack ads and other tactics, or are the city's voters so apathetic that they just don't care?

"In a sense, we get the democracy we deserve," said Tom Hollihan, a professor and associate dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California.

"It's a real tragedy citizens don't get engaged. We proclaim we're building democracy in the Middle East and show so little regard for it here."

--------

Academics, voter organizations and political observers said voters across the nation are becoming passive and making excuses for not voting - a form of civic victimization winning out over civic responsibility.

The California Voter Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization in Davis, just concluded a survey of statewide voter behavior that confirmed Los Angeles County leading the way in voters giving self-interested reasons for not going to the polls.

The No. 1 reason: "Too busy."

Kim Alexander, the foundation's president, said those who don't vote at all or infrequently say they've grown cynical that special interests control local politics even as they often might express shame for not casting a ballot.

"Two-thirds (of those surveyed) said one reason they don't vote in every election is because they believe politics is controlled by special interests. That is a widely held perception across the state," she said. "More and more voters are responding to that perception not with outrage, but with apathy.

"I think people feel powerless in the political process. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - if you tell people over and over again they're powerless, they believe it and use it as an excuse for apathy."(full story)

Schwarzenegger and Common Cause: Strange bedfellows?

San Jose Mercury News, February 20, 2005

Excerpts:

When California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nabbed an endorsement from Common Cause for his plan to redraw political district lines, some Democrats and open-government activists were dismayed.

How could the respected good government group sign on with a governor who's been criticized for his supercharged fund-raising? Why was Common Cause embracing a plan that's picked up little or no backing from other nonprofit groups?

"Common Cause is star-struck and so they're lending the governor their brand," said Jamie Court, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a Santa Monica-based consumer group that's among Schwarzenegger's chief critics. "They've given him more credibility than he deserves for a plan that is clearly a power grab."

--------

"The tricky thing for groups that have long worked on redistricting is that, in principle, many of the groups agree with the governor's objectives," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "But the particular plan that he's outlined for how he wants to meet those objectives is problematic for some of those folks."

Common Cause officials said they had no problem joining with Schwarzenegger, even though not everything he does is to their liking. The group's California chapter is even considering submitting a friend of the court brief to support the state's Fair Political Practices Commission, which is being sued by allies of the governor who want him to be able to raise unlimited amounts of money for ballot initiatives.(full story)

Campaign limits may be doing harm, some say

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 13, 2005

Excerpts:

JEFFERSON CITY - Ten years after state voters imposed strict limits on campaign contributions, some elected officials say the system is doing more harm than good.

Instead of stemming the influence of special interests, they say, it has prompted rich donors to find creative ways to give. Millions of dollars are funneled through business subsidiaries and political party committees, making it nearly impossible to trace a contribution's origin.

--------

Bills filed so far don't address the poor quality of Missouri's campaign finance database, run by the Missouri Ethics Commission. A national study last fall gave Missouri an F for the data's usability.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that legislators can still file paper reports. Their reports are scanned into a computer and the images can be called up, one page at a time, on the commission's Web site, if it isn't on the blink.

The national study said that process "doesn't work well for all site visitors." Overall, Missouri got a C-minus for campaign disclosure, up from D last year. The grade improved because the ethics commission added a search engine that allows some limited searches of records in statewide races.

The national study was conducted by the Campaign Disclosure Project, a collaboration of the California Voter Foundation, the Center for Governmental Studies and the UCLA School of Law.(full story)

Key task for appointee will be voting machines

San Francisco Chronicle, February 12, 2005

Excerpts:

Sacramento -- If Bruce McPherson is confirmed to replace Kevin Shelley as secretary of state, one of his first and most urgent tasks will be to carry out voting machine reforms championed by his predecessor.

Under state law, California has until January 2006 to ensure its electronic voting systems can produce a paper record of voters' ballot box choices, which voters can review and confirm. Shelley was an early and aggressive champion of the idea, saying it would create a transparent and certifiable system giving voters confidence that their choices were accurately recorded.

Yet while some counties, such as San Francisco, already use paper systems that comply with the standard, and others have secured electronic systems that will do so eventually, others lag behind. And some local elections officials continue to resist the mandate.

Another impending deadline will require every polling place in the state to have at least one booth that disabled people can use without needing assistance, so they can vote in private.

--------

But the money has yet to be disbursed to local officials, and the work is expected to take some time, registrars and election experts said Friday. If the deadline is not met, then the state could face lawsuits from voter interest groups.

"It's not a lot of time, and we have a lot of work to do," said Kim Alexander, the president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation.

What is more, county and state election officials say there is no system currently certified and available that will comply with both the paper trail requirement and all other state laws to accommodate independent voters and non- English speakers. The one system currently certified by the secretary of state, county registrars say, does not have technology qualified by the federal government to handle decline-to-state voters who are allowed to vote in partisan primaries and does not print in languages other than English and Spanish.(full story)

 

Allegations Lead to Rising Star's Fall

Los Angeles Times, February 5, 2005

Excerpts:

SACRAMENTO — Though his wide grin belied a furious temper, Kevin Shelley — son of a congressman and protege of a political legend — had been the darling of San Francisco Democrats until his future swerved out of control.

In a year, accolades that Shelley earned for smoothly steering the first election to recall a California governor were overtaken by accusations that he broke laws, berated employees and ran a sloppy office as secretary of state.

The allegations pushed Shelley to step down Friday while continuing to deny any intentional wrongdoing.

In the end, despite his political lineage and the initial support of his party, Shelley stood largely alone. His well-known volatility had driven away colleagues who might have otherwise backed him. And fellow Democrats sent a clear message when they shook hands with Republicans over ground rules for a pending legislative inquiry: No pains would be taken to protect Shelley from tough questions under oath.

--------

He jumped into the national debate over the nation's next generation of voting equipment. He banned California's counties from buying touch-screen voting computers unless they included paper receipts so voters could check the accuracy of their ballots. Other states soon followed his lead.

"I think the debate has shifted quite a bit, and I think Kevin Shelley is in large part responsible for that," said Kim Alexander, founder of the California Voter Foundation. "He was the first secretary of state in the nation where electronic voting has been introduced to say we need to have a voter-verified paper record."(full story)

Kevin Shelley resigns

San Jose Mercury News, February 4, 2005

Excerpts:

SACRAMENTO - With a his voice cracking, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley announced late Friday that he will resign March 1, amid allegations that he mishandled federal voting funds, ran his office as a spoils system and verbally abused employees.

Standing in front of his family's San Francisco home, Democrat Shelley, 49, said he could no longer function effectively after six months of controversy. By stepping down, he clears the way for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to appoint a caretaker for the $131,250-a-year post .

Shelley personally apologized to people he has hurt with his explosive temper, but insisted that various investigations would ultimately conclude he has not broken the law.

``While I have made errors that I deeply regret, I have never, ever done so with the intent of subverting the law or benefiting myself,'' Shelley said. ``Throughout my life I have always tried to do what's right. That is what my father taught me, and what I try to teach my sons. ... I know I have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.''

--------

After serving in the state Assembly, where he championed nursing home reform and other liberal causes, Shelley was elected Secretary of State in 2002. He won praise for his handling of the 2003 recall elections and his crusade to ensure the security of electronic voting.

``While serious questions remain about his management practices, there is no question that Kevin Shelley provided much-needed leadership to reform California's voting systems at a crucial point in the modernization process,'' said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.(full story)

State OKs e-vote printer

The Press-Enterprise, January 22, 2005

Excerpts:

Secretary of State Kevin Shelley approved a voting-system printer Friday that will allow San Bernardino County residents to view a paper record of their ballot while casting their votes electronically on a touch-screen machine.

The decision to certify the devices will make San Bernardino County one of the first counties in the state to attach printers to touch-screen machines that Shelley argued last year were vulnerable to fraud. The same company, Sequoia Voting Systems, hopes to get a similar device approved in a few months for Riverside County, which uses slightly older touch-screen machines.

The paper will be on a reel-to-reel printer behind glass next to the touch screen - allowing voters to see but not touch their ballot. Proponents of the printers have argued the machines will strengthen the security of the systems and boost voters' confidence in electronic voting. Opponents have criticized the machines as costly and redundant.

