How’s that votie integrity thing goin’ for us?

Following the mainstream media reports on Tuesday’s elections we learn: Two CEO-Business-Women won CA Republican Primaries. Most incumbents are in trouble. Yet, in Arkansas out-of-state-far-left-and-labor-supported Bill Halter was defeated by incumbent Sen Blanche Lincoln. [Apparently Lincoln had no out-of-state support or significant funders of note].

From reading local papers and watching news channels we get the impression that there were no election glitches to worry about either.

Here at CTVotersCount we rely on the Internet for our news, particularly the venerable VotingNews, BradBlog, and Election Line. Unlike the mainstream media, they dug just a little deeper, providing national coverage of local news and even personally probing the election systems democracy depends on. These are some of their stories; any resemblance to fiction is purely a consequence of reality:

LOS ANGELES

Apparently America’s largest voting jurisdiction is not able to handle the equipment they employ. Brad Friedman continued his quest to vote like voters with disabilities [When they do vote, apparently they must avoid the InkaVote system]. This time he noted 6 failures in his two and one-half hour attempt to vote on Tuesday:

Two years ago, in June of ’08, the ES&S “InkaVote Plus” e-vote system in Los Angeles County misprinted 4 out of 12 of my own votes.

Today, as I tried to vote on the same system, the failure was even worse. Incredibly. And not just because I cover issues of Election Integrity for a “living.”

I spent more than two and a half hours not casting a vote on the system before eventually I, the poll workers, and, apparently, the folks at the L.A. County Registrar’s central help desk call center, simply gave up. A complete and total failure of the e-voting system for disabled voters in the nation’s largest voting jurisdiction. Again. On a system the county spent millions to buy in order to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) boondoggle by allowing disabled voters to cast their votes independently. <read>

Our Co-Founder, Denise Weeks, had a suggestion that might cure the problem: Require that the leaders in Washington that passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) be required to vote in the way that voters with disabilities are “Helped” by the Act.

ARKANSAS

Voters filed suit against Garland Co Arkansas. Garland Co had 2nd highest turnout yet voters were turned away as polling places were cut from 40 to 2. Those changes were illegal says SOS. “They’ve tried this before,” said attorney Ben Hooten who filed lawsuit on behalf of disenfranchised voters. <read>

Not just anywhere, but where the losing candidate was strong. To save the county money, yet the state pays:

Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter who is challenging Sen. Blanche Lincoln in today’s Democratic primary runoff has a beef with state election officials.

The Halter campaign complained that Garland County – the county seat is Hot Springs, and it’s one of Halter’s strongholds in the primary — had opened only two polling stations to serve several thousand voters, creating long lines and parking woes at points during the day.

Natasha Naragon, a spokeswoman for the Arkansas Secretary of State, said Garland County election officials failed to notify voters of the reduced number of polling stations, as required by state law. Though a local official told the Arkansas press that he had made the decision to save money, Naragon said the state bears all costs for primary and runoff elections.

Garland County did allow early voting at the two polling stations for the week leading up to Tuesday’s runoff, as did counties across the state. <read>

Earlier Brad had noticed some odd results in Arkansas in the original primary:

What’s going on in Monroe County, Arkansas?

We’ve been looking at their May 18 “Super-ish Tuesday” election night numbers on the AR Secretary of State’s website (Monroe County doesn’t have its own public election results website) since the night of the election, and the posted results can only be described as going from “impossible” on the day after the election, to possible but still entirely inexplicable…

The original tip-off to concerns about Monroe County’s results came when on May 19th, the day after the election, the state’s SoS website showed a total of 3,393 out of the county’s 5,252 registered voters had cast ballots — a rather impressive 64.60% turnout! But not “impossible.”…

Notice all of the precincts, in both the R and D Senate races, where the exact same number of votes were cast for each candidate.

