Breakdown at the Board

Protecting vendors, not voters

As I sit here, I’m embarrassed. I’m 56 years old, I have been a New Yorker for 56 years, and I’m embarrassed on behalf of the State of New York. I write these words tonight and they come from my heart, but I am not the first to say them. Today they come from me because I witnessed an appalling display of how willing are some in the State Board of Elections to represent the interests of DRE vendors, even when this directly conflicts with the interests of voters and the requirements of state law.

Today the SBOE should have approved at least three of six submitted systems to proceed to the next step in the Court ordered HAVA plan. There were also three that should have been flatly rejected based on New York State Election law, and the now expired January 1o deadline for submitting completed systems. This would have been the right thing to do for New York’s voters and county election commissioners who need to make machine decisions by February 8. Approval of machines was the single most important decision the Board had to make at the January 23 meeting.

Instead, in full view of the public and press, one half of the 4 person Democratic and Republican controlled State Board of Elections delayed and impeded, allowing no discussion to take place for seven hours until after 5:30pm press deadlines had passed. At one point, acting like spoiled children, they simply refused to come into the conference room to join Commissioner Doug Kellner (D) so that a quorum could be formed, stonewalling any debate on this critical question. Commissioners Neal Kelleher (R) and Helena Moses Donahue (R) showed no respect for over 100 county commissioners and members of the public by making us wait for over 7 hours before they would even allow discussion to take place.

And why did this happen? Because Commissioners Neal Kelleher (R) and Helena Moses Donahue (R) were desperately searching for a way to keep the LibertyVote DRE from being rejected. And rejected it certainly should be. In Orwellian fashion the LibertyVote DRE had been submitted as “ballot marking device”, even though the Dutch DRE (banned in its home country of Holland) doesn’t produce a legal ballot or a usable way for voters with disabilities to independently verify what’s printed on the grocery receipt style piece of paper it produces.

As a member of New York’s Citizen Advisory Committee, I evaluated the submitted systems on January 18 and made a recommendation to the State Board. Section 7-202(1)(e) of New York State law says that systems approved by the state board must: “provide the voter an opportunity to privately and independently verify votes selected and the ability to privately and independently change such votes or correct any error before the ballot is cast and counted.” Based on this section of the law, it is clear to me that of the six systems we scrutinized, only three provided this capability; three others clearly did not. The LibertyVote DRE clearly did not, as I noted in a separate report submitted with my recommendations.

I wasn’t the only one that felt that way. Commissioner Doug Kellner (D) stated to the assembled public and press that three of the systems, the new Sequoia scanner/ballot marker and two Automarks, met the requirements of state law, and that the three others, two DREs from Avante and the LibertyVote, plainly did not. Describing the serious problems with LibertyVote’s verification design, he repeatedly stated “Based on Section 7-202(1)(e) of New York’s laws I cannot vote to approve the LibertyVote DRE.”

But whether the LibertyVote DRE is even minimally usable by voters with disabilities, produces anything remotely resembling a ballot, or is the same failed DRE technology being rapidly abandoned by other states seemed not to matter to Commissioners Neal Kelleher (R) and Helena Moses Donahue (R). What did seem to matter was finding some way, any way, to try to force Commissioner Kellner (D) to approve the LibertyVote DRE so that the politically connected company could stay in the game of profiting large from New York’s HAVA funds.

To his credit, Commissioner Kellner (D) did not give, and for today at least, profit did not succeed over principle. It’s good to see that some at the Board of Elections still believe that serving the needs of voters is the prime directive. For his fellow commissioners, I am embarrassed and ashamed that they squandered so much time, energy, and good will in order to help ensure that a politically connected company can cash in at the expense of New York’s voters. I found their behavior throughout the day outrageous and appalling, but there was more to come. At the end of this long, long day I witnessed a subtle, but even more upsetting scene. As people were filing out and the room emptied I happened to see Bobby Witko, the president of LibertyVote, gently pat one of the commissioners on the shoulder and quietly say “Good job”. A good job indeed. But not, unfortunately, for the voters of New York State.

Breakthrough at the Board?

