Warning: NO Internet Voting In CT – A Scam or just misleading calls to voters?

“People have been stopping into the office to express concern over telephone calls that they’ve received in which they are directd [sic] to a web site where they believe they’re being told they can vote online,”

From the New Canaan Patch: Residents Report Concerns About Possible Voter “Scam” <read

Town Clerk says it’s not quite a scam, but not it’s not quite right, either.

Responding to reports that prospective voters have been approached by an organization inviting them to “vote online,” Town Clerk Claudia Weber said the outreach campaign is not quite a “scam,” but some of the information being offered is not completely accurate.

“People have been stopping into the office to express concern over telephone calls that they’ve received in which they are directd [sic] to a web site where they believe they’re being told they can vote online,” Weber told Patch.

She said Rep. John Hetherington, the registrar of voters and Republican Campaign Headquarters have received similar calls from concerned residents.

Weber said the callers identify themselves as part of The Legacy Foundation. They direct prospective voters to a password protected website for an organization called Democracy Depends on You!

“Once they get onto the site, they’re actually invited to request an application for an absentee ballot,” Weber said. Applying for an absentee ballot is legal. Weber says the problem is the language on the site.

With a password provided by the caller, prospective voters see the following message:

As you know, our Democracy depends on Americans from every part of our great country exercising their right to vote. Few elections have generated the enthusiasm of the election to be held this November 2nd.

For a multitude of reasons, you can avoid the long lines at the polls and vote early from the comfort of your own home.

Download and complete your application for absentee voting now. “There are only certain reasons to vote by absentee,” Weber said. “Wanting to avoid lines is not one of them. You can vote by absentee ballot if you are going to be absent during voting hours, bcause of illness or physical disability, if you are in service in the armed forces, if your religion forbids secular activity on that day, or if your required performance as an election official precludes you from getting to your polling place to vote.”

Patch was shown the Democracy Depends on You! website homepage, which provides no address or phone number. The site says it is “Paid for by the Alliance for America’s Future – not affiliated with LongDistanceVoter.com”.

The Alliance for America’s Future homepage says its mission is “dedicated to educating and advocating sound economic and security policies that will foster growth, prosperity, and peace for America’s future.”

We looked up the Alliance for America’s Future on Google, it seems to be a 527 linked to Mary Cheney.

Update: New Hampshire too <read>

Connecticut follows MOVE Act, avoids flaws – Others follow the money

We offer our complements to Secretary Bysiewicz, the Town Clerks, Legislators who supported the MOVE Act, Connecticut, the many other states and officials who are implementing the MOVE Act with integrity. But there is big money and momentum behind efforts in other states to exploit flaws in the Act.

Press Release from Secretary of the State, 10/13/2010: <read>

BYSIEWICZ: CONNECTICUT SUCCESSFULLY
IMPLEMENTING FEDERAL MOVE ACT TO
IMPROVE ABSENTEE BALLOTING FOR
OVERSEAS MILITARY VOTERS
SECRETARY OF THE STATE, CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION CONGRATULATE
CONNECTICUT TOWN CLERKS FOR IMPLEMENTING NEW FEDERAL DEADLINE
TO SEND GENERAL ELECTION ABSENTEE BALLOTS ELECTRONICALLY

HARTFORD: Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz and several members of Connecticut’s
Congressional delegation reported today that all of Connecticut’s cities and towns have
implemented the requirements of the federal Military Overseas Voter Empowerment
(MOVE) Act and have provided absentee ballots by mail or electronically to members of
the military serving overseas, depending on their stated preference. The office of
Secretary of the State Bysiewicz surveyed municipal clerks in all 169 Connecticut cities
and towns to ensure proper implementation of the new law. This survey was conducted
following the federally mandated deadline of September 18th to send ballots by mail, fax
or email to all registered voters currently overseas or in military who applied for them.

We particularly appreciate the statement from the President of the Town Clerks Association, we expect no less from all officials:

Joseph Camposeo, Town Clerk of Manchester and President of the Connecticut Town
Clerks Association, said, “The Town Clerks of Connecticut are committed to working at
the highest level of integrity for their customers and citizens. The record clearly shows
that this commitment applies to the military absentee ballot process as well. I am proud
of our effort made by the Connecticut town clerks and trust that this manner of
compliance and efficiency will continue.”