--------

Riverside County's Board of Supervisors also might ask the Legislature to repeal the law or modify it to allow counties to install printers on some but not all machines, Dunmore said.

Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the printers are a step in the right direction, and Riverside County is unlikely to get the law changed.

"Riverside is in a tough position, because they were the first county in California to go all touch-screen," said Alexander, who has questioned the integrity of electronic voting. "Making changes may be more difficult, but they need to come along with what the rest of the state is doing in implementing reforms."(full story)

Scene Set for Ballot Battles

Los Angeles Times, January 8, 2005

Excerpts:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to call a special election has produced a potent side effect: Scores of groups are preparing for bitter ideological fights over abortion, illegal immigration, prescription drugs and a host of other contentious subjects.

This normally would be a dormant year for electoral politics. But Schwarzenegger said he wanted voters to decide quickly on his government reforms, meaning an election this fall.

That has sent political consultants, lawyers, fundraisers and lawmakers scurrying to put their own issues before the voters — only months after voters swallowed a near-record number of initiatives.

"It could be an ugly ballot all over again, when everyone thought they were going to catch their breath," said Fred Main, a prominent business lobbyist in Sacramento.

Social conservatives say they already have collected more than a third of the signatures needed for an initiative requiring parents to be notified when their teenage daughter seeks an abortion. Another initiative being circulated would ban services such as driver's licenses and college tuition grants to illegal immigrants.

Liberals have their own agenda for the ballot. Initiatives are being prepared on securing cheaper prescription drugs, raising the minimum wage and protecting used car buyers from unscrupulous dealers — all born out of legislation that Schwarzenegger vetoed last year.

--------

At some point, political analysts said, the system begins to strain and voter attention gets diluted at the very moment when they should be paying attention.

"The more frequently you ask people to vote, the more likely it is people will lose their incentive to vote," said Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation. "That said, I also think our governor has shown himself to be very effective in motivating people to care about issues that typically voters wouldn't care about."

The governor's office is not particularly worried about a crowded ballot. Voters, after all, agreed with Schwarzenegger on 11 out of 14 propositions that he took stands on last November.(full story)

Electronic Voting 1.0, and No Time to Upgrade

New York Times, November 28, 2004

Excerpts:

I trust computers. When I first used A.T.M.'s, nearly 30 years ago, I carefully saved receipts in a folder and matched them with the bank's monthly statement. Now I sometimes stuff the receipts in my wallet, but I almost never look at them again. The only banking error I've encountered in all those years was when a human teller left a final zero off a deposit I had made.

I still pore over credit card statements, but mainly to see whether some person, not some machine, has issued the proper refund credit or made an improper charge. I've sent e-mail messages to the wrong people by mistyping an address or hitting the oh-so-dangerous "Reply All" button, but never because the system routes it where it shouldn't go. When I travel, I assume that the e-ticket I booked through my computer will be valid and that frequent-flier miles will show up in my account.

Yet when I went to my polling place in Washington on Election Day, I waited an extra half-hour in line to cast a paper ballot, instead of using the computerized touch-screen voting machine. Am I irrational? Perhaps, but this would not be the evidence.

A columnist in The Washington Post recently suggested that nostalgia for paper ballots, in today's reliably computerized world, must reflect a Luddite disdain for technology in general or an Oliver Stone-style paranoia about the schemings of the political world.

Not at all. It can also arise from a clear understanding of how computers work - and don't. The more you know about the operations of today's widely trusted commercial computer networks, the more concerned you become about most electronic-voting systems.

--------

An inherently untrustworthy voting system might not be the worst distortion in modern politics. My nominee for that honor would be the structure of the United States Senate, where each state has two votes. When it was set up, there was a nine-to-one imbalance in voting population between the largest state, Virginia, and the smallest, Delaware. (Counting slaves, Virginia's edge increased to 12 to 1.) Now it's nearly 70 to 1 (California versus Wyoming), making the Senate our own equivalent of the United Nations General Assembly as a forum for overrepresented small states.

But the spread of voting systems that further erode Americans' faith in their democracy is serious enough. And while the Senate isn't going to change anytime soon, electronic systems can change - and, for the sake of credible democracy, must change - before we choose another president. Extensive discussions are under way at sites like VerifiedVoting.org, CalVoter.org, and the "news for nerds" forum Slashdot.org about inexpensive, practical ways to make automated voting as reliable as, say, buying books online. Their recommendations make sense. But you don't have to trust my opinion. Read them and see.(full story)

Skepticism spawns broad effort to push voting reform

San Francisco Chronicle, November 28, 2004

Excerpts:

The 2004 election -- arguably the most scrutinized ever held in the United States -- has spotlighted problems with the voting process that are decades old and long overlooked.

Voter intimidation, disenfranchisement, fairness, partisanship of election officials and several other issues are getting the most attention in Ohio, where two lawsuits were filed Friday contesting the counting of provisional ballots and the overall results. But it is citizen groups and individual voters rather than political candidates or parties that are demanding that the problems be addressed.

This lack of trust in the voting system, experts say, has spawned a dynamic voting reform movement with citizens inspecting the election process at nearly every level.

--------

"Florida (in 2000) was a wakeup call to the nation on voting problems. The vote counting fiasco highlighted inaccuracies in counting procedures," said Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Project.

While those problems had existed previously and drawn the focus of voting rights group, they did not rise to the critical level where the general public might get interested until a presidential election was affected, she said.(full story)

State lauded for its campaign finance reporting

Tri-City Herald, November 28, 2004

Excerpts:

Washington once again is being hailed for the sunshine it sheds on the money used to influence its political process.

Political watchdog groups in recent years have ranked Washington at or near the top of a series of lists judging states' disclosure requirements for reporting lobbyist activity and candidates' financial interests, while making both readily available to the public.

They've also lauded the state specifically for its reporting requirements for political parties and ballot measure campaigns.

Now Washington is being ranked first in a broad study of states' systems for tracking money received and spent by political campaigns.

--------

"Washington is setting the standard for the rest of the country," said Saskia Mills, the project's executive director. "A lot of it has to do with the strength of the state's disclosure law. That's a big part of it."

--------

The study noted Washington still has room for improvement, suggesting ways the commission could make its Web site more user-friendly.

And rather than wait until the next reporting deadline, Mills said state law could be changed to require all large contributions to be disclosed immediately upon receipt.

But otherwise, "They really are on the cutting edge when it comes to campaign disclosure," she said.(full story)

Group cites electronic voting problems, urges reforms

San Jose Mercury News, November 18, 2004

Excerpts:

The record use of electronic voting machines on Nov. 2 led to hundreds of voting irregularities and shows the need for higher standards, a voting rights group said Thursday.

The companies that make the electronic machines said their equipment was reliable and had relatively few problems considering the millions who cast their ballots.

The Election Verification Project reviewed nearly 900 reports of electronic voting problems on Election Day, ranging from lost votes in North Carolina to miscounted votes in Ohio and breakdowns in New Orleans that caused long lines and shut down polling places.

``The documented problems with touch screen machines, vote-counting irregularities and the fact that votes cannot be verified or recounted show us how vulnerable our democracy will be in the future when there are disputed or unclear results,'' said Kim Alexander, a project member and president of the California Voter Foundation.

The members of the verification project said they hadn't seen evidence that the problems would change the election results -- President Bush captured 60.5 million votes to Sen. John Kerry's 57.1 million. But they said the problems raised the specter of that possibility in a closer race.(full story)

Registrar accepts blame for 207,000 uncounted ballots

San Jose Mercury News, November 5, 2004

Excerpts:

Santa Clara County Registrar Jesse Durazo on Thursday said he misjudged the resources it would take to tally ballots from the avalanche of voters in Tuesday's election and accepted responsibility for the more than 200,000 votes that remain uncounted.

He said his office was overwhelmed by high voter interest, a large number of absentee ballots and a change in law that made it easier for people to register late in the election season. With nearly a third of the county's total votes uncounted, many close contests hang in the balance, including an Assembly race and several school tax issues.

-------

One observer attributed some of the delays to the high number of people in the county who requested paper ballots at the polls.

