Northern NY News
Written by Brad Friedman
Friday, 11 December 2009 07:09
(Special to the Gouverneur Times)
ALBANY, NY - Following the recent November election, the
Operation Director for New York's State Board of Elections, Anna E. Svizerro
declared the experiment of testing new, uncertified voting systems on live
voters in a real election to be "very successful." The
Watertown Daily Times reported Svizerro's comments, nearly verbatim and
wholly uncritically, on Nov. 13th, despite serious concerns that had already
emerged about the equipment used in the NY-23 Special Election for the U.S.
House, and the errors discovered in its reported results.
Many of those problems, machine failure, inaccurate results,
and the difficulty or impossibility of verifying them as accurate following the
election, have been reported on in aggressive detail by The
Gouverneur Times over the last several weeks.
But concerns about the dangers and pitfalls of New York's
pilot program were voiced long before the questionable election of November
3rd. State officials were warned about those dangers via a virtual blizzard of
letters sent to them over the past year by state and national election
integrity organizations and advocates recommending modifications to the pilot
program to ensure voters would not be disenfranchised. Indeed, many of the very
same groups who have supported the state's move from mechanical lever systems
to computerized secret vote counting were nonetheless extremely critical of the
way in which voters were to be used "as guinea pigs" to test
uncertified hardware and software in both the primary and general elections
this year as part of the pilot program.
The concerns of the election advocates now seem to have been
quite prescient, even as they appear to have been largely ignored by state and
federal officials.
As early as April 2009, the League of Women Voters of New
York State (LWVNYS) - who describe themselves as "a multi-issue,
nonpartisan political organization which... has been a supporter of... the
replacement of lever voting machines in New York" - had sent a letter
[PDF] to both federal attorneys and state election officials urging them to
reconsider their proposed pilot program to test machines in this year's
elections.
The letter from LWVNYS President Martha Kennedy to Brian F.
Heffernan in the U.S. Attorney's office, and CC'd to six different New York
State Board of Elections officials, found "merit" in a pilot
deployment of the state's new Sequoia/Dominion optical-scan voting systems, but
disagreed with the way they were to be prematurely forced upon voters during
real elections.
"We cannot support pilot projects using uncertified
machines throughout the state," Kennedy wrote, "unless it were
coupled with a mandated 100% hand count of the paper ballots which would become
the official count." No such mandate was instituted and, instead,
uncertified results tainted by the failing and flawed secret vote counting
computers were used to install Democratic Party candidate Bill Owens to the
U.S. House of Representatives shortly thereafter.
Kennedy also expressed her concern about the
"disenfranchisement of many voters because proper and complete testing of
equipment and adequate training of election workers would not be possible
within an abbreviated time frame."
Two months later, in June, the LWVNYS was joined by the
election integrity group New Yorkers for Verified Voting (NYVV) and the public
advocacy organization New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) to issue
a press
release [PDF] about the groups' joint concerns about the pilot project. The
release highlighted a report [PDF]
from NYVV's Bo Lipari who represented the League on the state's Citizen
Election Modernization Advisory Committee.
Lipari, as quoted from his report in the press release,
warned the pilot program, as then planned, "gives insufficient regard to the
scale of the project, the need for independent verification of results, the
potential for problems arising, or a plan for how to learn from and apply the
result.
In the press release, Aimee Allaud, Election Specialist with
the League also slammed the state's proposed pilot for "using real voters
as guinea pigs in the upcoming elections."
"Elections should be transparent, secure and inspire
public confidence," NYPIRG's Neal Rosenstein also chided in the release.
"Unfortunately, the Board's plan to have over 900,000 voters use new
uncertified voting systems this year without requiring meaningful audits of
results undermines the credibility of the election and sets a dangerous
precedent for the future."
Days later, the three groups were joined by still more
election integrity experts and advocacy groups sharing their concerns with the
State Board of Elections.
