Letter from Robin Carnahan about voting equipment security

[usregimechange]

Thank you for your email regarding voting equipment security. As Missouri's Secretary of State, it is my top priority to safeguard the integrity of Missouri elections and increase the confidence of Missouri voters. Prior to my election, the Secretary of State’s Office, in conjunction with local election authorities around the state, developed the state implementation plan for the Federal Help America Vote Act. The terms of that plan specifically delegated to local election authorities the responsibility for choosing and purchasing election equipment for their jurisdictions.

While local election authorities are ultimately responsible for choosing election equipment, any voting system to be used in the state also must be qualified by the Secretary of State's office according to criteria specified in state law. As part of this qualification process, the state has required that, among other things, any voting system used in Missouri must:

1) Provide a voter verifiable paper audit trail; and

2) Have its computer "source code" reviewed and archived by a federal independent testing authority and reviewed by the state’s Automated Voting Equipment Qualification Committee. This Committee includes independent computer software and hardware experts, as well as local election authorities, and advocates for individuals with disabilities.

My staff and I take the security of Missouri elections very seriously. I hope you find this information helpful and that it addresses your concerns. I thank you for your commitment to the security and integrity of Missouri's elections.


Very truly yours,


Robin Carnahan

Secretary of State

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Paper ballots?

I'm moving back to Missouri!

[galloglas]

2. BS

Ask to see the voter verifiable paper trail in action.

Ask to see a hypothetical recount as Diebold gave in Leon Co, FL.

Ask why she has certified Diebold machines that are being banned by NC, CA and other states.

OR


go to this for a better take.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=407038#407409

[usregimechange]

3. Thanks, getting back with them...

[galloglas]

4. Ahemmm! Harumpf!

Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock....

Don't tell me our Robin was an early bird; flying the coop when you asked the question, did she?

Wait till you start having the buck passed on you.

But, with "Thor" Hearne sitting on the HAVA committee in 2003/04 when the deals were done, I have a feeling many, many bucks were passed.

"Legal tender" bucks is my guess, and under the table.

[usregimechange]

5. I have been referred:

Mr. Jackson - My name is Amy Jordan Wooden and I work with the Secretary of State's office as a Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Coordinator. Mindy Mazur, Secretary Carnahan's Chief of Staff, asked me to contact you to answer your questions regarding voting equipment. I thought it might be easier to talk on the phone to answer your questions and explain the state qualification process as opposed to communicating via email. Would you like to give me a call or would you email me your phone number and convenient time to reach you? My cell phone number is ____. Thanks for your inquiries and I look forward to speaking with you soon.

Amy

[usregimechange]

10. Amy, where are you? Nothing yet... tick tock, tick, tock.

[usregimechange]

11. Here it is:

I appreciate your commitment to the security of our elections process.

In your email you inquired about a “voter verified paper trail.” I think you will be pleased to know that Missouri requires that any voting machine sold or used in the state provide a voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT). State law requires that the Secretary of State’s office qualify new voting systems for use in the state based on criteria set forth by law. To fulfill this requirement, Secretary Carnahan established a committee of software and hardware experts as well as election officials and disability advocates to observe new voting equipment and document their observations.

You specifically asked for comments on the use of a voter verified paper trail “in action.” As you know, many local election authorities are just now acquiring new voting systems and automated voting equipment with a VVPAT has yet to be used beyond a trial basis in Missouri. However, the qualification committee has witnessed the VVPAT in action for every system qualified in Missouri. Again, a working VVPAT is required for any automated voting machine used in Missouri.

With regard to specific equipment qualified, the office’s website lists all of the equipment that was qualified in 2005, including a couple of Diebold systems. The state of Missouri has explicit safeguards in place. In Missouri, voting machine vendors are required to submit a copy of their source code to the Secretary of State’s office where it is subject to review by the software experts on the state’s qualification committee. In addition, Missouri state law requires that any qualified voting system be certified by a federal independent testing authority (ITA).

I hope this answers some of your questions. Again, Secretary Carnahan is committed to voting security and protecting the integrity of our elections. Voting equipment qualification is just one component of this, but one that the office takes very seriously.

