MINDING THE ELECTORAL STORE
COMPILATION AND COMMENTARY
BY LUCY WARNER
SEPTEMBER 7, 2017


DURHAM, NC VOTER ELIGIBILITY AND REGISTRATION ERRORS ON ELECTION DAY 2016 ARE DETAILED IN THIS VIDEO. THE RUSSIANS HACKED, NOT REPUBLICAN AREAS, BUT THE STRONGEST DEMOCRATIC BASE OF THE WHOLE STATE. LUCKILY THE ELECTION OFFICIALS REALIZED THERE WERE TOO MANY VOTER INVALIDATIONS CROPPING UP AND SHUT THE COMPUTERS DOWN. VOTING HAD TO BE DONE ON PAPER. LONG LINES AND CONFUSION RESULTED, AND A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO VOTE WERE NOT. THE VOTER REGISTRATION SHOULD BE A SACRED TRUST. WHAT THE RUSSIANS HACKED WAS VOTER REGISTRATION MORE THAN ACTUAL CHANGING OF THE VOTE COUNTS. EITHER IS BAD, BUT THE FIRST IS AN ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY.

JUST HAVING AN HISPANIC NAME OR LIVING IN A CERTAIN ZIP CODE AREA SHOULD NOT INVALIDATE ANY VOTER. THOSE VOTER CULLS THAT THE REPUBLICANS SO FREQUENTLY EMPLOY SHOULD BE MADE A FEDERAL CRIMINAL OFFENSE; AND THE LACK OF UNIFORM AND FAIR LAWS ON REPAIRING THE VOTING RIGHTS OF FELONS WHO HAVE DONE THEIR TIME, SHOULD ALSO BE CHANGED. IT IS NO ACCIDENT THAT MOST OF THOSE ABUSES OCCUR IN THE SOUTH AND THE WEST. ALSO, JAIL OR PRISON TIME SHOULD NOT AMOUNT TO A PERMANENT LOSS OF FULL CITIZENSHIP. ABUSES OF THIS KIND ARISE FROM THAT OLD “STATES RIGHTS” ISSUE COVERING SO MANY VERY IMPORTANT THINGS IN AMERICAN LIFE. LET’S FACE IT, TRADITIONAL HATREDS TRUMP CULTURAL DECENCY BOTH AT THE LEVEL OF THE CITIZENRY AND – AT LEAST AS OFTEN – BY MANY, MANY POLITICIANS.

COMPUTERS ARE LIKE ELECTRICITY AND PREPARED FOOD. WE ARE TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE MODERN WAY OF DOING THINGS, SO THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE ANY IDEA OF HOW TO GROW FOOD, PUT IT UP IN THOSE GLASS JARS AND EAT IT LATER, OR APPARENTLY TO ACHIEVE A FAIR VOTE BY THE SLOW AND LABORIOUS WAY. IF, NEXT TIME, THE RUSSIANS OR ANY OTHER ODIOUS MALIGN GROUP NEXT HACK OUR ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS, MAYBE WE WILL NOT ONLY FIND OURSELVES WITH A VERY, VERY DARK HORSE FOR A PRESIDENT, BUT BE TOTALLY NON-FUNCTIONAL IN DOZENS OF WAYS.

BACK IN THE 1970S WHEN VARIOUS HIPPIE GROUPS HAD STARTED COMMUNES I WAS HALF SYMPATHETIC AND HALF SCORNFUL. I NOW SEE THE WISDOM OF IT. THE AMISH AND SOME OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS PIONEERED THE MAINTENANCE OF TRADITION. IF WE ONLY HAD NOT MOVED TOTALLY INTO A FUTURE OF TOO LITTLE INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY AND NO CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION – I.E. THE LAND ITSELF -- AND THEREFORE, NECESSARILY, FOR THE AGGREGATE OF OUR POPULATION, WE WOULD PERHAPS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ADJUST TO THE DOWNFALL OF OUR AUTOMATED SYSTEMS IN SUCH A DEVASTATING WAY AS THE 2016 ELECTION. OVERDEPENDENCE ON ANYTHING IS NOT A GOOD IDEA.

