E-Voting bill approved by committee 11-1

[Kelvin Mace]

First, the final vote pretty much came down as I predicted in that
there were two hard negative votes, Cordle and Knight. Cordle didn't bother to show, which was a mistake since they might have avoided having Knights amendment tabled if he had shown up.

Knight's manuever to amend the bill to allow digital ballots, audio or
photographic backup was narrowly tabled 6-5 (I do not know who abstained). Even if they had called for a vote, I had a couple of
other bits of evidence to trot out, namely the ACM endorsement.

Mr. Esparza made a good argument for tabling, and I credit his
comments for the success of the vote.

Selker's presentation was disorganized and didn't focus much on his
anti-paper views until the Q&A. He mostly focused on poll workers and failure to follow procedure, a common problem in elections.

Selker claimed that an audio device of his own design was better and more secure than paper for backing up EVMs.

(Question: Has he patented this device? Would he stand to gain if it were used? He didn't strike me as the type, but you never know).

I asked him whether adding yet another layer of technology (setting a
machine to watch a machine) wasn't making things more complicated, more expensive equipment to buy and maintain, more training to perform
and more devices which could fail? He basically conceded the point, but said the system was more reliable than paper.

(For some reason he made a couple of jokes that fell flat on the room.
One was a comments about "having a PhD means nothing" and "who cares about money" when we addressed the additional expense.) Not good tactical moves, if you ask me.

Mr. Esparza asked him whether his "audio auditing" was available from
anyone. He said Hart Intercivic was "testing it". Esparza pursued the issue "as of today, Feb 9th, 2005, isn't paper my best option for an ndelible record of the vote?'

"No, the audio auditing is better than paper."

So, I chimed in.

"As of today, is their any vendor who is selling a certified version of your device?"

"No, there isn't."

"Thank you."

And that was the end of that dodge.

There were several minor amendements, wording changes to insure that
the state didn't require counties to accept an "unfunded mandate" (by Michael Ashe, Durham Co. election director). An amendment to put back in the language for IRV (rejected) and the above attempt by Knight to undo the paper requirement (tabled).

Sen. Allran moved for a vote on the bill and it was over in an
instant.

After the meeting I ran into George Gilbert (Guilford Co. election director) while talking to Ted Selker. Gilbert was barely civil and accused me of being "wrong and knowing you are wrong", which I believe is calling me a liar. He emphatically rejected the idea that paper ballost could be counted accurately and told me that he knew about counting ballots and I was wrong about the accuracy of hand-counting ballots. I then responded "and I know computers and you are wrong to put your faith in computers." This did not make him happy. The argument would have gotten more heated, but Gary Bartlett intervened and said they had to go.

I later was invited to lunch by Sen. Kinnaird and saw Selker, Gilbert and Bartlett in deep discussion over lunch.

Based on Gilbert's reaction, I think it is safe to say that the gloves are off and it is very important that we understand he and the vendors will use every trick at their disposal to scuttle the bill.

Gilbert and his allies have suffered a pretty sound defeat and their egos are stinging. We've just made the issue personal and no quarter will be asked or given.

As to what we should do next, I will find out where the bill goes and
will find out who the key people are and where to apply pressure. A billboard would be nice (my suggestion a ballot beside the US Constitution with the text "Paper. Good enough for our Founding Fathers, good enough for our ballot."

I would also suggest post cards and will work to get color postcards with appropriate images (a paper ballots with a Windows error message in the middle. The caption reads "Paper: 200+ years without a general
protection fault."

Images are POWERFUL and we must use them to make our argument.

We will have to come up with ways to fund these initiatives.

David Allen
www.blackboxvoting.com

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

1. Gilbert contradicts himself.

Brought this up from other thread, cause it belongs here too.

I offer you George Gilbert's own words. Gilbert says that upgrading Guilford County equiptment will cost gigantic outrageous sums of money. Huge numbers. Gilbert stated two different estimates, 2 1/2 months apart, with about $4.6 Million difference in estimates.

Nov 23,2004 estimates $3.4 Million to upgrade
Feb 04,2005 estimates $8.0 Million to upgrade


Voting-Machine Woes in Carteret Have Officials Looking for Answers Legislative panel to consider remedies, maybe a new election Associated Press
November 23rd, 2004


Guilford County also couldn't properly record 36 votes in 2000, but all but four managed to cast another ballot,
said George Gilbert, the county elections director.

Gilbert told the panel that installing paper receipts for these machines would cost $3.4 million in his county alone.
He also said that a hand recount of those receipts also would be more expensive and time consuming.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5342

Op-ed in the Greensboro N&R, 2/4/05
Tacking a printer on to touchscreen voting machines would not only be a step backward,
but would leave Guilford County taxpayers with the bill for up to $8 million worth of "electronic pencils."
In other counties, the cost would be proportionate but the result would be the same ... very expensive pencils.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

2. Thanks for the update, David!

:hi: It was great meeting you at dinner the other night, btw!
Let us know what we can do to help with further action on this issue!

[struggle4progress]

3. Heard ya on the news! Ya done us proud! eom

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

4. VVPB bill s/b introduced Monday or Tuesday

Then we need to overcome the false claims by some election officials that VVPB would be too expensive.

That would be one Guilford County Election official who makes up numbers and gives them to reporters.