Commissioners Aware Paper Ballot Optical Scan Issue

Update: We'll be attending the Special Meeting Monday, Jan. 6, 2008, to be held starting at 12:30 PM (organizational followed by salary board, then special) at the 911 Building in Uniontown. Watch for our upcoming report on this important issue.

Note: Neither of the local newspapers have reported the agenda schedule for the Special meeting, or whether the voting machine issue will be considered during the Special meeting.

(Net the Truth Online)

Apparently in a move to address long lines at the polls the last few elections where Hart Intercivic's daisy wheel eSlates were employed, at least one of the Fayette commissioners is considering adding more of the same electronic voting machines to the county's current array of 268 units.

The 2008 board members were sworn into office Friday, Jan. 4, and will reorganize on Monday at 12:30 PM. Following will be a Salary Board organization meeting and business meeting. Following that will be a special commissioners' board meeting.

Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink stated on a radio talk program that she felt the board needed to act by Monday or Tuesday on the purchase of additional inventory in order to have them delivered and in place by the April Primary.

Zimmerlink indicated she supported purchasing the same eSlates, around 50 to 55 units.

Email to Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent Vicites Saturday, apprising of a post to the message board of VotePA including link to post.

Saturday, January 5, 2008
Dear Commissioner Vincent Vicites

Re: Fayette acquisition additional voting units to alleviate long lines at polls

The following is a message board communication I have posted to the voting integrity organization based in PA known as VotePA.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/3514

The post includes email I sent to both you and Commissioner Zapotosky on Friday. Commissioner Zimmerlink had already expressed her decision to acquire additional eSlates, rejecting the paper ballot eScans. (During WMBS guest spot with Bob Foltz, Friday)

I thought I would apprise you of my VotePA post, as hopefully you and Commissioner Zapotosky will receive input from the organization members prior to the Monday special commissioners' meeting where you might consider adding voting machines units in time for delivery for the April Primary.

I strongly urge you to choose to give Fayette voters the same choice Lancaster County has employed for two-election cycles. Hart InterCivic's eSlate, for handicapped accessibility, and Hart's paper ballot eScan. Both systems comply with Help America Vote Act and state requirements for accessibily, privacy, and second chance voting. At the very least, commissioners should have the benefit of knowing how Lancaster's elections went using the eSlate and eScans in comparison with Fayette's use of only the eSlate.

It is unfortunate that commissioners may be pressed to make a decision Monday - possibly to sign vouchers for the additional machines under contract with Hart InterCivic - before Commissioner Zapotosky has time to set up office email and maybe make a few phone calls to Lancaster County. I have asked also that a town-hall style meeting be held to bring in experts such as VotePA activists and Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, a Philadelphia-based computer expert I've referenced in previous communications to the Fayette board of commissioners.

It seems to me that some arrangement could easily be made with Hart InterCivic to employ one eSlate, handicapped accessible, unit per precinct and swap additional machines for the paper ballot eScans. It seems there wouldn't be any financial loss to the county to swap with the same vendor. Fayette would then have one eSlate per precinct and at least one eScan per precinct. We may not need 3rd or 5th units as it seems Lancaster County has not needed, only backups in emergency cases.

As I must also reiterate, the paper ballot with the optical scan is the only voting system to currently provide a true paper record. To many, having their vote recorded securely, accurately, and transparently, is important enough to wait any length of time in long lines.

Thank you for your time.

Email to Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent Vicites was sent after the WMBS radio program comments made by current Fayette Chair.

Friday Jan. 4, 2008

Dear Commissioner
As you are aware, I have had a long-standing interest in the election process and voting procedures. Over the years, I've conducted research on the variety of issues concerning the Help America Vote Act, the use of Direct Recording Electronic voting machines, and the use of paper ballots with optical scan readers.

When the board of commissioners determined to adopt Hart InterCivic as the vendor, I emailed the then-board with a recommendation to purchase both Hart's electronic DRE eSlate and Hart's paper ballot system with the optical scan reader, known as eScan.

During that time period, I became aware of several voting related organizations which recommend a paper ballot optical scan over the direct recording systems.

I also had the opportunity during the past two elections to be appointed as an election judge for Uniontown Ward 3. I underwent the training on the eSlate machine, and handled the judge of elections position with interest.

There were instances with long lines and during the last Primary, I requested an additional machine which was supplied. Even with a third machine for that precinct, come the General election, there were still long lines. One woman left after several minutes, she'd completed the process, but she was in tears. We also had one expired access code. A handful of people signed in, left, and some never returned.