Thanks for your questions. Again, please don’t hesitate contact me in the future via email or via the phone at _____. Thank you also for serving as an Election Judge. Missouri needs more people committed to our elections process and your involvement is admirable.

Amy Jordan Wooden
HAVA Coordinator

[galloglas]

6. I forgot one point about Diebold Software

The letter sent to you by Robin Carnahan indicates that the "source code" will be safe. Earlier this year, and also in a meeting with Amy Jordan Wooden, I was told it would be, essentially, "escrowed". You know, to look at, in case anything "suspicious" might happen.

But, rereading the second point that Carnahan makes, she doesn't seem to say that. At all.

She names two bodies that will "review" the source code. And she says a federal independent testing authority will archive the source code. Which raises some questions.

Her letter seems to indicate Federal oversight, yet she spells it federal. So, checking on that, I come up with three "federally accredited" ITAs. No Federal ITA.

Feel safer?? Then read the link below.

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=139&Itemid=868

Even if SoS Carnahan did have an "escrowed" copy (and it doesn't sound like it), of what use is it if the source code depends upon other software built into ROM (firmware) to function, or is used with an "interpreter". Indeed, that is exactly what got Diebold pitched from NC and CA.

Further, why would Diebold be willing to accomodate Missouri's SoS requirement when it even failed to abide by a North Carolina law which mandates such an escrow. Is Missouri that special?

So, from the Detroit News, I give you...

More recently Diebold has faced technical questions. The company's machines were blamed for voting disruptions in a 2004 California primary. During a test on Diebold equipment in Florida, a security researcher showed how vote results could be changed.

Diebold also recently failed in an attempt to be exempted from a North Carolina law that requires voting machine makers to put their software code in escrow in case of problems.

--Connie Mabin, AP Business Writer.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051215/BIZ04/512150310/1013

[usregimechange]

7. I don't think they have a form letter for that!

[galloglas]

8. They must be typing one as we speak!

As you have just brought up the lack thereof. :evilgrin:

I sometimes wonder if our SoS is a hologram, left over from some old episode of Star Trek. She really should get a nickname.

"Seldom Seen" comes to mind... but I think Hollywood has already used that one.

And, you know, I wonder why it is that this Amy Jordan Wooden keeps being dispatched to put out fires and answer questions. She is not even an employee of the SoS office, according to the State of Missouri Official Manual, for 2005-2006.

Maybe I should go get my fishing license at the Driver's License Bureau, next time.

[NoFederales]

9. Any advice on what a citizen can do in his/her County to check on

verifiable voting? If this issue isn't secured, nothing else will ever matter.

NoFederales

[galloglas]

12. Hello, Nofeds.

Been thinking about your question as things evolve. Got an idea.

Depending on your county (email me if you want), go to the County Clerk, Board of Election Commissioners, or whoever is the main election authority in your county (no, don't write, call, or email. Just go look 'em in the eye). Then ask these questions.

1)What kind of election machine will use in 2006?

2)Can I see it?
2a)Why not?

3)Can I see its paper trail, and get a sample one?
3a)Why not?

4)Can I see a sample audit?
4A)Why not?

5)A simulated recount?
5A)Why not?

6)How do you guarantee the election is fair?

finally,

7) Can you give me all of the answers again without using the phrases "Trust us" or "Trust them" or "We trust them"?

Really. This isn't a joke.

Think about it. Questions 1-6 six are perfectly logical and are your business: you are the voter, that is your court house, your money and your employee. They are public servants.

So, a person would only ask question #7 if it became obvious by the answers to 1-6 that you were being gamed.

If that happens, your election authority itself has become the joke, not these questions. Furthermore, as public servants, they should be required to answer Question #7, even if they refuse to.

If they refuse #7, email me back and we'll figure out something.

[NoFederales]

13. Thanks.

NoFederales

[kiteinthewind]

14. Thanks for the info, galloglas! Will let you know what they say!

:hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. Hey Kite!

:hi:

[kiteinthewind]

16. Hey, Proud!! OMG, you went home and got on the computer!

I went home and fell asleep on the couch. Gonna have to stick to beer next time!
:toast:

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. I was in bed shortly after typing this

Gotta check DU at least once a day you know.

