Voting Vendor Lacks Paper Trail

[Edit notes moved to the bottom of this post, Greg]

When Diebold declined to share proprietary software with NC elections officials in 2005, Electronic Systems and Software (ES&S), through Printelect, became the only approved vendor of election equipment in North Carolina. Printelect is a North Carolina company with offices in New Bern and printing operations in Fayetteville. Printelect is the authorized dealer for ES&S in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia and the only ES&S certified printing vendor in these states. Printelect specializes in printed optical scan ballots which it supplies nationwide as well as providing other election related products.

Printelect is presented on company websites as "Printelect, Inc.," and as the "Owen G. Dunn Company" doing business as "Printelect". The NC Secretary of State's Office has no record of a corporate filing for "Printelect, Inc.," either as a new company, name change or merger. The last Annual Report filed by the Owen G. Dunn Company was for the fiscal year ending 12/31/2004. The company also operates "Dunn's Office Solutions" in New Bern.

Searches of the records of the Registers of Deeds in Cumberland County, Craven County and Wake County do not indicate the filing of any Assumed Name Forms for an entity named Printelect. The only related filing was in 1998 in Cumberland County for the "Owen G. Dunn Company" DBA "Fayetteville Printing and Office Supply Company".

Since 2006 there have been some concerns about the cost of printed optical ballots for ES&S machines due to very specific requirements mandated by ES&S which amount to a 20 cent premium per ballot.

In Wake County, N.C., which uses ES&S optical scan machines, Board of Elections Director Cherie Poucher said a local, non-ES&S certified vendor, Commercial Printing, charges no more than 13 cents per ballot. Printelect charges up to 33 cents per ballot.
Poucher said her elections office felt it was wise to use Printelect for the 2006 primary and general elections because those were the first elections using new state-required voting equipment.

By all accounts Printelect is a responsible and reliable vendor and election observers are relieved that Diebold did not succeed in 2005. At a meeting of the Forsyth Board of Elections in 2006 Joyce McCloy of the NC Coalition for Verified Voters commended the Board for not choosing Diebold voting equipment. At the same meeting Elections Director Rob Mr. Coffman discussed the printing of the ballot:

He stated he got a quote from PrintElect, who was an ES&S recommended vendor, and the ballots would cost 28 cents each. He received a quote from another ES&S certified printer in Michigan and the ballots would be 14 cents each. He explained had talked with the State Board of Elections and they were fine with using the Michigan printer on the condition they get ballots to test and are able to confirm the quality of the ballots.

From Printelect.com and PrintelectStore.com

Printelect, Inc., located in Fayetteville, North Carolina, formerly Owen G. Dunn Company and Fayetteville Printing Company have been in business combined for over 176 years. We have printed optical scan ballots since their introduction in the Southeast in 1976.
:::::
Today, we are the largest printer of optical scan ballots on the east coast, and one of the largest in the United States. In most election years, we will produce over 10 million ballots. We currently furnish most optical scan ballots used in North Carolina, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, Missouri, Alaska, Virginia and New Mexico.
:::::
Originally trained and certified by Election Systems and Software (ES&S), we print ballots for the Optech III-P Eagle and Optech III-P machines. We work together with your ballot programmer in answering any technical questions which may arise concerning your ballots.

I am not a connoisseur of elections, election equipment or procedures. Others are much more knowledgeable (and opinionated) than me on the subject. From what I know optical scan technology is very reliable, ES&S is deemed superior to Diebold in North Carolina and Printelect has been dependable. I have always been troubled by the sole sourcing of equipment, supplies and service. For matters related to the integrity and security of voting I would however expect the credentials of vendors to be impeccable and verifiable. When voter registration criteria, including identity and location, are contentious I don't think it is too much to ask that Printelect formally register where it conducts business.

Q. How long has Printelect been in the elections business?
A. Formerly Owen G. Dunn Company, founded in 1902, in New Bern, North Carolina, Printelect has been in the election industry for over one hundred years. As the largest printer of optical scan ballots and one of the largest printers in the country, we currently furnish millions of ballots throughout the United States annually. As an authorized dealer for Election Systems and Software (ES&S) in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia, we have extensive experience with optical scan and DRE technology. Printelect has installed and maintained the state-wide voting systems in both North Carolina and South Carolina and we are currently growing transactions throughout Virginia. Our corporate office is located in New Bern, North Carolina and our printing facility (formerly Fayetteville Printing and Office Supply) is located in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

[Edit notes moved to the bottom of this post and retained for the record. I believe the questions raised have been addressed. Greg]

NOTE: NC Voter has links to the Secretary of State filings, which suggest Greg may have missed a document in his research. I'm leaving this up on the front-page until he has a chance to weigh in. Don't you just love the interTubes? The truth will out.