"Voters in Santa Clara County are more aware of computer risks than voters in other parts of the state," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, which has warned of security problems with touch-screen voting.

Alexander said Santa Clara County, unlike most others with electronic systems, said it would advertise at the polls that voters had the option of using paper ballots.(full story)

 

Feds Issue Test Copies of E-voting Software

ComputerWorld, November 1, 2004

Excerpts:

Federal officials last week released a set of software files submitted by five vendors of e-voting systems and voting verification tools, saying that election officials can use the code and related digital signatures to check whether the software they have bought has been modified without their knowledge.

But the so-called reference data set issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology will likely be of little use to state officials for verifying the integrity of e-voting systems being used in tomorrow's election. And the future value of the files could be limited for states that have customized their e-voting software.

-------

But Avi Rubin, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who has criticized e-voting security controls, called the NSRL "smoke and mirrors." Rubin said that if e-voting software "is already rigged, storing the [digital signature] hashes only guarantees that the malicious code will be there if the hashes match."

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, called the vendor submissions good news, but only if there are no last-minute changes to the software. "If there are technical problems with software vote counts on election night, it's possible that vendors will, as they have in the past, install patches or upgrades to get the vote count started again," she said.

Election officials will have to keep a public audit log of all software testing and installations to ensure that there's no appearance of impropriety, Alexander added.(full story)

E-voting rules likely to lead to confusion in 10 counties

San Jose Mercury News, October 28, 2004

Excerpts:

They were supposed to make life at the ballot box easier. But with less than a week to go until Election Day, new electronic voting machines are sparking confusion and uneven sets of rules that await millions of Californians when they show up at the polls Tuesday.

If you don't want to use the new technology in Santa Clara County, poll workers will offer paper ballots as an e-voting alternative only if asked. In Napa County, you will be bumped from line and asked to wait. Until Wednesday, Merced County had planned to essentially treat voters who ask for paper ballots as suspect and subject them to a higher level of scrutiny.

The last-minute interpretations of new state rules have e-voting critics worried that Californians who have concerns about the accuracy of the machines will face unfair hurdles.

"I don't think people who want to cast paper ballots should be treated as second-class voters,'' said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.

In an effort to iron out the differences, state elections officials held a conference call Wednesday with the 10 California counties using e-voting machines and issued a new directive this week: Voters should be treated the same regardless of whether they choose electronic voting or paper ballots.(full story)

Paper Ballot Option an Unofficial Secret

LA Times, October 25, 2004

Excerpts:

Santa Clara County poll worker Ed Cherlin thought his job was to help voters, which is why he was so offended when he was ordered not to tell people coming to the polls that they could have traditional paper ballots if they didn't trust computerized voting machines.

"I object to having the government tell me I'm not allowed to tell people about their rights," said the Cupertino resident. "It's obviously unconstitutional and nonsensical."

Like Cherlin, poll workers throughout Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties also plan to keep mum about the paper option and hand out such ballots only if voters ask for them. Critics of computerized voting machines say it shows how reluctant counties are to adhere to a state policy requiring all polling places with computerized voting booths to give voters the option of casting paper ballots.

-------

"How we train our poll workers is that people who come into the polls are assumed to be there to vote electronically, and if they would like to vote [with paper ballots], they are required to ask," said Barbara Dunmore, Riverside County's registrar.

Bret Rowley, spokesman for the Orange County registrar, agreed.

"They're there if people ask for them," he said. "It's their choice. They need to ask for paper if they want it, or vote on the electronic system."

E-voting critics say these counties are meeting the letter of Shelley's mandate but not the spirit.

"When voters show up at a polling place, they should be given the option of voting either by paper ballot or touch screen," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, which advocates voting safeguards. "I can understand why counties would want to limit the burden on poll workers. There could just simply be a sign on the polling place saying you have a right to cast a paper ballot."(full story)

America mails it in

Oakland Tribune, October 24, 2004

Excerpts:

A growing chorus is suggesting American voters don't necessarily need to go to the polls Nov. 2 but rather elect the leader of the free world from the comfort of their own homes.

Like politics, the act of voting makes for strange bedfellows. Democrats and Republicans, every branch of the U.S. military, critics of electronic voting and elections officials who are its fiercest defenders all have found common cause in the commonest tool of democratic choice: the mail-in ballot.

Most Americans apparently don't need telling: Nationwide, elections officials are seeing a remarkable surge in voters signing up to vote by mail.

-------

In California alone, the number of voters demanding a mail-in, absentee ballot has skyrocketed 10-fold since the 2000 election to more than 3 million, or 17.3 percent of registered voters as of late September. And the pace is accelerating. Just since the March primary, mail-in voters have doubled in Alameda and San Mateo counties. More than half of Sonoma's voters asked for absentee ballots. Thousands more are pouring in as the Oct. 26 absentee signup deadline approaches.

-------

The nonprofit California Voter Foundation, based in Davis, urged voters in e-voting counties to cast absentee ballots or request and fill out a paper provisional ballot at the polling place.

"For myself and I hope a lot of voters in California, I would want to get my ballot on paper rather than subject my vote to secret software that can't be verified,'' said foundation president Kim Alexander.(full story)

Updated voting system concerns state officials

San Diego Union-Tribune, October 23, 2004

Excerpts:

California may be the cradle of the modern computing industry, but its state government has a long history of computer failures, and now some worry that a new voting system will be the latest costly fiasco.

A $550 million drive to replace the punch-card voting that led to Florida's infamous "hanging chad" problem in the presidential election four years ago is off to a glitch-ridden start.

-------

For the Nov. 2 election, 10 counties with nearly one-third of the state's registered voters will use new, paperless touch-screen voting machines that critics say create more uncertainty than security. San Diego County had such problems with its new touch-screen system in the March primary that Shelley has prohibited the county from using it in November.

The California Voter Foundation, a nonprofit group that monitors new voting technology, is urging voters in those counties to request paper ballots that can be audited if a recount is needed.

"Voters who do not want to entrust their ballots to risky, inauditable technology have a choice," said Kim Alexander, president of the Davis-based foundation.

A state law enacted this year will require a paper record or printout of all electronic votes in the future, beginning with the next primary election in June 2006.(full story)

Amid Shelley controversy, officials scramble to prepare for election

San Francisco Chronicle, October 22, 2004

Excerpts:

Secretary of State Kevin Shelley guided California through a surprisingly trouble-free recall election last year and became a national champion to voting rights activists when he sounded the alarm about the potential for fraud and other problems using electronic voting machines.

But on the eve of this year's general election, he's been mired in scandal, accused of taking questionable campaign contributions and misusing federal election funds. The deepening controversy has paralyzed his office, leading the chairman of the nation's election oversight commission to warn that California could lose $170 million in federal election funds.

-------

Compounding the problem is the record high number of voter registrations that have flooded the counties this year. With no money to hire additional staff and an unusually late registration deadline -- Oct. 18, just 15 days before the election -- registrars' offices are working overtime to process the documents and prepare for an election involving large numbers of people who have never voted before.

"When people are facing something they never faced before, the errors are going to go up. Why isn't he thinking of these things?" McCormack said.

While Shelley's political future may be in doubt, voting rights advocates say his crusade against faulty electronic voting machines has set a model for other secretaries of state across the country, many of whom are now moving to impose the same requirements.

"We've had challenging elections before in California, and I'm sure we will get through this challenging election," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "But whatever happens to this secretary of state, his leadership on electronic voting issues will always be part of his legacy.(full story)

Florida, Ohio Try to Avoid Vote-Count `Fiasco,' Revamp Machines

Bloomberg , October 22, 2004

Excerpts:

Florida legislators were so determined to avoid a repeat of the disputed 2000 presidential election that they outlawed punch-card ballots the following May and had new voting machines installed throughout the state.

The first test came in the 2002 Democratic gubernatorial primary. Poll workers in Miami-Dade and Broward counties shut some voting sites for five hours to start the machines and failed to retrieve hundreds of votes. It took a week to get the results.

``It was a fiasco,'' says Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, chairwoman of the nonpartisan Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition.

