Teresa Hommel, Where the Paper

8/14/2019 Teresa Hommel, Where the Paper

1/10

Teresa Hommelwww.wheresthepaper.org

10 St. Marks Place, New York, NY [email protected] 228-3803OrganizationalMeeting

Committee on Governmental OperationsGale Brewer, ChairFebruary 9,2010, 1:00pm

14h Floor Hearing Room, 250 Broadway, NY NY

The City Council should show awareness of voting machines issues and concern forthe problems with paper ballots and optical scanners.City Councilmembers, as elected officials, and the City Council, as the local legislativebody representing approximately 40% of the voters ofNew York State, should passResolution 2236 of 2009 to show recognition of the serious problems we will face if wereplace our lever voting machines with paper ballots and optical scanners at this time.Election law is the province of the state (and to some extent, the federal government).However, the City Council can raise concerns so that issues are accurately understood,and can provide political support for action at the state and federal levels.An example ofmisrepresentation of voting machine issues is the Daily News editorialpublished last week, Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2010 by Joseph Addabbo, former City Council-member and now chairman of the Election Law Committee of the New York Senate. Inhis editorial SenatorAddabbo says that our future scanners will bring greater efficiencyand accuracy while ensuring that every vote cast is counted accurately. Unfortunately thatis not true because our counties cannot afford software-independent statistically-significant audits, and counties are not even required to perform spot-check audits ofevery race on th e ballot. Why are audits needed? Ballot programming errors, such as those in Erie County in their pilot use of ES&S

scanners in the Nov. 3, 2009 general election. Software errors, such as those discovered by Dominion shortly before the Nov. 3,2009 general election but not corrected in all machines. Scanner calibration drift on election day. Tampering by insiders and outsidersTh e only way to determine whether a scanner counted votes properly on election day is tohand-count the votes on the same paper ballots after the election. The only way todetermine whether the outcome of a scanner-counted contest is correct is to hand-countthe ballots from a statistically-significant number of scanners (or other audit units).Nothing in our state election law requires this. No county has the funds or desire to do it.


2/10

Money: This is the wrong time to replace lever voting machinesdue to deficits atthe city, state, and federal levels.Our city and state do not have the money or political will to perform software-independent, statistically-significant audits of scanners. Scanners are computers, and needaudits appropriate for computers. Ifwe cant afford election audits, we shouldnt usecomputers in our elections. We should do everything in ou r power to keep using our levervoting machines which are mechanical, have lesser vulnerability to innocent andmalicious errors, and can be secured via inexpensive methods.State Election Commissioner Douglas Kellner testified on November 12, 2009 that thecost of running elections in New York City would rise 15 to 20 percent with the newequipment. http://www.wheresthepaper.org/09/TranscriptSenElecCmteHearingNov I 209.pclf pp5 I-52.

Meanwhile Mayor Bloornbergs proposed budget for the Board of Elections in the City ofNew York would reduce their budget. He also proposed that the Board reduce their staffby one third. Such budget and staff cuts will produce chaos in our elections.Our fiscal crisis will pit community against community in the struggle for scarceresources and essential services. Our election technology need notmake things worsewe can and should continue to use ou r lever voting machines, and not switch to moreexpensive, more vulnerable voting technology until we can afford to handle it properly.

The Governmental Operations Committee Should Hold a Hearing for Resolution2236 of 2009 and Urge Passage of the Resolution by the Full CouncilI urge the Governmental Operations Committee to hold a hearing on Resolution 2236 of2009, vote to approve it, and recommendation it for passage by the full council.20 upstate counties have passed resolutions to keep their lever voting machines on thebases of lever machines affordable cost and reliable ease of use.The New York City Council should join these counties and urge our state to take all legalmeans to avoid replacing our lever voting machines now.