Would the person who has inserted this edit please identify themselves and note my comments below. My information comes from the same document. I have not missed it. Greg

My mistake. A. Sorry for the confusion.

Comments

Drama Queen, I answered that here

Drama Queen, I answered why I am not calling the vendor and the rest already here

I'm not big on reading comments full of bold remarks

Hard on my eyes.

News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,

Plus

it comes across as yelling, more that you probably intend.

Whatever.

Just whatever, Joyce.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

New Rules, Everybody!

Based on the comment above:

If you refer to information on a website, you must call the website's owner to verify the information. For example, it is now to be considered spurious aspersion-casting to post today's high and low temperatures without calling the Weather Channel's corporate office first.
If you are concerned about elections, call the State Board of Elections. This is like "honk if you love jesus", but probably won't fit as nicely on a bumper sticker. Please do not claim to care about elections if you can't be bothered to pick up the phone and just ask how the SBOE is doing once in a while.
If you write about any person (including business entities), you must call them for a response. Have something to say about the governor? Have you called him first? If the person you're writing about is dead and you have not attempted to contact them, please explain whether you considered a seance and why you decided against it. (You religion, for example, might forbid fact-checking with the dead.)
Break any of the rules above, and you are for gossup sake. (I believe this to have something to do with the fermentation of rice, but you really don't want to find out for sure -- it's a bad thing to be for gossup sake).

Lance, what makes you think I'm not already

following all those rules? Me and Pat talk daily. We're best buds. And I know his spokesman Aaron Latham will soon get back to me on my email from six weeks ago. The intern at his Capitol Hill office swore he would return my email so I know he will.

And the State Board of Elections loves being called to confirm every single statistic I quote. They have all the time in the world to talk to me. Especially now that I've moved out of state.

And, as we know, no one ever lies over the phone. And while most of us work regular hours, I'm sure that people want to be called on nights and weekends.

You're a genius, Lance.

News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,

He is a genius.

I'm serious.

Put on your tinfoil hats,

because I've got a whopper of a conspiracy theory. It's not really mine, I've just tweaked it a little.

Okay, so I'm scouring the SoS Corporation filing thing, trying to find out the who's and what's, and something caught my eye. I saw the same last name appear on the list of officers for both Diebold and ES&S, the name being Urosevich:

http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/imaging/Dime/IVTIFF_15886017.pdf

http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/imaging/Dime/IVTIFF_16720449.pdf

Robert Urosevich being the President of Diebold and his brother Todd being a Vice President of ES&S. /:0

So then I checked the brothers out, and came across some other stuff about their business history:

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html

While Diebold has received the most attention, it actually isn't the biggest maker of computerized election machines. That honor goes to Omaha-based ES&S, and its Republican roots may be even stronger than Diebold's.

The firm, which is privately held, began as a company called Data Mark, which was founded in the early 1980s by Bob and Todd Urosevich. In 1984, brothers William and Robert Ahmanson bought a 68 percent stake in Data Mark, and changed the company's name to American Information Services (AIS). Then, in 1987, McCarthy & Co, an Omaha investment group, acquired a minority share in AIS.

In 1992, investment banker Chuck Hagel, president of McCarthy & Co, became chairman of AIS. Hagel, who had been touted as a possible Senate candidate in 1993, was again on the list of likely GOP contenders heading into the 1996 contest. In January of 1995, while still chairman of ES&S, Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald that he would likely make a decision by mid-March of 1995. On March 15, according to a letter provided by Hagel's Senate staff, he resigned from the AIS board, noting that he intended to announce his candidacy. A few days later, he did just that.

A little less than eight months after steppind down as director of AIS, Hagel surprised national pundits and defied early polls by defeating Benjamin Nelson, the state's popular former governor. It was Hagel's first try for public office. Nebraska elections officials told The Hill that machines made by AIS probably tallied 85 percent of the votes cast in the 1996 vote, although Nelson never drew attention to the connection. Hagel won again in 2002, by a far healthier margin. That vote is still angrily disputed by Hagel's Democratic opponent, Charlie Matulka, who did try to make Hagel's ties to ES&S an issue in the race and who asked that state elections officials conduct a hand recount of the vote. That request was rebuffed, because Hagel's margin of victory was so large.