[galloglas]

18. For AMY WOODEN: What is a VVPAT???

In a non-responsive response to USREGIMECHANGE, Amy Jordan Wooden, wrote on 1-16-2006

In your email you inquired about a “voter verified paper trail.” I think you will be pleased to know that Missouri requires that any voting machine sold or used in the state provide a voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT)

Let's start with basics. It has been one full year since various parties have requested information about Missouri voting and ballots. So, to keep you from having to write to 4,000,000 separate voters, let's discuss this here. It can be an ongoing public forum.

Other than hearing (secondhand, BTW) that
1)the SoS will require V.V.P.A.T.'s and
2)that the only important goal was to comply with HAVA by 1-1-2006, we've been told nothing we've inquired about.

So, request #1 is: Please define, legally, a "ballot" and answer the three questions below.

Is it a tangible thing?
Can it be a one time electrical discharge, like static electricity?
Can it be altered, changed, or stored?

#2 is: Please define, legally, a "V.V.P.A.T." and answer the three questions below that.

How does the voter "verify"?
What paper does the voter verify that is then "auditable"?
How do you (the Office of SoS) insure it cannot be changed after the vote is cast?

[kiteinthewind]

19. And WILL they be audited? Every time? And why not just use paper ballots?

That's the million dollar question! :think:

[galloglas]

20. I got an answer !! I got an answer !!

Hello Seth, NoFeds, Kite and PTBL!

Among the many, many questions I've not had answered by the SoS's office this year, there is one that should be a no-brainer.

(Legally) "What is a ballot?"

Well, last Thursday I went to the 52nd District Town hall meeting hosted by Asst. House Minority Leader Paul LeVota. 4th District Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was present. And, he spoke with audacious honesty to an appreciative and very supportive audience of about 50 people.

As the meeting wound down, Paul asked if anyone had any questions which he could answer or find out about for us when he returned to Jeff City.

Finally deciding, "What the Hell", I told Paul that I, and many others, had tried unsuccessfully to get SoS Carnahan to define legally, according to the RSMo., what a "ballot" was (I think the SoS still claims Missouri voters cast "ballots", doesn't she?). So, I asked Paul if he would help us find out and he promised he would.

I promptly recieved his email today!
I copy it for y'all, below.

Phil,

Here is what our research has found on your questions concerning the
definition of "ballot."

The definition of "ballot" from Chapter 115- Election Authorities and
Conduct of Elections, Section 115.013 is:

(2) "Ballot", the ballot card, paper ballot or ballot designed for use
with an electronic voting system on which each voter may cast all votes
to which he or she is entitled at an election;

(3) "Ballot card", a ballot which is voted by making a punch or sensor
mark which can be tabulated by automatic tabulating equipment;

(4) "Ballot label", the card, paper, booklet, page or other material
containing the names of all offices and candidates and statements of all
questions to be voted on;

Additionally, the defintion of "ballot" from Ballentine's law dictionary
is "The implement of voting, whether a paper to be marked by an elector
or the face of a voting machine prepared for an election."

Thanks,
Paul LeVota
Assistant Minority Leader
Missouri State Representative - District 52
[phone]

Now this may answer another question we've been asking. How can a recount be done? Because, if I'm not mistaken, the Ballentine Law Dictionary might guide, but never determine, Missouri Law.

If so, answers # 2 through # 4 seem to plainly describe something tangible and made of matter, not energy. That should exclude electrical impulses from Diebold, or anyone else. Likewise, the number of votes, determined by "ballots", could not be some number of toted up electrical impulses.

Nor, as in Ballentine's definition, could "faces of voting machines" be recounted. At least, not while keeping a straight face themselves!
So if you can't hold it and recount it by hand, it isn't a ballot. Right?

Well then, maybe they can't treat us all like Rubes when we ask for recounts.

Imagine them looking at some machine and saying, "Yup, 16,385 to 247 in favor of Blunt!".

"What? You want a recount?" "Well, alright then."

Then they look back at the machine, turn to you and say, "Recount's done! It still says 16,385 to 247 for Blunt. See there, these machines work jest fine!"

My next question to the recounter would then be,
"Which direction to the Supreme Court?"

Show ME the Vote!!