For example, in the Dem results, there are four different precincts where 4 voted for Morrison, 9 voted for Lincoln and 7 voted for Halter. Not “impossible,” but curious. On the Republican side, some of the very same precincts also had identical numbers for each of the eight candidates, and a few more had nearly identical numbers. A few of the precincts also reported what appeared to be the exact same percentages for each candidate as seen in the precincts with duplicated numbers, but where the number of votes is simply doubled. All still not “impossible,” but certainly getting much more improbable. <read and view the data>

NEW JERSEY

The “Garden State” grows more than vegetables and oil refineries. It has one of the finest election integrity investigative teams at Princeton University. Professor Ed Felton checked out the security of several voting machines the night before the election, including the one he voted on the next day. With any luck it managed to count his vote, and perhaps even counted it accurately:

It’s Election Day in New Jersey. Longtime readers know that in advance of elections I visit polling places in Princeton, looking for voting machines left unattended, where they are vulnerable to tampering. In the past I have always found unattended machines in multiple polling places.

I hoped this time would be different, given that Judge Feinberg, in her ruling on the New Jersey voting machine case, urged the state not to leave voting machines unattended in public.

Despite the judge’s ruling, I found voting machines unattended in three of the four Princeton polling places I visited on Sunday and Monday. Here are my photos from three polling places. <read/view>

We hate to think it takes a Professor of Computer Science to check these things, or that it would take a science reporter to translate the implications to the public. What else could possibly happen that would cause concerns about voting in New Jersey?

PATERSON — City Council candidate Kenneth McDaniel is asking the state to investigate what he alleges are election irregularities and possible voter fraud surrounding 49 mail-in ballots that appeared last week before a recount of the May 11 municipal elections.

McDaniel appealed in writing to state Attorney General Paula M. Dow to investigate the recount after a state judge on June 2 decided to include the 49 ballots that a Board of Elections administrator said were discovered the day before.

Judge Thomas F. Brogan had ordered that the ballots be included in the recount, saying he did not want to disenfranchise voters. The decision reversed unofficial election results in which McDaniel defeated incumbent Rigo Rodriguez for the at-large council seat by six votes. The 49 ballots – 47 of which were ruled valid — made the final count 5,239 to 5,198, giving Rodriguez a 41-vote victory…

“Unfortunately, I was not provided with the time one would require to investigate a phenomenon of this magnitude; the sudden and unfathomable, untimely appearance of ballots cast for one candidate in a 10-candidate race, only after said candidate petitioned the court for a recount and recheck,” McDaniel wrote in his letter to Dow…

McDaniel said the fact that all the found ballots were delivered to the Board of Elections office by three of Rodriguez’s supporters raises suspicions about their “chain of custody, security and validity.” <read>

We ask, “Just how strange is it that the ballots delivered by a candidate’s supporters would mostly be votes for that candidate?”

We could go on, but you can read more for yourself at: VotingNews, BradBlog, or Election Line. As Hartford voter, Mark Twain said “It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.”

Could things get dramatically worse for our Democracy? Yes, but we will leave that story for another day.

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.”

Absentee/Early Voting Method: Raise Questions and Risks

Another example from Arizona raises questions about the potential risks to integrity inherent in mail-in voting, unlimited absentee voting, and early voting by means similar to absentee voting. This is also similar to the method of election day registration voting proposed in Connecticut this year.

Another example from Arizona raises questions about the potential risks to integrity inherent in mail-in voting, unlimited absentee voting, and early voting by means similar to absentee voting. This is also similar to the method of voting for election day registration voting proposed in Connecticut this year.

From the YumaSun:

State calls for San Luis vote probe <read>

Smith: Recorder should investigate vote <read>

The basic question:

The issue of possible voter fraud became public with the release Wednesday of a letter Bennett had sent to Smith dated May 4 asking the county attorney to investigate irregularities in the San Luis primary election on March 9. His concern rose from the rejection of nearly 10 percent of early ballots for that election because they had signatures that didn’t match those of the registered voters.

Bennett’s letter stated: “Based on the extraordinary rejection rates alone and irrespective of the anecdotal stories, I believe that reasonable cause exists that voter fraud occurred in San Luis in the March 2010 election. I ask that your office investigate these irregularities.”

