This includes a basic paper trail and a manner in which the votes can be audited and verified, among other basic things. But the reality of this all is that in many many states, voters are still facing the same issues with respect to potentially stealing elections. Just because there was a big win in 2008 doesn't mean that the same vote theft and shenanigans that went on in 2000, 2002 and 2004 are gone. In fact, many other countries still use the same paper in a locked box as their means of voting - and they have the winner declared pretty damn quickly as well.
But I guess when the companies that make and run the voting machines for the overwhelming majority of the votes are major contributors to one of the political parties, that is integrity enough. We should just trust them, right? It's only one of the most basic rights and it's not like elections have consequences, right?
This time, results from a half-dozen towns were delayed because of problems in transmitting data from machine cartridges, County Clerk M. Claire French said on Wednesday.
Each voting machine has a cartridge that stores the ballot information after votes are cast. The cartridges are plugged into a card reader that attaches to laptop computers used by municipal clerks, who are to transmit results to central election offices, French said.
However, in several cases after the polls closed Tuesday the cartridges had to be physically transported to central election offices in Freehold, where the data was downloaded, French said.
They said they are studying what went wrong because numerous test runs were done leading up to the election including on Tuesday. But Tuesday night and the April problems aren't the only difficulties they have had in the past:
Two years ago, a delay in tabulations at the county level was blamed on some of the 1,700 local election workers misunderstanding instructions. In the 2008 general election, other technical issues delayed results.
No matter where they decide the blame lies, the constant seems to be the delays. It's not like the county isn't committing the financial resources to try and get it right:
Monmouth County purchased 950 Sequoia vote machines three years ago for $8 million - relying mostly on federal funds - and also spent $80,000 for 60 laptops solely for municipal use on election nights.
Equipment maintenance comes to more than $20,000 annually, and the county has also spent more than $2,000 per election night for on-hand Sequoia representatives.
Can someone explain to me why they are spending over $1300 per laptop for each municipality to rent for 1 night? They could buy them for less and have them to use all year round. And despite that fact that they made this expenditure, things still didn't go smoothly. By this point, I'd be sending my own bill asking for a refund already because they haven't gotten elections right since they switched over to the new Sequoia machines it appears. Coincidence?
Okay, everybody, get your tinfoil hats on and start speculatin' - I read government RFPs for a living (your sympathy is appreciated) and this one just drifted across my desk:
You are subscribed to Exempt Services RFQ for Passaic County, NJ. This information has recently been updated, and is now available in the following formats:
Microsoft Word
PDF
Revised RFQ for the 2009 Transportation of New Sequoia Vending Machines for the Passaic County Superintendent of Election and Commissioner of Registration
You can update or cancel your subscription at any time by clicking here. All you will need are your e-mail address and your password (if you have selected one).
This service is provided free of charge by: Passaic County, NJ.
P.S. If you have any questions or problems please contact support@govdelivery.com for assistance.
GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of Passaic County, NJ · Administration Building · 401 Grand Street · Paterson NJ 07505 · 1-800-439-1420
More than three years have gone by since the New Jersey Legislature required the state to install modern voting machines that provide printouts of each vote - the paper trail that experts regard as essential to fair and accurate elections. The machines are still nowhere in sight.
Deadlines have been imposed and proved meaningless. The latest deadline was New Year's Day, which of course has passed. Technically, the state is in violation of its own law, but nobody seems to care. Gov. Jon Corzine has said he will do something without specifying what.
We join a broad-based coalition, led by the Coalition for Peace Action, a regional organization based in Princeton, in opposing the bill. We urge the Legislature to, instead, take steps to implement an optical- scan voting system, as so many other states have done.
With optical-scan technology, voters mark ballots by hand -- in the manner of taking a standardized test -- and the ballots are then fed into a machine to be read.
Not only is the technology reliable, it's also cost-effective. U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, D-Hopewell Township, in testimony at the hearing last week, reckoned that, "In purchase costs alone, converting to an optical scan system would likely cost no more than adding printer retrofits to New Jersey's existing touch screen machines, and probably less."