On June 10, representatives from LWVNYS, NYVV and NYPIRG,
along with representatives from the Catskill Center for Independence, Citizens'
Union, E-Voter Education Project and the Task Force on Election Integrity sent
an "urgent" plea to state officials to amend the pilot program.
In their letter "Re:
Urgent steps toward election integrity with the 2009 Pilot Program," [PDF]
the groups decried the state's "Failure to modify the current plans for
the pilot use of uncertified scanners," and noted - correctly, as it turns
out, given the uproar following voting equipment failure on Election Day - that
it "could lead to a decrease in the public's confidence in the results.
The six organizations - several of which were in opposition
to each other on the point of using computerized optical-scanners at all, some
preferring the state's continued use of what they regard as more transparent
mechanical lever systems - came together to urge the state "to fill these
gaping holes in your plan to deploy uncertified ballot scanners," and
asked again that they follow the recommendations of Lipari, a retired software
engineer and a longtime advocate for the state's new op-scan voting system.
"We believe these corrections of inadequacies in the
planned program are essential and quite realistic," they wrote. They
urged, among other recommendations, that the state ask counties to "limit
deployment of the new machines to 10% of registered voters, even if they
earlier agreed to do a full county wide implementation."
That recommendation would not be heeded, and their letter
would go unanswered by officials.
In July, after failing to receive a response from either
federal or state officials over the previous month, LWVNYS and NYVV tried
again, following up their June 3 letter with an "Open
Letter to the New York State Board of Elections" [PDF] about the
"serious weaknesses of your published 'Pilot Plan' for the deployment of
uncertified scanners in the primary and general elections of 2009."
In the wake of a resolution adopted by the Board during
their June meeting, the organizations excoriated what seemed to be a
"direct repudiation" of their earlier request that the state allow
counties to reduce their participation in the pilot program to just 10% of
registered voters, as Lipari and the others had called for during the previous
month.
"You thus ignored the fact that experts recommend a 10%
limit on the size of deployments of new technical equipment, even when nothing
as important as votes are involved," they wrote.
While they lauded the Board for taking steps to lay out
procedures for the post-election "audits" of results, as they had
also recommended, they were highly critical at the Board's failure to revise
those protocols "in the direction recommended by experts so that New York
would have statistically meaningful risk-limiting audits."
The following week Common Cause of New York, Yad HaChazakah
- The Jewish Disability Empowerment Center, Inc. and national election
integrity watchdog VotersUnite.org would
join with several of the other groups to send yet another joint letter to federal
officials at the U.S. Attorneys office as well as to state elections officials,
trying yet again, ultimately in vain, to see changes made to the ill-fated
pilot program - ("ill-fated", at least as many voters undoubtedly saw
it, if not officials such as Svizerro who would, implausibly, declare it a
success) - even as the primary and general election drew near.
Banner
In their four page letter [PDF] on July 15, detailing ten
recommendations "to correct inadequacies in the planned pilot program and
to ensure compliance with New York's Election Laws as well as the [federal]
Help America Vote Act," they echoed unanswered concerns originally
expressed by the NY State League of Women Voters three months earlier, back in
April.
"The New York State Board of Elections is now planning
a pilot of uncertified optical scan voting systems to be used by up to 1.4
million voters in 46 counties in the upcoming 2009 Primary and General
elections," they wrote. "These new systems have not yet been used in
real elections anywhere in the country, and still have not completed either New
York State or Federal EAC [Election Assistance Commission] certification
tests."
"Therefore, voters who use these systems cannot be
assured that their votes will be counted as cast. We believe the failure to
make meaningful changes to the pilot will raise serious questions about the
results of these elections," they said, before detailing their
recommendations "incorporating the work of Bo Lipari" and averring
that "implementation of the... proposals will greatly reduce the
possibility of voter disenfranchisement raised by the planned pilot program and
by the use of scanners in future elections."
