Kellner said it's now clear that a "qualified" rating from NASED is "meaningless ...a piece of..."

[Wilms]

Warning on voting machines reveals oversight failure

By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

August 24, 2008

snip

Like nearly all of the nation's modern voting equipment, Premier's products were declared "qualified" under a voluntary testing process overseen from the mid 1990s until 2005 by the National Association of State Election Directors.

Computer scientists, some state officials and election watchdog groups allege that the NASED-sponsored testing system was a recipe for disaster, shrouded in secrecy, and allowing equipment makers to help design the tests.

The federal Election Assistance Administration, created in 2002, took over the testing responsibility in 2005, but has yet to certify a single voting machine.

snip

NASED watched over the issuance of "qualified" reports from Independent Testing Laboratories, but with little control over the testing. The vendors secretly negotiated payments with the labs, helped design the tests, got to see the results first and only shared the codes driving their software with three NASED technical experts who signed non-disclosure agreements.

NASED officials posted only "qualified" ratings on the group's Web site.

snip

Wilkey says the labs' approval was never a "certification." But EAC members have referred publicly to NASED's "certification" of voting machines, and numerous states enacted laws barring purchases of equipment unless it passed the NASED-sponsored tests.

snip

The concerns prompted New York's elections board to scrap a $60 million contract to buy new touch screens to replace its decades-old lever voting machines. Vice Chair Douglas Kellner said it's now clear that a "qualified" rating from NASED is "meaningless ...a piece of toilet paper."

snip

Critics also have questioned the agency's hiring of Wilkey as its executive director and of former FEC official Brian Hancock to oversee voting system certification, since both were involved in the much-criticized NASED process.

snip

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/50485.html

[donco6]

1. A "qualified" finding on an audit is the kiss of death.

You have to have an "unqualified" opinion - in other words, there was nothing found that gave the auditor pause. There should be a detailed explanation of what the "qualification" was about - evidence of the possibility of tampering?

[mod mom]

2. WOW! McClatchy comes through again! I'll be sending this off to the local fishwrap!

rec'd.

[Kurovski]

3. K&R. (nt)