Holt, who has long been a leader on voting integrity issues in the House of Representatives, summed up the matter nicely when he said: "Voting must not be an act of faith, it must be an act of record, and independent audit records -- voter-verified paper ballots -- must be required."
"The national trend is clearly to move away from touch screen voting and towards more reliable, less troublesome optical scan voting systems," Holt testified. "There are only seven states left in the country that, on a statewide basis, use paperless voting systems."
New Jersey is still one of them.
With the gubernatorial election less than a year away, time is running out. This is a situation that was to have been taken care of years ago. But the deadlines have come and gone, and come and gone again, and New Jersey's citizens still cannot be certain that the votes they cast will be counted and counted correctly.
The timing of this bill makes it clear that the "fix" was in from the get go. This has been railroaded through at the last minute in the hopes that they could pull off another delay and that they could get away with it like they did last time.
I am under no illusion that the votes today will go against what is in the best interests of democracy, our budget, common sense and decency. (Though I would love to be surprised!!! :-)
Any legislator who is capable of voting for this ugly pig of a bill doesn't deserve to be re-elected.
No one who cares about the democratic process should be supporting this bill, it's that bad.
After just a few minutes of real listening and asking a few real questions, Assemblyman Herb Conaway Jr was inspired to speak the truth. His intelligence and his instincts were/are right on. Yet, he voted to pass it in committee (out of deference to Quigley) but did say he would vote against it on the floor. We shall see.
Whatever her motivations were, Republican Senator Jennifer Beck actually voted (correctly!!!) against the bill in committee, let's see how she votes today.
If the bill passes without some serious amendments; there needs to be a drive to introduce corrective legislation asap.
Despite the "best" efforts of our legislative "leaders", this issue isn't going to just quietly go away and die.
This is video of Holt's testimony before the NJ State Senate Government Committee yesterday (Thursday 12/11/08). (The first few minutes of his remarks are missing; but as you'll see....he makes his case quite clear in the testimony that is present.
This is a link to the text of his prepared testimony....
The bill they voted on will allow NJ to extend, yet again, the deadline for complying with the mandate (for voter verifiable paper ballots) until November of 2010. This law was passed in 2005 and its implementation has already been delayed once.
There is also a provision which allows he state to "test" reworked touch screen machines (with technology from the 70,s and 80's) with external printers. The one that Sequoia had on display in the statehouse was still not even completely functional....after 4 years of "jury rigging".
Something really weird (at best) is going on here.
The following verbiage is copied from an email from verifiedvoting.org
Please read it and send a message to the NJ legislature that enough is enough and that they need to get serous about correcting the status quo so we can have secure, convenient, verifiable and CHEAPER elections using the kinds of optical scanning technology that is being used in most of the USA.
UPDATE: the full state Senate may vote to eliminate the requirement for voter-verified paper records as early as the week of Monday December 15. If you have not already acted, now is the time!
It boggles the mind, but New Jersey's progress toward verifiable elections is once again threatened.
Three years ago, the New Jersey Legislature passed a law requiring voter-verifiable paper records by January 2008. Then twice in 2008, the Legislature extended that deadline, first to June 2008, then to January 2009.
Now verifiable voting in New Jersey will be delayed indefinitely unless you act. The bill S2380, and its companion A3458, would undo the the requirement, and establish a "pilot program" for voter-verified paper records. If enacted, S2380 and A3458 could well mean that New Jersey voters will not have verifiable voting in time for the next election for Governor in 2009. The only reasonable course of action now is to require the deployment of a better voting system to meet New Jersey's legal requirement for voter-verified paper records -- paper optical scan ballots -- as soon as feasible, but not later than the gubernatorial election.
Over 30 states have managed to implement verifiable, recountable, auditable voting without a comedy of delays or a pilot program. Please fill out the form below to send a letter to New Jersey's lawmakers. Use the letter shown below or edit as you see fit.
Tell New Jersey's lawmakers: no more delays. And thank you for taking action!"