On the surface this seems like a lot of votes to be rejected based on mismatched signatures, raising several questions:

Were election officials too cautious in rejecting ballots?
Do we expect too much of officials who are not trained in handwriting recognition?
Were there really that many wrong signatures/forgeries? Is there some kind of fraud occurring?
If there was no fraud, then we must assume that most of the rejected ballots represent voters who intended to vote and are now disenfranchised.

On the other hand do we usually have too few ballots rejected? Can we really expect election officials to reliably perform handwriting analysis and comparison?

More critical information from the Secretary of State’s information:

Of the total 2,983 ballots cast in the San Luis election, 1,477 were by early ballots. And of those, 143 ballots were rejected because they had signatures that didn’t match the registered voters’, said Jim Drake, assistant secretary of state.

That’s an error rate of nearly 10 percent, he noted.

“The numbers were so extraordinary,” he told the Yuma Sun Wednesday. “Just looking at the raw numbers, something is amiss in the community. We based our request on just the numbers.”

In comparison, in the May 2008 election in El Mirage, there were 1,578 early ballots cast; only 18 were rejected because of bad signatures. This equates to a rejection rate of only 1.14 percent, Drake said.

In another comparison, in a March election in Maricopa County (excepting El Mirage and Guadalupe), 155,605 early ballots were returned, with only 46 rejected for bad signatures – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent.

“As you can see from these figures, something is terribly amiss in San Luis,” Secretary of State Ken Bennett wrote in a letter dated May 4 to Yuma County Attorney Jon Smith.

The 10% is extreme for the state. It also represents almost 5% of the votes in the election.

This might have gone undetected, but for added scrutiny based on earlier charges of fraud:

The spotlight was placed on the election when Bennett, the state’s top election official, and two members of his staff observed the San Luis election.

The visit was prompted by a previously circulated letter signed by Guillermina Fuentes claiming she had observed early ballots being destroyed in the 2006 municipal election.

Fuentes was the coordinator for incumbent Mayor Juan Carlos Escamilla’s re-election bid in March, but in 2006 she was a backer of then-City Councilwoman Nieves Riedel, who lost that year’s mayoral race to Escamilla.

In the letter circulated earlier this year, Fuentes alleged that Riedel had opened early ballots that voters entrusted her to deliver to county officials who were conducting the 2006 election under contract with the city of San Luis. Any of the opened ballots that were for Riedel were delivered to the county, the letter alleged, but any for Escamilla were trashed.

The reasons we are conditionally opposed to no-excuse absentee balloting and mail-in balloting are the risks of fraud, loss of voter anonymity, and the level of possible disenfranchisement. Another recent story of absentee ballot questions from Dallas.

Update 7/27/2010: Another Tale from CA: DA probes voter fraud allegations in Calif. city <read>

District attorney spokeswoman Jane Robison said her office was looking into claims that off-duty Bell police officers were recruited to distribute absentee ballots in last year’s election and tell people which candidates to vote for.

It was only one of several allegations the district attorney is looking into in the city where three top officials resigned last week after it was disclosed they were being paid salaries totaling about $1.6 million a year…

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that a retired Bell police sergeant had filed a lawsuit claiming off-duty city police officers were recruited to distribute absentee ballots in last year’s election and tell people which candidates to vote for.

One Bell resident, Hugo Herrera, told The Associated Press his mother was among those approached by an officer who asked if she would sign a paper showing her support for Hernandez.

When she got to her polling place and attempted to vote, Herrera said, she was told the paper she had signed was actually an absentee ballot. She asked that the ballot be disallowed and that she be allowed to vote for another candidate, adding she never really supported Hernandez but just wanted the officer to go away.

DA probes voter fraud allegations in Calif. city

Update 8/11/2010: Ballot blunder could keep votes from counting; envelope design to blame

Florida another story of voters potentially disenfranchised by voting absentee: <read>

LEE COUNTY, Fla. – A ballot blunder could keep your vote from counting in the upcoming primary election. A new envelope design is forcing the return of some absentee ballots back to Lee County voters. They should be going to election’s officials for processing.