Similar episodes may recur across the U.S. when voters go to the polls Nov. 2 to either re-elect George W. Bush or pick Democrat John Kerry for president. Election observers, including former President Jimmy Carter, say this vote may be even harder to resolve than the 2000 presidential race, when the Supreme Court halted a Florida recount after 36 days, handing the election to Bush over Democrat Al Gore.

-------

"Electronic voting has hardly been glitch-free,'' says Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a Davis, California-based nonpartisan group that promotes the use of the Internet and other technology to strengthen the electoral system. ``It will take years, not one election cycle, to reform computerized voting and vote-counting in the U.S.''

Machines already broke down during tests in Palm Beach County, Florida. Georgia is among the states using touch-screen voting equipment that lacks printers to produce a paper trail in case a recount is needed, according to Electionline.org, a Washington-based voting-research group. Seventy-two percent of voters in Ohio will still use antiquated punch cards, says Electionline.org, which issued a report this week.

A shortage of poll workers is so acute that earlier this month the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, established by Congress with the 2002 election law, plans to spend more than $1 million to recruit people nationwide to staff sites.(full story)

Study determines why Californians don't vote

San Jose Business Journal, October 15, 2004

Excerpts:

Too busy. That's the biggest reason millions of Californians vote infrequently or not at all, according to a first-of-its-kind study released Friday by the California Voter Foundation.

Its survey found that 28 percent of infrequent voters and 23 percent of those unregistered said they do not vote or do not register to vote because they are too busy

"This tells us that many Californians may benefit from more information about the time-saving advantages of early voting and voting by absentee ballot," says Kim Alexander, foundation president, in a written statement. "There are still a couple of days left to register to vote prior to the Oct. 18 deadline and to request an absentee ballot."(full story)

Critics: State’s e-voting touch and go

The Desert Sun , October 7, 2004

Excerpts:

Voting rights activists are urging voters in Riverside and San Bernardino counties to cast absentee ballots in the Nov. 2 election, bypassing touch-screen voting machines they say are risky and unreliable.

The California Voter Foundation targeted Riverside, San Bernardino and eight other counties that use the electronic voting machines.

They say voters should not risk their ballots on machines that cannot be audited, have no verifiable paper record of their vote and could be susceptible to security breaches.

"Voters who do not want to entrust their ballots to risky, inauditable technology have a choice," Kim Alexander of the Davis-based California Voter Foundation said in a prepared statement. "They can reject the paperless touch- screen system and instead vote absentee using a paper ballot.".(full story)

E-voting doubts surface

San Jose Mercury News, October 5, 2004

Excerpts:

Citing a lack of confidence in electronic voting systems, a non-partisan voting group is urging voters in Santa Clara, Alameda and eight other California counties to use absentee ballots to cast their votes next month.

"Our advice is to cast your ballots on paper,'' said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "Every voting system needs to be protected against manipulation and error, and with an electronic system the voter has to depend 100 percent on secret software produced by private companies that can't be verified.''

The foundation said that people who want to ensure their votes are counted on Nov. 2 should vote by mail or drop off their absentee ballots at the polls on Election Day

About 30 percent of California voters live in counties that will use electronic voting systems. Santa Clara, Alameda, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino are the largest. Merced, Napa, Plumas, Shasta and Tehama also will use electronic systems."(full story)

Diebold Rep Now Runs Elections

Wired News, September 30, 2004

Excerpts:

An influential employee of voting machine maker Diebold Election Systems left the company recently to take a job as elections manager for a California county.

Deborah Seiler, a sales representative for the beleaguered voting company, was hired a week ago and started Monday in Solano County, northeast of San Francisco in California's wine country. The position puts her second in command of elections in the county, under the registrar of voters.

The move raises eyebrows because Seiler played a role in a recent scandal involving Diebold and the county. As the Diebold sales rep, Seiler sold Solano County nearly 1,200 touch-screen machines that were not federally tested or state certified. When the state banned the machines because of Diebold's business practices, the county had to find a replacement for the machines and pay Diebold more than $400,000 to get out of its contract.

-------

Kim Alexander, founder and president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said, "There's no doubt that Deborah Seiler is one of the most experienced in California elections. But I find it confusing that the county would hire someone who played a role in their acquisition of uncertified equipment.".(full story)

More federal lawmakers want paper records of electronic ballots

San Francisco Chronicle, September 28, 2004

Excerpts:

Just five weeks before election day, federal legislators are increasingly casting doubt on electronic voting terminals and demanding that touchscreen computers produce paper records.

But it's unlikely that their concerns will result in reforms before Nov. 2. Many are pushing for national regulations requiring a "voter verifiable paper trail" starting in 2006 or later.

On Monday, a federal appeals court revived a lawsuit filed by Florida Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler, who is demanding that all touchscreen voting machines in Florida produce a paper record of every vote cast.

A three-judge panel in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told a federal judge in Fort Lauderdale to reopen the case, which could affect 15 Florida counties whose electronic voting terminals do not issue paper records.

-------

Critics say such systems expose elections to hackers, software bugs and hardware failures and cannot be accurately recounted. They are urging election officials to ban paperless machines -- and provide stacks of paper ballots instead.

"You can't go into an election without clear procedures at the outset describing how recounts will be conducted," said e-voting critic Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "The only truly meaningful recount is to recount the voter's paper record."(full story)

State's E-Vote Trust Builds Slowly

Los Angeles Times, September 27, 2004

Excerpts:

Counties across California are preparing for another election day, as determined as ever to convert from paper to electronic voting. But because of a series of blunders in the March primary, fewer Californians will cast their ballots on touch-screen voting machines in November.

About 30% of the state's voters — 4.5 million people in 10 counties, including Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino — are expected to use electronic voting machines in November, down from about 40% in the spring.

-------

Voter-rights advocates say they are encouraging voters in counties with electronic voting to cast absentee ballots or request paper ballots at polling places because of concerns over the new technology.

"People are totally freaked out, and for good reason," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, which promotes the responsible use of voting technology. "When people vote, they want their votes to count. That's why we're going to make sure California voters know they have a right to vote on paper."

Indeed, most California voters in November will still cast ballots by filling in circles on paper ballots that will be counted by optical scanning machines.(full story)

Shelley Fires 15 Voter Consultants

Los Angeles Times, September 25, 2004

Excerpts:

Threatened with a federal audit of California's election spending, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley said Friday that he was firing 15 voter-outreach consultants to prevent the use of federal money for partisan political purposes.

-------

Shelley said he was firing the consultants and taking other steps to assure Soaries that he would properly handle $350 million in federal Help America Vote Act funds, designed to prevent problems like those that occurred in Florida in the 2000 presidential election.

-------

"Activity reports" from contractors released this week showed that contractors spent many hours at events with no apparent connection to voter participation.

Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation, faulted both the state and federal governments for not exercising enough oversight of the Help America Vote Act funds.

"The way to deal with voter outreach and education is doing it in a way that is not only nonpartisan in appearance but in fact," she said.(full story)

Voting machine manufacturers answer to activists, politicians

Contra Costa Times, September 20, 2004

Excerpts:

American voters have historically cast ballots without paying much attention to who created the contraptions that count them. As levers gave way to punch cards and optical scanners, there were intermittent outcries, but the 2000 election debacle and today's sharply polarized political climate have put voting machines under intense scrutiny.

Critics, including prominent computer scientists, have raised concerns about the vulnerability of touch-screen ballots to malfunctions and hacking. Voting-machine makers have largely been in the middle as activists and election officials wrangle over reforms, although in at least one case, that of Diebold Election Systems, a company has become a political lightning rod.

-------

Kim Alexander, head of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation and a member of the state's touch-screen task force, is pleased by the move toward paper verification but worried by the power that machine makers wield.

"In my view, we have outsourced elections," she said. "We've placed much more responsibility onto the vendors, not only in terms of turning over our elections to 100 percent proprietary source code, but also to (handling) problems that come up" on election night. (full story)

Counties need people at the polls -- to work

Contra Costa Times, September 18, 2004

Excerpts:

Elections officials are happy to accept the help. With six weeks to go until Election Day, Contra Costa and Alameda counties need hundreds more workers to help voters.