PLEASE GO TO THE SITE BELOW AND FILL OUT THE FORM THERE. THANK YOU
Let's face it; most of what happens in legislative committees is scripted and fixed. In a rare moment of extemporaneous passion NJ State Assemblyman Herbert Conaway Jr speaks truth to power.
I was pleased to see today's ruling regarding the discrepencies in last Feb's NJ primary vote, from the Star Ledger:
Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg ordered election officials in Bergen, Gloucester, Mercer, Middlesex, Ocean and Union coun ties to submit the machines by Tuesday after activists, seeking to have the electronic voting machines discarded, succeeded in convincing her that examining the counties' machines is critical to their case.
Nineteen counties are equipped with Sequoia... Last month, the Constitutional Officers Association of New Jersey, which includes all county clerks, urged the state Attorney General's Office to call in independent experts to examine the machines. No action was taken, however.
Obviously, Sequioa is suing in response, from the Trenton Times (my bolding):
Sequoia Voting Systems filed legal motions this week to block subpoenas ordering counties to turn over a few of their machines to activists who want to investigate the discrepancies.
As many as 30 of Mercer County's 600 machines were affected...
A hearing is scheduled for April 25 before Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg in Trenton, Sypek said.
Ok, so voters, citizen groups and citizens who want their vote counted are termed 'activists'? Is Rush Holt an activist? I assume he wants independent review of the discrepencies. What scientist wouldn't? I hope he is offering the hope of federal financing for NJ to actually have a paper trail by Nov, which I saw alluded to here in the last month or so, now that the legisislature punted.
According to Penny Venetis:
The activists are represented by Penny Venetis, a professor at the Rutgers University law clinic.
"Sequoia is not a party in the case and has no right to interject itself now."
So what do we call Sequoia lawyers, lobbyists, 'communications', 'public relations' folks who are making sure that the integrity of their systems are not questioned? And what are they called in the MSM?
Sequoia officials Michelle Shafer, a spokeswoman for Sequoia in California
That's only the Trenton Times and Ledger, are other papers doing the same? Covering the issue at all?
Remember Sequoia? The company getting a pass from Attorney General Milgram after their machines produced inconsistent numbers in the presidential primary? The company that won't allow Princeton computer science professor Ed Felten to conduct an independent study because they allegedly need to protect their trade secrets (presumably their top secret, super advanced security measures). (h/t BB)
A section of Sequoia Voting Systems Inc.'s Web site was hacked overnight, and when the company realized what had happened, it took the site down and removed the "intrusive content," Sequoia spokeswoman Michelle Shafer said via e-mail.
Sequoia made "security enhancements" to protect the site from further hacking, and it was back online this afternoon, Shafer said. The company is investigating the origin of the attack.
The hack was noticed Thursday morning by Ed Felten, a computer scientist who has been asked to investigate voting-machine discrepancies in the state's primary election. [...]
Felten said that at around 6:30 a.m. Eastern Time, the Ballot Blog, in which Sequoia gave an in-depth explanation of what had gone wrong in New Jersey, had been replaced with a message saying the page had been hacked.
Inconsistencies were discovered in Union County's voting machine results by county clerk Joanne Rajoppi. She tried to arrange an independent review of the machines by Princeton computer science professor Ed Felten. The voting machine manufacturer - Sequoia - threatened legal action to block the review (because Felten has successfully uncovered flaws in other machines in the past), and now Attorney General Milgram is supporting Sequoia in their effort to block the independent review.
The state attorney general is satisfied with the steps taken by Sequoia Voting Systems to identify and remedy problems with its voting machines, a spokesman said today after county officials sent Anne Milgram a forcefully-worded letter demanding she join their push for an independent analysis of the equipment.
David Wald, a state spokesman, did not comment directly on the county officials' demands, but said, "Sequoia told us they intend to run the machines through another independent lab."
Though the problems with the machines were first discovered in Union County, they aren't limited to one machine, one precinct, or even one county. It's widespread.
Since Rajoppi unearthed the problem, officials in Bergen, Cape May, Gloucester, Mercer and Middlesex counties duplicated what she did, and also found the number of Democrats and Republicans casting ballots did not match when the cartridge printouts from the machines were compared against the paper-tape backup inside the devices.
