Voting
Top
News | Overview | Voting
in the News | Resources | Records Requests

"The first principle of republicanism is that
the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of
individuals
of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the
majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of
all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt."
Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817
Top News
-
E-Deceptive Campaign Practices Technology Report Released.
EPIC's voting project releases the first report on the technology of deceptive campaign practices. Deceptive campaigns are attempts to misdirect voters regarding the voting process for public elections. Deceptive campaign activity can be false statements about polling times, date of the election, or voter identification rules. The EPIC report reviews the potential for abuse of Internet technology in an election context, and makes recommendations on steps that could be taken by Election Protection, Election Administrators, and voters to protect the integrity of the upcoming election. A legal and policy companion of the report was simultaneously released by Common Cause and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. For more information, see EPIC's Voting Project . (Oct 20)
- EPIC Recommends Privacy Safeguards for Voting System Standards. EPIC submitted comments to the Election Assistance Commission on
the proposed Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. EPIC proposed new
guidance on privacy protection in the casting of ballots. EPIC alo
recommended more transparency for the privacy protections provided by
federally certified voting systems. For more information on EPIC's
voting project visit the National Committee
for Voting Integrity. (May 8)
- EPIC Testifies Before the Election Commission on New Voting Guidelines: EPIC Associate Director Lillie Coney testified before the Election Assistance Commission on the 2007 Voting System Guidelines. EPIC urged the Commission to "offer clear and effective guidance to states on issues of functional capability, hardware, software, telecommunication, security, quality assurance, and configuration of voting systems." The Commission is nearing the end of the second voting guidelines drafting process.
- Supreme Court Upholds Voter ID Law. The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down a challenge to a voter ID law in Indiana. In 6-3 opinion (pdf), the majority said the state interests “are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute,” and the burden imposed on voters was “minimal and justified.” Justice Souter wrote in dissent, “this statute imposes a disproportionate burden upon those without” government-issued photo IDs. EPIC had submitted a brief (pdf) detailing problems with the law. "Not only has the state failed to establish the need for the voter identification law or to address the disparate impact of the law, the state's voter ID system is imperfect, and relies on a flawed federal identification system." See EPIC page on Crawford v. Marion County (Apr. 28)
- Bill to Reimburse Jurisdictions for Cost of Paper Ballots for November
Fails: The House failed to pass H.R. 5036 with a sufficient margin to ensure
that jurisdictions that decide to acquire paper ballot systems for the
November 2008 election from being reimbursed by the federal government.
The measure would have also provided funding to states for conducting
post election audits. The vote was actually a procedural move to place
the bill on the “Suspension Calendar,” which would indicate a
non-controversial measure. The Democrats and Republicans had worked out
an agreement to support the bill being placed on the Suspension
Calendar, but the White House issued a statement late on the day prior
to the vote in opposition of the effort. This resulted in a nearly
perfect party line vote—resulting in the outcome falling short of the
2/3rds majority needed. The vote was 239 for and 178 against placing
the bill on House Calendar under suspensions. (April 15, 2008)
- EPIC, Experts Urge
Supreme Court to Strike Down Indiana Voter Photo ID Law:
In
a "friend-of-the-court" brief (pdf)
filed today, EPIC and 10 legal scholars and technical experts urged the U.S.
Supreme Court to invalidate an Indiana
law requiring individuals to show a government-issued photo ID card
before allowing them to vote. "Not only has the state failed to
establish the need for the voter identification law or to address the
disparate impact of the law, the state's voter ID system is imperfect,
and relies on a flawed federal identification system," called REAL
ID, they said. For more information, see EPIC's page
concerning the case and the National
Committee for Voting Integrity. (November 13, 2007)
- EPIC's Voting Project Submits Statement on Election Audits
to House Committee: EPIC's voting project the national
Committee for Voting Integrity submits a statement to
the House Committee on Administration for
its hearing on the topic of “Election Reform: Auditing.”the statement
supported the establishment of public election auditing standards
that are just as well accepted, and measurable as financial auditing standards
to achieve greater transparency of the public election process. (March 20,
2007)
- EPIC Opposes Increasing
ID Requirements for Voters
in a statement to
the House Committee
on the Judiciary, cautioned against new proof of citizenship requirements
for federal elections. Absent evidence of an actual problem, EPIC warned
that the requirement could discourage legal voters. EPIC noted that
Congress has already provided for provisional ballots for instances
when there are doubts about the status of voters seeking to cast ballots
in public elections. For more information, see EPIC's Voting
and Privacy page and the National
Committee for Voting Integrity Web site. (March 7, 2007)
- Report Says Some
Voting Systems Fail Accessibility Requirements:
Direct
Recording Electronic voting machines, once considered essential
to private voting booth access for voters with disabilities, often do not work as
promised, according to a new report published
by Demos. The Help
America Vote Act mandated accessible voting system for the disabled
and language minorities. For more information see, EPIC's Voting
Page or the page for National
Committee for Voting Integrity . (February 5, 2007)
- NCVI Announces Recommendations for E-voting Systems: The National
Committee for Voting Integrity has prepared recommendations to
assist voters and election administrators. The guidance was prepared
with the assistance of the Brennan
Center for Justice and addresses the use of electronic voting systems
in the upcoming national elections. NCVI and the Brennan Center warn
that the recent implementation of electronic voting systems will make
ensuring that all votes are accurately counted a difficult and challenging
task. It is estimated that 80% of all voters will use either Optical-Scan or direct
recording electronic (DRE) voting systems during this years election.