It isn't, in my estimation, just a matter of unfamiliarity with the new electronic machines that presents a problem for the voters. The eSlate dial daisy wheel makes it necessary for the individual to turn and highlight each letter in order to do a machine write-in. That alone takes someone a few minutes if doing more than one write-in.

I've assessed that even if voters take only the recommended three minutes to complete the process, in one hour, then, only 20 people can vote per voting machine (eSlate). Should Fayette face a lengthy ballot or list of candidates, and a higher turnout rate, even with additional eSlates, the situation of long lines and frustration will still occur.

Lancaster County adopted both the eSlate and the eScan for their voters and have successfully met the requirements of the Help America Vote Act and state requirements with them.

For our county, since the past elections have been fraught with long lines at the polling place, it is understandable the board of commissioners would want to purchase additional machines.

My question is why not implement, as Lancaster County has, the paper ballot eScans for placement as well in each of the polling places?

Before a decision is made, why not contact the election bureau and/or commissioners of Lancaster County to determine how their voting systems work well together?

I urge you to consider implementing the paper ballot with optical scan voting system, Hart InterCivic's eScan along with the eSlate. Surely, some arrangement can be made to leave one eSlate in place per precinct as that meets the requirement for handicapped accessibility, and swap the second and third machines for the paper ballot optical scan - eScan.

A primary benefit of the eScan is of course the paper ballot. The paper ballot provides a paper record in the event of any disputes or lawsuits that might arise, and in the event a recount is needed.

As well, the time it takes to do a write-in on the eSlate is far more lengthy than on a paper ballot. Many people at the polls either weren't aware of the feature for the write-in process, or they simply chose not to do a write-in because of the difficulty and time consumption.

On a paper ballot, write-ins are less time consuming.

The eScan also presents the voter with the option to review a paper ballot before it is cast, and importantly, make any alterations, corrections before casting the ballot on the optical scan machine.

I have added informational material which I hope you will review. Please call if you have any questions.

Thank you for your time.

Dear Lancaster County Voter:

After several months of careful review, we have selected a new voting system for our voters. Beginning with the Primary Election in May 2006, the Hart Voting System will replace our lever machines. The new voting system has two components: the eScan for paper ballots and the eSlate for accessible voting. Both will be available at each polling place, so you may use either system.

The eScan is a precinct-based digital scanner for paper ballots and the eSlate is an accessible voting machine that ensures those who are blind or have low-vision, have limited or no upper-body mobility, and those who have difficulty reading can vote in privacy without any assistance. If you are an absentee voter, you will continue to vote by mail.

The purchase of this new system is necessary to comply with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) signed into law by the President on October 29, 2002. This law requires voting systems to be accessible so that all voters can cast a vote privately and independently, including those who are blind or who have mobility impairments. It also requires second-chance voting, giving voters a chance to review and change a vote or correct a ballot where an incorrect mark may have been made. Through HAVA, the federal government has appropriated funds to assist with the purchase of new systems.

http://www.cityoflancasterpa.com/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571742&pp=12&n=1

http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571742

County's 550 new voting machines ready for debut
by Chad Umble - Lancaster New Era
published May 12, 2006

http://www.hartic.com/news/35

How to use

http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571630

Hart Intercivic white paper

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Jan_20/ai_n8701815

Q & A

http://www.hartic.com/pages/214

Pervious post included the following

Herald Standard article clip

Fayette budget holds tax rate steady
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
01/01/2008
Updated 01/02/2008

...Following adoption of the budget, Zimmerlink spoke about the need to purchase additional electronic voting machines in advance of the April presidential primary. She said when the commissioners initially purchased the 268 machines following a federal mandate that deemed lever machines illegal, at the time they believed there were enough machines for the county's 103 precincts.

However, in the four elections since purchase of the machines, Zimmerlink said the number of negative comments has increased. Following the November election, numerous individuals complained about the long wait time at some precincts.

Zimmerlink said after speaking with a representative of Hart Intercivic, she asked Vicites and commissioner-elect Vincent Zapotosky to respond about purchasing new machines, but then did not get a response.

"I think we need to make a decision on the purchasing of machines," Zimmerlink said.

Following Zimmerlink's comments, Vicites said he is prepared to purchase more machines.

"We put money in the budget. I think we have to get more machines. A presidential year always has a higher turnout," Vicites said.

Zimmerlink said the commissioners put a minimum of $170,000 to use for additional voting machines.

