California Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s intensive review of voting systems began last week as part of her quest to assess the state’s voting methods before the February 2008 primary elections.
Bowen is conducting the review, which is designed to ensure that all voting systems are up to standards mandated by state and federal law, in partnership with the University of California.
As the first of its kind in the nation, the review is an effort to fulfill one of Bowen’s main campaign promises - to ensure every vote cast in California is fairly and accurately counted.
“”My goal is to get California to a place where voters, election officials, candidates and activists have confidence in the results of every election,”” Bowen said. “”This kind of comprehensive review is essential in getting us to that point.””
The university has assembled three teams of seven people for the review, including specialists from the UC system, other public and private universities and private technology and security firms from across the nation.
These teams are responsible for thoroughly reviewing documents and studies associated with each system, reviewing computer source codes the machines use and conducting “”penetration attacks”” to see if they can compromise the system’s security.
“”The University of California … is pleased that our faculty’s expertise is being tapped to assist the secretary of state’s office in helping to conduct a review of the current voting systems currently in use in California,”” UC Office of the President spokeswoman Jennifer Ward said in an e-mail. “”This is an important project that demonstrates a commitment to a smooth and fair voting system.””
According to Bowen’s Web site, the review will be conducted at the secretary of state’s facilities in Sacramento under secure conditions; source code and documentation review may be conducted at other locations designated by the University of California with Bowen’s written approval.
An exception to the Sacramento testing will be the network used by Los Angeles County, which is considered a vendor because of its custom voting system.
“”The issue with Los Angeles County is that all votes go to a hunking mainframe computer, so it’s not possible to test that system here,”” Bowen spokeswoman Nicole Winger said.
Voting machine vendors briefly delayed the tests by voicing concern about the guidelines of Bowen’s planned review.
Several of these concerns were made in public comments to Bowen’s office after a draft of the proceedings was released in March. The plan has since been revised, quelling some, but not all, worries about procedure.
“”One of the concerns people had with the draft criteria was that vendors would be held to a new set of standards that would be impossible for them to meet by February 2008,”” Bowen said. “”This final project plan makes it clear that the top-to-bottom review is going to determine whether the voting systems certified for use in California comply with existing state and federal laws that require them to be secure, accurate, reliable and accessible.””
Vendors fear that heavy emphasis on security will conflict with accessibility options – such as computer touch-screens – and that Bowen’s not focused enough on practical observation and election personnel training.
“”A voting system’s features can only reasonably secure the products from tampering and attacks,”” Diebold Electronic Systems, Inc. President Dave Byrd said in a statement. “”Not even bank vaults are secure without people and procedures surrounding them.””
Byrd also expressed worries that current enhancements passing though the federal certifications process would not be approved in time for state review.
Diebold, the primary voting machine vendor for San Diego County, has supplied the county with 10,000 machines at a cost of $31 million.
Since switching to electronic systems in 2000, San Diego County voters have experienced several problems, such as polling delays caused by inoperable machines and miscounted ballots.
In the 2004 presidential primaries, more than one-third of the county’s 1,611 polling stations faced such delays and 2,747 absentee ballot votes for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) were accidentally awarded to his competitor, former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.). Neither was believed to have changed the outcome of the election.
Harri Hursti, a Finnish programmer and outspoken critic of Diebold voting machine systems, will be leading one of the review’s “”penetration attack”” teams.
Hursti, an expert on voting security, told Riverside County’s Elections Review Committee on March 30 that paper ballots would be the most secure system for voting.
“”Paper has its own flaws, paper has problems, but we are better prepared to deal with those problems,”” Hursti said.
Despite past issues with Diebold systems, San Diego County interim Registrar of Voters Mischelle Townsend has expressed her concern with Bowen’s review.
“”This [timing] is a major concern for San Diego as well as elections officials statewide,”” Townsend said. “”We have to recruit and train nearly 7,000 volunteer poll workers, and there are a multitude of tasks that must be started six to seven months ahead of the elections.””
San Francisco County, predicting decertification of the systems currently in use, is already preparing for the lack of voting machines.
“”The city must consider alternative methods for conducting the Nov. 6, 2007, election, including being prepared to hand-count all ballots cast in the election,”” San Francisco Elections Chief John Arntz said in a letter to the mayor and Board of Supervisors.
The full review is expected to cost $1.8 million, half of which is expected to be paid by vendors, and will finish in July.