###

Attachments1. Briefing Cover List2. Mayor Bloornbergs budget proposal, summarized in the Commissioners MeetingAgenda of 2/2/10, page 93. Senator Addabbos editorial4. Resolution 223 6-2009 introduced by City Councilwoman Helen Diane Foster


3/10

Teresa Hommel212 [email protected] St. Marks Place, New York, NY 10003Chair, Task Force on Election Integrity, Community Church ofNew York Unitarian UniversalistAll materials: www.wheresthepaper.org/nv.htrnl#KeepLeversFeb. 9, 2010

Briefing Cover List: Keep the Levers

AbbreviationsHAVA Federal Help America Vote Act of 2002ERMA New York State Election Reform and Modernization Ac t of 2005EAC Federal Agency, Election Assistance CommissionDRE Direct Recording Electronic voting machine, aka touchscreen voting machinePBOS voting system that uses voter-marked paper ballots, and precinct-based optical scannersBMD - Ballot Marking Device, assists voters with disabilities and limited English proficiencyto mark a paper ballot without direct human assistance.Lever mechanical lever voting machine

ObjectivesNew York City Council pass Resolution 2236-2009 to keep lever voting machines.New York State change Election Law to rescind ERMA and keep lever machines;OR make these four changes in ERMA:

1. Replace the word IshallH with may in the section of ERMA tha t says our countiesshall replace the lever machines (and make related changes).

2. Ban DREs.3. Prohibit counties from implementing optical scanners until after the state adopts legalrequirements for paper ballot security and verification of computer function.

a. Voted ballots and other election-day materials shall remain in public view fromclose of polls until certification of winners, to enable meaningful observation,and prevent tampering, opportunity, and suspicion. Counties shall establishprocedures that facilitate observation.

b. Replace our current audit mandate fo r a 3% spot-check with a requirementfor statistically-significant audits (consult with expert Howard Stanislevic,E-Voter Education Project, [email protected], 718-746-0449)

Federal oppose Holt and other bills if they:1. require replacing the levers, whether explicitly or as a side effect of requirements2. fail to ban DREs3. fail to require jurisdictions with PBOS to facilitate full, meaningful public

observation of the chain-of-custody of voted ballots etc from close of polls untilcertification ofwinners, and statistically-significant manual audits of optical scanners.

Desirable language for federal legislation to protect levers is available upon request.


4/10

I. Public Policy: Lever machines serve the public good.A. No computer is as secure as a mechanical machine.B. Levers are manageable for election staff, poii workers and most voters.C. Levers are affordable to maintain and use, but the higher cost of scanner elections will drainfunds from other essential services, and scrimping on electronic elections will cause chaos.D. New York Law is not ready to safeguard paper ballots or scanners with requirements to:--enable continuous public observation of chain of custody of ballots etc, and--perform audits that provide statistical confidence of correct outcomes i n a ll races (rather

than a 3% spot-check).E. We can barely recruit sufficient poii workers. Can we recruit sufficient observers?

1 Legislative Memorandumv wwheresthepaper org/LegislativeMemorandumKeepLe eisJunel5 09 pjj

2 Why Keep Lever Voting Machinesvhcresthcpajer org/WhyKeepi cerVotingMachincs htrnII Arguments against levers and for computerization dont make sense

3 FAQ Why Keep Lever VotingMachinesWhere sThePapei org/LAO WhKeepLevers pdfIII NYVV and LWV want software-independent verification of mechanical levers that

have no software, and wont address the problems with paper ballots and sanners.A. Rebuttal of anti-lever circular arguments, misrepresentations, and omissions of fact.

4. Back to Basicswww.wheresthepaper.om/RebutLeverageBackToBasicsApr 11 _09.pdf

B. The League ofWomen Voters ofNY State says that lever machines dont complywithsecurity requirements for computers . But vice versa is worse computers dont offer thesecurity of lever machines you cant open the back of a computer and confirm correctprogramming by visual inspection and simple mechanical tests.

5. Computers need software-independent audits. Levers need somebody to look in theback. http://www.wheresthepaper.org/rebutNYVV LWVNYS Sept 1 5_09.pdf

IV. Privatization means price gougng and loss of accountability and control.6. Vendors are Undermining the Structure of U.S. Elections, VotersUnite, Aug. 18. 2008

http://www.votersun ite.org/info/RecaimEIections.pdfV. Lever Maintenance: Parts and new machines are available. Most parts are sbindard

hardware store items. A few have always been made in a machine shop.