Both Zimmerlink and Vicites said additional outreach is needed to teach voters how to use the electronic machines. Zimmerlink said she wants to make a decision soon about purchasing more machines, although she acknowledged that Zapotosky couldn't really take action until taking office on Jan. 4...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19159657&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Tribune Review article clip

Fayette County holds line on taxes
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Fayette County commissioners on Monday passed a budget for 2008 that holds the line on taxes...

Commissioners included $170,000 in the budget for electronic voting machines, said Angela Zimmerlink, commissioner chairwoman.

Zimmerlink said her research has shown that 45 to 55 machines are needed to help reduce waiting times at polls. She added that voting lines will be cut by continuing public demonstrations of the devices and training poll workers.

Zimmerlink said she wants the board to approve the purchase during the next several days to expedite delivery.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_545372.html

Related

Dear Lancaster County Voter:

After several months of careful review, we have selected a new voting system for our voters. Beginning with the Primary Election in May 2006, the Hart Voting System will replace our lever machines. The new voting system has two components: the eScan for paper ballots and the eSlate for accessible voting. Both will be available at each polling place, so you may use either system.

The eScan is a precinct-based digital scanner for paper ballots and the eSlate is an accessible voting machine that ensures those who are blind or have low-vision, have limited or no upper-body mobility, and those who have difficulty reading can vote in privacy without any assistance. If you are an absentee voter, you will continue to vote by mail.

The purchase of this new system is necessary to comply with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) signed into law by the President on October 29, 2002. This law requires voting systems to be accessible so that all voters can cast a vote privately and independently, including those who are blind or who have mobility impairments. It also requires second-chance voting, giving voters a chance to review and change a vote or correct a ballot where an incorrect mark may have been made. Through HAVA, the federal government has appropriated funds to assist with the purchase of new systems.

http://www.cityoflancasterpa.com/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571742&pp=12&n=1

http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571742

County's 550 new voting machines ready for debut
by Chad Umble - Lancaster New Era
published May 12, 2006

http://www.hartic.com/news/35

How to use

http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571630

Hart Intercivic white paper

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Jan_20/ai_n8701815

Q & A

http://www.hartic.com/pages/214

David Dill vs Nancy Tobi On Holt HR 811

For our information

It's Time to Outlaw Paperless Electronic Voting in the U.S. (13 comments ) by David Dill 4-29-2007

Four years ago, when I began publicly opposing paperless electronic voting, passing a federal law to require voter-verified paper records (VVPRs) seemed an impossible dream. Rep. Rush Holt introduced such a bill in 2003, and another in 2005, but both bills languished in committee until the clock ran out.

The dream is now achievable, due in part to the unending stream of problems caused by paperless voting machines in recent years.

HR 811, the third incarnation of the Holt bill, is a critical measure needed to protect the integrity of our elections, and it now has very good prospects of being enacted. It already has 210 co-sponsors in the House, where only 218 votes are required to pass it.
There are two provisions in HR 811 that are especially vital for restoring trust in American elections: A nationwide requirement for voter-verified paper records, and stringent random manual counts of those records, to make sure they agree with the announced vote totals. The requirements in the Holt bill are superior to those in almost every state of the country (there are now 22 states with significant amounts of paperless electronic voting, and only 13 states require random audits of VVPRs).

Success is not assured, however. The forces that have blocked previous bills are still active, especially vendors of current poorly performing equipment. Also, various concerns, reasonable and otherwise, have been raised about the bill by other parties.

Some groups insist on optical scan machines, which read and count hand-marked paper ballots, and are not supporting HR 811 because it still allows the use of touch-screen machines. However, under HR 811, those machines must be equipped with so-called voter-verifiable paper trails, which print a paper copy of the vote that can be reviewed by the voter before being cast. Most of the current generation of inferior paper-trail machines would not be allowed under HR 811, which requires the machines to preserve the privacy of voters and requires the VVPRs to be printed on high-quality paper. This will create a strong incentive for local jurisdictions to purchase optical scan equipment. Furthermore, HR 811 makes the paper records the official ballots of record in audits and recounts, and requires election officials to post a notice explaining to voters the need to verify their VVPRs.

I would personally prefer to see optical scan machines be used nationwide, if supplemented by equipment to allow voters with disabilities to vote privately. If groups objecting to HR 811 can cause such a bill to be introduced and line up the votes in Congress to get it passed, that bill will have my support. Meanwhile, those of us who have actually talked to Congressional staff have not seen any significant support for such a requirement. It seems that we have a choice between HR 811 or continuation of our current "Kafka-esque" paperless system (as a French politician recently described it).