For more information, see EPIC's Page on Voting
Privacy. (Oct.ober 30, 2006)
- Joint House Committees Hold Hearing on E-voting:
In a statement to
the House Committees on Administration and Science, the National Committee
for Voting Integrity recommended greater security for e-voting systems.
NCVI said that the current review process for ensuring that e-voting
systems count votes as cast is not working. The Election Assistance
Commission has delayed implementation of a new federal process intended
to replace the current system. For more information, see EPIC's Voting
and Privacy page and the National
Committee for Voting Integrity Web site. (July 20, 2006)
- The Brennan Center Releases Voting Technology Report:
The Brennan Center's report "The
Machinery of Democracy Protecting Elections in an Electronic World," was
a collaborative effort joined by EPIC's Project the National
Committee for Voting Integrity that identified over 120 security
threats; and evaluated countermeasures for repelling attacks. The study
examined each of the three most commonly purchased electronic voting
systems and makes recommendations on their use in public elections.
For more information on voting systems, visit EPIC's
Voting Privacy Page and National
Committee for Voting Integrity (NCVI). (June 28, 2006)
- Election Report Recommends Voter ID, Paper Trails: The
Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President
Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III,
released a new report on
the conduct of domestic elections. The Carter-Baker Commission
recommended photo IDs for all voters, verifiable paper trails for electronic
voting machines, and removing partisan political activity from
the
administration of elections. Voting reform groups favor the paper
trail. But the photo ID requirement conflicts with many civil rights
and voting rights laws. EPIC earlier opposed (pdf)
Georgia's effort to require all voters to present photo ID to participate
in public elections. See EPIC's page on Voting
and Privacy. (September 20, 2005)
- EPIC Testifies
Before Election Assistance Commission:
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission held
its third and final public hearing in Denver, Colorado on its proposed
Voluntary
Voting System Guidelines. EPIC's statement (pdf)
focused on the importance of election administration in creating
reliable, secure, accessible, transparent, accurate, and auditable
public elections. The Commission is nearing the end of a process
begun last year, which is intended to replace how voting systems
used in public elections are designed. (August 23, 2005)
- EPIC Opposes Georgia Voting ID Requirement: In comments (pdf)
to the Department of Justice, EPIC has opposed Georgia's proposal that
would require government-issued photo ID to vote in a state or federal
election. EPIC said that the Georgia voting photo identification law
encroaches on privacy, would discourage voter turnout, and is inconsistent
with the federal Help America Vote Act. Under the 1965 Voting Rights
Act, Georgia is required to receive Justice Department approval before
making any changes to its voting laws. For more information, see EPIC's Voting
and Privacy page and the National
Committee for Voting Integrity Web site. (July 29, 2005)
- EPIC Produces a Comparison of the Two Voting Technology Standards
Documents: The comparison of
the two documents conducted by EPIC is now available. All public
comment must be sent to the EAC by 5:00 PM on September 30, 2005.
EPIC obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request the Voting
Standards draft developed by the Technical
Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) and presented to the U.S.
Election Assistance Commission (EAC): Since that time the EAC
has released its own draft
Voting Technology Standards document for public comment.(July
22, 2005)
- Public Comment beings on Election Assistance Commission's
Voting Standards Document: On June 29, the public
comment period begins
for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's Draft Voting Standards,
and will last for 90 days, ending at 5:00 PM on September 30, 2005.
The Draft
Standards were developed under the Help America Vote Act and are
intended to replace current voting standards. (June 29, 2005)
- Senate Explores
Voting Technology, EPIC Voting Project Recommends Enhanced Standards: The National
Committee for Voting Integrity has submitted comments to
the Senate Rules Committee, which held a hearing on Voter Verification
in the Federal Elections Process. NCVI said that current voting
technology does not meet a standard that can assure voters
that votes are recorded and counted as cast. NCVI, a project
of EPIC, made recommendations to the Senate on ways to improve
transparency, privacy and security of ballots. For more information,
see EPIC's page on Voting and Privacy.
(June 21)
- EPIC Obtains the Voting Standards Draft From the Election
Assistance Commission: EPIC has obtained under a Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) request for the final draft
voting technology standards submitted to the Election
Assistance Commission by the Technical
Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) on May 9, 2005. The EAC
decided not to immediately make public the TGDC recommendations that
are based on the 2002
Voting System Standards. The 2002 Standards were developed under
the direction of the Federal Election
Commission. The EAC chartered the
TGDC, which relied on the National
Institute for Standards and Technology for technical assistance
for its work. (June 15, 2005)
- EPIC Voting Project Urges Privacy Safeguards for Voter
Registration Databases. The National
Committee for Voting Integrity has submitted comments to
the Election Assistance Commission on the proposed creation of
centralized statewide voter registration databases. NCVI said
that the registration systems must assure voter privacy by adhering
to fair information practices, and allow voters to verify information,
correct inaccurate information, and be assured that the information
provided will not be used for non-voting related purposes. For
more information, see EPIC's pages on Voting and Voter
Registration Databases. (May 25)
- EPIC Participates in Hearing on Voter Registration
Databases.
EPIC
Associate Director Lillie Coney testified before
the Election Assistance
Commission on privacy safeguards for new voter registration databases.
Ms. Coney, who also coordinates the National
Committee for Voting Integrity, urged the Commission to examine
the risks in the new centralized databases. The hearing was also web
cast.