As might be expected, Hagel has been generously supported by his investment partners at McCarthy & Co. -- since he first ran, Hagel has received about $15,000 in campaign contributions from McCarthy & Co. executives. And Hagel still owns more than $1 million in stock in McCarthy & Co., which still owns a quarter of ES&S.

If the Republican ties at Diebold and ES&S aren't enough to cause concern, argues election reform activist Bev Harris, the companies' past performances and current practices should be. Harris is author of Black Box Voting, and the woman behind the BlackBoxVoting.com web site.

So, two brothers, each an officer of companies competing(?) with each other along with a third (barely qualified?) company to provide election machinery. When the smoke clears, one is left standing.

I'm going crosseyed here. I'll be back.

Hey Boss! This mirco-chip says approve by RNC?

Nebraska elections officials told The Hill that machines made by AIS probably tallied 85 percent of the votes cast in the 1996 vote, although Nelson never drew attention to the connection. Hagel won again in 2002, by a far healthier margin. *sH

No big deal! If somebody told you to resign since it was in the bag! For what is worth! 4 campaigns in this state were affected by the Republican mirco-chip switch and bait scam in 06.

that isn't tinfoil, here's current info on voting vendors

The family tree of e-voting vendors has been a concern for e-voting activists for years. I hadn't heard that the Urosevich brothers were still execs in both companies. I have forwarded that information to a journalist to see if she knows differently.

Now:for an update:

ownership of these companies has changed several times over the years.

SEQUOIA

Sequoia has been owned by"
1. Ireland-based Jefferson Smurfit Group PLC, a paper and packaging company, then by
2. De La Rue, PLC, the world's largest commercial security printer and papermaker, and gambling enterprise, then by
3. Smartmatic Corp, a Boca Raton, Florida company, whose president is Antonio Mugica Rivero with Venezuelan ties.
See Twists and Turns - Who Owns Sequoia? February 13, 2006 for the full article.

DIEBOLD

Diebold has divested itself of DESI, its elections division and renaming it "Premier Elections Systems".
See "Ballot is in at vote-count firm: Divestiture wins" September 10, 2007 for the full article.

ES&S

The McCarthy Group owns about 25 percent of ES&S, and The Omaha World-Herald Co., parent company of the Omaha World-Herald, owns part of ES&S as well. See "How E-Voting Threatens Democracy" 03.29.04

It looks like Diebold and Sequoia are trying to keep a presence in NC in case something changes, like someone manages to repeal our law, or weaken it.

Also, Diebold has a factory in North Carolina, where they manufacture the touch-screens. Its about 30 miles from my home. Naturally they would want representation within our state.

Since our state has new voting machines, there isn't that much to sell right now, unless we go paperless again.

Diebold's previous lobbyist was a former democratic state senator, who resigned as their lobbyist in March of 2006. He was not supportive of Diebold's move to gut our law, and supported paper ballots as well.

If any vendor can meet the requirements of our law without it being weakened or gutted - then that combined with audits and voter verified paper ballots could only serve to encourage their best behavior. Audits and recounts would expose most problems or malfeasance on their part. In which case they would face civil and/or criminal penalties

SOME WISDOM:

"Every voting system (perhaps every system of any kind) is insecure. Making them more secure is a desirable secondary priority, but unless we focus everyone on ensuring both auditability and effective auditing, we're just going to create an impossible muddle." ~ Dr. David L. Dill, Founder of the Verified Voting Foundation .

And here's a business connection

between ES&S and Sequoia, where they purchased BRC Holdings' election stuff:

http://www.secinfo.com/d68Dc.76.htm

On November 20, 1997, the Company consummated its sale of the assets of
its election business to Election Systems and Software, Inc. ("ES&S") and
the Sequoia Pacific Systems Division of The Smurfit Packaging Corporation
("Sequoia"). As a result of the sale, the Company entered into transition
agreements to operate the Berkeley, California and Rockford, Illinois
facilities for a maximum period of two years for the benefit of ES&S and
Sequoia. Under its agreements with ES&S and Sequoia, BRC is to be
reimbursed for costs it incurs during these transition periods. In July
1998, the Company received notice from ES&S and Sequoia that the
transition periods would be concluded in November 1998 for both
facilities. Accordingly, the Company will continue to reflect the
activity of these operations as a discontinued operation through November
1998. The Company had no material net assets of discontinued operations
as of September 30, 1998.