While six counties reported finding discrepancies, Rajoppi said the problem may be more widespread since the same machines, manufactured by Sequoia Voting System, are used in 18 of New Jersey's 21 counties.
The vast majority of our state votes on the same flawed machines - machines that have already been certified by our state. Both Sequoia and the state have completely failed to provide an accurate and voter-verifiable voting system, but Milgram is giving Sequoia yet another pass. It's sad that the integrity of our vote is such a low priority for this administration.
This is complete negligence from the chief election official in the state. Attorney General Milgram should resign for failing to protect our vote.
After noticing inconsistencies in the voting results of the February 5th primary, Union County's clerk asked Princeton University computer science professor Edward Felten to conduct an independent study on the county's machines. Sequoia, the voting machine manufacture, threatened legal action to block the investigation. Senator Scutari, who represents Union County, responded:
"Evidently, Sequoia believes that maintaining its 'trade secrets' trumps the rights of New Jerseyans to have their votes properly recorded in an election. I call upon the company to submit to an independent investigation as proposed by Union County Clerk Joanne Rajoppi and the Constitutional Officers Association of New Jersey in order to insure the integrity of its machines ahead of November?s general election."
Scutari also said that the State Government Committee may look into the matter if Sequoia does not comply.
"Elections fall under our purview, and I am certain that the committee's membership would be very interested in hearing Sequoia defend its policy of preventing election officials from acting to protect our constituents? right to vote."
Best of all, Scutari said he will introduce legislation to make the state pay to replace current voting machines "with optical scan paper ballot technology in all 21 counties, should Sequoia and the Attorney General fail to produce a machine with viable Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) technology by January 1, 2009."
Sequoia already sold us their crappy machines, but they still make money from contracts for service and training. I think it is important to draw a line in the sand to motivate them and the Attorney General to end their foot-dragging. Current law contains a loophole that will extend the deadline indefinitely, and because the state does not want to pay for new machines, they have no reason to not continue granting extensions. Like in Iraq, the only way to incentivize progress is to indicate that we are serious by setting a clear deadline.
Testimony presented by the Electoral Reform Group of BluewaveNJ regarding Sequoia Advantage voter verified paper record printer (proposed) system before the NJ Department of Law and Public Safety Voting Machine Examination Committee 7/24/2007.
As interested citizens and members of BluWaveNJ, a grassroots political organization, we have been concerned that any voting system be secure, accurate and reliable. In short, we want every vote accurately counted in such a manner that the electorate will have total confidence in the result of all elections. To this end, we have attended meetings of our County Freeholder Board, we have reviewed the purchase contract between Essex County and Sequoia and we have repeatedly requested an opportunity to view and test the proposed printer which is the subject of this hearing.
Despite these requests, no access to the printer was given until today July 24 2007 when the hearing is taking place. Additionally the report of NJIT which "tested" the printer was not available until the end of last week. We wish to express our great concern and dismay with this proceedure. Instead of transparency and openness, we feel that there is only the illusion of fair process. that being said and with the understanding we object to the frame work of this hearing we would like to note the egregious shortcomings in this system which are obvious even with the limited opportunity afforded to observe the machine and prepare for this hearing.
1. No real world testing has been done . Instead of having a large number of machines tested by average voters operated by regular poll workers, under conditions approximating an actual election, three probably brand new machines, were tested under laboratory conditions. We have no way of calculating probable failure rates based on these tests.
As previously posted, the NJ Division of Elections is holding public hearings this week on the Sequoia and Avante voting machines that are currently used in the state.
The location is in Lawrenceville at the New Jersey National Guard Armory, 151 Eggert Crossing Road, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
The schedule is as follows: 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. - Voting machines available for public demonstration. 10:00 a.m. - Committee hearing commences. Voting Machine Examination Schedule 7/24 - Sequoia AVC Advantage 7/25 - Sequoia AVC Edge 7/26 - Avante Vote-Trakker 7/27 - Date open for hearing overflow
Sign-up for Public Comment: Advance sign-up via email at: njelections@lps.state.nj.us. Use "Comment Sign-Up" as the subject. At-the-door by 9:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing.