We offer our complements to Secretary Bysiewicz, the Town Clerks, and Legislators who supported the MOVE Act, along with the many other states and officials who are implementing the MOVE Act with integrity.

We support most of the MOVE Act, yet have been constant critics of one part of the Act which provides for pilot projects for Internet voting for Military and Overseas voters. However, we have been a supporter of Connecticut’s implementation and decision to avoid the Internet voting bandwagon. We have suggested ways in which Connecticut could easily follow the lead of other states and do even better for our military and overseas voters.

We also complement Representative Rush Holt, a MOVE Act and voting integrity advocate, who supported the Act without realizing it had the dangerous Internet voting provisions, listened to our criticism, offered corrective legislation, and pointed out the risks of Internet voting to the New York Times.

Big money and momentum behind efforts in other states to exploit flaws in the Act:

Hopefully, Internet Voting Will be banned before it costs an election. The recent Washington D.C. public test clearly demonstrated that the years of warnings by computer scientists, security experts, and advocates were fully justified. A new article from TruthOut is a very readable summary of the concerns and the continuing tendency to ignore those concerns by some election officials: Computer Scientists, Election Integrity Advocates Question Feasibility of “Digital Democracy”. It is also the first article we have seen that effectively covers the money interests behind Internet voting. <read>

Despite the recent hack during public testing of DC’s Internet voting pilot and the rash of other security problems that have plagued the short history of online voting systems, elections entrepreneurs, along with some state officials and voter advocates, continue to make headway as they push for the adoption of i-voting technology. The practice – and the private voting systems industry that appears poised for more widespread adoption – has found an inroad via military and overseas voters…

The argument for technology as a tool to boost participation has already proven successful in paving the way for scandal-ridden DREs (direct-recording electronic voting machines), which were billed as the key to accessibility for voters with blindness and other disabilities. After the 2000 election, “The whole discussion really got hijacked by folks who wanted to go with e-voting for whatever reason and they basically used blind people to do it,” said journalist and blogger Brad Friedman…

Some advocates for military and overseas voters share Friedman’s skepticism. “Money and fame are real drivers, even in the election world,” wrote Overseas Vote Foundation (OVF) President and CEO Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat in an email to Truthout from her base in Munich. “There are vendors who will make a lot of money, or potentially hope to make a lot of money and become celebrated in their circle, by pushing this right now.”

The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to release the dollar amounts of the contract awards granted to the six vendors – Scytl, Everyone Counts, Konnech, Aquiline, Vexcel Corporation and Credence Management Solutions – citing two exceptions to federal acquisition regulations, one of which applies as long as a single contract is not expected to exceed $100,000. The DoD awarded 20 contracts for the project…

We recommend reading the entire article.

Update: Time Magazine covers the story in a bit less depth, yet misses the money issue: Will Online Voting Turn Into an Election Day Debacle? <read>

Do You Know A Military or Overseas Voter? Act Now!!!

Tell them they can express their voted ballots back to the U.S. from 94 countries, at a huge discount.

We recommend that all Military and Overseas voters review the information on voting at the Overseas Vote Foundation. If you know an Overseas or Military voter (or a citizen overseas or in the military that may want to vote) please extend this recommendation to them.

Also the Overseas Vote Foundation has set up a steep discount for expressing back voted ballots:

We know you’ve been waiting for it. So we’re thrilled to announce that we have teamed up again this year with FedEx Express to offer Express Your Vote in 94 countries. (Fourteen more than in 2008!)

The one-of-its-kind Express Your Vote program provides highly discounted rates for express delivery of voted ballots back to local election offices in the United States.

See their site for <Countries, Deadlines and Rates>

Who are you going to believe? Scientists or Vendors?

“Enter online voting vendors looking to break into the market on the backs of these two groups. They ride in to save the day with big promises and high-tech solutions. Security becomes little more than sale pitch, like shiny chrome or electronic gadgetry in a new car. ‘You want security – we got security.’…Vendors need to stand in the corner with bankers and oil companies. Just whose elections are these anyway?”