Also, it appears that Diebold and Sequoia share the same agent (lawyers) in Raleigh, which is a field office of C.T. Corporation System:

http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/Agent.aspx?AgentId=1356273

Once, when I was in an especially cranky mood, and a friend of mine was pontificating about how great Democracies were compared to other, more authoritarian regimes, I spat something like, "The only difference is, we actually believe we have choices."

There's another difference, sc.

At least for a while, we can still ask questions. Even if some people think it's rude or irresponsible to ask questions. In fact, that's what keeps us a functioning democracy, in my opinion. Keep on asking, keep on digging.

Interesting linkages, eh?

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

While there doesn't appear

to be much choice re availability of voting machines (which sucks), I'm really surprised there aren't more people up in arms about ES&S being the exclusive supplier in N.C. And you may be able to choose who prints the ballot paper, but you must buy the paper itself from ES&S:

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/voterweb/votingequ.htm

Q: Why does the certified printer have to buy the paper stock from ES&S?

A: M100 ballot stock is manufactured specifically for ES&S to meet their requirements for opacity, brightness, density, and smoothness, and milled and cut to within a 1/32" margin of error – standard paper merchant paper stock would be unacceptable. Additionally, the manufacturing process assures a lack of residue on the ballot stock which would otherwise build up within the M100 units themselves.

Q: We purchased the ES&S "Ballot on Demand" printer/system. Do we have to buy our ballot stock from ES&S?

A: Yes. See above.

I understand our need to move to verifiable (printed paper) ballots, but the more I search for information about ES&S, the less confident I am about our ability to make sure they conform to the new laws that appear to have been specifically written because of their prior behavior. It's almost like...tailored parole requirements for an ex-convict.

They are under investigation in several areas/states, most notably in California. A hearing is scheduled for next week:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ess_automark_public_hearing_notice_080907.pdf

where they are facing possible heavy fines and decertification.

And now they are our sole supplier.

here's what law says about ballot printing

Icloud, you are citing what was on the SBOE website, which they put up last year somewhere around April -May 2006. For the first times the new machines are used, it was recommended they use the vendor's paper.

Counties don't have to "outsource" ballot printing-see law

Counties can purchase the ballots from the ES&S rep, or they can obtain their ballots from any printer that meets standards as set by the State Board of Elections. In fact, they could set up their own print shop, if they wanted to.

The language requiring ballots is very specific in SL 2007-0391

SECTION 25. G.S. 163‑165.9 reads as rewritten:

"§ 163‑165.9. Voting systems: powers and duties of county board of elections.

(b) After the acquisition of any voting system, the county board of elections shall comply with any requirements of the State Board of Elections regarding training and support of the voting system.system by completing all of the following:

...(1) The county board of elections shall comply with all specifications of its voting system vendor for ballot printers. The county board of elections is authorized to contract with noncertified ballot printing vendors, so long as the noncertified ballot printing vendor meets all specifications and all quality assurance requirements as set by the State Board of Elections.

The ballots must be very precisely printed, if they are off just a little bit, they might not be counted by the machines.

Some election directors I have talked with prefer to use ES&S for their ballot printing because they don't have a vendor that can print the ballots up to standard. Other counties, especially large ones - often have local printers who have been printing ballots for years and can meet the standards.

Joyce,

I think you're confused. I didn't cite anything from the SBOE website. I just told scharrison to keep digging.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

scharrison, please see link r/e ballot printing & law

Scharrison, please see comments addressing ballot printing.

Counties CAN use uncertified pritners to purchase their ballots, and more details provided here.

previous post addressed to icloud in error.

I saw that, Joyce

Counties CAN use uncertified pritners to purchase their ballots, and more details provided here.

but (according to the SBOE website), these other printers still have to purchase the actual paper stock from ES&S. Which means, once the machine is purchased, ES&S is free to charge an exhorbitant price for their paper, thanks to their exclusivity. This is nothing "out of the ordinary" in the business world—they're merely recouping lost profits from the printing part by catching you on the paper supply (which by the way, there are numerous paper suppliers who can meet any specs required).

By the way, thanks for your advocacy. Also, can you come back next week after the hearing in California, so we can talk about whatever steps they took against ES&S? If they do lose their certification in California, it might be something that needs to be passed along to the N.C. municipalities contemplating purchasing equipment and (required) training from ES&S.