The tiny bar code at the top of the ballot return envelopes is behind the mess. Mail sorting machines are reading the envelope’s return bar code, instead of it’s destination… potentially leaving some absentee ballots in limbo.

Phil Douglas didn’t think twice about sending off his absentee ballot in the mail last week.

“I signed the ballot on the back, I took it to the Estero post office and low and behold, on Monday I got it back!” Douglas said Wednesday.

Frustrated and confused, Douglas tried to send his vote again, taking his ballot to the Three Oaks Parkway post office… only to find it returned to his mailbox for the second time in a week.

“The first thing that came to mind was, hey, this can’t happen. But it did,” Douglas said.

It could be happening across Lee County. Over 40,000 absentee ballots were requested, and all sent out with the same faulty return envelope design. Lee County Elections officials are working with USPS on the problem. Still, the ballot blunder is a sorespot for many, who are trying to make their vote count in the upcoming election.

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

Book Review: The Death and Life of American Journalism

Part of the reason there has been so little improvement in our election laws is the lack of demonstrated public interest. Part of the cause of the lack of demonstrated public interest is the lack of information brought to the attention of the public – the lack of news and journalism.

The Death and Life of American Journalism is more than a diagnosis and a prescription. It is a powerful, engaging lesson in history, with an equally persuasive analysis of the current crisis.

(Editor’s Note: There are many issues demanding citizens’ attention to improve our world, government, and democracy in the direction of the promises of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The two most basic issues upon which all others depend are media reform and election integrity. If I could waive a wand and magically choose just one, it would be media reform – with media reform election integrity would be possible and likely, without it election integrity is of little consequence. I spend my time on election integrity because the problems and workable solutions come naturally to me based on my knowledge, education, and experience.)

I have been meaning to review and recommend John Nichols’ and Robert McChesney’s latest book, The Death and Life of American Journalism, for several weeks. I have been a fan of their work since reading their book, Our Media Not Theirs (2002). I attended the Media Reform Conference in Memphis in 2007 sponsored by the group they founded, The Free Press. Several weeks ago I attend a local panel with John Nichols where he discussed the book’s thesis. I purchased a copy. Elsewhere I have criticized Mr. Nichols on a couple of critical election integrity issues in two articles he penned in The Nation, yet that does not diminish my high regard for his expertise on media reform.

It is a slow time for election integrity news in Connecticut with the legislative session all but over and the August Primary three months off. Part of the reason there has been so little improvement in our election laws is the lack of demonstrated public interest. Part of the cause of the lack of demonstrated public interest is the lack of information brought to the attention of the public – the lack of news and journalism.

Were the public aware of the corporate outsourcing of elections; the lack of accountability, auditability, and auditing of elections; the sloppy election procedures in many jurisdictions; the inaccurate totaling of results; and the vulnerablity of manual procedures and election equipment – Were the public aware, would they demand reform? Would they connect the dots from viruses on their computers, hacking of government computers, and theft of “highly secure” government documents to the dangers inherent in our election systems? Without news and journalism we may never know. Election integrity is an example of the criticality of the media to democracy, one of the theme’s of The Death and Life of American Journalism:

News, journalism, the free press etc. are a necessary requirement for democracy
Our Founding Fathers realized this
Media (newspapers) were highly subsidized from the beginning of our country through the late 1800’s
Corporate media is relatively new. It is not working – to the detriment of democracy
The press as we know it is sinking fast, close to oblivion now
The free market and the Internet unaided are insufficient to save journalism – hence insufficient to support news, information and democracy
Other democracies provide relatively large subsidies to the media – with positive, not adverse consequences for democracy and information
We can solve the problem with robust solutions, at low cost compared to the risks and the alternative

The book leaves me with new appreciation for the intelligence of the Founding Fathers. They understood the importance of information to democracy. Tom Paine’s Common Sense and the newspapers of the day were critical to the American Revolution. The Federalist Papers were critical to the Constitution. As the authors say:

Without a civic counterbalance to the vagaries of the market, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that journalism could wither and die… [The Founding Fathers] threw the full weight of the American Government into the work of creating and sustaining a diverse, competitive, skeptical, and combative media system for a nation that would rest power with an informed people…”A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it,” explained Madison, “is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both”

The authors present a complete case for and history of the necessity of the free press; for the success of our democracy. They explain the complete commitment of McArthur and Eisenhower to the free press as they worked to create and revive democracy in Japan and Germany.