Speakers will be given a limited time to speak, within the discretion of the Committee Chair.
More info at: http://www.nj.gov/oa...
From this article it looks like NJ is on the verge of doing some really good things in time for May 07 primaries:
1-Having a paper record or ballot for the Sequoia voting machines used in most counties.
2-Random Audits, not yet required by federal law but the NJ State AG's office wants them.
In addition to providing a reliable paper trail, the new certification process would require random auditing of the machines and testing to make sure they can hold up under intense use. Until now only the federal government has required such certification, and adherence is voluntary
And Ms. Milgram, first assistant to NJ State Attorney General, promised Judge Fienberg that the protocols for audits and certification requirements would be established the first week in April and that public hearings will be held in regards to the new auditing procedures and the new printer add on to the Sequoia voting machines.
But
Ms. Milgram said that the company currently providing voting machines had gone through four approaches to retrofitting its equipment (for paper trail/ballot), but that the state "was not pleased with them." The latest and fifth version held more promise, she said.
Sequoia is on the 5th try? Are these printers ever going to work right?
These machines need to work and work hard- I for one look forward to larger and larger voter turn-out. If they can get the Sequoia to work with the VVPT and a system of audits we will be in good shape but if not we should consider another system all together. And when our Officials start talking about price they should compare the expense of storing the voting equipment, moving it to the polls and what the costs of keeping these machines safe will be. This is part of the price. There are other voting systems that are less bulky less costly and even less prone to tampering mischief.
and mentioned in the Times article, there is an investigation involving Essex, Bergen and Union counties in regards to the initial purchase of the Sequoia machines. This inquiry by the State Commission of Investigation may turn up other reasons to scrap the Sequoia machines ASAP before we invest in the printers and the new training to operate them.
Thanks to the state legislature, New Jersey is already scheduled to require a paper trail by January 2008. The state's plan has been to 'upgrade' the existing Sequoia machines with printers. This week, a lawsuit aimed to get the machines thrown out now. The Ledger reports that the ruling is in: Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg is not throwing out the machines now, but she has a lot of skepticism about current plans. She said the state has to have a backup plan to replace the machines, and that she needs to see progress soon:
She scheduled May hearings to chart the state's course, and admonished state officials to cooperate with voter-rights activists in the meantime. "This is a public issue with regards to voting. This should not be an adversarial proceeding. This is what we need to do to ensure the integrity of the voting system," the judge said.
Update: Perhaps I should say a bit more. If you hoped that the electronic machines with no paper trail would be gone by your next election, then this ruling is disappointing. On the other hand, if you've been worried about this loophole in the law:
A waiver of the provisions of this paragraph shall be granted by the Attorney General if the technology to produce a permanent voter-verified paper record for each vote cast is not commercially available.
The judge has shown she is very serious that the paper record will be available, and will be keeping a close eye on the state and Sequoia.
Our elections-focused November issue hits the streets tomorrow, and today we're featuring one of the main stories -- the state of electronic voting in New Jersey.
From Rush Holt's legislation to Edward Felten's team of computer scientists to citizen activists -- we cover all the bases.
"The election records are in a sealed bag. What are you going to do? Shoot the guy to get them? People don’t understand we really take excruciating pains with security.”
- Mary Meyers, who’s in charge of elections for Warren County.
And while you're over at City Belt, consider a subscription -- it's a very affordable way ($15 for 12 issues) to support independent media in New Jersey.
From unreliable electronic voting machines and millions of uncounted ballots, to partisan election officials and 10 hour waits at the polls, it’s clear our electoral system is in dire need of an overhaul. To build a more just, secure and robust dem-ocracy, support the following 10-point Voters’ Bill of Rights:
1. Eliminate Rigged Voting Mechanisms — Hard Copy Paper Ballots are Most Reliable It’s demonstrated indisputably that no type of voting machine produced is “tamper-proof.” All mechanisms available today, whether voting by lever, computerized electronic machines, optical scan devices, even systems that offer “paper trail receipts” can record your vote as cast but actually vote for the other candidate in the tally — the final vote count. The only real tamper-proof system is voting by paper ballots with votes physically marked by the voter, and those votes tallied with non-partisan oversight conducted under oath with federal penalties for misconduct in the election vote counting. This must be our national standard for democracy.