California story and how it impacts NC

Also, can you come back next week after the hearing in California, so we can talk about whatever steps they took against ES&S? If they do lose their certification in California, it might be something that needs to be passed along to the N.C. municipalities contemplating purchasing equipment and (required) training from ES&S.

Actually, the California decision won't impact NC. It is about California law and how that law was violated there.

At issue:

ES&S sold California a model of Automark - the Model A-200 - that had not been federally certified at the timeand represented the machines as if they were.

North Carolina purchased the Automark A-100, which WAS federally certified prior to the state approving the machines.

Here is an account of what is happening in California from Wired News, written by award winning journalist Kim Zetter - who I consider to be a very reliable source for e-voting news:

ES&S to be Rebuked, Fined and Possibly Banned in CA?

By Kim Zetter August 21, 2007 | 3:12:02 PMCategories: E-Voting, Election '08
California announced today that it plans to hold an administrative hearing on September 20th to discuss the fate of Election Systems & Software for violating state election codes. ES&S, the top voting machine company in the country, is being accused of selling at least five CA counties a version of its AutoMark ballot marking system that hadn't yet been tested or certified for use in the state or the country.

...The AutoMark A100 was certified for use in California in August 2005. However, in 2006, ES&S, by its own admission, sold about 1,000 units of its subsequent AutoMark model -- the A200 version -- to five CA counties months before the system passed federal qualification testing in August 2006.

NC purchased a different model, the ES&S AutoMARK Software Version: 1.0 NASED/EAC # N-1-16-22-12-001 which was federally certified when NC purchased it in early 2005.

In early 2005, North Carolina received all of its voting machines through a central warehouse in North Carolina where the State Board of Elections and its IT staff oversaw testing of the equipment.

We had concerns back in 2004 about uncertified software, and asked that the Public Confidence in Elections Law address that issue. Voting machine vendors have shipped uncertified systems to various states. We cited examples of this very problem occuring in Indiana - as a reason for our lawmakers to provide requirements and penalties. Senator Ellie Kinnaird even read a specific account to the other lawmakers in one meeting when the vendors were demonstrating their machines to NC lawmakers. California has also had problems with this before, from Diebold as well. It appears to be a common problem in other states,

NC law has penalties for this type of thing, so if it comes up, then the SBOE will have to deal with it. The law addresses the issue.

"Every voting system (perhaps every system of any kind) is insecure. Making them more secure is a desirable secondary priority, but unless we focus everyone on ensuring both auditability and effective auditing, we're just going to create an impossible muddle." ~ Dr. David L. Dill, Founder of the Verified Voting Foundation

The problem isn't as easily solved as we wished, and California has been through this before, most notably with former SOS Kevin Shelley.

Okay, look at it this way:

Actually, the California decision won't impact NC. It is about California law and how that law was violated there.

Let's say you're sitting on a county boe or some other (elected) body, and you're contemplating purchasing new voting machines. New law in place or not, wouldn't you like to be made aware that the vendor you're thinking of buying machines from has been decertified in another state, especially one as densely populated as California?

Of course the answer is: yes, you'd like to know. And you wouldn't be pleased to find out others had known, and didn't think it was relevant.

yes its very impt to know about voting probs anywhere

You said:

Let's say you're sitting on a county boe or some other (elected) body, and you're contemplating purchasing new voting machines. New law in place or not, wouldn't you like to be made aware that the vendor you're thinking of buying machines from has been decertified in another state, especially one as densely populated as California?

YES, most definitely!

First

We were VERY concerned back in 2004 that vendors were not notifying customers(states) about known (and serious) problems with voting machines. We knew from talking with other states that vendors kept mum about software defects even 1 or 2 years after discovering them. So we did address this in law, and that will be cited lower down.

Second

It is the State Board of Elections who certifies which vendors and which voting machines will be sold in North Carolina. Counties can't buy machines that our state hasn't certified, and from vendors who have not met the detailed requirements of our law. The SBOE will address any known problems with the voting machines.
They have an IT department and an experienced voting systems project manager.

Third

The vendor must report any known problems that have occurred with the models of voting machines certified in our state.

Fourth

The EAC is now providing election officials with information about problems with voting machines. This is a recent improvement to performance by this organization.

Fifth

Our elections officials are dedicated administrators, and most if not all do keep up with current events relating to voting machines. Many subscribe to Electionline's newsletter, which is funded by the Pew Cheritable Trusts. There are many other news sources as well.