For more information, see EPIC's page on Voter
Registration Databases.
(Apr. 28)
- EPIC Project the National Committee for Voting Integrity
offers comments: NCVI offers comments to
the Election Assistance Commission's Technical
Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) on its work to create electronic
voting standards with the assistance of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NCVI strongly encourages
the TGDC to make greater use of the expertise and resources of NIST
in developing any new voting technology standards. The TGDC will makes
it recommendations to the EAC on voting technology standards soon.
(March 9, 2005)
- EPIC Comments on Voter Registration Problems. EPIC has responded
to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's request for comments on
a state survey of voter registration in 2004. The comments point
out transparency and privacy problems associated with voter registration
administration during last year's election. For more information, see
EPIC's new page on Statewide Centralized
Voter Registration Databases. (March 1, 2005)
- EAC 2004 Annual Report Released. The EAC's
2004 Annual report states the agency was established 10 months
later than required under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA)
and was seriously under funded, had no offices, equipment nor staff.
The total operating funds for fiscal year 2004 was only $1.2 million.
(January 2005)
- EPIC Files Comments on Use of Voter SSNs. In comments to
the Social Security Administration, EPIC has urged the agency not
to create a new routine use of the Social Security Number for state
voter registration purposes. EPIC asked the agency not to implement
this routine use until state election administrations agree not to
require voters to present their Social Security cards in order to
vote in federal elections. For more information, see the EPIC Voting and SSN Pages. (September
3, 2004)
- Public Records Request Information from PA, NM, and TX Secretary
of State. The information is
provided by Pennsylvania, New
Mexico and Texas in reply to public
information request made by EPIC on the use of DRE voting
technology. Legal research on the State of New
Jersey election law.
(June-October 2004)
- Election Day resources available to help voters. The
efforts of technologist and Election Protection workers have produced
a support network that
will assist voters on and before Election Day. The National
Committee for Voting Integrity is providing easy to follow instructions on
voting on DRE and Optical Scan Voting Systems. Voters can also find
help by calling 1-866-OUR-VOTE to seek the advice or assistance of
Election Protection efforts supported by the Lawyers Committee on Civil
Rights, and People for the American Way. (October 20, 2004)
- US Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to hold a hearing. The
EAC will ask federal agencies to
report on their Election Day procedures. The Commission
will also review the state preparations for the November 2nd election;
the status of State administration of provisional voting; and report
on tools in place to monitor Election Day activities.
(October 26, 2004)
- EPIC Testifies on Voting Privacy The Election
Assistance Commission Technical
Guidelines Development Committee asked
EPIC to offer testimony (pdf)
on the impact that new voting technology and polling place practices
has on the privacy
rights of voters. The hearing was an opportunity for the committee
charged with making recommendations on voluntary standards for election
systems and voting technology. The committee is expected to make
its recommendations to the full Election Assistance Commission board
sometime next summer for adoption and implementation in 2006. (September
22, 2004)
- Counties in the State of Florida Conduct Logic and Accuracy
Test.
Counties throughout the State of Florida have scheduled Logic
and Accuracy Test of
direct electronic recording (DRE) voting machines in preparation for the primary
election scheduled for August 31, 2004.
(August 10, 2004)
- The U.S.
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Schedules Meeting on November Election.
The U.S.
Election Assistance Commission will review the Federal
Voting Assistance Program Best Practices for Military
and
Overseas
Voting,
the EAC November Election Research Project, and the EAC National Poll
Worker Initiative. The Commission will also review recommendations
on the National Voter Registration Form and the HAVA College Program.
The EAC will meet on August 10, 2004, from 10:00 AM until Noon at 1225
New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 (Metro Stop:
Metro Center). (August 10, 2004)
- The Election Assistance Commission makes public Election Day Tool Kit
The Election Assistance Commission released its recommendations under the heading
of Best Practices Tool
Kit. The Tool Kit is designed to assist local and state election officials in implementing the best methods for addressing potential
problems with voting technology. There recommendation on direct
recording electronic (DRE) voting machines seems to
be less detailed than other forms of voting technology addressed, which include:
lever voting machines, optical
scan voting systems, and punchcard
voting machines. August 9, 2004
- The House Committee on House Administration Holds Hearing
on E-voting Security. The House Committee on Government
Reform's Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations, and the Census held a hearing on "The
Science of Electronic Voting Machine Technology: Accuracy, Reliability,
and
Security” was
held in Room 2247 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The
National Committee for Voting Integrity member Avi Rubin testified.