Contra Costa County must sign up about 675 more workers to reach the minimum 3,000 it needs, and Alameda County has about 500 fewer than its 3,100 goal, officials said.

-------

Contra Costa's poll workers will earn between $37.50 and $125 depending on the duties and shifts. Some jobs involve navigating California's dense and ever-changing elections laws, such as new ID requirements for first-time voters.

Attendants are trained to handle "decline to state" voters, process provisional ballots, accommodate disabled voters and distribute the correct materials in consolidated precincts.

"We have heaped on layer and layer of complexity that these quasi-volunteers are expected to administer," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "Sometimes it feels like the whole system is held together by strings and duct tape." (full story)

Welcome to the Age of Consumer Politics

Mother Jones, September 9, 2004

Excerpts:

You know the candidates. And they know a lot more about you than you might expect. This year, the Democratic and Republican parties, together with outside groups, are digging through voter rolls, census records, and consumer data for every possible scrap of information on American voters. The goal is simple: find out what people are like –- especially what they care about –- and pitch them your candidate accordingly. If it sounds like commercial marketing, that's because, for better or worse, it is like commercial marketing.

-------

Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation, who has spent the last four years researching voter privacy in the digital age, has her doubts as well. "This area of public policy has been very much hidden from the public's understanding," she says. "I know the precinct walker standing at my door knows who else lives in my household, when we were born, what party we're affiliated with, how many elections we've voted in –- I know that because I've worked in elections and campaigns. But most voters don't realize that the stranger standing at your door has a lot of personal information about them. When voters do discover how much data the campaigns have access to about them, there is often a sense of betrayal."

-------

"It's really tricky [to control]," says Alexander, "because the people who are the biggest users [of these databases] and get the most benefit from the data, are the very politicians who regulate the use of the data." So far, she notes, state and local governments have not tried to "ensure that the data is not being re-used and abused as it makes its way down the campaign food-chain." Abuse could range from selling information contained in the database to a third party, to allowing it to influence federal hiring decisions – thus far there have been no documented cases of either.

Aside from privacy concerns, critics of the new techniques point to a broader risk to our democratic system. As Alexander and Keith Mills point out in their report Voter Privacy in the Digital Age, the idea of targeting political messages to specific groups of voters –and hence not to others – "exclusionary and inappropriate."

"The expectation is that the campaigns will inform the voters," says Alexander. "But as campaigns have become more sophisticated in their technology, they've also become better and better at targeting those who they want to reach and target out those that they do not want to reach." In other words, people who aren't voting now –- people who tend to be younger, less wealthy, less educated and more transient according to Alexander -– won't be inspired to do so in the future, thus contributing to the decline in voter turnout. (full story)

Nevada conducts smooth election on computers that keep paper records

San Francisco Chronicle, September 7, 2004

Excerpts:

Nevada residents became the first in the nation to vote on computers that printed paper records of their electronic ballots in Tuesday's primary, which was generally free of problems that have cast doubt upon electronic voting systems in other states.

------

Voter advocates praised Nevada's system, which requires county registrars to randomly select a small percentage of machines -- from 1 percent to 3 percent of a county's total -- and compare printed records with the vote totals taken from computers' memory cartridges after polls close. The paper records -- which voters can see through a plastic window but cannot touch or take home -- will be kept in county election offices for 22 months and used in case of a recount.

"It's no panacea, but it's a huge improvement over paperless systems because there will be a paper record of every electronic ballot," said Kim Alexander, president of Davis, Calif.-based California Voter Foundation. (full story)

Lost E-Votes Could Flip Napa Race

Wired News, March 12, 2004

Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Foundation, a nonprofit voter education organization, said the county was lucky that the problem occurred on a system with a paper trail.

"If the problem had occurred with their electronic ballots or with the tabulation software (that sits on the county server) they would have been hard pressed to reconstruct their election," she said. "Or they might not have ever known there was a problem at all. If they were doing the manual count on the electronic ballots there would be no record to look at to determine what the accurate vote count should be."

She added California is "one of a few if not the only state" that requires a hand count.

"The reason we have the manual-count verification is precisely because technology is not always reliable. There have been many instances like this where the manual count has been instrumental in flagging a vote counting problem," she said. (full story)

7,000 Orange County Voters Were Given Bad Ballots

Los Angeles Times, March 9, 2004

“Elections system analyst Kim Alexander said Orange County's experience is alarming. 'We shouldn't end every election praying for wide margins,' said Alexander, whose organization, California Voter Foundation, encouraged voters in the days before the March 2 election to vote by absentee ballot rather than use the new electronic systems used by 17 California counties. 'Certainly this kind of problem that's occurred in Orange County doesn't do anything to contribute to greater confidence in electronic voting systems.'” (full story)

E-voting not living up to campaign promises

The Argus, March 7, 2004

“'Certification is the last line of defense,' Alexander said. The tests and approvals are especially valuable when electronic voting systems offer no paper backup records to assure voters and elections officials of accurate vote recording. 'It's not enough even if it were all happening, and it's not,' Alexander said.” (full story)

Dispute Veers to Absentee Approach

Riverside Press Enterprise, February 20, 2004

“Escalating a dispute over the reliability of touch-screen voting machines, a non-partisan election group Thursday urged voters in Riverside, San Bernardino and several other counties to obtain absentee ballots for the March 2 election.

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said counties have done too little to ensure the accuracy of electronic voting, though more counties than ever will use the technology next month. Thursday's warning was the first by the decade-old organization, which works to increase voter participation. 'If people are not confident that an election is secure, they will no longer be confident of the results,' Alexander said, calling the current system 'faith-based voting.'” (full story)

E-Voting Activists: Vote Absentee

Wired News, February 20, 2004

“Activists in two states launched campaigns to urge voters to cast paper absentee ballots in their March primaries, warning that the electronic, paperless voting machines used in those states are open to fraud and may not count votes accurately. The California Voter Foundation , a nonprofit, nonpartisan voter education organization, and the Campaign for Verifiable Voting , a Maryland citizens group, cited concerns about insecurities of the electronic voting systems and the lack of paper audit trails to assure voters that their ballots are cast and counted.” (full story)

November 23, 2003 -- Michigan Democrats get to vote online in caucus
Nedra Pickler, Associated Press

The Michigan Democratic Party's plan to allow Internet voting in its presidential caucus won approval Saturday from national Democrats. Foes of the plan said online balloting is not secure and discriminates against poor and minority voters who are less likely to own a computer...

For the first time, the Michigan party will allow those participating in the Feb. 7 caucus to have the option of selecting their favorite presidential candidate over the Internet, in addition to voting by mail or in person. (continued)

November 22, 2003 -- A vote for integrity
Editorial, San Jose Mercury News

A victory for voters, at last. After months of thinking through the matter, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley single-handedly advanced the integrity of the nation's electronic voting technology.

On Friday, Shelley mandated that all touch-screen voting machines in California must produce a paper version of the ballots, so that voters can verify the choices they make and election officials can have printouts for recounts in close elections. (continued)

November 21, 2003 -- E-votes must leave a paper trail
Kim Zetter, Wired News

California will become the first state requiring all electronic voting machines produce a voter-verifiable paper receipt.

The requirement, announced Friday by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, applies to all electronic voting systems already in use as well as those currently being purchased. The machines must be retrofitted with printers to produce a receipt by 2006. (continued)

November 21, 2003 -- California to require paper trail on e-votes
Ian Hoffman, Oakland Tribune

In a move sure to influence other states, California is headed toward letting voters double-check their electronic votes with paper records. Secretary of State Kevin Shelley is expected to announce today a timetable for California counties to offer a voter-verified paper trail as a backup to computerized voting.

Advocates called Shelley's decision "historic." They said e-voting is so vulnerable to software flaws and digital vote tampering that voters need reassurance their votes are recorded accurately. (continued)

November 5, 2003 -- Touch-screen voting debuts
Maya Suryaraman, San Jose Mercury News

Punch-card ballots became history in Santa Clara County on Tuesday when it joined most of the rest of the state in using electronic voting machines.