As much as my esteem for the Founding Fathers increased, my sadness at our current mesmerization by the system of corporate media also increased. We can often learn from looking to run “government like a business”, yet when we instead run “government by business” what we get is “government for business”. When I ask myself, “What Would A Successful Business Do?” and “What Should A Successful Democracy Do?” my immediate answer is “Look around and start by copying the best practices of the most successful democracies.”

Nichols’ and McChesney’s “broad proposal” with four components for saving journalism – was formed from what has worked before in the U.S., what is working today in other democracies, and tailoring it to our situation and culture.

No review, no summary can do this book justice. It is more than a diagnosis and a prescription. It is a powerful, engaging lesson in history, with an equally persuasive analysis of the current crisis.

On Voting Integrity, Johnny We Hardly Agree With Ye

For the second time in as many weeks, I find myself disagreeing on an election integrity issue with John Nichols of The Nation.

We appreciate and admire Mr. Nichols. When it comes to media reform, he a combination of William Lloyd Garrison and Rachael Carson for our age. In that sphere we generally agree with him, we attended the Media Reform Conference sponsored by his group, the Free Press in 2007, and are half way through his latest book, The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again. If we were not so involved in election integrity we would spend more time on media reform. Like election integrity it is a necessary ingredient to democracy; perhaps more fundamental; with a reformed media we would have a much easier time arousing the public and causing election integrity.

This week in The Nation: Going Postal in the Digital Era by John Nichols<read> we find much to agree with. He describes the decline of the U.S. Postal Service, the causes of the decline, the Service’s to value print journalism and democracy, and his proposed solutions. Yet, when unsupported conclusions are quoted as fact, we cannot overlook them:

These “efficiencies” threaten more than just the Postal Service. They pose direct and indirect threats to democracy. Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley noted as much when they asked Congress and the USPS to avoid taking steps that would damage their state’s mail-in balloting. “While we admire and encourage examination of avenues to modernize the postal service, the implementation of this proposal would pose a direct threat to democracy in Oregon,” wrote the senators, whose concerns have been echoed by election officials from around the country, which increasingly relies on the Postal Service to carry regular and absentee ballots.

The PRC’s Goldway [,Ruth, Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) chair] has been at the forefront of arguments for taking state-based “Vote by Mail” experiments national. “Voters would not need to take time off from work, find transportation, find the right polling station, get babysitters or rush through reading complicated ballot initiatives,” she explains. “The country’s 35,000 post offices could provide information, distribute and collect voting materials and issue inexpensive residency and address identifications for voting purposes. Perhaps most important, given the concerns about voting machine security, mail ballots cannot be hacked. Tampering or interfering with mail is a federal crime, and the United States Postal Service has its own law enforcement arm, which works closely with a variety of enforcement authorities including the F.B.I. Trained election clerks can take the time to check signatures without delaying or discouraging voters. And the advantages of a paper trail outshine the glitter of black box electronic gadgetry.”

We disagree and offer this recent example from Dallas of vote “hacking” and our post on an opinion by the Board President of Coloradans for Voting Integrity, Keep Colorado’s voting integrity which includes our other references.

Perhaps Mr. Nichols is just not talking to a wide enough range people Just Monday last week we read another note in The Nation on Instant Runoff Voting (IRV):

I.R.V. BUZZ: Instant runoff voting, the smart reform that makes majority rule possible in multi-candidate elections, is finally capturing the imagination of the opinion leaders, who just might jump-start this movement at the national level. Über-influential New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman–not a frequent recipient of praise from this magazine–started things off with a March 24 column that noted how some Republicans had voted against healthcare reform because they feared retribution in party primaries, and how Democrats are similarly fearful on other issues. “When your political system punishes lawmakers for…doing the right things, it is broken,” he wrote.