Other testimony Randolph
Hite Director of the GAO, Dr. Hratch
Semerjian NIST, Terry
Jarrett General Council Secretary of State Missouri, Michael
Shamos Professor
Carnegie Mellon, Jim
Adler Founder and President of VoteHere, Sanford
J. Morganstein President Populex Corporation. (July 20, 2004)
- The National Academy of Sciences Holds Electronic Voting Workshop. Members of
the National Committee for Voting
Integrity, which include Dr. David Chaum,
Dr. Aviel Rubin, Dr. David Dill are panelist for the two day workshop on
Electronic Voting. The workshop covers the entire range
of issues related to electronic voting from beginning to end, that is, from
the point of capturing the voter’s intent to assuring an accurate final
tabulation of votes.The gathering is open to the public,
but participation will be limited to the invited panel participants. The
discussion
will take
place at the National Academies of Science Keck Center, Room 109, 500 5th
Street, NW, Washington, DC. (July 13-14, 2004)
- The U.S. Election Assistance Commission Chair's Statement
On Terrorism and the November Election. EAC Chair DeForrest Soaries
issued a statement rejecting any possible postponement or cancellation
of the November 2, 2004 election due to a terrorist attack. (July 13,
2004)
- The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Technical Guidelines
Development Committee Meets. The first meeting of the EAC's Technical
Guidelines Development Committee took place on July 9, 2004. The members
of the committee are Chair
Dr. Arden Bement, Hon. Donetta Davidson, Alice Miller, Sharon Turner-Buie,
Helen Purcell, James R. Harding, James Elekes, Anne Caldas, H. Stephen
Berger, Dr. Brittain Williams, Paul Craft, Dr. Ronald Rivest, Dr. Daniel
Schutzer (via phone), Patrick Gannon, and Whitney Quesenbery. (July 9,
2004)
- The National Committee for Voting Integrity (NCVI) joins the
LCCR at a Press Conference . The NCVI endorses the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights and the Brennan
Center's Recommendations to
Election Administrators that would address some of the security concerns
outlined by voting technology
experts. (June 29, 2004)
- The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) EAC Advisory Board
and Standards Board met in Houston, TX. The EAC held a 2 days
of public hearings in Houston Texas this week to allow its Board of Advisors
and Standards Board to discuss the National Institute of Standards and
Technology's (NIST) role and
their organizational
plans for the new
agency. (June 28-29, 2004)
- The House Committee on Science holds a hearing
on Voting Technology Standards. The House Science Committee's
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology,
and Standards held a Hearing on Testing
and Certification for Voting Equipment: How Can the Process Be Improved?
Witnesses heard by the Committee included Congressman Rush Holt, Carolyn
Coggins, Hratch
G. Semerjian, Michael
I. Shamos, and Thomas
Wilkey .(June
24, 2004)
- The House Committee on Rules and Administration to Hold EAC
Oversight Hearing. Oversight. The Hearing will look at the
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and Implementation
of the Help America Vote Act and what is planned between now and November 2004.
The Hearing will take place in room 1310 Longworth House Office
Building at 11:00 AM. (June 17, 2004)
- League of Women Voters Delegates Vote to Change
the Group's Position on Paperless DREs. The League of Women
voters convention held in Washington DC voted overwhelmingly to rescinded
its support of paperless voting machines of endorsing
paperless DRE voting machines to a neutral stand on all electronic
voting technology. (June 14, 2004)
- The U.S. Election Assistance
Commission (EAC)
Plans Chicago Hearing. On
June 3, 2004, at 9:00 AM the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission will meet at
the Water Tower Campus of Loyola University in Chicago, IL to "Conduct
a Public Hearing to Identify Best Practices, Problems
and Transition Issues Associated with Optical Scan, Punch Card,
and Lever Machine Voting Systems and the Success and Problems Identified
with the Use of Provisional Voting". The panels that will be presented:
Punch card Panel, Lever Machine Panel, Optical Scan Panel, and Provisional
Vote Panel.
- CANCELLEDThe House
Committee on Government Reform's
Subcommittee on Technology Hearing. On May 12, 2004, the hearing "The
Science of Electronic Voting Machine Technology: Accuracy, Reliability,
and Security” was held in Room
2247 of the Rayburn House Office Building.
- The U.S. Election Assistance Commission Held
Its First Public Hearing. On May 5, 2004, the hearing reviewed
the "Use, Security, and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems." The National
Committee for Voting Integrity (NCVI) submitted testimony to
the Commission for the hearing.
- The State of California Announced that
it is Decertifying Diebold TSx Voting Machine. California Secretary
of State Kevin Shelley made public the decision by the State of California
to ban the use in the November Election of any voting system that does not
provided a paper ballot. (April 30, 2004)
- The U.S. Election Assistance Commission Held
Its First Public Meeting. On March 23, 2004, DeForest Soaries,
Jr., Chairman, Vice Chair Commissioner Gracia M. Hillman,
Commissioner Paul S. DeGregorio and Commissioner Raymundo
Martinez III, held their first official
public meeting.
- CA
Audit Finds Diebold Used Uncertified Software. An audit
of Diebold Election Systems voting machines in
California has revealed that the company installed
uncertified software in all 17 counties that use its
electronic voting equipment. Diebold admitted wrongdoing at
a meeting of the state's Voting Systems Panel and said it
was making changes to its procedures for upgrading its
systems. The Voting Systems Panel is continuing to investigate whether
or not Diebold will be sanctioned for violating state election code.
- Ohio Suspends Electronic Voting Machine Use. Ohio Secretary
of State J. Kenneth Blackwell has halted the use of electronic voting machines
in the state until security weaknesses revealed in two state-commissioned
studies are resolved. A technical
analysis of four different electronic
voting systems used in the state and a report of
findings from on-sight inspection of
each vendor's security procedures revealed significant flaws. As a
result, Blackwell has suspended use of the Diebold, ES&S, Hart, and Sequoia
systems and will seek an extension of federally mandated Help America Vote
Act (HAVA) deadlines
in order to provide system manufacturers time to correct deficiencies. (December
4, 2003)
- California to Require Paper Printouts for Electronic Voting. California
Secretary of State Kevin Shelley announced (pdf)
that the state will require "Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails" for
all touch screen voting machines by 2006. The proposal is strongly
favored by technology experts, including members of the National
Committee for Voting Integrity. (November
21, 2003)
- New Voting Group Launched. The National
Committee for Voting Integrity held a press conference in Washington,
DC to urge Presidential candidates to address the integrity of electronic
voting systems. The
new organization, which consists of a host of voting experts from the fields
of technology, academia, politics, and media, has formed to promote voter-verified
balloting and to preserve privacy protections for elections in the United
States. (November 21, 2003)
- Library of Congress Releases Report on Electronic Voting
Machines. The Congressional Research Service
of the Library of Congress has presented to Congress a report entitled, "
Election Reform
and Electronic Voting Sytems (DRE's): Analysis of Security Issues." The
report analyzed the controversy surrounding DRE's but did not take a position
on how to resolve it. The report did, however,
state that "at least some current DRE's cleary exhibit security vulnerabilities."