Sixth

Election integrity advocates report concerns about voting systems to the SBOE and ask for a response. I have been doing this for years now.

An example: In August 2006, I had concerns after receiving a memo about problems with the Sarasota ES&S iVotronics, about a smoothing filter. The SBOE emailed me information that showed that Florida had a 12" screen and was certified to 1990 standards. NC's iVotronics have a 15 " screen and are certified to 2002 (most current in 2006) standards. They even included screen shots showing how different the Sarasota screens and ballots were from NC touch-screens. We did not have the smoothing filter problem. Wired News covered how Christine Jennings found out about the memo from my website. (I tried for months to warn computer scientists and other state activists, but no one took the warning seriously.) See "E-Vote Memo Is a Smoking Gun" 3/22/07

Seven

Anyone can write to their county BOE or State BOE. The SBOE has always replied to my emails within 2 business days.

Here is an excerpt from the section of law covering the Voting Machine Vendors responsibility to report problems:

SECTION 2.(a) Part 2 of Article 14A of Chapter 163 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:

"§ 163‑165.9A. Voting systems: requirements for voting systems vendors; penalties.

(a) Duties of Vendor. – Every vendor that has a contract to provide a voting system in North Carolina shall do all of the following:
...

(4) The vendor shall promptly notify the State Board of Elections and the county board of elections of any county using its voting system of any decertification of the same system in any state, of any defect in the same system known to have occurred anywhere, and of any relevant defect known to have occurred in similar systems.

(5) The vendor shall maintain an office in North Carolina with staff to service the contract.

(b) Penalties. – Willful violation of any of the duties in subsection (a) of this section is a Class G felony. Substitution of source code into an operating voting system without notification as provided by subdivision (a)(2) of this section is a Class I felony. In addition to any other applicable penalties, violations of this section are subject to a civil penalty to be assessed by the State Board of Elections in its discretion in an amount of up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per violation. A civil penalty assessed under this section shall be subject to the provisions of G.S. 163‑278.34(e)."

State e-voting groups from around the country share information about problems immediately, and compare notes.

There are no perfect voting machines, no angelic vendors, and that is why we pushed for a law to put some accountability into the process.

But failing that there is this advice:

"Every voting system (perhaps every system of any kind) is insecure. Making them more secure is a desirable secondary priority, but unless we focus everyone on ensuring both auditability and effective auditing, we're just going to create an impossible muddle." ~ Dr. David L. Dill, Founder of the Verified Voting Foundation

Okay, follow me a little farther...

The vendor shall promptly notify the State Board of Elections and the county board of elections of any county using its voting system of any decertification of the same system in any state

If ES&S loses its certification as a company in California, that means all of their products, including the A-100, have also been decertified for sale in the state of California. At least that's my conclusion.

As far as the wording of that part of the law, I see two sections that may allow for some wiggling room on the part of ES&S:

Firstly, the term "promptly" is subjective and difficult to quantify into an actual timeframe.

Secondly, the extract "any county using its voting system" could theoretically exclude from required notification counties who have not yet purchased the machine(s), but are contemplating doing so.

CA SOS decision delayed, how does this affect NC?

The hearing on ES&S has been rescheduled to October 15, 2007. The SOS will be considering penalties and or decertification because ES&S deployed undertified versions of software, firmware or otherwise not properly approved systems:

HEARING DATE AND TIMEOctober 15, 2007, 10:00 a.m.
(Please note this hearing was originally scheduled for September 20, 2007.)

Should we decertify our machines if California decertifies theirs?

If California's examination reveals problems directly applicable irectly to or affecting - our voting systems.

if the vendor is obeying NC's law, if there is no issue with function, then there isn't cause to decertify

CA has a good law, so how did they end up with uncertified machines?

The answer - California has not had consistent enforcement of their election laws.

Secretary of State Kevin Shelly decertified Diebold and mandated voter verified paper ballots, and ended up being forced out of office in 2005.
In 2005, in came SOS Bruce McPherson an appointee, who didn't make any waves.

On Jan 08, 2007 Debra Bowen was elected Secretary of State based on her platform to improve election integrity.

She ordered an unprecedented "top to bottom" exam of all voting systems in the state.

ES&S did not submit its source code and all machines were decertified, but later submitted the necessary items for review. This top to bottom review showed that ES&S had sold the state some uncertified equipment.