Dan McCrea spells it out on the Huffington Post: Online Voting: All That Glitters Is Not Gold (Unless You’re a Vendor) <read>. To their credit Huffington Post published McCrea’s article, countering a recent vendor puff piece they ran:

Voting over the internet seems like a cool idea whose time has come. But, it depends on who’s doing the talking.

A computer scientist friend calls it whack-a-mole, the way online voting pitchmen keep popping up to announce they’ve fixed security problems and voting over the internet is now secure. You look at their plans and find they’re as full of holes as ever.

You knock down one story and another pops up. Whack – it’s back. Whack. It’s back again. The latest was here on Huffington Post last week, in Sheila Shayon’s seemingly-harmless puff piece for the online voting vendor, Scytl, “Digital Democracy: Scytl, MySociety Secure Funding.”

Ms. Shayon blithely pitched Scytl’s “secure solutions for electoral modernization” and the news that Scytl had closed on a $9.2m investment, “led by Balderton Capital, one of Europe’s largest venture capital investors.” They estimate the online voting market at $1.5 billion. Rival vendor, Everyone Counts, estimates the market at $16 billion over the next five years.

Calling it safe does not make it safe. Using the challenges facing those we would like to help vote, does not mean it would actually be a good idea:

But of course vendors say it is secure – and going to be very profitable. Scientists, on the other hand, say it’s not secure – and the very architecture of the internet makes secure online voting almost impossible today.

Another computer scientist friend describes email voting, the most common way to vote on the internet, this way: You’re in a stadium with eighty thousand random people. It’s time to vote. You write your selections on a post card in pencil, don’t use an envelope, and pass your card down your row to be collected.

It might work. You could have a great election. Your vote might count just as you marked your card. But confidence pretty much sucks – for a pile of obvious reasons, from innocent mishap to conspiratorial fraud to foreign-based cyber war.

Playing on public emotion, vendors have picked two special needs groups to “help” by designing online voting schemes for them. The first group is military and overseas voters, referred to as UOCAVA voters because they fall under special provisions of the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. The second group is voters with disabilities.

McCrea completes the case by referencing Scientists with objections and no money to make:

Who agrees online voting is not secure? Pretty much everyone who isn’t trying to make money on it:

Congress:..
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)…
Computer Technologists’ Statement on Internet Voting…
The Government Accountability Office (GAO)…
A comment on the May 2007 DoD report on Voting Technologies for UOCAVA Citizens, by several renowned computer scientists…

Unsafe at any cost – Internet voting

High tech solutions to military and overseas voting seem like the equivalent of a star wars sledgehammer to hit a small nail.

Update: Rescorla adds a post explaining why pilots are of questionable value <read>

As I mentioned earlier, the DC BOEE Internet ballot return project is just the latest in a series of pilots and attempted Internet voting pilots. Superficially, this sounds like a good idea: there’s debate about whether Internet voting is a good idea, so let’s only natural that we’d try it out and see how it works. Unfortunately, this isn’t likely to tell us anything very useful; while we have extremely strong theoretical reasons for believing that Internet voting is insecure, those reasons don’t indicate that every single election is going to fail.

********

Based on the MOVE Act, many states and jurisdictions are experimenting with various forms of email, fax, and Internet voting. Washington, D.C. for example is setting up a pilot program. Eric Rescorla comments on the D.C. pilot at Educated Guesswork <read>

UOCAVA voters are often in remote locations with poor mail access, so traditional Vote By Mail doesn’t work very well, making it an apparently attractive use case for technological fixes. That’s why there have been (at least) two previous efforts to apply Internet voting technology to UOCAVA voters…

Rescorla covers various attacks: Attacks on the Server, Software Attacks on the End-User Client, and Attacks on the End-User. He concludes:

As far as I can tell, a system of this type offers significantly worse security properties than in-person voting (whether opscan or DRE), since it has all the security flaws of both plus a much larger attack surface area. [Note that the intermediate opscan step offers only marginal security benefit because it’s based on electronic records which are untrustworthy.] It also offers inferior security properties to traditional vote by mail. The primary benefit is reducing voter latency, but clearly that comes at substantial risk.

We would add than most technical solutions assume that service members who have poor mail service would have internet service along with access to equipment like printers, scanners and faxes.