2. Replace Partisan Oversight with Non-Partisan Election Commissions It’s time to overhaul our federal, state, and local election agencies to guarantee fair elections. We must replace the current system of partisan election administration, in which partisan secretaries of state, county clerks, election commissioners, and other partisan officials are able to issue rulings that favor their own political parties and themselves, with a non-partisan, independent system of running elections. We must end the practice of contracting out fundamental election functions, such as the maintenance of voter lists, to private corporations. We must also insure that independent internnational and domestic election observers are given full access to monitor our elections.
3. Celebrate Democracy: Make Election Day a National Holiday People should not be forced to choose between exercising their right to vote and getting to work on time. While the laws of 30 states guarantee the right to take time off from work to vote, many workers and employers are unaware of these laws. Holding national elections on a national holiday will greatly increase the number of available poll workers and polling places and increase overall turnout, while making it much easier for working Americans to go to the polls. Election Day is already a holiday in Puerto Rico in presidential election years, and many Puerto Ricans celebrate and make Election Day a fun and festive party with a purpose. It's time for the United States to follow Puerto Rico's lead.
4. Make it Easier to Vote Many citizens are discouraged from voting by unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and restrictions. We must simplify and rationalize voter registration so that no one is again disenfranchised for failing to check a superfluous box, as occurred this year in Florida, or for not using heavy enough paper, as nearly occurred in Ohio. We must require voter registrars to sign affidavits promising to submit any registrations in their possession in a timely manner. We must eliminate police intimidation, language, physical disability, extra-legal requirements of personal identification, and other barriers to voting. To ensure that all qualified voters are able to vote, we must follow the lead of states like Minnesota and Wisconsin by replacing restrictive voter residency requirements with same-day voter registration, allowing qualified voters to register at the polls on Election Day itself.
Our current system forces millions of voters to wait up to 10 hours to vote. This is unacceptable, and it disenfranchises those who cannot afford to wait. To increase access to the polls, all states must provide sufficient funding for enough early voting and election day polling places to guarantee smooth and speedy voting. To ensure equal access and minimize the wait at the polls, election authorities must allocate resources based upon the number of potential voters per precinct. We must put an end to the government-backed practice of allowing partisan activists to challenge the voting rights of individual voters at the polls. Instead, the government must invest in campaigns designed to educate voters about how they can exercise and protect their right to vote.
5. Count Every Vote! Voters must know that their vote will count and make a difference. Every recent presidential election has been marred by the discounting millions of spoiled, under-vote, over-vote, provisional and absentee ballots. This discounting of votes has disproportionately impacted people of color, especially African Americans, and is a fundamental voting rights and racial justice problem. Election officials must ensure that every voting precinct and wards is adequately staffed with sufficiently trained personnel and professional supervision; that old and unreliable voting machines are done away with; that absentee ballots are mailed with a sufficient time for delivery; that all ballots, including provisional ballots, are counted; and that provisional ballots count for statewide and federal contests regardless of where the vote is cast. Election officials should wait until after any recounts have been completed to provide final certification of election results.
6. Re-Enfranchise Ex-Felons & Non-Felons The permanent disenfranchisement of former felons, a practice that falls outside of international or even U.S. norms, is an unreasonable and dangerous penalty that weakens our democracy by creating a subclass of four million excluded American citizens. The practice has also been used to purge voter lists of hundreds of thousands of citizens never convicted of any felony. Because the criminal justice system disproportionately penalizes African American males, this disenfranchisement is racist in its impact and is constitutionally suspect. Those states that permanently disenfranchise felons (Florida, Virginia, Nebraska, Mississippi, Kentucky, Iowa, Alabama, and Arizona) must amend their laws and practices to restore full citizenship to ex-offenders.