On August 3, 2007, Bowen decertified four electronic voting systems (Diebold Election Systems, Hart InterCivic, Sequoia Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software), after a "top-to-bottom review of the voting machines certified for use in California in March 2007."

Bowen decertifies all DREs:

Alternet reports that - "In August, Bowen decertified all DREs machines for use in California and then conditionally recertified differing makes and models if they implemented varying security standards. Part of that ruling was allowing only one DRE per precinct for people with disabilities, to satisfy accessibility laws and because some disability lobbyists have praised their ease of use.Bowen also allowed DREs for early voting before Election Day. She said isolating the machines would not fully preclude their use but prevent corrupting overall vote counts."

Alternet also reported uncertified software in other states.

"Indiana fined one manufacturer $350,000 for installing uncertified software for an election last year. In Kentucky, the attorney general found Louisville had been using uncertified software for the past three election cycles."

How do we know that North Carolina doesn't have uncertified software on our machines?

Answer - we can't be 100% sure, but we can say if reasonable efforts have been made to prevent that:

January 26, 2006....The State Board of Elections performed "acceptance testing" at a central location before the counties received their equipment. All other systems were decertified.

In a Jan 26, 2007 memo from the State Board of Elections to all 100 county election directors:

“To facilitate User Acceptance Testing (UAT) and provide quality assurance, State
Board staff will assist ES&S as soon as confirmed orders are submitted and machines are received at the central warehouse in Raleigh. The State Board of Elections will use HAVA funds to pay for acceptance testing of the iVotronic, iVotronic ADA, M100 and AutoMark. This procedure will more efficiently use available time, reduce out of the box error rates and result in an approximate cost savings of $2.4 million to the county boards of elections. County boards of elections will be encouraged to be present for the UAT to monitor or assist as deemed appropriate.”

What IS acceptance testing?

Acceptance testing as delivered

Each machine delivered by a vendor to the jurisdiction should be tested. Even if the vendor has some kind of quality control guarantees, these are of no value unless the customer detects failures at the time of delivery. At minimum, such tests should include power-on testing, basic user interface tests (do all the buttons work, does the touch screen sense touches at all extremes of its surface, do the paper-feed mechanisms work, does the uninterruptable power supply work).

By necessity, when hundreds or even thousands of machines are being delivered, these tests must be brief, but they should also include checks on the software versions installed (as self-reported), checks to see that electronic records of the serial numbers match the serial numbers affixed to the outside of the machine, and so on.

Has the current vendor obeyed the requirement to report problems with the voting systems?

Yes or at least I have seen evidence of them doing so. See correspondence below, between NC SBOE legal counsel and myself as to if the SBOE had been notified of potential problem with optical scan memory cards that turned up Ohio. That was back in March of 2006, when the first shipment of machines and memory cards came in.

In this email from Don Wright, general counsel for the SBOE, he advises that yes - the vendor had made proper notification - twice:

----- Original Message -----
From: Don Wright
To: xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 3/13/2006 1:50:51 PM
Subject: RE: concerns about ES&S memory cards

Dear Joyce:

This is to confirm that this agency received two different communications from ES&S about defective memory cards, as required under the law that requires vendors to inform our agency of any problems in regards to the operations of their voting systems. We are aware of the problem, and are protecting North Carolina from any defective memory cards.

Don Wright
General Counsel

-----Original Message-----
From: jmcxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 2:55 PM
To: Don Wright
Cc: Gary Bartlett; Johnnie McLean
Subject: concerns about ES&S memory cards

North Carolina State Board of Elections
Don Wright, General Counsel

Ohio got another batch of bad memory cards from ES&S yesterday.

Please advise, is the North Carolina State Board of Elections testing all ES&S memory cards?

But it all boils down to this, even with good compliance and proper enforcement the following is true:

"Every voting system (perhaps every system of any kind) is insecure. Making them more secure is a desirable secondary priority, but unless we focus everyone on ensuring both auditability and effective auditing, we're just going to create an impossible muddle." ~ Dr. David L. Dill, Founder of the Verified Voting Foundation .

We can't legislate a perfect voting system, nor perfect elections. Its all about checks and balances and a recovery plan.

Do I trust everyone and everything completely?

No, I believe in ~ Trust Yet Verify ~

your ballot info is based on 3/25/06 info-before law addressed

The info at the SBOE website is is from March 25, 2006, and has not been updated to reflect current law, as ratified in August 2007. The SBOE website's old info also says that counties have to use a certified printer.

