Iowa Voters

The 2004 campaign to purge voters from the roles in Florida has moved to Missouri. It has already been successful in Arizona and Indiana. See this tale with photo from Digby.

It’s hard to keep a lid on information in the age of the internet. Steve King and the English-only crowd should learn their lesson.

The Iowa voter registration forms are again available in multiple languages. While the Secretary of State is forbidden by law from providing them to citizens, others can offer them. The Iowa Council for International Understanding has put Spanish, Bosnian, Laotian and Vietnamese versions of the forms on its website. The ICIU has long provided translation services to Iowans.

These are unofficial forms. They cannot be turned it to the voter registration office. They can be used only as an aid in completing the actual form which is also on-line here.

From the AP in Indiana:

By DEBORAH HASTINGS

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn’t have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary’s Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn’t get one but came to the precinct anyway.

“One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, ‘I don’t want to go do that,’” Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren’t given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. “You have to remember that some of these ladies don’t walk well. They’re in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts.”

Several times over the next few weeks HBO will show the 2006 movie “Hacking Democracy,” an investigation of voting machines. A little progress has been made to protect democracy from these machines, but the movie’s central questions remain unaddressed: How did Florida’s Volusia County report negative votes for Al Gore in 2000? And how can we defend against miscounted paper ballots when computers do the counting in secret?

We Iowans are patting ourselves on the back, having just dumped our touchscreens. But the legislature failed to take the next step–auditing the paper ballots after the computerized scanners do the initial count. The movie makes clear why this is needed.

This is a vivid and eye-opening film. Although I had read about many of the episodes documented in it, I had not seen it until today. I don’t have HBO, I never bought the DVD and never took the time to watch the nine part YouTube edition which starts here. Luckily for me a friend in Pocahontas taped the HBO showing yesterday and drove it over to my house.

I know some of what has happened since the film was first issued. It hints that the 2004 recount in Ohio was rigged, and indeed two people later got jail terms for their part in rigging it. It recounts several investigations by computer scientists into voting machine computer code, but there have been more investigations since. All of them always produce bad news for the voting machine advocates.

The film shows how some Florida scanners were hacked. The county involved got rid of those machines, but they (Diebold scanners) still dominate in Iowa.

We know what to do. We must count ballots by hand after the computer counts. If the race is close, we must count quite a few of the ballots. If it’s a landslide, we can audit a much smaller number of ballots. But we can’t take the computer’s word for it–ever.

Ask your local election workers at the June primary if they have seen the movie. Ask your favorite candidates if they have seen it. Ask your auditor why no audits are planned. Ask Secretary Mauro, too.

Representatives King and Latham joined 85% of the Republicans in the US House yesterday to vote down a paper ballot bill that could have re-imbursed Iowa for the expense of replacing our touchscreens.

Democrats tried to pass the bill under a suspension of the rules, a maneuver that requires a 2/3 majority. Such smooth sailing appeared possible because the bill had passed out of the House Administration committee unanimously. This time the same committee Republicans voted against the bill!

There were no mandates in the bill, only incentives for states to use verifiable methods of balloting, re-imbursements for new equipment, and money for auditing election returns.

He signed the bill that chases DRE touchscreens out of our state. He’s a better governor than he was Secretary of State.

Thank you, Governor Culver.

Secretary Mauro was on the radio yesterday, taking an hour long victory lap over this and same day voter registration. He’s a very credible Secretary of State with nearly 25 years of election administration under his belt.

Thank you Secretary Mauro.

Last week as the legislature was dumping touchscreens and mandating paper ballots, the American Statistical Association was getting into the debate. Their board adopted a “Position on Electoral Integrity” that reminds us to actually look at the paper ballots.

“It is critical that the integrity of central vote tabulations be confirmed by audits of voter-verified hard-copy records in order to provide high - and clearly specified - levels of confidence in electoral outcomes… Certification of any electoral outcome should require substantiating evidence that the putative winner was the intended selection of the plurality of voters.

That’s a clumsy way of saying, “Don’t let the scanner do all the thinking.”

A bill to require audits languishes in the legislature today. We’ll have the ballot system we wanted but we’re still using an insecure, fallible computer to read the votes and add the votes. We need to get our pollworkers eyes involved, too.

The House has followed the Senate, voting for paper ballot systems througout Iowa. The bill protects our next Presidential election from the terrible touchscreens:

Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, for elections held on or after November 4, 2008, a county shall
use an optical scan voting system only. The requirements of
the federal Help America Vote Act relating to disabled voters
shall be met by a county through the use of electronic ballot
marking devices that are compatible with an optical scan
voting system.

It’s nice to see how non-controversial this has become. Although there was a grumpy editorial in the Dubuque newspaper this week, the current news story at the DM Register has not even drawn any anonymous comments as of this posting.

The Governor’s signature is expected in due course.

The Iowa Senate has taken us halfway out of the paperless touchscreen trap on a 47-1 vote for an all paper voting system. Jennifer Jacobs has the story.

One legislator said on the radio today that we are hereby modernizing our voting system. That sounds like a refrain from just 3 years ago when we were suckered into new touchscreens–the “modern” system of its (brief) time.

Jacobs reports that touchscreens “have fallen from favor in the last couple of years as watchdog groups rail about equipment failures and security vulnerabilities.” She ought to say that the really credible watchdogs have been computer scientists. And they were “railing” in plenty of time to have avoided this whole fiasco, had the election officials been listening.

Michael Mauro listened. He never fell into the touchscreen trap. Now he is getting us out. Next step: the Iowa House.