7. IMPLEMENT INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING (IRV) AND PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION (PR) We must replace our current “first-past-the-post” system with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Unlike our current system, which forces voters to reject their preferred candidate in favor of a “lesser evil” who may have a better chance of defeating the candidate they most fear, IRV allows them to choose both. In this way, it eliminates the so-called “spoiler” and “wasted vote” effects and gives voters a more democratic set of choices. Under IRV, voters simply rank candidates in order of their preference (first, second, etc.). If a candidate wins a majority of first choice votes, that candidate is the winner. If no candidate gets a majority of first choices, the lowest vote-getting candidate is eliminated, and his/her votes are given to the candidates whom the supporters of the eliminated candidate chose as their second option. Counting continues until one candidate has received a majority. IRV therefore not only allows voters to voice their real preferences; it also ensures that the will of the true majority, not a mere plurality, produces the winner of each election. In addition, IRV makes it possible to conduct the runoff count without the need for a separate and expensive runoff election. Instant Runoff Voting is used successfully around the world, including Ireland, Australia, and most recently, San Francisco.
The right of representation belongs to all citizens. Our winner-take-all elections award representation to the largest factions and leave everyone else, often the majority, unrepresented. The winner-take-all system unnecessarily restricts choice, polarizes politics and limits political discourse. We must adopt Proportional Representation (PR) for legislative elections to ensure the fair representation of all voters. Millions of Democrats in Republican areas and Republicans in Democratic areas are unrepresented in our system, and the majority of Greens, Libertarians, and other independents are unrepresented at all levels of government. Our system should provide fair representation to all voters, in proportion to their numbers.
8. Replace Big Money Control With Public Financing and Equal Air-Time In a system where the amount of money a candidate spends is directly related to their likelihood of winning, it is not surprising that voters think politicians are more concerned with big campaign contributors than with individual voters. We must follow Maine's lead by establishing a nationwide system of full public financing for all ballot-qualified candidates. We must require the broadcasting corporations that license our public airwaves to provide air time for debates, and free time for all ballot-qualified candidates and parties.
9. Guarantee Equal Access to the Ballot and Debates In our current electoral system, independent parties such as the Greens and Libertarians face a host of barriers designed to limit voter choice and voice. Ballot access laws and debates specifically designed to exclude independent party candidates discourage voting and undermine the legitimacy of our elections. In most cases, the established parties have never themselves met the signature require-ments they impose on independent parties. We must eliminate prohibitive ballot access requirements, and replace the partisan Commission on Presidential Debates with a non-partisan Citizens Debate Commission.
10. Abolish the Electoral College and Enact Statehood for the District of Columbia It is time to end the safe state/battleground state dichotomy and make all votes equal, no matter the state of the voter. We must amend the Federal Constitution to replace election of the President by the Electoral College with direct election by the voters. At the same time, for so long as the Electoral College persists, we must amend our state laws and constitutions to allocate each state's electors proportionately to the popular vote.
It’s also time to end the disenfranchisement of the over half million Americans who reside in the District of Columbia. DC residents deserve the same political rights enjoyed by citizens of our nation's fifty states, namely full voting representation in both houses of the U.S. Congress, as well as legislative, budgetary, and judicial sovereignty. Washington D.C. is the only existing majority African American federal jurisdiction, and the denial of DC voting rights is thus inherently racist. Furthermore, the denial of DC voting rights can’t be defended on the basis of population size; the majority white State of Wyoming has a smaller population. It’s time to grant statehood to the District of Columbia. North Jersey Impeach Group
117 Chestnut Drive • Wayne • NJ 07470•5639
Contact impeachthem@gmail.com
• info@impeachthem.com
(Why do counties keep wasting money with this company, and who in the state isn't allowing them to purchase machines from any other company? The Vote-Trakker systems have a verifiable paper trial technology and cost much less than Sequoia systems, for example. Something fishy is going on, and it's costing us a LOT of money. - promoted by jmelli)
Why did Essex County this week approve emergency funds to pay Sequoia Pacific an additional $120,000 to remedy a problem Sequoia itself caused by failing to meet contractual obligations?