- Diebold Faces Lawsuit in Battle with Students. The Electronic
Frontier Foundation and Stanford Law School's Center
for Internet and Society have
announced they will file a lawsuit requesting
a temporary restraining order against Diebold. The lawsuit is a response
to Diebold's series of cease-and-desist orders, which the company has sent
out to force websites to take down leaked
company memos.
- Students Battle Diebold Over Memos. Members of the Swarthmore
Coalition for the Digital Commons, a student organization at Swarthmore
College in Pennsylvania are taking
heat from Diebold Election Systems for hosting
web pages linked to thousands of leaked Diebold memos that detail flaws in
the company's voting
machine software. The company
claims posting such information is a violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright
Act, and has sent out cease-and-desist letters to force websites and ISP's
to take down the memos, which Swarthmore has complied with. However,
the students have continued to protest, claiming the company is suppressing
free speech. (November
2, 2003)
- Maryland Legislators Call for Audit of Study. Maryland state
legislators Sen. Paula C. Hollinger (D-Baltimore County) and Del. Sheila
Ellis Hixson
(D-Montgomery) have sent a letter to the director of the
Maryland Department of Legislative Services questioning the impartiality
of Science Application International Corp.'s report on Diebold voting
machines and requesting that the agency examine the process used to select
the firm
to
conduct the
review
of the
Diebold
system. Meanwhile, a new citizen organization, the Campaign
for Verifiable Voting in Maryland, has launched a campaign to
combat the implementation of Diebold voting machines in the state. (October
21, 2003)
- SAIC Releases Study on Voting Machines. Science Application International
Corp. has issued a report on
Diebold voting machines that was commissioned by the state of Maryland. The
report found multiple vulnerabilities in the system, but also stated that
the security
flaws could
be remedied with proper safeguards . As a result, Maryland has gone
ahead with its plans to purchase and implement the Diebold voting
system statewide. (September
23, 2003)
- Diebold Memo Admits Knowledge of Vulnerabilities. Journalists have
obtained copies of
internal mail from Diebold principal engineer R&D Ken Clark - then working
for Global Election Systems before Diebold took the company over - who confirms
the existence of security flaws
in the voting system's software. (September. 12, 2003)
- Maryland Gov. Commissions Review of Diebold Systems. Maryland Governor
Robert L. Erlich Jr., whose state had agreed to purchase $55.6 million of
Diebold
voting
machines, has arranged for an
independent
review
of the voting system by Science
Application International Corp. of San Diego. The
review comes on the heels of a report by a Johns Hopkins computer scientist
that the Diebold system has serious security flaws. (August
7, 2003)
-
Report Criticizes Deibold Voting System. Computer
Scientists from Johns Hopkins and Rice Universities released a
study of
the source code purported to be
part of Diebold Election System’s
Accu-Vote TS voting software. They found “significant and wide
reaching security vulnerabilities,” including the ability of
voters to illegally cast multiple ballots, view partial election results,
and
prematurely
terminate
elections, as well as lack of protection of voting info when traveling
over network
connections.
(July, 2003)
- Congressman Promotes "Voter Confidence" Bill. Representative
Rush Holt (D-NJ) has introduced the "Voter
Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003" (HR 2239), which
would require states to use election equipment that provides a voter-verified
permanent paper record. The bill is currently being debated in the
Committee on House Administration. (May 22, 2003)
Overview
The 2000 election brought the systemic problems in our nation’s electoral
process that had existed for decades to the attention of the mainstream media,
a majority of voters, policy makers, and international observers. A confluence
of the perfect political storm occurred when the margin of electoral votes
between the top two candidates was only five votes. There were only two other
states with more electoral votes than Florida, California with 54 and Texas
with 32. Because of the narrow margin separating the candidates in the Florida
2000 Presidential Election, the winner of that electoral rich state would be
declared the next President of the United States. The post-election battle
for the White House began in Florida and eventually was decided by the United
States Supreme Court. The impact of this Supreme Court decision changed the
resource allocation of candidates in post 2000 elections to include the retaining
of attorneys.
In 2000, the focus was on Florida, but the problems in that state were repeated
in many others. That presidential year was like any other except for one fact—the
deciding margin of victory was only 537 votes. This number is dwarfed by the
number of voters disenfranchised according to the CalTech MIT Study “Voting:
What Is What Could Be,” which records that between 4 and 6 million votes
were lost in the 2000 election.6 The study attributed the loss to problems
with voter registration or polling place practices and problems with ballots.
As a consequence, voters received a rude introduction to the reality of elections
in the United States—not every vote cast was counted.