Some “solutions” provide a higher level of security using kiosks, eliminating the risks of end-user equipment – imagine the cost and challenges in purchasing, installing, maintaining and securing kiosks around the world in ways that would make them more convenient than express mail. To paraphrase a statement that has been in the news lately: High tech solutions to military and overseas voting seem like the equivalent of a star wars sledgehammer to hit a small nail.

Connecticut makes a good MOVE

Along with Secretary Bysiewicz, we applaud the Legislature’s prudent choice to avoid risky Internet, fax, and email voting schemes.

In its special session, the Connecticut Legislature passed a bill (p. 47) to provide faster absentee ballots and more convenient procedures for military and overseas voters, in compliance with the Federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act.

We have been critical of the MOVE Act for one of its provisions but not its intent. The MOVE Act included a provision for piloting Internet, fax, and email return of ballots which is risky to the very democracy our soldiers are dedicated to preserving. As we said last November:

While we support our troops and their commitment to democracy, we do not support the MOVE Act in its current form. We object to one provision of the Act passed by the Senate, passed by the House, and signed by the President. Like the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the MOVE Act is well intended, aimed a solving a real problem, yet has unintended consequences.

The problem of military and overseas voting has several good solutions that have been used in some states and localities and have been effective. The MOVE Act incorporates many of those good solutions. Yet, it also authorizes pilots of electronic submission of actual votes electronically. As of this time there is no known proven method for the security and secrecy of electronic submission of ballots, no proven method of auding such votes, and the bill contains no mandate for the evaluation of pilots for security and secrecy.

Worse, many states are jumping on that bandwagon with risky and often expensive, unproven solutions claiming that the MOVE Act requires such.

Along with Secretary Bysiewicz, we applaud the Legislature’s prudent choice to avoid risky Internet, fax, and email voting schemes.

See: <All posts related to the MOVE Act>

Internet Voting: U.S. Representative Rush Holt responds to the New York Times

“Rather than experimenting with less secure, less auditable methods of voting, I hope that states will use the 2010 election cycle to confirm how much more convenient, accessible and secure the Move Act, which I was otherwise pleased to support, makes military and overseas voting.”

Also, read what are troops are reading in the Stars and Stripes

U.S. Representative Rush Holt responds to the New York Times: <read>

To the Editor:

Re “States Move to Allow Overseas and Military Voters to Cast Ballots by Internet” (news article, May 9):

As you reported, as part of a broader effort to facilitate military and overseas voting, Congress authorized states to conduct pilot projects for Internet voting. Internet voting will be less secure and secret than the hard-copy ballot return for our service personnel already provided for and paid for by the law. It’s important to note that the pilot projects are voluntary.

Most states — but not all — now require a paper ballot or record for every vote cast and routine random audits of electronic vote tallies. These measures are critical to ensuring that every vote, including votes of military personnel, counts and is counted accurately.

Rather than experimenting with less secure, less auditable methods of voting, I hope that states will use the 2010 election cycle to confirm how much more convenient, accessible and secure the Move Act, which I was otherwise pleased to support, makes military and overseas voting.

Rush Holt
Member of Congress, 12th Dist., N.J.
Washington, May 18, 2010

Last summer I asked Represtentative Holt about these provisions, after he spoke at a conference in Montreal. He was surprised that the MOVE Act contained the provision for piloting (actual votes) Internet voting.

For the New York Times piece: See our earlier post: Damn the science; Damn the integrity; If it feels good do it!

Also, read what are troops are reading in the Stars and Stripes: Benefits, risks of e-mail ballots weighed <read>

An increasing number of states will offer Americans living overseas a chance to return their completed ballots over the Internet this November.

But cybersecurity experts and voter advocates contend that these well-intentioned efforts ignore the technical vulnerabilities of sending a voted ballot as an e-mail attachment, potentially subjecting this midterm contest to electronic vote rigging and hacking.

Sixteen states will allow ballots to be e-mailed back to the States, while 29 states and territories will allow the faxing of completed ballots, according to the Pentagon’s Federal Voting Assistance Program. Some states will allow this electronic transmission only in emergency situations or within certain counties.