While some voter advocacy groups and others worry the county's new touch-screen system could be susceptible to fraud and software bugs, voters around the county gave it a thumbs-up. (continued)

November 5, 2003 -- E-voting runs into bumps in East Bay
Ian Hoffman, Oakland Tribune

Thousands of Alameda County voters cast ballots Tuesday on computer software that state and county elections officials say was never certified for a California election.

The same problem existed for last month's recall election. (continued)

November 4, 2003 -- California voting machine called into question
Paul Festa, CNET News.com

As voters in California go to the polls, the state is launching an investigation into alleged illegal tampering with electronic voting machines in a San Francisco Bay Area county.

The voting machine fracas involves Diebold Election Systems , a North Canton, Ohio-based company whose machines are in use by four of California's 58 counties--Alameda, Plumas, Riverside and Shasta--and will be used by three more next year: Kern, San Joaquin and Solano. (continued)

October 11, 2003 -- Campaigning tab hit $80 million
Christian Berthelsen, San Francisco Chronicle

Business groups, labor unions, Indian gaming tribes and other donors spent more than $80 million in the final tally of the recall race, nearly as much as the amount spent during the entire 2002 gubernatorial general election.

The amount is all the more remarkable because it occurred during a truncated 75-day campaign. At the outset, many campaign finance experts believed the race would cost much less because there was so little time to campaign or buy television advertising. (continued)

October 10, 2003 -- Election Workers Wrongly Evicted Journalist
Matthew Artz, Berkeley Daily Planet

Volunteer poll workers mistakenly barred a Daily Planet reporter from watching them handle data chips embedded with thousands of electronic votes shortly after the polls closed on election night.

Jesse Taylor was reporting on the election at the polling station at City Hall, but when the time came for poll workers to remove memory cards from the station’s seven electronic touch screen voting machines, the head poll worker—against state law—ordered Taylor out of the building. (continued)

October 10, 2003 -- Despite reform talk, interest groups largely funded recall
Don Thompson, San Francisco Chronicle

Despite candidates' pledges to shake up Sacramento's power structure, California's $80 million recall election was paid for largely by the same interest groups that have contributed the bulk of campaign contributions for years, records show.

More unusual were the groups that sat out the unique election -- and that the rich candidate who spent the most personal money won after spectacular previous losses by Michael Huffington, Al Checchi, Jane Harman and others who spent millions of their personal wealth on failing campaigns. (continued)

October 8, 2003 -- CALIFORNIA RECALL -- Voting in the 21st century
San Francisco Chronicle

California counties are replacing antiquated punch-card voting systems with newer systems. Under Proposition 41, approved in 2002, $200 million in bonds will pay for the upgrade. The older systems use a precut card that can leave "hanging chad" after a voter casts a ballot. This can result in improper vote counts. Below are systems currently used in California. (continued)

October 8, 2003 -- Vote lawsuit continues
Darrell Smith, The Desert Sun
Susan Marie Weber will face a federal appeals panel today in Pasadena.

It’s the latest chapter in the Palm Desert woman’s three-year battle challenging the constitutionality of paperless touch-screen voting systems. (continued)

October 7, 2003 -- Vote today ends recall chaos in California
Bob Keefe, Austin American Statesman

Only 948 new voters registered in California's San Bernardino County in June, which was not surprising because this was not supposed to be a major election year in the state. But the next month, when California's historic gubernatorial recall election had become a political reality, the number of new voters swelled by 12,323.

In August, in Santa Clara County, 6,487 more people registered to vote than had registered in August 2002, shortly before the November election in which Gov. Gray Davis (D) was reelected to a second term. (continued)

October 7, 2003 -- High Bay Area Voter Turnout
KGO-TV

At the California Voter Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that tracks voter participation and advocates for improved voting technology, President Kim Alexander said as the polls closed Tuesday night, "No matter how the recall turns out, this election certainly has given a new bounce to the California electorate."

Alexander identified four key ingredients to voter participation: the amount of information they have about the issues; a clear idea of why they should care about what is on the ballot; confidence that their votes will make a difference; and whether they have time to vote. (continued)

October 7, 2003 -- All eyes are on touch screens
Cory Golden, The Davis Enterprise

More important than who wins or loses today's election is citizens' confidence that their votes will be accurately counted.

That's the position of the Davis-based California Voter Foundation, which has been a leading voice in a chorus of critics of electronic voting systems that do not leave a paper trail. (continued)

October 6, 2003 -- Tonight might not be the end of election
Troy Anderson, Los Angeles Daily News

With absentee ballots flooding into Los Angeles County and state election offices, experts said Monday that, if the recall vote is close, it may take several days before the outcome is clear.

The large number of absentee ballots also could complicate recount efforts. And some are warning a recount could be virtually impossible because of the widespread use of touch-screen voting machines that don't offer paper receipts. (continued)

October 6, 2003 -- New Voters Are Calif. Recall's Great Unknown
Edward Walsh, Washington Post

Only 948 new voters registered in California's San Bernardino County in June, which was not surprising because this was not supposed to be a major election year in the state. But the next month, when California's historic gubernatorial recall election had become a political reality, the number of new voters swelled by 12,323.

In August, in Santa Clara County, 6,487 more people registered to vote than had registered in August 2002, shortly before the November election in which Gov. Gray Davis (D) was reelected to a second term. (continued)

October 5, 2003 -- A 'simple ballot'. .. or 'incredibly complex'?
Patrick McMahon, USA Today

California voters are being asked only four questions in Tuesday's election, but in some counties they'll have to wade through a ballot eight pages long in order to vote. In other counties, the ballot is only one page, but it's as long as a face towel.

The lengthy ballot has two questions about the recall. First is yes or no on whether to recall Gov. Gray Davis. No matter how a person votes on that question, he or she can then select one of the 135 candidates listed as potential replacements for Davis. (continued)

October 3, 2003 -- Recount procedures questioned in California election
Rachel Konrad, Associated Press

Political activists are planning to scrutinize punch-card ballot results in California's historic recall election, raising the likelihood of a recount if the outcome is close.

But some computer scientists fear more trouble with electronic ballots. With almost one in 10 registered voters using touch-screen machines that don't automatically produce paper printouts, they say a legitimate recount would prove impossible. (continued)

September 29, 2003 -- Recall, ready or not
Troy Anderson, U.S. Los Angeles Daily News

With heavy turnout projected and a record 135 candidates on the jumbled Oct. 7 recall ballot, Los Angeles County officials are taking unprecedented steps to ensure the success of this historic election.

Registrar-Recorder Conny McCormack plans to post a "greeter" at each polling location, double the normal staffing at each site and triple the number of troubleshooters out in the field. (continued)

September 29, 2003 -- Will computers fix the vote?
Kenneth Terrell, U.S. News & World Report

Counting a vote just doesn't sound that hard. But ever since the 2000 Florida recount with its disputes over hanging chads, voting technology has been the focus of fierce debate. It resurged last week when a federal court panel delayed the California recall election, fearing that punch-card ballots could disenfranchise as many as 40,000 voters. The panel, whose decision is being appealed, wants to wait until computerized voting machines are in place statewide. (continued)

September 27, 2003 -- Report critical of Diebold system
John Russell and Erika D. Smith, The Beacon Journal

Diebold Inc.'s touch-screen voting system carries a ``high risk of compromise'' by computer hackers and untrained poll workers who could damage the accuracy of election results, an independent report prepared for Maryland has found.

But state officials said the weaknesses can be corrected before its March 2004 primary election, and Maryland is going ahead with statewide installation of the machines. (continued)

September 26, 2003 -- Yolo deluged with absentee ballots
Elisabeth Sherwin, Davis Enterprise

Freddie Oakley, Yolo County clerk, said the results of absentee voting -- which could represent 40 percent of the votes cast locally in the Oct. 7 election -- could be displayed 10 minutes after the polls close.

