14 August 2005
Mr. Neil W. Kelleher, Chairman
New York State Board of Election Commissioners
40 Steuben St.
Albany, NY 12207-2108
Dear Commissioner Kelleher,
As you had insisted during our brief exchange at the board
meeting 8 August 2005, I will herewith
enumerate the concerns and questions I
would have addressed to the whole board, had you allowed me to do so.
My first concern relates to what seems to be an orchestrated
effort to discredit a particular voting
system, the Paper Ballot/Optical Scan
option (PBOS). I have been paying close attention to the voting machine question for the past year and communicating
with other concerned citizens more
recently. It has come to our attention that there is a remarkable uniformity of
message concerning the alleged
shortcomings of PBOS systems emanating from Board of Elections officials
across the state. Local BOE officials in Schoharie County stated that the paper
ballots are "just too difficult for the elderly and infirm to fill out
accurately" and that they "will become confused and flustered when
the scanner rejects their ballot". A second message piece concerns the alleged high cost of
printing paper ballots. My contacts in several counties report the same
"messages" being voiced by their local election officials right down
to the $.75 per ballot printing cost fallacy. Just this past week Mr. Daghlian
is quoted in the Oneonta Daily Star saying "ballots for scanners will cost
just under a dollar apiece" and a Deputy Election Commissioner in Otsego
County, Sheila Ross, is quoted "ballots for optical scanners might be very
expensive, and counties will be stuck with recurring bills"
At first we thought that the vendors were spreading these
misleading and incorrect messages, however, at the July 15th meeting of the
Schoharie County Board of Supervisors, Rules & Legislation Committee,
Election Commissioner L. Wilson stated, in response to my offering that a local
printer estimated such ballot costs at $.18 to .25, "Oh no! It's $.75 a
ballot. The state said so". Now, what does this mean? Who is the state?
Given the context; a legislative committee meeting with an agenda totally
devoted to the voting machine issue, a committee which had as many election
officials as legislators in attendance, I believe it's a fair assumption that
the 'state' Mr. Wilson referred to is the New York State Board of Elections. It
seems obvious that your board and/or your staff have disseminated these and
other misleading messages with the intent to dissuade the local boards from
choosing Paper Ballot/Optical Scan systems.
Given that there is a great deal of misinformation out
there, and recognizing that there are many, many New York citizens who know the
truth and trust PBOS systems, and believe as I do concerning the State Board of
Elections complicity, it is incumbent upon you to take some positive action to
undo the damage that has been done.
So, please sir, advise what action the Board of Election
Commissioners will take to correct the misinformation which prevails, and to
rebuild the trust of the New York voters. I do not ask that you simply take my
word for it. You and your staff should expeditiously undertake your own
investigation. I can point you toward an excellent starting point. New Yorkers
for Verified Voting is an independent citizen's group with no interest or
affiliation with a voting machine manufacturer or vendor. Go to www.nyvv.org to
find documents and links to other sources of independent research which will
provide the data you need.
A second issue of even greater significance concerns the
voting machine certification process. During a recent telephone conversation
with your Pubic Information Officer, Mr. Lee Daghlian, I was advised that only
one machine had been submitted for certification testing. He confirmed that the
machine was "the Liberty" (more accurately, the LibertyVote marketed
by Liberty Election Systems LLC, 11 Sand Creek Rd., Albany, NY). When I asked
if the machine had been equipped with the required Voter Verified Paper Record
(VVPR) printer, he replied yes. When I asked Mr. Daghlian to send me a picture
of the machine with the printer attached he referred me to Liberty Election
Systems. I inquired if any other manufacturer had expressed an interest in
submitting their machines or indicated their intention to submit, Mr. Daghlian
seemed puzzled by the question and asked what I meant. After I rephrased and explained
the question he simply stated "If a vendor wants to sell his machines to
NY they need to submit it for testing and certification. If it's not certified
they're not going to sell it". Mr. Daghlian's comments evince a strangely
passive position with respect to getting machines submitted for certification
testing.
I subsequently called Election Systems & Software in
Omaha, NE, a company which markets a paper ballot scanner, and spoke with Mr.
Will Wesley, their NE client representative. I asked if ES&S intended to
submit their model 100 scanner/tabulator for certification in New York. I was
astounded by his reply; "New York has not asked us to submit the optical
scanner." Obviously, if both parties to a potential transaction are this
reticent the result will be inaction.
So, Mr. Chairman, why would a machine vendor be so
disinterested when presented with an opportunity to sell $200,000,000.00 worth
of equipment? Why would your agency not reach out to a manufacturer of a well
established and trusted voting system? A system which is in use in over 25% of
the election districts nationwide, a system which will cost the taxpayers less
while at the same time engendering greater voter confidence? Please sir,
explain why this passive/passive stalemate is blocking certification of the
only existing voting system which can currently satisfy the NY requirements?
One last question; I return to Mr. Daghlian's statement to
the effect that the LibertyVote machine which has been submitted for testing
has been equipped with a Voter Verified Paper Record. (I use the word
"record" here because a machine printed record of a voter's
intentions is only that. It is not a ballot which has been cast by a citizen).
After speaking with Mr. Daghlian I called Liberty Election
Systems seeking a photo image of the LibertyVote machine with a VVPR printer
attached. Mr. Robert Witko, a LES marketing person, acknowledged that they had
indeed supplied a machine the NYS BOE for certification testing, but that it
was not equipped with a VVPR printer. He went on to say he really didn't want
to send me a photo because all they have now is a prototype and it is probably
not what the final design will be. He went on to explain that the BOE was going
to start the certification testing and go as far as they can. Then "we'll
get the printer to them as soon as it's ready". It is significant that
this conversation took place on 1 August, 2005, a full week before your August
board meeting. More on this later. Witko continued describing how the engineers
(at Nedap, the manufacturer) are considering two types of printers with
differing paper record storage schemes, saying "It'll be a couple of
months before we know for certain which type of printer we'll use". Later
in our conversation he revealed that the people at Nedap believe this current
demand for a printer will go away in the near future. It appears Nedap,
notwithstanding the New York State requirements, would prefer to continue to
sell their machine without the added VVPR printer and might be reluctant to
incorporate the VVPR printer into the machine. Mr. Witko spoke of the
possibility of the VVPR printer being in a module which would be transported
separately. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised when one of your staff
raised the question of beginning certification testing, to the old standards,
for an unnamed vendor during the meeting. It seems that Liberty Elections is
counting on the message they have been putting out (as early as 1 August in my
personal experience) will be transformed into the truth by the actions of your
board on 8 August. It sounded to me like you gave them just what they wanted.
Please advise how you will prevent Liberty Election Systems
from boasting that their machine has been accepted for certification testing by
the New York State Board of Elections? How will you get the truth out to the
various county legislatures that the LibertyVote has no chance of being
certified until it is submitted with a VVPR printer? (some of them actually
believe the LibertyVote already has a working VVPR printer.) How will you get
the word out to the New York citizens so they can help their elected officials
with the decision-making?
I will welcome your responses to these questions. If I can
be of any further help please feel free to call me at 518-287-1463 or email me
at airhead@midtel.net .
In support of New Yorkers for Verified Voting and the
Peacemakers of Schoharie County,
Wayne Stinson
108 Southmeadow Dr.
Summit, NY 12175
Cc: Commissioners E. Aquila, H. Donohue, Deputy Executive Director
P. Kosiniski,
Comptroller A. Hevesi, Attorney General E. Spitzer, J.Odato Times-Union