Another small but noisy contingent is opposing HR 811, sometimes without revealing their true agenda, because they will be satisfied only with a nationwide system of hand-counted paper ballots. In theory, we could adopt hand-counting of all ballots. However, hand counting is rarely used now. It is politically unrealistic to believe that the overwhelming number of jurisdictions that have been using automated voting in various forms for 40 years or more are going to go back to hand counting. HR 811 does not prevent hand counting for those communities who want to do it, but it provides a realistic solution for the rest of us...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-dill/its-time-to-outlaw-paper_b_47202.html

http://avi-rubin.blogspot.com/2007/04/david-dills-excellent-essay-on-holt.html

Shame on all of you for mistaking technology for democracy


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/043007T.shtml

Rebuttal to Dill's Support of the HR 811 Trojan Horse
By Nancy Tobi OpEd News Friday 27 April 2007

...Dill writes:

"There are two provisions in HR 811 that are especially vital for restoring trust in American elections: A nationwide requirement for voter-verified paper records, and stringent random manual counts of those records, to make sure they agree with the announced vote totals."
Dill is correct in that we need to have auditable paper in our elections. He is incorrect in stating we need to have paper "records" (as opposed to ballots), but at least he is honest enough to make the differentiation. The Holt Bill itself disingenuously refers to "paper ballots" throughout the bill, even while referring only to paper printouts generated by a computerized voting machine.

But I believe that if Holt had produced an ingenuous "paper trail" bill with only the two items Dill mentions above, it is highly unlikely the bill would be receiving such a wide swath of broad based opposition.

(And it should be noted here that the bill is opposed by a strange group of often oppositional bedfellows: the voting industry, the National Association of Secretaries of States, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, The Election Center, the American Association of Persons with Disabilities, and election integrity activist organizations and individuals nationwide.)

It is doubtful that, had the bill only contained the two items Dill points to, it would be receiving such strong opposition even from those citizens Dr. Dill claims have a "hidden agenda" for hand counting.

I will not belabor the particular issue of hand counting that he raises - in somewhat of a sidelong manner - in his piece, but it is worth rebutting his positioning of it.

Those patriotic Americans who support hand counted paper ballot elections, of which I include myself, support hand count elections because we have spent considerable time over the past several years analyzing requirements - not for TECHNOLOGOLICAL elections - but for DEMOCRATIC elections.

After several years of rigorous debate, dialog, dissent, and discussion, after years of this evolutionary thought by patriotic American citizens, we have arrived at the simple conclusion that democratic elections require citizen oversight of the entire voting process, and that this is impossible when computers - with their processes invisible to the human eye - are involved. In other words, we have come right back to what the founders of our nation and the framers of our early state constitutions understood full well, which is why both the Massachusetts and New Hampshire constitutions state that our votes must be "sorted and counted" in "open meeting".

This raises doubt as well on optical scanners, which, as Dr. Dill full well knows, have been the perpetrators of at least as much electoral crime, fraud, and failure as the touch screens he derides in his piece...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/043007T.shtml

Bev Harris Black Box Voting:

HR 811: Representative Lofgren's substitute amendment

the new version is NOT improved! It's actually worse than its predecessor.

UNPRECEDENTED POWER GRAB

- It rides roughshod over the Constitutional rights of the states, by taking the unprecedented step of recommending that states violate their own state laws if needed in order to comply with the bill. It then says the states can catch up with their own laws later.

Let me explain just how wrong-headed this is, and "wrong-headed" is a polite term for "power grab":

Laws are supposed to be passed following a deliberative process. That deliberative process is not supposed to have a foregone conclusion, and if it does, the deliberative process is just a sham process. So, when the federal government encroaches on the fundamental checks and balances giving certain powers to the states, by telling the states to violate their own state laws, and then says "you can change your laws to match later", that is saying "do a sham deliberative process with a foregone conclusion" to create your legislative changes...

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/36349/47369.html?1179416469

Related

Avi Rubin's Blog
Thursday, April 26, 2007
David Dill's excellent essay on the Holt Bill

http://avi-rubin.blogspot.com/2007/04/david-dills-excellent-essay-on-holt.html

May 10th, 2007
Paper trail bill voted out of House committee. Would such a law have prevented Sarasota?
Posted by ZDNet Government @ May 10, 2007 @ 9:25 PM

Categories: Government technology, Congress, Elections

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3137