State election officials say that despite security concerns, transmitting voted ballots over the Internet will help ensure more overseas Americans get their vote counted, improving the dismal return rates among overseas voters.

But despite the best intentions of politicians and election officials, the potential for manipulation of e-mailed ballots is rife because of the very nature of most e-mail — an easily accessible system that is used by many but understood by few, according to David Jefferson of the? Verified Voting Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to publicly verifiable elections.

“The best analogy,” Jefferson said, “is what would it be like if you conducted an election where people voted in absentee ballots with pencil, on a postcard which isn’t even in an envelope, and it was delivered hand to hand to hand to the county. That’s an analogy to how e-mail works.”

“E-mail itself isn’t secure,” said Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat, president of the Overseas Vote Foundation. “It doesn’t go direct from one computer to another. It has quite a few stops, and at every stop the content can be manipulated.”…

Revolving door in PA swings toward Internet Voting

Some revolutions are good, some questionable. Pennsylvania’s election revolution resulted in many expensive paperless, unauditable, hackable voting machines – not much different than providing overseas and military voters with expensive, paperless, unauditable, insecure internet voting.

Secretary to leave office early to join internet voting company.

Press Release: Governor Rendell Announces Resignation of Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortes <read>

Cortes to Become Executive Vice President of
Global Elections-Solution Provider Everyone Counts

HARRISBURG, Pa., May 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Governor Edward G. Rendell today announced that Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortes will resign June 11 to become the executive vice president of Everyone Counts, a company specializing in military and overseas voting technology…

“Secretary Cortes leveraged technology to improve operations and services in every facet at the Department of State. In the area of elections, Cortes and his team successfully administered 15 Primary and General elections. He led the implementation of the federal Help America Vote Act, which has made the electoral process more secure, efficient and accessible to voters. During his tenure, the state revolutionized voting, moving from paper and lever machines to electronic voting systems, and voter registration information that is now housed in a centralized system designed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the commonwealth’s voter registration records maintained by Pennsylvania’s 67 counties.”

Damn the science; Damn the integrity; If it feels good do it!

The troops are supposed to be fighting for Democracy, our right to speak freely and even to protest wars if we choose. So, why do we deny or mislead them into compromising their voting anonymity? Compromising our right that everyone’s vote be anonymous?

New York Times: States Move to Allow Overseas and Military Voters to Cast Ballots by Internet <read>

At least thirty-three states are planning on allowing military and overseas voters to cast ballots by Internet, email, or fax. What could possibly go wrong?

The vote could be hacked to be changed
The vote could be hacked to determine how someone voted
But also, even for of a threat, someone in Town Hall or the County may have to receive the votes and they can see how someone voted

From the Times:

Nearly three million overseas and military voters from at least 33 states will be permitted to cast ballots over the Internet in November using e-mail or fax, in part because of new regulations proposed last month by the federal agency that oversees voting…

Initial steps have been taken to address the problem. In last year’s Defense Department authorization bill, several provisions were added, including one requiring all states to provide military voters with ballots at least 45 days before the election.

It also allowed states to initiate pilot programs for testing the use of Internet voting, but some states have misinterpreted that as requiring such systems.

Most of the states that have created pilot programs for Internet voting will allow voters to send completed ballots as an e-mail attachment. Others use fax, which used to be limited to phone lines. But because of the growing use of voice-over-Internet phone service, faxes are increasingly being sent on the Web.

We appreciate the goal of the MOVE Act but have been disappointed in the Internet pilot provisions. Its even worse that states are misinterpreting the flawed provisions as a mandate for possible chaos and compromise.

We have also signed the Computer Technologists’ Statement on Internet Voting, which warns against using unproven technologies. To the Time’s credit, some critics are quoted in the article along with some pertinent facts:

Cybersecurity experts, election officials and voting-integrity advocates, however, have raised concerns about the plan. They point out that e-mail messages can be intercepted, that voting Web sites can be hacked or taken down by malicious attacks, and that the secrecy of ballots is hard to ensure once they are sent over the Web.