In reply to the crisis of the Presidential Election of 2000, the federal government
attempted to clarify and codify voting rights in the United States for the
2004 election through the enactment and implementation of the Help America
Vote Act (HAVA) Law. However, this law was in many ways too little too late.
HAVA, for the first time in the nation’s history, established a role
for the federal government in public elections held to fill federal elected
offices. The establishment of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
in statute did not translate into expedited action on the part of policymakers
to appoint the EAC leadership. The four Commissioners, two Democrats Gracia
Hillman and Ray Martinez and two Republicans, DeForest B. Soaries and Paul
DeGregorio who were selected to serve as the first EAC Commission were not
sworn into office until December 12, 2003.
The EAC Commissioners received only
$1.2 million in funding for Fiscal year 2004 and did not move into their own
offices until April 1, 2004 seven months prior to the election. The new law
included a directive to states to create statewide voter registration databases,
identification, and new requirements for first time-registered voters. To accomplish
these objectives the law provided over $3 billion in federal funds to be allocated
to states under the guidance of the EAC. However, the EAC lacked the time and
funding recourses necessary to ensure that the goals of election reform outlined
in HAVA were accomplished. EAC’s late start did not allow them the time
that was necessary to develop federal standards that would guide the states
in the use of the funds made available. In particular, the Technical Guidelines
Development Committee (TGDC), a technical advisory body to the EAC charged
with the development of voluntary standards for voting technology met for the
first time on July 9, 2004
Under HAVA, states retain control of the election process, but they must meet
minimum standards set forth in HAVA. HAVA was generally popular among members
of Congress, yet received some criticism because it required more stringent
voter identification procedures. HAVA passed 92 to 2 in the Senate and 357
to 48 in the House with bi-partisan support. Id. HAVA also required voters
to provide either a state driver's license number or the last four digits of
their Social Security Number (SSN) if they did not have driver's licenses.9
HAVA also required election officials to verify voters’ identification
with administrative agencies (i.e., comparing driver's licenses with local
Departments of Motor Vehicles and SSNs with the Social Security Administration.)
Dissenters feared that the new requirements would “raise hurdles to registration
and voting by poor people and members of minority groups, especially Hispanics.”
In particular, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton remarked that HAVA “would
probably ‘repress voter participation’ by recently naturalized
American citizens, homeless people and millions of New Yorkers who have no
driver's license.” Id. Supporters of the stricter identification requirements
countered that the measures were important because “illegal votes dilute
the value of legally cast votes.” Id. According to Senator Bond of Missouri, “If
your vote is canceled by the vote of a dog or a dead person, it's as if you
did not have a right to vote.” While attempting to strengthen the
integrity of the electoral process by requiring stronger voter identification
requirements, HAVA did little to address the potential problems of skewed election
outcomes if the electronic voting machines are faulty or rigged.
The transactions associated with voting unlike other exchanges in society,
require privacy for individual voters and transparency of the overall voting
system.19 The conundrum presented by paperless DRE voting technology further
complicates this transaction of voter choice and privacy in a populous self-governing
matrix of nearly 200 million potential participants by not producing a physical
audit instrument that is verified by each voter at his or her choice. It appears
to be a daunting challenge, which will require strong Federal support for research
and development as new generations of voting technology emerge.
Poll Workers and Voter Privacy
According to the CalTech MIT Study “Voting: What Is What Could Be,” between
4 and 6 million votes were lost in the 2000 election.20 The study attributed
the loss to problems with voter registration or polling place practices and
problems with ballots.
Elections systems rely on voluntary participation of poll workers and voters.
The major challenge of election systems is to create ease of use in a process
that is done very infrequently. At most, the greatest voter participation is
seen during presidential election years, which occur once every four years.
Problems with the DRE machines
- Lack of transparency. DRE makers such as Diebold, Sequoia and
ES&S
refuse to make their software code available to the public to assess,
nor are they willing to publicize the kind of testing they do.
- Inadequate testing of software. Voting machines are currently
certified by states through a Qualification Process overseen by the National
Organization of State Election Directors and based on 2002 Federal Election
Commission guidelines. The method of testing has not been released
to the public, but it is known that the process allows for the inclusion
of
secret code and the use of commercial software products
without
certification,
and
has been criticized by computer scientists and engineers, including the California
Touch Screen Task Force and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility,
as extremely inadequte.
- Prone to defects and errors. It is nearly impossible to write
bug-free software, and
studies conducted by Johns
Hopkins researchers and Science
Application International Corp. have indeed found that the DRE machines
currently on the market are vulnerable to software bugs that could
affect election results. Hardware defects also occur with alarming
frequency. Lax testing standards fail to catch many of these system
errors.
- Vulnerability to fraud. The Johns Hopkins study found that DRE machine
security safeguards are "far below even the most minimal security standards
applicable in other contexts." As a result, these systems are
vulnerable to both insider and outsider attacks. One of the most glaring
examples of a security vulnerability is the study's finding that voters can
program their own "smartcards" — which are used to certify
identity at the voting terminals — and then use them to cast multiple
ballots. The
study also found that voters can hack into voting records, view partial election
results, and cause elections to terminate early. Insiders, including election
officials and poll workers, were also found to be capable of manipulating
the system. While improved use of cryptography and security measures
could improve some of these flaws, even thorough testing cannot reveal some
types of malicious code.