Here is the law as pertains to Ballots, it was ratified on August 16, 2007:

SECTION 25. G.S. 163‑165.9 House Bill 1743 / S.L. 2007-391 reads as rewritten:

"§ 163‑165.9. Voting systems: powers and duties of county board of elections

b) After the acquisition of any voting system, the county board of elections shall comply with any requirements of the State Board of Elections regarding training and support of the voting system.system by completing all of the following:

(1) The county board of elections shall comply with all specifications of its voting system vendor for ballot printers. The county board of elections is authorized to contract with noncertified ballot printing vendors, so long as the noncertified ballot printing vendor meets all specifications and all quality assurance requirements as set by the State Board of Elections.

It says specifications and quality assurance requirements. The SBOE will test the ballots printed by the non certified vendors.

Here on March 25, 2006 is what the State Board of Elections last posted regarding ballots, this was right when counties were first getting their new machines:

Voting Equptment FAQS

Updated 03/25/2006
PRINTING BALLOTS

Q: Why do we have to purchase ballots from an “ES&S certified” printer?

A: ES&S certification assures that the printer has been properly trained with regard to the M100 specifications. This certification also assures that the printer has the proper staff, equipment (including digital), and facilities necessary to meet the quality assurance requirements, as well as the equipment necessary to test printed ballots in-plant prior to delivery to the customer.

Q: Why does the certified printer have to buy the paper stock from ES&S?

A: M100 ballot stock is manufactured specifically for ES&S to meet their requirements for opacity, brightness, density, and smoothness, and milled and cut to within a 1/32" margin of error – standard paper merchant paper stock would be unacceptable. Additionally, the manufacturing process assures a lack of residue on the ballot stock which would otherwise build up within the M100 units themselves.

The SBOE has other outdated info on their website, including the election law, which they last updated in September of 2006.

They probably will update their website as soon as all technical corrections are made to any laws passed/ratified this year. Election law has to be approved by the DOJ and that adds to the delay.

Thanks.

Good info.

About CT

FWIW, a company's registered agent often isn't its legal representative, and lots of companies hire CT to be their registered agent (in part, so that they don't have to worry about filing whenever the name or address of an in-house agent changes).

Right, but generally

legal entities will avoid representing competing clients, due to potential conflicts of interest that could expose them to ethics concerns.

And whether or not the agent is also an "Attorney Of Record", if they are a legal entity (CT Corp. is), they're still bound by a lot of the same requirements.

It's probably nothing, but links are links, however tentative.

And this one.

Question..

Is this one of those internal/self-destruction thingies some say we're supposed to try to avoid here?

Probably.

But it's so shiny.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

And every new comment sets a world record

Like this one.

And this one.

OK fine. I'll go make a donation at ActBlueNC

because I haven't been willing to yield the last word in this. But with this, I yield. Happy Sunday to all and to all a good night.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

G'night dear.

Me too. What a crazy weekend! I so happy to have you amongst us.

Final Word

Holy Mother of Jeebus.

Two points.

Any company charged with being the SOLE supplier of equipment/supplies for North Carolina elections had damn well better be able to cross their t's and dot their i's. They aren't capable of filing appropriate forms in a timely manner, then I say it's time for an audit. Sloppy personal or business paperwork is not going to instill voter confidence even if Greg called said vendor to get an explanation. There is no good explanation. I don't care what Joyce McCloy or David Allen say about this person and his personal honesty/integrity. Plenty of honest people have screwed up royally because they weren't willing or able to pay attention to detail. Trust me when I say there is absolutely NO excuse Dunn could have given that would be good enough in my book.

If this thread is an example of the stability of the people who are self-appointed elections saviors, then I say we are all screwed. David Allen/Kosh does sound reasonable, but NCVoter and Progressive Pitbull are so over the top that it makes me fear for the safety of NC elections instead of feeling more confident in them. We are supposed to trust Dunn's integrity based on Kosh's word and that of NCVoter, but look at her behavior on this thread. Jemininny! I read her attacks on Greg and you want me to trust her opinion? No thanks. There's a difference between passion and hysteria. She needs to learn it if she wants to earn our trust.

Oh, what the heck.....while I'm at it I'll make a few more points.

Greg's research is impeccable. Always. I might not always agree with him, but his research is impeccable. If he does make a mistake he will own it.

Lance is a genius.

'nuff said

***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Comments

Pages

Freedom + Fairness

Latest reader comments

NC voices