JUST WRITE DOWN YOUR VOTES, THROW THEM IN THE BALLOT BOX, AND KEEP A RUNNING TALLY. INSTEAD OF HAVING OUR VOTING SYSTEM ON COMPUTERS AT ALL, PUT THE GOVERNMENT MONEY INTO EMPLOYING HUNDREDS OF VOTE COUNTERS AND VOTER ELIGIBILITY RECORDS ON THE LOCAL LEVEL. ANY MATHEMATICALLY COMPETENT HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE WITH SOME STATISTICAL KNOWLEDGE CAN DO THAT KIND OF MATH. IT’S MORE A MATTER OF THE HONESTY TO KEEP THOSE RECORDS METICULOUSLY AND FAIRLY. LOOK HOW IT WOULD BOOST EMPLOYMENT, AND ON THE LOCAL LEVEL WHERE IT WOULD DO THE MOST GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE. LUDDITES, UNITE! FOR THE NEW WISDOM THAT SPARKED THIS COMMENTARY, SEE THE EXCELLENT VIDEO INTERVIEW. THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR THE TRUMP/RUSSIA/ALT-RIGHT HACKING, THOUGH, WAS PURELY POLITICAL POWER.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/hacks-or-malfunction-us-election-infrastructure-still-vulnerable-1038069315901
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9/1/17
Hacks or malfunction, US election infrastructure still vulnerable
Susan Greenhalgh, election specialist with the Verified Voting Foundation, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about the weakness of U.S. election infrastructure, whether to hacking or simple malfunction. Duration: 13:02



THIS ARTICLE ON MS. GREENHALGH’S WORK AND ORGANIZATION ILLUSTRATES A VOTING ISSUE WHICH I HADN’T BEEN PARTICULARLY AWARE OF, RULES THAT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE DISABLED. IN THIS CASE IT’S A TECHNICAL GLITCH RATHER THAN A PURPOSEFUL ACTION, BUT IT DOES POSE A PROBLEM IN ENSURING AN ACCURATE, HONEST AND FAIR ELECTION. THOUGH I DON’T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT COMPUTERS TO KNOW HOW THE GLITCH COMES INTO PLAY, I TRUST THE HONESTY AND RELIABILITY OF THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, UNLESS THEY ARE POLITICAL APPOINTEES PERHAPS, AND THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED THAT VERIFICATION VIA COMPUTER IS LACKING IN ACCURACY. I DO KNOW THAT GOOGLE AND SOME OTHER SITES REQUIRE THESE LITTLE CRYPTIC VISUAL PUZZLES THAT ARE MORE A MATTER OF GOOD OR BAD EYESIGHT THAN IQ IN ORDER TO VERIFY THAT I “AM NOT A ROBOT.”

MOST RECENTLY NOWADAYS, THEY JUST GIVE ME A BOX TO CLICK THAT SAYS, “I AM NOT A ROBOT.” FINE. WHATEVER. I CAN SEE, THOUGH, THAT THERE IS VERY LITTLE ACTUAL INFORMATION ABOUT ME IN THE MATTER, AND THAT A LACK OF PROOF AS TO WHO IS ACTUALLY FILLING OUT THE FORMS DOES EXIST. I HATE TO GO AGAINST AN EFFORT TO HELP THE DISABLED, BUT IT DOES LOOK INSECURE TO ME, ALSO. MAYBE SOME DAY WE’LL HAVE TO TYPE IN OUR BIG BROTHER NUMBER TO VOTE. WHY DO THEY NEED FOR THE ABSENTEE BALLOT TO BE DELIVERED VIA INTERNET ANYWAY? THAT’S THE INSECURE PART – THOUGH THE USPS IS SLOW AND SOMETIMES SENDS ME SOMEBODY ELSE’S MAIL, I DON’T THINK THERE IS MUCH DISHONESTY TO WORRY ABOUT IN THE CASE OF MAIL PROCESSORS. THE PROBLEM TO ME WITH VOTING BY MAIL IS THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT CAN TAKE – MAYBE ENOUGH TO INVALIDATE THE VOTE.