- Lack of audit ability. The threat of bugs and security failures
are magnified by the fact that none of the DRE machines currently on the
market create a hard copy of voters' results, also known as a "paper
trail." The lack of a paper record of one's vote makes it impossible
to verify if the computer has, indeed, recorded your vote in the system
as it is shown on the screen. Furthermore, lack of a paper record makes
meaningful recounts or audits impossible because
any
recount
would simply corroborate the same count the computer made the first time
and would not catch any errors. To make DRE voting systems accountable
to voters and auditable in the event of a recount, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ)
has
proposed
a
bill entitled
the Voter
Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 (HR 2239) that would
require all electronic voting machines to produce a voter-verified permanent
paper record.
Privacy Implications
The secrecy and the security of the vote are integral to America's voting
system, and both are in jeopardy when DRE machines are used in elections. In
addition to the discussion above, two related issues arise from DRE
voting systems and the Help America Vote Act.
- Anonymity vs. Audit ablity. Anonymity is a fundamental aspect of
voting rights in the U.S. DRE machines make it difficult to have both
audit ability and anonymity in the voting process. In the current system,
to make voting results
anonymous,
these machines randomize the voting sequence, which also makes it
impossible to track their accuracy.
- Voter Database. HAVA requires states to have “a single, uniform,
official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration
list” which
includes the name and registration information (including driver’s
license number or last 4 digits of social security number) of every
voter, will be available to "all election officials in the State." It
does not stipulate security standards to protect this information,
only
stating that “state or local official shall provide adequate
technological security measures to prevent the unauthorized access
to the computerized
list.” The law does state that the information “shall
be considered strictly confidential and shall be used only for the
purposes” of
voting and that violating said confidentiality constitutes a felony.
Other Voting Systems
- Optical scan voting systems. An optical scan system use ballots
similar to multiple-choice tests, where voters fill in bubbles (aka
"scan targets") for corresponding candidates. It is by definition
voter-verifiable. Problems arise, however, when voters do not correctly
mark their choices. Ballots also become unwieldy in voting venues
with large numbers of offices, candidates and propositions, and with multi-lingual
requirements. However, one company, Vogue Election Systems, is working
on a touch-screen voting machine that would mark an optical-scan sheet
of
the voters choices.
This system appears to remedy the most pressing problems with
both the DRE and optical scan systems, but it has not yet been tested or
certified.
- Internet voting. The U.S. government is currently experimenting
with the practice of internet voting, having established a system called
SERVE (Secure
Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment) to allow military and civilians
citizens overseas to vote online. However, security experts say
that Internet voting is vulnerable to disruption from viruses and server-based
attacks.
Voting Issues in the News
- Democrats
sue over electronic voting machines, News 8 Austin, February 18, 2007
- Princeton
Professor Finds No Hardware Security In E-Voting Machine , Info. Week,
February 16, 2007
- City:
No e-voting deal without software details Examiner, February 15, 2007
- Can
mailbox become new ballot box?, Indianapolis Star, February 12, 2007
- Electronic
Voting Machines to get Legal Challenge, Associate Press, 6 Action News,
February 11, 2007
- Feds
defend oversight of e-voting testing, CNet News.com, February 8, 2007
- Vote
cards fail, delaying results, The Plain Dealer, February 8, 2007
- Elections
chief in Ohio's largest county resigns, Coshocton Tribune, February
7, 2007
- Mail-only
elections on considered, Mercury News, February 7, 2007
- Politicians
call for e-voting paper trails by '08 election, CNet News.com, February
7, 2007
- Broken
water pipe soaks voting screens, The Tribune-Democrat, February 6,
2007
- Congressman
renews push for e-vote paper trails, Computerworld, February
6, 2007
- Cuyahoga
County elections chief resigns, Toledo Blade, February 6, 2007
- Fla.
governor looks to replace touch-screen voting in 17 counties, Computerworld,
February 2, 2007
- Florida's
New Governor Announces an End to Paperless Voting, New York Times, February
2, 2007
- Electronic
voting firm acknowledges hacker break-in. USA Today, December
29, 2003.
- E-Voting
Undermined by Sloppiness. Wired News, December 18, 2003.
- Considering
Computer Voting. New York Times, December 15, 2003.
- Voting
Process Too Important to Leave to Technology. USA Today, December 11,
2003.
- Voting-Machine
Makers To Fight Security Criticism. Washington Post, December
9, 2003.
- States
Scrutinize E-Voting as Primaries Near. CNet, December 8, 2003.
- Edwards
Calls on Bush to Return Funds from Diebold Exec. USA Today, December
5, 2003.
- No Confidence Vote: Why the Current Touch Screen Voting Fiasco Was Pretty
Much
Inevitable. PBS, December 4, 2003.
- Ohio
Halts E-Voting Machines. Wired News, December 3, 2003.
- Diebold
drops legal case against speech advocates. San Jose Mercury,
December 2, 2003.
- Hack
the Vote. New York Times, December 2, 2003.
- New Coalition
Raises Concerns About E-Voting. IDG News Service, November
21, 2003.
- Council
yanks voting machine funding. Los Alamos Monitor, November
21, 2003.
- Internet
Voting Stirs Debate in Michigan. USA Today, November 20, 2003.
- Republicans
Back E-Vote Bill. Wired News, November 20, 2003.
- Fairfax
To Probe Voting Machines. Washington Post, November 18, 2003
- E-Vote
Firm's Bill Comes Due. Wired News, November 11, 2003.
- Machine
Politics in the Digital Age. New York Times, November 10, 2003.
- An
Introduction to E-Voting. Washington Post, November 10, 2003.