Virtually all of those repeated warnings, from all of those
often disparate groups, sent across several months, seem to have fallen on deaf
ears, before voters were both disenfranchised and have likely come to lose
confidence in results in the wake of the various failures in the pilot program
voting system, many of which have been reported by this news outlet, and
others, in the wake of the election.
So why didn't election officials heed the dire, repeated and
often "urgent" warnings of both local and national election experts?
At this point, we don't know. Calls and emails seeking comment from the New
York State Board of Elections co-chairs Douglas Kellner and James Walsh, as
well as to Jeffrey Dvorin in the office of the Asst. Attorney General in
Albany, NY have so far gone unreturned.
Additional research
by The Gouverneur Times' Nathan Barker and Howard Stanislevic of the E-Voter
Education Project.
Brad Friedman is an investigative reporter, blogger,
election integrity advocate and expert, and the creator and publisher of The
BRAD BLOG. He is a broadcaster and contributor to the UK's Guardian, Huffington
Post, Computer World and other periodicals, a Fellow at the Commonweal
Institute, and a frequent guest on radio and television outlets from Air
America to Fox News. In addition to offering expert testimony on these matters
to a number of federal and state electoral oversight commissions, he recently
contributed a chapter on the disaster for voters that was the 2008 Election for
the book Censored 2010: The Top 25 Censored Stories of 2008-2009 and co-wrote
an investigate report on the illegally certified Sequoia touch-screen voting
machines, still in use in Nevada, for Mark Crispin Miller's book, Loser Take
All: Election Fraud and The Subversion of Democracy, 2000 - 2008. This year his
work on the mysterious death of Republican IT guru Mike Connell was cited with
an award for "Excellence in Investigative Journalism" by Sonoma State
University's 33-year old "Project Censored" organization
Last Updated on Friday, 11 December 2009 14:02
COMMENTS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MichelleShafer, 12-14-2009, 06:28 PM
This piece refers to "the state's new Sequoia/Dominion
optical-scan voting systems".
Please correct this point as the ImageCast optical scan
voting units used by New York State counties are manufactured and supported by
Dominion Voting Systems. The ImageCast is not a Sequoia product.
Please see Sequoia's July 16, 2009 press relese on this
matter to further explain: http://www.sequoiavote.com/press.php?ID=82.
Thank you,
Michelle M. Shafer
Vice President, Communications & External Affairs
Sequoia Voting Systems
mshafer@sequoiavote.com
www.sequoiavote.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BradFriedman, 12-14-2009, 07:17 PM
Ref# 10134.2
Thanks for the link to your press release, Michele. Did you
change anything on it without notice as you've done in the past?
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4966
I also notice that you claim "The ImageCast is not a
Sequoia product.", yet your own press release quotes your own CEO of
Sequoia, Jack Blaine, as saying:
"Sequoia has
worked with Dominion - our New York subcontractor and the developer of the
ImageCast – for three years, including managing the complex and involved
initial implementation of the New York State voting system project."
Moreover, NY State Board of Election co-chair Doug Kellner
is quoted as saying, in the same release:
"I am very
pleased with Sequoia and Dominion's commitment to complete certification of the
ImageCast ballot scanning system which incorporates state-of-the-art scanning
technology."
Are you suggesting those three years of working on the
system, as both your own CEO and NY's SBoE co-chair state never happened?
Or that because your company's financial woes forced you to
give over control of the project to Dominion, that somehow Sequoia had nothing
to do with the op-scan systems which I described (and as you quoted) correctly,
as "Sequoia/Dominion optical-scan voting systems?
Furthermore, I also note that your own press release says
about the deal between Sequoia and Dominion that "Financial details of
this transaction are not being disclosed by the parties".
