Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org
A very revealing article was published this week in the Arcata Eye, a weekly newspaper, in Arcata, Humboldt County, California.
The article, headlined “County’s new voting machines may be flawed”, was published on August 8, one day prior to the hearing in Sacramento about the Vote-PAD that was reported yesterday by The BRAD BLOG.
Reports from the hearing indicate that even hearing officials were questioning Bruce McDannold, the Secretary of State’s Interim Director of the Office of Voting Systems Technology Assessment, about how he came to some negative conclusions about Vote-PAD; questions he could not answer; questions that, according to eye-witnesses, made him look rather foolish.
Yet, according to the Arcata Eye article, McDannold seems to have been carrying on a vendetta against Vote-PAD for a while. It seems that late last month McDannold spoke about Vote-PAD at the annual conference of state’s clerks and elections officials in San Diego:
County Clerk-Recorder Carolyn Crnich gave a similar account, having heard McDannold speak at the annual conference of state’s clerks and elections officials in San Diego late last month. “I would interpret his words and actions (on Vote-PAD) to be very negative,” she said, adding that the best that can be hoped for now is a conditional state certification of Vote-PAD that would allow it be modified.
It needs to be mentioned that Carolyn Crnich spoke in favor of Vote-PAD and pointed out problems with the testing procedures to the hearing panel in Sacramento. This testimony, on top of the testimony of Vote-PAD President Ellen Theisen, should be enough to prove that McDannold has lost grip on reality.
It is also important to note that an understanding of confidentiality was entered into by all who participated in the testing and evaluation of the Vote-PAD, including Bruce McDannold. When McDannold spoke to the counties in San Diego, he violated the same agreement that he demanded that Vote-PAD maintain.
Why is it that McDannold is overseeing a process that welcomes unreliable, error-prone, insecure electronic voting machines with open arms while it unfairly tests a voting device that is truly accessible to the community it was designed for? What does McDannold gain by his misinforming county election officials based on data gained from unscientific and shoddy testing? I, for one, hope that Vote-PAD seeks redress for the grievances heaped upon the company by McDannold. It’s beyond time that the disinformation from the Secretary of State stop.
UPDATE: It has been pointed out in a comment to “‘Daily Voting News’ For August 10, 2006” that McDannold did not adress the counties as a whole. Any mention of Vote-PAD was done in casual conversation. Of course this does not absolve him of keeping a confidentiality agreement and certainly not of bad-mouthing any voting system that has not yet had any hearing within the state.
Disclosure Statement:
In the interest of full disclosure: Ellen Theisen was the founder of VotersUnite and its Executive Director before I took over the helm from her. She resigned from her position upon founding Vote-PAD, Inc. I have no stake in Vote-PAD in any way except as Ellen’s friend.
John, thanks for being our eyes and ears on so many of these attacks on American Democracy.
OT
Big Dan – I left you some reading material here: Georgia election result breakdowns by polling place.
Just prior to the hearing I sent written commentary including a spreadsheet outlining what the exit interviews of the disabled testers actually said.
My comments:
http://www.equalccw.com/sscomments12.pdf
…and the attached spreadsheet:
http://www.equalccw.com/sscomments12a.pdf
I was looking for “patterns of bias” in the test process. The number one indicator of whether or not a given disabled tester would like the votepad or give it a “thumbs down” was whether or not they’d been involved in prior testing of the various fully electronic voting systems by Diebold, Hart, Sequoia, ES&S and Avante.
The vast majority of testers had done previous testing, indicating that the SecState’s office has some sort of “pool of regulars” they draw from. Of the eight testers who hadn’t played with electronic systems, all but one gave it a thumbs-up, a far higher rate of approval than in the “experienced” group.
Exactly what this means is unclear. It could be that the Votepad really isn’t as “convenient” as other solutions, or it could mean that there’s a hardcore group of support for the more expensive solutions.
One possibility: at least some in the disabled community see the new-wave electronic machines as a visible (and expensive) symbol of the state’s willingness to fully accomodate them…and as such, the fight for accessible voting is seen as part of a bigger fight for general societal accessibility.
We see the voting issue as a standalone thing. They don’t…”they” being a hardcore group of “accessibility activists”.
To the most extreme members of that mindset, if both $500 and $5,000 solutions are available, and the more expensive one is “prettier” in some way, they’ll point to the big-bucks option as a symbol in a broader fight. They may not know that the “blinkenlights” version introduces more security holes.
A few won’t care.
In other news: Susan Pynchon tipped me to articles on the floridafairelections site that indicate that the resume for one of the two testers of the Votepad hired by the California SecState faked her resume rather severely, and that the other one helped her do it! This is what I submitted by EMail to the SecState’s office yesterday:
————–
These comments are for inclusion in the official record for the Votepad certification.
The Votepad was examined by Paul Craft and Kate McGregor, both recently from Florida.
Concerns have come to light from the Florida activist community regarding both.
Mr. Craft’s technical credentials appear…”weak” for someone in his position. Nevertheless, his resume appears to be largely proper.
Kate McGregor on the other hand has resumes on file in several places that do not match. The discrepancies are not minor – one set shows years of “computer consulting”, another the same years running a bar. There are also discrepancies as to technical credencials equally severe.
I would urge your agency to review the materials prepared in Florida:
http://www.floridafairelections...egorReport.pdf – this is an overview of material found to date, with a table outlining the McGregor inconsistencies.
http://www.floridafairelections...teMcGregor.pdf – Florida Division of Elections Personnel File for Kathleen A. (Kate) McGregor, now partner with Freeman, Craft, McGregor Group.
http://www.floridafairelections...meFCMGroup.pdf – Kate McGregor’s resumé presented by Paul Craft to Bruce McDannold, Interim Director of Voting Systems Certification in California. (This material obtained under Public Records Act request by Joe Holder.)
http://www.floridafairelections...lPaulCraft.pdf – Florida Division of Elections Personnel File for Paul Craft, formerly Chief of Florida’s Bureau of Voting Systems Certification, now partner with Freeman, Craft, McGregor Group.
If this material is even ballpark correct, the legitimacy and integrity of both Mr. Craft and Ms. McGregor should be called into question. Note in particular the “McGregorResumeFCMGroup.pdf” file as it shows Craft presenting Ms. McGregor’s credentials. There is also evidence that Craft knew McGregor for a considerable period of time and would have know of the inconsistencies apparant in these files.
Jim March
Jim,
Thanks for the comments. Kate McGregor is not only not qualified to do what she is doing for the state of California but it seems that she also had a hand in the federal certification of the Inka-Vote Plus voting system.
I phoned the Ca. SOS several times to find out what he was doing about the San Diego debacle, I was forwarded to this Bruce McDannold. After calling about 4 times and politely leaving him a message he called me back.
The guy is a NEOCON appointed nutcase!
He said “There has been no testing of Diebold machines that shows the systems are hackable and vulnerable”, “the machines were not certified before the SOS’s final report came out”, “It was the San Diego ROV decision to let the machines out of his chain of command and the sleepovers didn’t matter because the machines had tamper proof stickers on them and there is no evidence that the machines were tampered with”.
When I told him several lawsuits have been filed across the country regarding the hackability of these systems without leaving a trace and that poll workers have written statements about the tamper proof stickers not being in place, he said “I don’t believe these things have happened and you need to check your facts.
I told him if there is any question of impropriety regarding the effectiveness of voting machines in CA it is his job to ensure all votes are counted and if he can’t do his job he needs to resign and go sale hotdogs somewhere.
He hung up on me!