18)
Sleepovers
Democrats ask county to hold election hearings
www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/07/18/news/top_stories/22_09_197_17_05.txt
By: DAVE
Jess Durfee, chairman of the San Diego County Democratic Party, said he will stress during a public comment period in the morning board meeting and in a press conference afterwards that election integrity was compromised by what he calls the "sleep over" policy. Durfee said it is his hope that a round of public hearings will yield a new set of reforms, including a ban on the practice.
“There have got to be some better security measures than letting voting machines, which are vulnerable to being tampered with, sit in someone's living room or garage," he said.
Mikel Haas, the county's elections
chief, defended the county's decision to send the electronic voting machines
home, saying it was a practical way of make sure the devices reached all of the
county's 1,646 polling places on time. He said the alternative would a massive,
time-consuming delivery process early
E-voting machines sent to homes for ’sleepovers’
http://wpblog.ohopinion.com?p=931
Question: How hard would it be to mess with an electronic voting machine, to help jigger an election outcome?
Answer: In several states, at least, it could easily be done
in the privacy and comfort of a person’s own home.
You probably think these highly tamperable contraptions are securely stored and watched over before during and after voting takes place, to ensure an honest, valid election result. Well, you think wrong, as a shocking Monday report on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” makes clear:
In the upcoming midterm congressional elections, a little
more than four months from now, a third of the nation will be casting ballots
on electronic voting machines. Tonight, new questions about the extraordinary
lack of security that results from the use of these
machines. Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(Begin videotape)
Kitty Pilgrim, CNN Correspondent: In
Patti Newton, former poll worker: We were given slips of
papers, had them stamped by one of the staff members and we were directed to
drive across to the parking lot to pick up our voting machines and take them
home. We all felt an ominous kind of responsibility. It was not something that
we were told we would be doing.
BLOGGED BY Brad Friedman, 6/30/2006
Registrar Freddie Oakley Speaks Out on the Busby/Bilbray Controversy and the Crisis Concerning Deployment of Hackable Electronic Voting Systems…
In an email discussion yesterday among a group of Election Integrity advocates, in reply to the horrendous San Diego Union-Tribune coverage of the Busby/Bilbray issue, Yolo County, CA Registrar of Voters Freddie Oakley posted a crystal clear statement on the concerns of sending voting machines home with poll workers prior to elections.
"As an election official, I understand the practical issues involved here perfectly. I am strongly of the opinion that it is exactly this kind of practical issue that should give election officials serious reservations about deploying electronic voting machines," Oakley wrote.
"If, as a practical matter, [the electronic voting machines deployed prior to an election] can't be secured, then perhaps they ought not be used at all. Period. Until the impediment can be removed," her email statement read.
"Bilbray/Busby Election a Warning to the
Nation"
www.votersunite.org/info/ovrcstatement.asp
The Oregon Voter
Rights Coalition applauds election reform activist Barbara Gail Jacobson, who
on Wed. July 5 filed a challenge to the June 6, 2006 California US House
District 50 Special Election (
The most apparent methodological problem in this election is the use of "sleepovers" to ease the logistical problems of transporting and placing voting equipment. Voting machines were taken home by poll workers in the days and weeks prior to the election. Reportedly a practice used for decades, this procedure of sending voting machines home is antiquated in the modern age of computers. Computer technology lends itself to host of problems, not the least of which is the corruptibility of the operational software. Prior to their use in an election, access to these machines should be significantly and uniformly limited.