HOW DOES THAT HACKING AFFECT THE SITUATION, I WONDER? THE ARTICLE MENTIONS ONLY A LOSS OF PRIVACY FOR THE VOTER, BUT NO EFFECT ON THE VOTE ITSELF. I SEE HOW STOLEN VOTER INFORMATION COULD THEN BE USED TO FALSIFY A VOTE, BUT AGAIN, IF THE VOTE IS NOT PLACED ON LINE, I DON’T SEE THE PROBLEM. ANYBODY ANYTIME SHOULD BE ABLE TO CALL IN AND REQUEST A BALLOT, AND THEN SEND IT IN LATER, OR NOT AS THEY PLEASE. IN OTHER WORDS, RATHER THAN KEEPING TRACK OF WHO BALLOTS ARE GIVEN TO, KEEP TRACK OF WHO THEY ARE USED BY; AND AGAIN, IT IS NOT BEING DONE ONLINE, AND IT CERTAINLY A MATTER OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE THAT ALL CITIZENS, BLACK, WHITE, PURPLE OR DISABLED, ARE ALLOWED THEIR VOTE.

MAYBE I’M BEGINNING TO AGREE WITH THE VIEW AFTER ALL THIS PONDERING THAT THE FEAR OF A SINGLE VOTER SNEAKING IN A BALLOT FOR TRUMP’S OPPONENT, THE HATED HILLARY, IS AT THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. THE SOLUTION IS, DON’T VET VOTERS AT THE FRONT END, BUT AT THE BACK — THE ACTUAL VOTE. IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE, DON’T COUNT THEIR VOTE, AND IF IT IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, THEN CHARGE THEM. THE REPUBLICANS ARE ALL ABOUT MAXIMUM CONSTRAINT AND INCONVENIENCE, AND THE DEMOCRATS ABOUT MAXIMUM FREEDOM. IT’S NO WONDER THAT WE TEND NOT TO GET ALONG VERY WELL. SOME CATS AND DOGS LIKE THE OPPOSITE SPECIES, BUT MOST DON’T.

[NOTE: GO TO THIS WASHINGTON POST SITE FOR DETAILS ON THE OVERALL COMPUTER VOTING ISSUE -- “Critics of the system say it is easy for impostors to use stolen credentials to request absentee ballots or for cyberthieves to hack in and retrieve data about who is requesting ballots.” SEE: https://WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM/local/md-politics/maryland-moves-forward-with-online-voting-despite-warnings-from-cyber-experts/2016/09/29/3de8f6a8-8644-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html.]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bs-md-online-election-appeal--20140922-story.html
State To Appeal Ruling On Voting By Disabled
By Michael Dresser, The Baltimore Sun,
September 22, 2014

The state attorney general's office is appealing a federal judge's ruling ordering Maryland to use an absentee ballot-marking technology for the disabled that the Board of Elections had refused to certify as secure.

The state will ask the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., to throw out District Judge Richard D. Bennett's decision this month. Bennett found that the election board's refusal to implement the program violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.

The attorney general's office filed a notice of intent to appeal Monday but did not spell out its objections to the ruling. Alan Brody, a spokesman for the office, said the state is not requesting a stay of Bennett's ruling. The decision not to seek a stay means this year's election will go forward with the system in place, according to Brody.

Nikki Baines Charlson, deputy administrator of the elections board, said the system has been installed and is being used now by disabled absentee voters.

"We will continue to use it until the court tells us otherwise," Charlson said. She referred further questions to the attorney general's office.