7. Voting Machine Service Center, Inc. (AVM machines)flp://www.wheresthepaper.org/VotingMachineServiceCenterOct2 1 09.pdf8. International Election Solutions (Shoup machines)

http://wwwwheresthepaper.org/IntlE1ectionSo1utionsOct22 09.pdfBriefing: Keep the Levers 2


5/10


6/10

XI. Federal Law: NYs lever-plus-BMD equipment complies with Federal law (HAVA).Legal Issues, more info: Andrea Novick, Esq., anovickfnklaw.com , 845-876-2359

A. HAVA requires one accessible voting device in each poli site. NYS counties havesatisfied this requirement by purchasing and using accessible Ballot Marking Devices.17. VotersUnite, 1-page, HAVA does not require replacement of lever machineswww.wheresthepaper.org/ResponseToNYVVFactSheet.pdf18. NewYork Can Keep Lever s: Federal Law, HAVAhttp://www.wheresthepaper.org/NYCanKeepLevers HAVA.pdf

B. EAC Advisory 2005-005 wrongly stated that HAVA required replacement of levers, but thisAdvisory is now discredited as substantively inaccurate and politically motivated.19 Advisory 2005-005www wheresthepapei org/I ACAdvisoryOnLeverMachrnes05 005 pd f20 Advisory 2005-005 should be revoked

heresthepaper org/EACAdvisoryShouldBeReokedAndiNovickF b24 09 pdtXII State Law ERMAs requirements to replace lever machines with software driven

systems can be rescinded Our agreement in Federal Court is based on ERMA and istherefore voidable21 Testimony before NYC Board of Elections, March 4, 2009

www.wheresthepaper.org/AndreaNovickTestimonyNYCBoEMar409.pdf22 Synopsis of Litigation legal theory why optical scanners are unconstitutionalwww.wheresthepaper.org/SynopsisOffheLitigation.pdf

23 Only a Transparent Vote-counting System Can Protect Democracywww v hercsthpaper org/ReMedia1)emocravC ompi iantV otmgSv stLm pdfXIII. Much criticism of levers is uninformed and inappropriate:A Criticism Lever machines dont have a paper trail & dont allow software-independent auditsAnswer Lever machines dont have software Conversely, computers dont meet mechanicalstandards--you cant open the computer and visually see if the programming is correct.B Criticism Some localities dont maintain or secure their lever machinesAnswer: Use of computers wil l not solve f au lty maintenance and administrative practices, bu tscanner software errors and ballot programming errors can go unnoticed more easily thanlever machine problems which are easy to prevent, detect, and correct.C. Wrong belief: Now that the optical scanners are certified, they will work properly.Why uninformed: No computer testing today can guarantee proper function tomorrow, anymore than repairing a car today guarantees that it will run tomorrow. See item 4. above, and:

24. Stop-Gap Mitigations forDeployed Voting Systemswww.wheresthepaper.org/YouGoToElectionsStopGapJviitigations.pdf25. FB I Press Release, results of th e FBI 2005 Computer Crime Surveywww.wheresthepaper.org/FBI ComputerCrirneSurveyPR.pdf

26. New York City Council Resolution 228A-2006 recommendations are still needed bu thave not been implementedwww.wheresthepaper.org/ny.html#CCreso228

Briefing: Keep the Levers 4


7/10

JULIE DENTPRESIDENT

JUAN CARLOS J.C. POLANCOSECRETARY

JOSE MIGUEL ARAUJONAOMI BARRERAJAMES J. SAMPEL

NANCY MO1TOLA-SCHACHERJ.P. SIPP

GREGORY C. SOUMASJUDITH D. STUPP

FREDERIC M. UMANECOMMISSIONERS

BOARD OF ELECTIONSIN

THECITYOFNEWYORKEXECUTIVE OFFICE, 32 BROADWAYNEW YORK, NY 100041609(212) 4875300

www.vote.nyc.ny.us

MARCUS CEDERQVISTExEcuTivE DIRECTORGEORGE GONZALEZ

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

PAMELA GREEN PERKINSADMINISTRATIV MANAGER

JOHNJ.WARDFINANcE OFFICER

To Commissioners BCE NYC January 29 , 2010From Finance Of fice r BCE NYC

On Thursday January 28 , 2010, the Mayor released the January Budget Plan showingadjustments to FYI 0 and FY I 1.