This is a question Essex County's adhoc Task Force on Voting has been asking itself all day. The Task Force began the struggle against the purchase of Sequoia Advantage DRE voting machines a full year ago.
After succeeding in delaying approval of the county's contract with Sequoia from May 2005 through November (cynics may wish to note the contract was approved at the first Freeholder meeting after election day), the fight seemed lost.
A lawsuit filed in the fall of 2004 on behalf of New Jersey Assemblyman Reed Gusciora didn't succeed in time to save New Jerseyans from having to cast their votes on suspect Sequoia Advantage DREs, but as the lawsuit progresses, citizens stand a better chance of being spared that problem in the future.
Attorney Penny Venetis, of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, represents the plaintiffs in this case, which has been known as Plaintiffs v. McGreevey/Harvey, v. Codey/Harvey, and now, v. Corzine/Farber, challenging the accuracy of Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) machines, claiming the use of unauditable and possibly unreliable DREs violates voters' constitutional rights.
The case was dismissed in January 2005, but earlier this year the Appellate Division agreed with the plaintiffs. Mercer County Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg has begun hearing the appeal this week.
In hearings, Sequoia vice president Howard Cramer, a familiar face to anyone who has engaged that firm in questioning and challenge, claimed the Advantage machine can be retrofitted to produce a voter-verified auditable paper record by NJ's state deadline of January 1, 2008, but admitted that even at an estimated cost of $2,000 per machine for every one of the 8,000 Sequoia machines currently in place in the state, he cannot guarantee that the company's prototype will be "commercially available" by that date.
It's worth watching developments in this case (and if possible, observing the trial in a show of support for the cause -- respectfully, of course,), and worth making sure your local paper provides coverage of testimony.
Most of us will see these voting machines in our polling places in June; sooner, if municipal elections are scheduled. Most important, the outcome of vital '06 races in New Jersey will depend upon votes cast on these flawed machines.
A suit filed in 2004 on behalf of Assemblyman Reed Gusciora by the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers School of Law-Newark challenging the accuracy of New Jersey's electronic voting machines was initially dismissed by the trial court. Today, the Appellate Division agreed with the plaintiffs, and has reinstated the case.
The lawsuit is the first in the nation to successfully challenge electronic voting machines..."Despite clear evidence that New Jersey’s voting machines are insecure, the other branches of government failed to take appropriate action. That is why the Court stepped in,� [lead counsel Penny] Venetis added.
The same voting machines used by almost all of New Jersey’s five million registered voters have been found too insecure to use and have been de-commissioned by California, Ohio, Nevada, and New York City. New Jersey does not check the software of electronic voting machines to determine whether they have been tampered with or whether they are faulty.
Nearly every voting machine in the state is electronic, but none of them provide a voter-verifiable paper trail. If the courts agree that rights are being violated and that the integrity of the election cannot be guaranteed by these machines, then by law, the machines must be scrapped.
Although a bill was passed last year calling for a voter-verified paper trail on electronic machines, the leadership in the legislature demanded that the bill be modified to go into effect in 2008, because the state didn't have the money to fix or retrofit them. Not only that, but they also snuck in a loophole to completely get around the 2008 deadline. The Appeals Court's decision seemed to be influenced by these provisions in the bill:
The Court was concerned with protecting the hundreds of millions of votes that would be cast on voting machines between now and 2008. The Court also expressed its concern that the Attorney General’s office would use a loophole in the statute and issue waivers to the 2008 voter verified paper ballot requirement – further jeopardizing the franchise.
It seems like the state has been strong-arming the counties into buying electronic machines only from Sequoia Voting Systems (someone up high must be good friends with the Sequoia folk). This despite the fact that the company has repeatedly failed to live up to its promises of providing a paper trail retrofit option for the machines, while other companies already provide such an option. After all these years of stalling, looking the other way and insisting on these flawed machines, the state may soon be faced with the horror of scrapping all of them. It's hard to feel sorry for that kind of incompetence.
