CA Secretary of the State Decertifies E-Voting Machines

In a late night, 11:45pm, press conference Debra Bowen decertifies e-voting machines. Will allow one DRE per polling place, which must have paper ballot hand counted.

BradBlog reports on the press conference.

The CA Official site.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen began her top-to-bottom review of the voting machines certified for use in California in March 2007. The review was designed to restore the public’s confidence in the integrity of the electoral process and to ensure that California voters are being asked to cast their ballots on machines that are secure, accurate, reliable, and accessible. On August 3, 2007, Secretary Bowen announced her decisions regarding which systems in the review will be permitted to be used in the 2008 elections and beyond.

The CA Decertification of Diebold equipment.

Diebold…AccuVote-OS[to be used in CT]…which was previously approved. is found and determined to be defective or unacceptable and its certification and approval for use in subsequent elections in California is immediately withdrawn except as specifically provided below.

1. In order to provide accessibe voting to voters with disabilities in compliance with HAVA, juristictions may use no more than one AccuVote-TSx per polling place..

The document goes on with stiff re-certification requirements which include various restrictions and procedures for use and stiff requirements on Diebold for plans and actions to make the systems secure. At first reading they seem appropriate, yet unlikely to be met.


Diebold press release

BradBlog visits Diebold HQ and responds to Diebold press release.

NY Times article, voting vendors respond:

The companies also complained that the examiners had access to computer coding, manuals and other information that is not available to the public.

Of course, ex Diebold employees are members of the general public. Including the felon who wrote the original system who was convicted for banking fraud via software.

So, what does this all mean for Connecticut?

Connecticut is different from California in one critical aspect – Connecticut’s Diebold machines are programmed under contract by Diebold, where it seems that in California they are programmed by county election officials. The weakest link in the entire process is in the programming of each election, by people who have access to all the equipment and are authorized to write the memory cards in the 1st place. Who could possibly be in a better position to exploit this loophole than employees of Diebold itself?


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.