The program is intended to allow the blind or those with trouble walking who download absentee ballots from a website to fill them out without assistance from another person. The marked ballots then must be delivered to the local elections board by mail.

The staff of the state elections board recommended this spring that board members certify the marking tool as safe and effective, but a diverse coalition of ballot-security advocates raised concerns that the system would open the door to widespread hacking.

Michael Greenberger, a University of Maryland law professor who founded its Center for Health and Homeland Security, told the board the tool would make Maryland's voting system the most vulnerable to fraud in the country.

In April, the five-member board could not muster the four-vote super-majority needed to approve the tool.

The decision prompted the National Federation of the Blind, which had worked with the staff to develop and test the tool, to sue the state in May. Bennett ordered the board to implement the program for the Nov. 4 general election In his ruling, Bennett acknowledged that there were risks in using the tool but ruled that the potential benefits to disabled voters outweighed those concerns.

Susan Greenhalgh, election specialist for the ballot security advocacy group Verified Voting Foundation, welcomed the decision to appeal.

Greenhalgh said Maryland's ballot-marking tool was vulnerable to an attack that would allow a hacker to change a blind voter's choices and that the voter would be unable to detect the change.

"The judge ignored that. He just missed those facts," she said.

Greenhalgh expressed dismay that the state isn't seeking a stay.

"I don't think that this tool is safe and private, and it's not ready to be deployed," she said.

Chris Danielson, a spokesman for the federation for the blind, said the group is prepared for the next step.

[NOTE: the proper name for this organization is National Federation For The Blind, at https://nfb.org/.]

"To the extent the state appeals it, we will vigorously defend the ruling on appeal," he said.

michael.dresser@baltsun.com



VERIFIED VOTING FOUNDATION AND OTHER WATCHDOGS

https://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/about-vvf/
Verified Voting Foundation

Verified Voting’s mission is “Safeguarding elections in the digital age.” We are a non-governmental organization working toward accuracy, integrity and verifiability of elections. We believe the integrity and strength of our democracy relies on citizen’s trust that each vote be counted as cast. Our primary concern lies in ensuring that the means for verifying election outcomes is in place and used for that purpose. We also focus on the reliability and security of voting systems. We connect those who are making and implementing policy that shapes how we vote to those who understand the particular risks associated with the emerging digital landscape, particularly on-line and electronic voting. The Verified Voting Foundation, Inc. is an educational nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation.

Since its founding in 2003 by Stanford computer science professor David L. Dill, the Verified Voting Foundation has worked at the local, state, and federal levels to ensure that all votes in U.S. elections are cast and counted accurately. By bringing national attention to the need for publicly verifiable voting systems, VVF gives voice to both scientists and concerned citizens who are concerned about the challenge that paperless electronic voting presents to the ongoing integrity of elections. VVF stakeholders share a desire that technologies be employed in ways that enhance, rather than compromise, the trustworthiness of our electoral process.

PLEASE SUPPORT OUR WORK!

Verified Voting Foundation Projects

866-OUR-VOTE The Verified Voting Foundation is proud to be a partner in the nonpartisan Election Protection Coalition, formed to ensure that all voters have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. Through state of the art hotlines: 1-866-OUR-VOTE and 1-888-Ve-Y-Vota, the OurVote website, and comprehensive voter protection field programs across the country, the coalition provides Americans from coast to coast with comprehensive voter information and advice on how they can make sure their vote is counted. Made up of more than 100 local, state and national partners, this year’s coalition will be the largest voter protection and education effort in the nation’s history. Throughout the election process, 866-OUR-VOTE volunteers – more than 10,000 strong – will be entering data and information into OurVote Live, an interactive environment painting the most comprehensive picture of election irregularities from the perspective of the voter available anywhere. Visit the 866-OUR-VOTE Website

Counting Votes 2012: A State by State Look at Election Preparedness

In July, 2012, the Verified Voting Foundation, together with Common Cause and the Rutgers School of Law released a report that surveyed election preparedness for the 2012 General Election.