NY Could Vote on Paper Ballots

Pressure from Judge Gary Sharpe’s order for the State to put Ballot Marking Devices in place for the 2008 Election may at last force the New York State Board of Elections to authorize a single state wide paper ballot marker and scanner system. Unquestionably, there are many benefits to using only one voting system throughout the state, and it’s obvious that touch screen voting machines, or DREs, are the worst possible choice for New York in light of huge costs and the number of states rapidly abandoning failed DRE technology. But so far the State Board has refused to do what’s right for New York’s voters and have kept DRE vendor hopes alive, even going so far as to recklessly allow vendors to submit DREs to use as Ballot Marking Devices – a purpose they are not designed for, can’t fulfill (see why here, here, and here) and which was protested by NYVV and a coalition of advocacy organizations.

But sources at the State Board of Elections tell me that the small number of submitted systems, and the Board’s inability to agree on what actually constitutes a Ballot Marking Device, could result in only one system being authorized at the Board’s crucial meeting on Wednesday, 1/23/08 – a combination ballot marker and scanner which would virtually guarantee that New Yorkers will vote on paper ballots when lever machines are retired in 2009.

This outcome could potentially please everyone – citizen groups who have long called for a single statewide voting system; county legislatures, editorial boards and citizens across New York State who’ve advocated for voting on paper ballots; even county election commissioners would be glad to have the machine decision be made where it belongs – with the State Board of Elections. One caveat however, the decision to authorize one system for the entire state is being made not because it has been judged the most accessible, user friendly, or accurate, but because a partisan split at the Board leaves only one option left on the table.

Partisan Division on Ballot Markers

The State Board’s Democrats and Republicans disagree about what a Ballot Marking Device must do – specifically, whether New York’s unique full face ballot layout is required only on the paper ballot, or if only the screen display must present the full face layout. This would seem to be a minor point but it in fact determines whether or not DREs will be allowed in New York (two of the six submitted systems are from Avante, but both of these machines should be rejected at Wednesdays meeting because they provide no way for voters with visual disabilities to verify their ballot).

The Liberty/Nedap DRE submission, now banned in its home country Holland, does not create a verifiable paper full face ballot – displaying the full layout only on its touch screen. The AutoMark ballot marker, submitted by both ES&S and Premier, the company formerly known as Diebold, creates a marked full face paper ballot, but doesn’t display one onscreen, using a paging ballot display instead. The State Board Republicans will allow the Liberty DRE to be authorized, but not the AutoMarks. The Democrats will allow the AutoMarks to be authorized, but not the Liberty DRE.

The two parties’ conflicting interpretations can’t be reconciled but could lead them to agree on authorizing the only system left standing – a combination ballot scanner/ ballot marking device submitted by Sequoia. With the Sword of Damocles imposed by Judge Sharpe hanging over their heads the Commissioners must find a way to authorize at least one system this week – partisan divide or not.

Do the Right Thing

New Yorkers have clearly stated that they want accessible voting on paper ballots, and there are many benefits of going with a single voting system for the entire state. The Court has said that New York must move forward now. If the Board of Elections can bring themselves to agree at the January 23 meeting to what everyone else already knows, then New York’s 12 million registered voters have won, and in 2009 we will vote on paper ballots, not DREs.

New York and New Hampshire

NH has what NY needs

I fully support calls for a recount in New Hampshire. That's why we want paper ballots, so we can audit. As far as I'm concerned, audits are ALWAYS warranted, regardless of the reason. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why NYVV has worked so hard for paper ballots in New York State - so we can audit and recount.

That being said, I personally believe the claims being made by some that fraud was perpetrated in New Hampshire based on polls are premature. The majority of people who look closely at elections know that there’s many reasons why poll results might vary from actual results. The differences in the New Hampshire polls and the results could easily be accounted for by undecideds, people who don't want to talk to pollsters, or simply the inherent inaccuracy of polls. As I learn more about auditing and talk with statisticians I've come to see that polls are not sufficient to use as a benchmark for fraud.

While the majority of advocates in the Election Integrity movement don’t see anything astonishing about the New Hampshire results, others are saying that the primary proves that paper ballots and scanners should not be chosen to replace lever machines in New York State. But there is no evidence to draw that conclusion. What New Hampshire has that New York needs is auditable paper ballots. New Hampshire will be able to recount and audit their election. That’s a very good thing and I hope they do it soon.

Let me repeat this, because it's important: I fully support calls for a recount in New Hampshire, because audits are ALWAYS warranted. Indeed, this is what we've worked for all these years.