What to do? “Break the oligopoly of our two-party system” with redistricting reforms that take the power to draw Congressional district lines out of the hands of partisans, argued Friedman, and “get states to adopt ‘alternative voting'” that allows voters to rank an independent candidate “your No. 1 choice, and the Democrat or Republican No. 2. Therefore, if the independent does not win, your vote is immediately transferred to your second choice, say, the Democrat. Therefore, you have no fear that in voting for an independent you might help elect your real nightmare–the Republican.”

The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg, a veteran reform advocate, welcomed Friedman aboard “for what we electoral-reform monomaniacs call…I.R.V.,” and an elated FairVote executive director Rob Richie chimed in with a note that “Hurt Locker won the best picture Oscar with this system, and voters handle it well in major elections in Minneapolis and San Francisco and in nations like Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.” Now if we could just get Friedman excited about reforming our broken “free trade” policies. JOHN NICHOLS

As luck would have it, we were scheduled to attend a Connecticut ACLU event that evening, featuring John Nichols as on one of two panelists on Media Reform. Once again, we agreed with everything he said on the panel. After the panel I mentioned my concerns with IRV. Mr. Nichols was very open to considering alternative views. He had received one email on the subject and asked if it was mine. It was not and he asked that I follow-up with an email. I did, with a summarized version of my recent testimony to the Connecticut legislature along with supporting links.

As we have said before, IRV is complex to compute, complex for voters, and does not provide the intended benefits. It is simply not true that IRV “makes majority rule possible in multi-candidate elections”. Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not, just like winner take all elections – but at an increased complexity, cost, and risk, especially in multi-district, statewide, and national elections.

These “efficiencies” threaten more than just the Postal Service. They pose direct and indirect threats to democracy. Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley noted as much when they asked Congress and the USPS to avoid taking steps that would damage their state’s mail-in balloting. “While we admire and encourage examination of avenues to modernize the postal service, the implementation of this proposal would pose a direct threat to democracy in Oregon,” wrote the senators, whose concerns have been echoed by election officials from around the country, which increasingly relies on the Postal Service to carry regular and absentee ballots.

The PRC’s Goldway has been at the forefront of arguments for taking state-based “Vote by Mail” experiments national. “Voters would not need to take time off from work, find transportation, find the right polling station, get babysitters or rush through reading complicated ballot initiatives,” she explains. “The country’s 35,000 post offices could provide information, distribute and collect voting materials and issue inexpensive residency and address identifications for voting purposes. Perhaps most important, given the concerns about voting machine security, mail ballots cannot be hacked. Tampering or interfering with mail is a federal crime, and the United States Postal Service has its own law enforcement arm, which works closely with a variety of enforcement authorities including the F.B.I. Trained election clerks can take the time to check signatures without delaying or discouraging voters. And the advantages of a paper trail outshine the glitter of black box electronic gadgetry.”

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>

Fox Overseeing Chicken Coops – Federal Election Commission Edition

“Caroline Hunter lied to a federal judge about illegal vote caging by the RNC. She now sits on the Federal Election Commission where she continues to do everything possible to deprive Americans of the right to vote. We cannot allow someone like that to practice law. We are calling for her to step down from the FEC and if she does not, to be removed.

Update 4/21/2010: In defense of Caroline Hunter <read>

********

Velvet Revolution files Complaint To Disbar FEC Commissioner Caroline Hunter For False Testimony In Voting Caging Lawsuit <read>

“Caroline Hunter lied to a federal judge about illegal vote caging by the RNC. She now sits on the Federal Election Commission where she continues to do everything possible to deprive Americans of the right to vote. We cannot allow someone like that to practice law. We are calling for her to step down from the FEC and if she does not, to be removed.

Velvet Revolution references the details on Raw Story: FEC commissioner helped RNC conceal role in 2004 vote suppression <read>

In her affidavit , submitted under penalty of perjury, Hunter claims “the RNC is not initiating, controlling, directing, or funding any programs of ‘voter challenges’ … including the effort by the Ohio Republican Party to challenge voter registrations in Ohio.”