November Plan FY1 0 January Plan FY 10 January Plan FY11PS $17,543,014 PS $26,252,076 PS $17,756,641OTPS $68,675,379Total $86,218,393 OTPS $82,175,379Total $108,427,455 OTPS $49,316,283Total $67,072,924

FY10 PS increase of $8,709,062Funding adjustmentUnion and Managerial raises $7,000,000

(One Time)$ 1,709,062 (Base Line)

FY10 OTPS increase of$ 13,500,000Runoff

FYI 1 PS funding of $17,756,641Inadequate base lineAd ditional $1,495,435 cut

FYI 1 OTPS funding of $ 49,316,283Inadequate base lineAdditional $4,489,096 cu tReduction of $14,870,000 in HAVA fundingHeadcount 0MB 319 BOE NYC 351

9


8/10

TdFuy2

DNWSNyNwn

Nw

m

narevethNwYkCy

BdoEeocheo

SemaSweD

oc

svnmnoreao

aemn

Tnwmnwbuinths

fapmayagaeeoa

wbngeeeceaaa

totheeoapoweeun

theyve

ceaae

lywpeeohs

w

toaueaNwYkothe

ayTsaeBdEeo

ginaloamcopo

oamheyaemn

eyapothpoamna

oaoothvnmn

cunreewnm

loonoco

msuethhae

tuwhaa

raeLyhSe

Eeo

Cmmie

toaoseto

eueththm

cnwdmth

hgsada

aetuwhare

aeLahsaeBdoEe

tOasoinueapopoam

nc

mnnoo6

cewcpoothnT

mnoeushhU

ctuVe

asocbaueth

thwaeeminnthlew

aeinunthuopbos

thaem

edacb

ufoaaohmneus

inaoupan

y

Whesomcnhb

perednpvdotha

oothpseawadc

teompwk

hino

anthmnhaeey

caeeommsuh

hnhntodwhreayT

oyinaw

thmn

peyaeto

a

vewewthv

eneymkh

bonawhn

cehsineob

cdnbrebth

mnsu

c

cnacdenm

ineofnnth

beohm

Tmnshw

amnmms

mnyfompe

innthbsineyTe

weminpvisubhwe

eyree

To

hsyhsaeBd

oEeowwkwhpoL

fomEeoSem&Sweto

ruaseomateso

sueouona

aA

tehmnaedvetoNw

YkCyhwugeme te

nboebnufothf

tminthsSem

pmye

tU1ea

wwkwhth

BdoEeotoinomatan

ove

wkoue

eceEeoDoaohs

ANwYkcbcdh

thwhhmuwha

reaenmn

ae

swmhsaoooc

svnmnlofo

wctowknwhinvds

-

aoocytoeeve

othuasoatowkwhh

cyBdoEeotoreoo

cm

edscsoeueh

hh

yreocosu

fuycmeehsao

Iamcn

h

o

opwk

wAcmo

thsaeSeEeoCme

imineotopweesa

towctomthamnsao

ooeoeeameee

tvsuaaownpwko

wkhdshsatheissu

saasunth

eoeom

tomshh

Mygsthsy

EeoCm

mecmwcnbdn

u

thpoew

layo

inevetunb

wv

mhno

yeoe

meabe

cd

SaeJoA

aDemoa

reeswenQ

1hSae

Dsc

&

JoA


9/10

Res. No. 2236-2009Resolution calling upon the New York State Legislature, the New York Board of Elections, theNew York United States Senators, the New York Congressional delegation, and the New YorkGovernor, to take all appropriate actions that may be necessary to enable New York counties tocontinue using lever voting machines supplemented by accessible voting technology for peoplewith disabilities.Sponsors: Helen D. Foster, Rosie Mendez , Tony Avel la , Erik Mart in Dilan, Simcha Felder, AlanJ. Gerson, Sara M. Gonzalez, Robert Jackson, Letitia James. Melissa Mark-Viverito, AnnabelPalma. Domenic M. Recchia, Jr., Kendall Stewart, David I. Weprin, Thomas White, Jr.Whereas, New York City has successfully used its highly accurate lever voting machines formany decades with very few problems and wants to continue using them; andWhereas, The New York City Council believes that continued use of lever voting machines is inthe best interest of the public because they are secure, inexpensive to use, and built to lastindefinitely with low-cost routine maintenance and replacement ofworn parts with new partsthat are readily available; andWhereas, The federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires every poll site to offeraccessible equipment for voters with disabilities, and all counties in New York State haveacquired and deployed accessible Ballot Marking Devices in order to comply with that mandate;andWhereas, HAVA does not ban non-computerized voting technologies, such as systems that usehand-counted paper ballots or mechanical lever voting machines; andWhereas, Under HAVA, lever voting machines may be u sed together with accessible BallotMarking Devices; andWhereas, The New York State Board of Elections