Oakley said 25 percent of all Yolo County voters are permanent absentee voters, people who vote by mail. (continued)

September 24, 2003 -- The Past and Future Fraud
Matt Smith, SF Weekly

Civil rights advocates, partisan Democrats, and liberal academics are pleased with the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that delayed the Oct. 7 recall. They concur with the panel's ruling that the punch-card balloting system used by 44 percent of California voters is so outdated and unfair that it would disenfranchise an important number of voters if used next month. Right-wing radio talk show hosts, pro-recall zealots, and partisan Republicans are furious with the court's decision. They criticize its political overtones and believe postponing the election would cheat Californians wishing to vote on the recall. (continued)

September 24, 2003 -- Court reinstates Oct. 7 recall vote
Jim Sams and Darrell Smith, The Desert Sun

In a stunning double reverse, a federal appeals court Tuesday unanimously put California’s recall election back on track for Oct. 7.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which had sought a postponement due to the error rates associated with punch-card voting, said it would not appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU’s decision removed the final legal roadblock to the recall and set up a 14-day sprint among the candidates in the historic election to remove Gov. Gray Davis. (continued)

September 24, 2003 -- Quiet Cash Playing Large Role
Dan Morain and Jeffrey L. Rabin, Los Angeles Times

As candidates stump for votes in the recall race, moneyed interests are waging freewheeling parallel campaigns largely beyond public scrutiny.

Unfettered by caps on contributions or spending that apply to candidates, Indian tribes, labor unions, conservative Christians and Planned Parenthood have infused independent expenditure committees with $5 million and used $3.7 million of it in support of their preferred candidates and causes. (continued)

September 21, 2003 -- New voting technology is questioned
Finn Bullers, The Kansas City Star

A growing national debate threatens to undermine efforts to replace older voting technology, such as the punch card system that is at the heart of California's current election standoff.

In California, a panel of federal appellate judges has ruled that there are “inherent defects” in the older voting systems and that they could be overwhelmed by the large number of candidates on the state's recall ballot. Last week the court agreed to reconsider the case. Arguments are scheduled for Monday. (continued)

September 21, 2003 -- Sun, Quakes - and Ballot Initiatives
Bobby Caina Calvan, Globe Correspondent

For nearly a century, California's ballot initiative process has been a part of public life, producing jolts on the political landscape as big as any fabled earthquake.

From tax revolts to school funding, from term limits to three-strikes sentencing, and from smoking bans to legalized marijuana, the ballot box has been a potent tool for direct-democracy advocates seeking to shape public policy. The historic recall initiative against Governor Gray Davis is only the latest jolt to shake things up in a state accustomed to topsy-turvy politics. "Whether you love it or hate it, the initiative process is a part of life in California," said Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Foundation. "There have been a lot of initiatives that have fundamentally altered the political landscape in California and the way we live as Californians." (continued)

September 17, 2003 -- Authorities on voting dispute punch-card issue
Charles Burress, San Francisco Chronicle

Punch-card voting may cause more errors on California ballots than other systems, but experts clashed Tuesday over just how serious the problem is.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Monday that the punch cards used by nearly half the state's voters made it impossible to hold a fair election and called for a delay in the Oct. 7 recall balloting. (continued)

September 17, 2003 -- California revisits US election nightmare
The Sydney Morning Herald

It was once the very symbol of modern, efficient, impersonal technology. But in the past three years the punch card has become synonymous with something else - electoral mischief.

In a ruling on Monday to postpone California's recall election, a United States Federal Appeals Court revisited some of the same concerns about punch-card ballots that threw the 2000 presidential election into chaos. (continued)

September 17, 2003 -- Critics fear electronic systems are no better than punch cards
David Whelan, Contra Costa Times

A day after a federal appeals court ruled that the California recall election must be postponed, some critics assailed the judges' assumption that newer digital voting machines are more fair or effective than older punch-card ones.

While punch-card machines may allow "overvoting" errors, in which extra broken chads void a ballot, their electronic counterparts can be prone to other problems, including hacking, electronic malfunctions, and the fact that they leave no paper trail that can be used during a recount. (continued)

September 16, 2003 -- Counties pushing punch cards into extinction
Alan Gathright, John Wildermuth, Chronicle Political Writers

The handful of California counties still using two controversial punch- card voting systems will have no trouble converting to a new balloting method by next March, satisfying a federal court's concern about the state's recall election.

A 2002 court decision already required nine counties, including Santa Clara, Solano, Sacramento and Los Angeles, to dump their Votomatic and Pollstar systems and find another way to count ballots by next year. While six counties aren't there yet, they're close, local election officials said Monday. (continued)

September 15, 2003 -- Transcript of CNN interview

Stanford computer science professor David Dill and CVF President Kim Alexander both appeared on the CNN program, "Next @ CNN". (transcript)

September 15, 2003 -- High-Tech Voting
Spencer Michels, PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

In the California recall case, the American Civil Liberties Union successfully argued that the state's voting machines are prone to error. Spencer Michels reports on the computer system that will replace punch cards during the next election. (continued)

September 15, 2003 -- California -- Another Florida?
William Welsh, Washington Technology

California's monumental task of staging a short-notice, special recall election has some experts using the dreaded "F" word: Florida.

The effort to recall California Gov. Gray Davis before his term expires has caught many of the state's 58 counties off balance. They're in the midst of trying to replace outdated punch-card voting methods with more modern equipment, such as touch-screen systems. (continued)

September 12, 2003 -- Legality of faxing ballots adds to confusion
Sandy Kleffman and Dogen Hannah, Contra Costa Times

Secretary of State Kevin Shelley scrambled Thursday to determine the legality of overseas troops casting recall ballots by fax -- even as some counties allowed the unusual practice.

Registrars from three counties confirmed to the Times that some of their colleagues said during a conference call Wednesday they were permitting such voting. (continued)

September 10, 2003 -- E-Voting Blunder Creates a Stir
Associated Press

The strange case of an election tally that appears to have popped up on the Internet hours before polls closed is casting new doubts about the trustworthiness of electronic voting machines.

During San Luis Obispo County's March 2002 primary, absentee vote tallies were apparently sent to an Internet site operated by Diebold Election Systems, the maker of the voting machines used in the election. (continued)

September 7, 2003 -- Voting devices' security at issue
Clint Swett, The Sacramento Bee

As election officials rush to prep new electronic voting machines for the Oct. 7 recall, some computer security experts are raising alarms over what they see as the devices' potential for permitting electoral fraud.

At issue are touch-screen computers that will be used next month in Shasta, Alameda, Plumas and Riverside counties, which account for about 9 percent of all votes cast in the state. (continued)

August 26, 2003 -- Recall Update: Counties Prepare for Deluge of Ballots
Scott Shafer, The California Report

With the recall election just six weeks away, county elections officials around the state are rushing to get ready. Just a few months ago, few would have predicted an October special election, and now many counties are caught in the middle of a transition from older voting systems to new voting technologies.

Listen (Realpayer required)

August 13, 2003 -- Think Fla. in Calif. gov vote
Helen Kennedy, New York Daily News

California is going to make Florida 2000 look sane.

Some 247 people - actors, golf pros, porn stars, random flakes and a couple of pols who couldn't make it in a real election - filed to be on the gubernatorial recall ballot, ensuring monster headaches and widespread chaos on Election Day. {BT}The result won't be known for days after the Oct. 7 voting, as election officials will have to count stacks of ballots by hand. And if the race is close? Almost certainly there will be lawsuits, delays and even a recount. (continued)

August 12, 2003 -- Lottery decides order of candidates on ballot
Lynda Gledhill, San Francisco Chronicle

California's Secretary of State redefined the alphabet Monday in a standard drawing designed to give candidates in the recall election an equal shot at top placement on the Oct. 7 ballot.

The first letter to be drawn was "R." Candidates whose last names begin with that letter will appear at the top of the ballot in the first state Assembly district in northwest California. (continued)

August 12, 2003 -- Recall ballot: A mess in the making?
Mike Zapler, San Jose Mercury News

With California's historic recall just eight weeks away and as many as 195 candidates on the ballot, officials are warning that voters may face exceptionally long lines at the polls and that the election results may not be known Oct. 7.

Already, Orange County -- which has 1.3 million registered voters, the third highest number in the state -- doesn't expect results until the following day. Because of the long candidate list, workers there will have to hand-feed paper ballots into just three or four scanners. (continued)

August 10, 2003 -- Election software defended
Troy Anderson, Los Angeles Daily News

Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Conny McCormack says she is confident that software in touch-screen voting machines being used at a few polling places in the Oct. 7 recall election isn't prone to fraud or abuse.