Summary of Our Joint Report

On Election Day, Nov. 6, the stakes will be high. A number of critical races will be very close, and some might be decided by very few votes. At the same time, it is highly likely that voting systems will fail in multiple places across the country.1 In fact, in every national election in the past decade, computerized voting systems have failed – machines haven’t started, machines have failed in the middle of voting,2 memory cards couldn’t be read be read,3 votes were mis-tallied4 or lost.5

Our elections are so complex, with so many different jurisdictions and varying technologies, that problems are inevitable. And, as the technology used for elections has become more complicated, the opportunity for error has substantially increased.

Areas of Evaluation

This report reviews how prepared each state is to ensure that every eligible voter can vote, and that every vote is counted as cast. Because we cannot predict where machines will fail during the upcoming national election, every state should be as prepared as possible for system failures. We surveyed states’ voting equipment and ranked the states according to their preparedness. The rankings are based on how states compare to a set of best practices already being used in some places. The report ranks states from worst to best (inadequate, needs improvement, generally good, good and excellent) in these five areas of evaluation:

Does the state require paper ballots or records of every state? When computer failures or human errors cause machines to miscount, election officials can use the original ballots to determine correct totals. Additionally, paper ballots or records can be used to audit machine counts to determine if outcomes are correct.

Does the state have adequate contingency plans at each polling place in the event of machine failure? Machine repair should occur quickly and emergency paper ballots should be made available if any machine fails and to alleviate long lines.

Does the state protect military and overseas voters by ensuring that marked ballots are not cast online? Voting system experts at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and cyber security experts at the Department of Homeland Security warn that even state-of-the-art online voting technology lacks adequate security and privacy protections. Ballots cast over the Internet can be subject to alteration and voters may lose the right to a secret ballot.

Has the state instituted a post-election audit that can determine whether the electronically reported outcomes are correct? Simply voting on paper ballot systems does not increase the accuracy and integrity of election results; the ballots or records must be used to independently audit the vote count. Mandatory comparison of a random sample of the paper ballots to electronic totals is one of the best ways to ensure that the reported outcomes are correct. A well designed audit should use statistical sampling methods tied to the margin of victory and should be able to correct the outcome if it is wrong.

Does the state use robust ballot reconciliation and tabulation practices? These basic procedures, including reconciling the number of votes cast to the number of voters who signed in and reconciling precinct totals with county-level totals, help ensure that no ballots are lost or added as the votes are tallied and aggregated from the local up to the state level.

The five measures listed above protect against machine failures that can change election outcomes and disenfranchise voters.

Examples of Past Machine Failures -- Findings

The report assessed each state based on how its laws and procedures matched up to best practices in the categories identified above. These metrics were developed in consultation with leading election officials and security experts — in each of these areas. We rated each state on a five-tier scale, from inadequate through excellent. We determined that five states – Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Vermont and Wisconsin – are the best prepared to catch voting system problems and to protect voters from disenfranchisement due to equipment failures. On the other hand, Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina are the least-prepared states. The rest of the states were missing one, two or three key procedures or systems that would adequately protect voters.

Detailed Breakdown of Findings -- Recommendations

Although it takes effort and resources to do so, our best practices have already been implemented in a number of states, with overwhelmingly positive results. We recommend that every state adopt the best practices in this report in order to safeguard our democracy.

We hope that this report serves as a resource guide to election officials, policy makers and concerned citizens alike. Election officials can see and discuss what their peers across the nation are doing to make elections secure and reliable. Similarly, citizens can work with election officials to implement the best practices discussed in the report. Citizens can also use the report to identify and help solve problems that might arise on Election Day.