agreed in federal court to replace lever votingmachines in compliance with the New York State Election Reform and Modernization Act of2005 (ERMA), but such agreement was not required in order to comply with HAVA; andWhereas, Most parts needed to maintain lever voting machines are standard items that can bepurchased in hardware stores, and the rest have always been made in machine shops and cancontinue to be so made; andWhereas, Changes have occurred in recent years in the publics understanding of DirectRecording Electronic voting machines (DREs), also known as touch screens and DREs, withor without a paper trail, are now known to be insecure, failure-prone, difficult to use by voters,poll workers, and election administrators, as well as more expensive to use than noncomputerized voting technologies; andWhereas. In recent years, voting systems consisting of voter-marked paper ballots and opticalscanners have also caused numerous problems and high costs in other jurisdictions; and

1


10/10

Whereas, No jurisdiction, including New York State, has rules requiring voted ballots to be infull public v iew f rom the close of polls unti l the certification of winners, which would preventtampering, suspicion and unanswerable questions; nor ha s New York State established a legalrequirement to perform audits that would provide confidence that the DREs are workingaccurately; nor do New Yorks counties have the money to pay the escalating costs of electionswith paper ballots and optical scanners; andWhereas. ERMAs requirement that counties replace their mechanical lever voting machines witheither DREs or precinct-based optical scanners (supplemented by accessible voting technologyfor voters with disabilities) should be eliminated to reflect current knowledge and economicconstraints, and counties should be allowed to keep their mechanical lever voting machinessupplemented by accessible voting technology; andWhereas, Th e cost of the acquisition of, transition to and use of optical scanners in New York,including the cost of post-election audits, h as not yet been studied or estimated by an ygovernmental agency, but studies by cit izens and information f rom other jurisdictions show thatcomputerization of voting technology dramatically raises the cost of holding elections; andWhereas, Th e current economic crisis in our nation, s tate , and city is pitting community againstcommunity in competition for scarce f inancial resources, and is causing the actual or scheduledcutback of essential services; andWhereas, In the current economic crisis it would be unwise to initiate a change of votingtechnology that would increase the cost of running elections, especially given that New YorkCity already owns its mechanical lever voting machines as well as its accessible Ballot MarkingDevices and New Yorkers a re able to vote in a manner that is compliant with all federalrequirements; andWhereas, Available funds could then be spent to provide training for poll workers so they couldbetter assist voters wh o wish to use the accessible voting equipment that New York now offers,as well as to develop voter communication materials in all accessible formats and to disseminatesuch materials multiple times prior to elections through a wide variety of outlets; now, therefore,beitResolved, That the Council of t he C ity ofNew York calls upon the New York State Legislature,the New York Board of Elections, the New York United States Senators, the New YorkCongressional delegation, and the New York Governor, to take all appropriate actions that maybe necessary to enable New York counties to continue using lever voting machinessupplemented by accessible voting technology for people with disabilities.JCG08/31/09LS # 7775

2

Documents

Teresa Hommel, Where the Paper