A new bill approved by committee today in the Iowa Senate moves us much closer to paper ballots. Senate Study bill 3262 mandates paper ballots for the fall election and the state picks up the tab!

This goes a step beyond previous plans passed last spring to phase out touchscreens as they wear out. That bill also required paperless touchscreen terminals to have printers added to them. Arguments over the cost and who would pay for the printers, as well as over the poor performance they have showed in other states, prompted Governor Culver to flirt with a vote by mail system instead of buying more equipment to replace our 2005 purchases.

When the all mail ballot idea was panned by the state’s auditors this winter, Culver agreed to fund ballot marking devices for all counties that preferred them to touchscreen printers. Today’s legislation amends last year’s Iowa law by phasing out the touchscreens after September’s school board races.

No doubt the recent revenue estimate for the state has made this move much easier–state tax collections are exceeding expectations

UPDATE: The video below was just getting a good start circulating the internet when the real news told us a major US military contractor has made an unsolicited bid to buy Diebold. United Technologies, makers of Pratt & Whitney jet engines and Sikorsy helicopters now wants to make voting machines, too. Diebold has rejected the offer. Stay tuned and remember Ike’s warning about the military-industrial complex garnering “unwarranted influence” over democracy.
********************

While we wait for our shadowy overlords to write laws to protect us from voting machines, we can imagine what might happen if they don’t get it done:

State Representative Mary Gaskill wants to check on those computerized ballot scanners by counting 5% of the ballots by hand. She has filed a bill creating a state election audit board to oversee the process. The board would also have broad authority to review election administration in five randomly chosen counties after each general election.

Gaskill’s bill, HF 2206 is simple. Each county must hand count ballots in enough precincts to reach the 5% goal. If the count shows the machine was off by more than 1/2 % the audit would be expanded. If an actual recount of the entire race is invoked by a candidate, the audit would be unnecessary.

Not every race on the ballot will get reviewed during the audit. The bill says

The postelection audit shall be conducted for elections for the offices of president of the United States or governor, United States senator, United States representative, and at least a total of two additional partisan offices or public measures on the ballot, which shall be chosen by lot at the same time, and in the same manner, the precincts are chosen.

Such an automatic audit could have saved New Hampshire from the recount of its Democratic presidential primary last month. For now the Gaskill bill does not cover primaries, but can go into effect for November 2008 if the legislature approves. Let’s hope they do.

From Jennifer Jacobs for the Des Moines Register today:

Gov. Chet Culver is backing down on his plan for updating Iowa’s election technology after weeks of disagreement over how to ensure a paper trail for every voting machine.

Culver said Friday he is now willing to use state money to help counties switch to one uniform system with paper ballots.

And at long last, Culver criticizes touchscreens:

Touch-screen machines are “not the best options, and I’d like to try to avoid it if we can,” Culver said.

Thank you, Governor Culver. And Secretary Mauro.

Now the ball is in the county courthouses. Will those who fell for touchscreens realize that not every county made that mistake and therefore the counties bear some financial responsibiltiy?

Once those touch$creen toy$ are gone from the polling places, we will face the fact that all this money has been spent for “acce$$ible” voting equipment that sits unused. All to satisfy a federal mandate that was pushed through by voting machine companies who are the principal winners in this story. Beware the lobbyist with something to sell!

What a sad state of finger-pointing we have come to regarding Iowa’s tarnished election administration. In the Sunday Des Moines Register Governor Culver blames counties for the paperless voting machines he let them buy when he was Secretary of State. Story county auditor Mosiman defends her purchase, saying she acted on information available at the time.

They both need better alibis than that.

There was plenty of information available at the time (here, too, and here). If auditors and then Secretary Culver had paid more attention to computer experts like our own Doug Jones in Iowa City, we could have avoided this mess. Instead Mosiman went to Des Moines to testify against a paper trail bill. Auditors listened to savvy salesmen who managed to make those paperless touchscreens work long enough to close the deal. And besides, it was only tax money, much of it coming from the feds.

Culver’s correct that counties made the actual purchase decisions. He’s right that he (belatedly) urged them to have some sort of paper trail. But he was timid as a pussycat, never speaking against touchscreens. Worse than that, he even asked Professor Jones to resign from the Board of Examiners of Voting Machines during the crucial decision making period. Jones had single-handedly protected Iowa from Diebold during the many years he was on the board.

Culver should not prevent the legislature from mopping up. He should tell our Congressional delegation to back the Holt bill that would bail us out of our troubles (with yet more federal money).

Mosiman and the other county auditors who fell for touchscreens should admit that they were not paying adequate attention to the critics who sought to warn them before they spent the money HAVA provided.

Kiss and make up, you two. The legislature is trying to help.

If the store clerk says your lottery ticket was not a winner, should you just shrug and walk away? If the paperless voting machine says your campaign for office was not a winner, should you concede the election?

What’s the difference between these two events?

We now know some Canadian store clerks claimed winning lottery tickets for themselves after telling customers the tickets were worthless. That’s pretty much what happened in the election in Sarasota, Florida in 2006. Some paperless voting machines told candidate Jennings that there were not many votes on the machine for her. In fact, she probably was the real winner of the election.

Iowa’s solution is to create a better paper trail for the lottery tickets. Make customers sign their tickets before the clerk gets them. That signature prevents the clerk from claiming the winnings after mis-informing the client that the ticket was “worthless.” The clerk can’t very well turn in “his” winning ticket if it has someone else’s signature on it.

Always have a paper trail, in lotteries and in elections.