“The commission’s decision basically takes the hazards we’ve seen with electronic voting and puts them on steroids,” said John Bonifaz, legal director of Voter Action, a nonprofit voting rights group that sent a letter last month to the Election Assistance Commission, the agency that released the proposed guidelines… Critics of the increased use of Internet voting say the commission is violating federal law by not allowing enough time for public comment on the guidelines and by circumventing the technical board that is supposed to review any such new regulations…

Critics of the new guidelines say they are flawed because they allow voting machine vendors to do some of the performance and security testing themselves. The results of those tests will then be submitted to the commission for certification.

Most security experts support the idea of using the Internet for registering to vote and for accessing blank ballots, but not for transmitting completed ballots.

Some lawmakers have vowed to slow the shift toward Internet voting.

Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, and Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas, are working on legislation to establish a two-year moratorium on the electronic submission of ballots until stronger security standards are established.

Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, has a bill pending that would in effect ban Internet voting.

The Defense Department decided last year not to create its own Internet voting system until it first receives recommendations from a technical advisory committee that was created by the Help America Vote Act, which Congress passed in 2002…

Richard A. Clarke, a cybersecurity expert and the former counterterrorism chief under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, said he remained skeptical about ballots being sent over the Internet.

“The ultimate solution is for some foundation or organization to put up a large cash prize and take actual voting systems that will be used and allow anyone to try to hack them,” he said.

Sadly the misguided attitude of many election officials is “anything for the troops, if it makes them happy”. Would they support feeding their children all fast food if it made them happy? Or letting the troops go without helmets if it made them happy? Or those heavy vests?

“We have nothing but positive things to say about our experience,” said Pat Hollarn, who retired last year as supervisor of elections for Okaloosa County, Fla., which has allowed voters to cast ballots via e-mail since 2000. Ms. Hollarn said she continued to support expanded Internet voting…

Chris Whitmire, a spokesman for the South Carolina Election Commission, said that his state had been receiving ballots by e-mail and fax since 2006 and that he had heard no complaints from voters who chose those methods.

“What we do hear is thanks from voters who previously couldn’t get their ballots returned in time,” he said, explaining that voters receive a blank ballot attached to an e-mail message, print it, mark it by hand, scan it and send it back to be counted.

Johnnie McLean, the deputy director for administration at the North Carolina State Board of Elections, which has offered overseas and military voters the option to use e-mail or fax for their ballots since 2006, said that when she gets a call from a soldier overseas who has missed deadlines but wants to vote, she is glad she has the e-mail option.

“Even though there are security issues,” Ms. McLean said, “those soldiers are real happy, too, that they don’t have to lose their right to vote.”

Update: UOCAVA Pilot Program Testing Requirements: Comments Submitted <read>

Several individuals and groups have submitted comments on the internet pilot program. Most are critical of the programs lack of appreciation for the risks of Internet, email, and fax voting, while several others point to the lack of consideration for voters with disabilities. We note that Jeremy Epstein starts with analogies similar to our example of fast food:

Almost everyone likes chocolate cake, but that doesn’t mean it’s nutritious. So it is with Internet voting – we know that it’s popular as a concept, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, any more than drunk driving might be – it’s a thrill, but it’s dangerous to both the driver/voter and society.

For those who wonder if I have the troops interest in mind, all I can do is to claim that I do. By the way, here is a photo of yours truly protecting South Korea from invasion by North Korea at Camp Kaiser, Korea circa 1970.

States Move to Allow Overseas and Military Voters to Cast Ballots by Internet

Election Assistance Commission charged with shortchanging comment period on Internet Voting

Voter Action today delivered a letter to the US Election Assistance Commission charging that the federal agency is violating the federal Administrative Procedure Act by rushing – without appropriate time for public comment – proposed requirements for pilot programs implementing Internet voting for military and overseas voters in the 2010 election.

Voter Action charges EAC with violating the federal Administrative Procedure Act <read>

EAC rushing – without appropriate time for public comment — proposed requirements for pilot programs implementing Internet voting for military and overseas voters

Voter Action today delivered a letter to the US Election Assistance Commission charging that the federal agency is violating the federal Administrative Procedure Act by rushing – without appropriate time for public comment – proposed requirements for pilot programs implementing Internet voting for military and overseas voters in the 2010 election.

Voter Action charges EAC with violating the federal Administrative Procedure ActVoter Action charges EAC with violating the federal Administrative Procedure Act <read>