“Although representatives of the RNC were involved in the emails discussing the possibility of the challenges described above,” she continues, “the RNC has not initiated any challenges to the absentee ballots in Ohio or in any other state.”.

Burchfield tells the court that Hunter’s affidavit is proof the RNC isn’t violating the decree. Rather, he says, her statement demonstrates the party was diligent to avoid “initiating, controlling, directing or funding” any voter challenger programs….

“Miss Hunter’s information and belief,” he[Judge Debevoise] concludes, “is belied by the evidence developed during the brief period of discovery.”…

They also made clear that this was not a statement by a lawyer in open court to the judge, but rather an affidavit signed under oath by a witness in the case for one of the parties.

“If a lawyer makes a misleading statement in sworn testimony to the court,” said Hebert,[executive director at the Campaign Legal Center] “and then the court not only finds that the statement was misleading but it turns out to be ‘belied’ by the actual facts in the case, I think a state bar would be interested in that.”

“It could be viewed as a serious ethical breach for an attorney, one that might warrant a review by the state bar in which she’s accredited and may be grounds for disbarment,” Hebert continued.

How Not To Increase “Voter” Participation

Dallas: It may turn out that mail-in voting enhanced turnout in the wrong way

Dallas, WFAA-TV: Dallas vote fraud allegations multiply <read/view>

It may turn out that mail-in voting enhanced turnout in the wrong way:

News 8 first reported the allegations early last month. Now there is new evidence of a more orchestrated campaign by so-called “vote harvesters” allegedly tampering with mail-in ballots.

In question are the Dallas County Precinct 5 Constable and Justice of the Peace races. The primary concern surrounds the mail-in ballots cast in those races.

A growing number of residents have cited case after case of mystery mail-in ballots and strangers showing up at their door, allegedly stealing their votes.

Bob Carter of Oak Cliff said it has happened before at election time, and it happened again a few weeks ago. Mail-in ballots arrived in his mailbox in someone else’s name.

The same thing happened to his neighbor next door.

Four mail-in ballots were received by the elections bureau from that address from four people who voted in the March primary.

Carter owns that house, and the people who voted don’t live there.

Mail-in voting, including no-excuse absentee voting is risky. It can contribute to an image of democracy, but not always the reality of democracy.

Update: 4/21/2010: A list of mail-in voting problems <read>

Trading the security, integrity, and shared experience of the in-person election process for all-mail elections is a bad idea for a number of reasons. An examination of voter fraud cases over the past two decades reveals that ballots requested and sent through the mail are vote thieves’ tool of choice. Despite claims that voting by mail will increase voter turnout, the evidence leads to the exact opposite conclusion. Such elections, while possibly less expensive for election administrators, can be more expensive for candidates, thereby increasing the costs of campaigns for ordinary citizens who want to run for office. Mail elections put voters at the mercy of the postal service: If their ballots are delayed or misdirected, their votes will not count. Also, voters could be casting their ballots without the same access to timely information about candidates. Finally, elections conducted through the mail destroy the communal act of voting in a way that is damaging to America’s voting traditions and the inculcation of civic virtues.

Trading the security, integrity, and shared experience of the in-person election process for all-mail elections is a bad idea for a number of reasons. An examination of voter fraud cases over the past two decades reveals that ballots requested and sent through the mail are vote thieves’ tool of choice. Despite claims that voting by mail will increase voter turnout, the evidence leads to the exact opposite conclusion. Such elections, while possibly less expensive for election administrators, can be more expensive for candidates, thereby increasing the costs of campaigns for ordinary citizens who want to run for office. Mail elections put voters at the mercy of the postal service: If their ballots are delayed or misdirected, their votes will not count. Also, voters could be casting their ballots without the same access to timely information about candidates. Finally, elections conducted through the mail destroy the communal act of voting in a way that is damaging to America’s voting traditions and the inculcation of civic virtues.