- Fairfax
Judge Orders Logs of Voting Machines Inspected. Washington
Post, November 6, 2003.
- Glitches
Prompt GOP Suit Over Fairfax Tabulations. Washington Post, November
5, 2003.
- Aussies
Do It Right: E-Voting. Wired News, November 3, 2003.
- Students Buck DMCA
Threat. CNET News.com, November 3, 2003.
- California
Halts E-Vote Certification. Wired News, November 3, 2003.
- File
Sharing Pits Copyright Against Free Speech. New York Times, November
3, 2003.
- Black Box
Voting Blues. MSNBC, November 3, 2003.
- E-Vote
Software Leaked Online. Wired
News, October 29, 2003.
- Students
Fight E-Vote Firm. Wired News, October 21, 2003
- Electronic
Voting: What You Need to Know. Truthout.org, October 20, 2003.
- All
the President's Votes? The Independent (UK), October 14, 2003.
- Did E-Vote
Firm Patch Election? Wired News, October 13, 2003.
- Stealing
Our Votes. Austin Chronicle, October 10, 2003.
- Recount
Procedures Questioned in California Election. San Francisco Chronicle,
October 3, 2003
- Ohio
Replaces Voting Machine Reviewer. Cleveland Plain Dealer, September
30, 2003.
- A
Vote Against the Computerized Ballot. Technology Review,
September 24, 2003.
- Voting
Machine Controversy. Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 28, 2003.
- No Consensus
on Voting Issues. Wired News, August 27, 2003.
- Forsyth
County Woman Issues a Challenge. AccessNorthGa.com, August 25, 2003
- More
Calls to Vet Voting Machines. Wired News, August 4, 2003.
- Voting
Machine Fails Inspection. CNET News.com, July 24, 2003.
- Voting
Machines Need Paper Trails. San Jose Mercury News, July 20, 2003.
- Bald-Faced
Lies About Black Box Voting Machines. Scoop.com, July 10, 2003.
- If You Want To
Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines. Commondreams.org,
January 31, 2003.
- Computerized
Balloting is Taking Over Elections In Maryland--But Can We Trust the Results? Baltimore City Paper, December 11, 2002.
- How
Florida's Voting Machine Failed (Again). Baseline Magazine, October
10, 2002.
- Pinellas
Delays Voting Machine Decision. St. Petersburg Times, October 31,
2001.
- Updating
voting machines could take a decade. USA Today, February 15, 2001.
Resources
- EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County Indiana
- Fair Elections:
International Election Observation 2004. For the first
time in U.S. History international election observers were present to record
the conditions of democratic elections in this nation.
- VerifiedVoting.org.
Web site maintained by Stanford computer science professor David Dill to
provide information about the dangers of electronic voting systems and encourage
activism to protect voter rights.
- Rebecca Mercuri's Electronic
Voting page. Mercuri, an e-voting expert, has compiled a site full
of academic research, writing, and references on electronic voting.
- Federal Elections Commission government
web site.
- BlackBoxVoting.org.
A research and activism web site coordinated by Bev Harris, author of Black
Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century.
- The Center for Voting
and Democracy web site. A non-profit organization dedicated to fair
elections where every vote counts and all voters are represented.
- Electionline.org.
A non-partisan, non-advocacy web site produced by the Election Reform Information
Project providing up-to-the-minute news and analysis on election reform.
- Vote Watch web
site. A nonprofit, non-partisan organization of that monitors public elections
in the U.S.
- Talion.com. A
web site authored by Bev Harris that includes information on the companies
that make voting machines and potential conflicts of interest.
- Election Guardians web
site. A non-partisan, non-profit organization whose mission
is to restore and institutionalize a voting system that is free
of fraud and manipulation.
- Campaign
for Verifiable Voting in Maryland web site. The site for a Maryland organization
of citizen volunteers dedicated to preserving the integrity of the state's
elections.
- Voting Technology
page of the California Voter Foundation.
- Voting Machines:
Vote Tampering in the 21st Century. Web page at WhoseFlorida.com,
a resource and clearinghouse of information dedicated to helping the people
of Florida regain their voice in government.
- Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition web site.
- ACLU
of Florida report on disenfranchisement in Miami-Dade County. ACLU
study shows voting errors in 2002 Florida election disproportionately affected
minorities.
- Voting
Rights Fact Sheet from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
- USACM
Policy Brief - E-Voting Technology and Standards. U.S. Public
Policy Committee of the Association for Computing Machinery page on electronic
voting issues.
- Report of
the Ad Hoc Touch Screen Taskforce of California.
- Comments
on the California Touch Screen Task Force Report by Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility.
- Voting
and Technology article by Bruce Schneier, from the Crypto-Gram newsletter.
- Declaration of Peter
Neumann before a U.S. District Court regarding electronic
voting.
- Who
Gets to Count Your Vote? Comments on electronic voting by Barbara
Simons.
- The
Diebold AccuVote TS Should be Decertified: And what this tells us about
the certification process. Paper by Dr. Doug Jones, University of Iowa,
Computer Science Department.
- List
of voting machine errors compiled by Bev Harris.
- The History
of the Voting Machine at About.com.
ACTION ALERT
Endorse the resolution on
voter-verified paper ballots sponsored by Verified
Voting.
EPIC Privacy Page | EPIC
Home Page
Last Updated:
October 20, 2008
Page URL: http://www.epic.org/privacy/voting/default.html