Download the Full Report (PDF)



ELECTION PROTECTION COALITION WWW.866OURVOTE.ORG/ABOUT

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS725US725&q=Election+Protection+Coalition&oq=Election+Protection+Coalition&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0.4317.10146.0.13833.2.2.0.0.0.0.83.166.2.2.0....0...1.1j2.64.psy-ab..0.2.164...0i22i30k1.ULIBlK0Ol-U

https://www.866ourvote.org/about

The national, nonpartisan Election Protection coalition was formed to ensure that all voters have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. Made up of more than 100 local, state and national partners, Election Protection works year-round to advance and defend the right to vote.

Election Protection provides Americans from coast to coast with comprehensive voting information on how they can make sure their vote is counted through a number of resources including: 1) a suite of voter helplines: 866-OUR-VOTE (led by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law), 888-Ve-Y-Vota (led by the NALEO Educational Fund), and 888-API-VOTE (led by APIAVote & Asian Americans Advancing Justice-AAJC); 2) voter protection field programs across the country (both legal (managed by the Lawyers' Committee and grassroots (managed by Common Cause); and 3) digital tools including 866ourvote.org, @866ourVote, and facebook.com/866OurVote.

Throughout the election, our volunteers collect information to paint a picture of election irregularities. Election Protection focuses on the voter - not on the political horse race - and provides guidance, information and help to any American, regardless of who that voter is casting a ballot for.

This site was made possible through generous donations including from the Women Donors Network.



WOMEN’S WORK

https://www.womendonors.org/what-we-do/
We think outside the box. Through collaborative learning and cooperative action, WDN contributes to a more just and fair world.

Photograph -- Lonna Dawson highlights key movement-building strategies for the climate movement at our annual conference, WDN Connect.

WORKING TOGETHER TO DO MORE GOOD

Women Donors Network helps women invest their voices – and much more – in the demand for progressive change. Through collaboration and innovation, we accomplish more together than we ever could separately.

We build powerful connections with each other and our allies and engage in high-impact advocacy and philanthropy. Through major programs such as our annual conference and WDN on the Hill DC lobby trip, network-wide strategic initiatives, member-led donor circles, and regional events and trainings, WDN members connect with key leaders in the social change movement, deepen collaborations across issues and sectors, and participate in strategic grantmaking opportunities. WDN helps donors maximize their impact in the world. Through their individual and collective philanthropy, WDN members give away more than $150 million a year.

MAKING A DIFFERENCE BY DOING THINGS DIFFERENTLY

The way the world operates today is rooted in networks – to stay ahead of the curve you have to be connected. WDN cultivates a generous community of women who inspire each other to become more effective philanthropists and leaders. Our work is organized in three main strategies that inform our programs:

Be Inspired and Connected: WDN members build and expand relationships with fellow progressive women donors committed to structural change, and with cutting-edge leaders whose work is rooted in the perspectives of women, people of color, low-income communities and other underrepresented groups.

Gain Important Tools and Frameworks: Through high-quality programs and resources, WDN members access a range of tools and frameworks to grow as philanthropists and activists.

Leverage Your Resources and Access: WDN members multiply impact by giving collectively, harnessing the power of our networks and our power as investors and shareholders to advance change.

OUR MISSION AND VALUES

Women Donors Network is a community with a purpose — together we connect, learn, and take action to further our shared vision of a more just, equitable, and sustainable world. As a community, WDN recognizes the systemic nature of many of the challenges we face as a society. We are committed to utilizing an intersectional lens – including race, class, gender, and sexual orientation – throughout our work.

WDN programs are designed to ignite change, providing donors with opportunities to support progressive movement-building, as we deepen our knowledge, take action in partnership with allies, and engage in nimble and strategic grantmaking.

Information for Grant-seekers: WDN is a network of progressive women donors who connect, learn, and take action through grantmaking, investing, and advocacy. The vast majority of our network’s philanthropic giving happens at the individual or family foundation level, though WDN does some collective giving through our donor circles and special initiatives. We are unable to accept unsolicited proposals.