Is that secret deal anything like the secret deal you made
with Smartmatic, your former/current Venezuelan parent company tied to Hugo
Chavez? You remember, right? The company which STILL owns the IP rights to
almost of your voting systems despite your having lied to the public, federal
officials, state election officials and even your own employees about it, as I
disclosed some time ago in this article:
"Exclusive: Voting Machine Company Chief Lied to
Chicago Officials About Ownership, Control of Company"
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6005
You see, because you've lied in so many press releases, and
to so many in the media previously, and hidden the information after being
called on it, and lied about the last major financial deal your company made --
even to federal investigators -- it's quite difficult to believe that you're
telling the truth now. Especially when your own documents highlight Sequoia's
part in NY's "Sequoia/Dominion optical-scan voting systems" showing
your statement above to be flat out wrong.
I'm happy to stand by my article, and its accuracy, even as
you're not willing to stand by your own failed voting machines, or your
company's own track record of misleading the public.
Brad Friedman
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MichelleShafer, 12-14-2009, 07:57 PM
Ref#10134.3
Brad - I am not engaging in what would likely be a
non-productive back-and-forth on the many pieces you have written about Sequoia
in your blog over the years. Therefore, I expect this post will be my last
comment on this matter.
I wish to provide correct information to readers of this
publication on one specific issue mentioned in several pieces in The Gouverneur
Times: the manufacturers of the ImageCast. As stated in my original comments to
the pieces on New York's voting equipment:
"The ImageCast optical scan voting units used by New
York State counties are manufactured and supported by Dominion Voting Systems.
The ImageCast is not a Sequoia product."
That is correct, as as is the information contained in
Sequoia's July 16, 2009 press relese on this matter found at:
http://www.sequoiavote.com/press.php?ID=82.
Neither this statement above, nor the July 16th press release
discounts or contradicts anything stated in previous press releases regarding
Sequoia and Dominion's work in New York or the comments made by NY State Board
of Election co-chair Doug Kellner.
Again, I wish to point out that New York's ImageCast voting
units are manufactured and supported by Dominion Voting Systems, not Sequoia.
Thank you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BradFriedman, 12-15-2009, 12:48 PM
Michelle said:
Brad - I
am not engaging in what would likely be a non-productive back-and-forth on the
many pieces you have written about Sequoia in your blog over the years.
Therefore, I expect this post will be my last comment on this matter.
I don't blame you. Given the years of failure after failure
by your company, it's attempts, again and again, to lie about them, to mislead
the public and officials about them, to go to court to argue against
independent analysis of them (despite failure after failure) on the grounds
that your Intellectual Property is being violated (despite the fact that
Smartmatic, the Venezuelan firm, not Sequoia, actually still owns that IP), and
the fact that you've changed, hidden and otherwise lied about historical
documents, I wouldn't engage with me either. Unless you're finally willing to
come clean on the disaster that is Sequoia, and the many years of ripping off
both state and federal tax-payers in the bargain.
And I haven't even mentioned the affront you and your
company poses to our Constitution, our democracy, and our right to
self-governance.
Beyond that, you're correct, the Sequoia/Dominion
optical-scan systems being used in New York, as jointly developed by both
companies, are now being "manufactured and supported by Dominion Voting
Systems, not Sequoia" according to what you've told us about your secret
agreement with Dominion.
Much as Sequoia divested from Smartmatic, the Venezuelan
firm tied to Hugo Chavez, according to what you'd told us about your secret
agreement with Smartmatic -- until I revealed you had lied about that
agreement.
And you wonder why folks like me feel you and your companies
have no business being anywhere *near* our democracy?
For those who wish to skim scores of stories, highlighting
the duplicity and utter failure of Sequoia Voting Systems, please see The BRAD
BLOG's coverage of them over the years -- including pieces about Michelle
Shafer and their former VP, scammer Edwin Smith, and their current CEO and
scammer Jack Blaine and their touch-screen machine allowing voters to vote as
many times as they want (if they hit a yellow button), and their other machines
that simply don't work at all, etc. -- right here:
http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=39
We've been covering them for years, even as Michelle keeps
making stuff up about them in reply for years.
Brad Friedman