"The software has been rigorously tested and certified by both the state and federal government," McCormack said. (continued)

August 4, 2003 -- Unusual ballot, flock of potential candidates baffling
Lori Aratani and Mary Anne Ostrom, San Jose Mercury News

Deotis Saunders knows the state's governor is in trouble. He's not so sure, though, how this fall's recall election is supposed to work.

"I don't listen to too much of that stuff," he said, referring to news reports on the partisan bickering over whether Democratic Gov. Gray Davis deserves to be removed. "But I will vote once I figure out what's going on."(continued)

August 4, 2003 -- Report critical of security in vote machines
Jeff McDonald, San Diego Union-Tribune

San Diego County is pushing ahead with plans to invest tens of millions of dollars in an electronic voting system despite dire warnings from experts that the technology may not be safe from ballot-rigging.

Critics say government agencies nationwide are ignoring the warnings, in part because of close relationships between elections officials and the handful of companies that manufacture voting equipment. (continued)

August 3, 2003 -- Security disputed in touch-screen voting
Troy Anderson, L.A. Daily News

Touch-screen voting systems being installed in Los Angeles County and much of the nation are prone to tampering and fraud and pose a grave danger to democratic elections, according to computer scientists at Johns Hopkins and Rice universities.

The professors say in a report that Diebold Election Systems' software is rife with glitches that would allow unscrupulous people to cast multiple votes and tamper with election results. (continued)

July 20, 2003 -- U.S. Expands Overseas Online Voting Experiment
Brian Faler, Washington Post

Tens of thousands of Americans across the globe will be able to vote in next year's election with just a few taps on a keyboard. But not everyone says that's a good thing.

The federal government has dramatically expanded a pilot program, inaugurated in the 2000 election, that will allow approximately 100,000 Americans overseas to cast ballots over the Internet. The program, touted as the nation's largest-ever experiment in online voting, will enable military personnel, along with some civilians, to vote on any computer equipped with a few basic components, such as Microsoft Windows software. (continued)

July 15, 2003 -- New Voting Technology
KQED Forum with Michael Krasny

Forum looks at the growing popularity of electronic "touch screen" voting machines and debates plans to expand their use in California elections.

Host: Michael Krasny
Guests: Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.
Dan Tokaji, professor of law at Ohio State University and immediate past chair of California Common Cause.

Listen to the archived program. (realplayer link)

June 9, 2003 -- Electronic Rigging?
Kim Alexander, for TomPaine.com

As election officials scramble to replace old, Florida-style voting systems with new, modern ones, many people are beginning to question the wisdom of entrusting our precious ballots to an entirely computerized process. These concerns are well-founded. (continued)

June 5, 2003 -- County leaders postpone a bid for digital democracy amid fears of vote tampering
Cosmo Garvin, Sacramento News and Review

Last week, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors walked to the edge of the abyss, took a long look and then took a giant step back.

Well, that may be overly dramatizing it a bit. But the supervisors did consider a proposition many find genuinely scary--tossing out our old punch-card voting machines and replacing them with a fancy new computerized system--and decided, for now, not to go there. (continued)

June 4, 2003 -- Touchy Subject: Ditching voting system
Jonah D. King, The Almanac

As chief elections officer in San Mateo County, Warren Slocum has been described as "an innovative leader" by a prominent voter's rights advocate and lauded by members of the county Board of Supervisors for his efforts to expose the public to alternative voting methods.

His own Web site glowingly depicts the current voting system in San Mateo County as "modern" and "state of the art," with "the fastest election results in California."

So why would Mr. Slocum want to spend $1.5 million of county taxpayer money to completely replace the existing system with one that critics have called "a threat to democracy" because they say it might be error-prone and could be manipulated to give false results? (continued)

June 3, 2003 -- Is it safe yet?
Loren Stein, Metro News

When Santa Clara County voters head to their voting places this November, they'll be greeted by a bank of gleaming new electronic voting machines--a high-tech voting video arcade. The old punch-card system--with hanging and dimpled chads and butterfly ballots, the disastrous scenario of the 2000 presidential election--is history. (continued)

May 22, 2003 -- Letter to the Editor
CVF President Kim Alexander, New York Times

"To Register Doubts, Press Here'' (May 15) mentioned a poll to determine the level of voter confidence in Georgia's new paperless touchscreen voting system. While it is true that Georgia voters over all expressed confidence in the new machines, there was a significant disparity. (continued)

May 21, 2003 -- County blazes trail on new voting system
The Ukiah Daily Journal

Mendocino County will set a precedent when it replaces its old punch hole voting machines under court order along with nine other California counties and many other counties nationwide.

That's according to advocates for fair and open voting, who say the county is making history by ensuring its system will include a paper trail, something many new computerized systems lack, making voter fraud easier. (continued)

May 6, 2003 -- Tom Elias: Back up new voting machines with paper trails
Tom Elias, Daily Breeze

So you think Florida had an election fiasco in 2000, producing a president whose legitimacy is still questioned by millions? Something far worse will almost surely strike California — and mostly likely sooner rather than later — unless counties equip the tens of thousands of new voting machines they’ll be buying within the next few months to create a paper trail backing up their digital results.

For the possibilities of corruption and fraud are mind-boggling if touch-screen voting without countable paper records becomes standard all over the state, as it already is in Riverside, Alameda and Plumas counties. (continued)

March 6, 2003 -- Director's Note: Certainty Is Overrated
Doug Chapin, electionline Weekly

Last week's electionline Weekly described the efforts of a small but growing band of skeptics in the policy and academic community, led by Stanford computer science professor David Dill, to persuade Santa Clara County, Calif., to purchase voting equipment that produces paper receipts as a public check on their integrity.
 
The Santa Clara decision is seen as a test case nationally given that the county is looking to purchase touch-screen voting machines like those already in place in many other states and localities across the country. Consequently, the county's decision to pursue a middle course -- refusing to seek paper receipts in all voting machines unless the State imposes such a requirement, but authorizing a pilot receipt project on a limited basis -- was national news. (continued)

March 3, 2003 -- Scientists question electronic voting
Henry Norr, San Francisco Chronicle

Oddly enough, Silicon Valley has been a laggard when it comes to applying the technology it's famous for to the election process. Now it's finally beginning to catch up, and it has suddenly become the locus of an overdue -- and profoundly important -- debate about the mechanics of democracy in the 21st century.

The crux of the discussion is whether Santa Clara County, the heart of the valley, should follow the lead of other jurisdictions that are moving to all- electronic voting or instead choose systems that combine the convenience of digital balloting with the auditability afforded by paper ballots.

The county supervisors last week came up with a compromise that left everyone involved a little confused but at least opened the door to future requirements for a tangible audit trail -- a major, if only partial, victory for critics of the all-electronic approach. (continued)

February 28, 2003 -- Supervisors fail to stand against election fraud on their own
Editorial, San Jose Mercury News

Santa Clara County supervisors this week took a half-step to buying a fully trustworthy voting system when they could have taken a whole step.

In approving $20 million for touch-screen voting machines, the supervisors deferred to the secretary of state the decision of whether that system must produce a paper copy of the electronic ballots cast. The supervisors could have become the first county in California to demand it on its own. (continued)

February 9, 2003 -- Absentee Voters Make Their Mark
By Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times

More than two-thirds of those who voted in the Jan. 28 special election to fill a seat on the Orange County Board of Supervisors did so by absentee ballot, setting a state record and offering what officials believe is a glimpse into the future.

Propelled by a new state law that makes it easier to vote without going to the polls, the campaign focused on locking up the support of absentee voters. The winner, former Assemblyman Bill Campbell, mailed absentee registration forms to 30,000 registered voters whom his research suggested would be likely to vote for him. (continued)

 

---

Archive

(Articles appearing February, 1996 to December, 2002)

 

Site Map | Privacy Policy | About Calvoter.org

This page was first published on August 6, 1996 | Last updated on November 11, 2009
Copyright California Voter Foundation, All Rights Reserved.