|
Long before 2008, residents of new developments must check for their own proper up-to-date voting district, or else the
election bureau may be relying on an educated guess as to your proper voting district...
Meadow Lane residents cast ballots in wrong congressional district
By Rich Cholodofsky
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
About 60 residents of a new housing development in Hempfield Township cast ballots last week in the wrong
voting district, according to officials in the Westmoreland County Election Bureau.
Homeowners in the two-year-old Meadow Lane Farm Estates plan near Bovard were incorrectly directed to vote at the Bovard
Volunteer Fire Department rather than at the township's Fox Hill precinct.
"It seems to me there should be something you can do about that," said 43-year-old Mark Parker, a Tartan Drive resident
who discovered after he cast his ballot that he did so in the wrong precinct. "It just has everything to do with doing something
the right way."
Parker, who, along with his wife, moved from Johnstown to Hempfield in April, wanted to vote in the congressional race
between Republican incumbent Tim Murphy and his Democratic challenger Chad Kluko. Instead, his ballot listed the congressional
race in the 12th District between Democratic incumbent John Murtha and his GOP challenger Diana Irey.
Westmoreland County Election Bureau Director Paula T. Pedicone conceded yesterday that Parker's new neighborhood had
been improperly placed in Murtha's district.
She said there is little that can be done.
"You can't invalidate votes," Pedicone said.
Because neither of the congressional races was close -- Murtha soundly defeated Irey and Murphy easily won his re-election
-- Pedicone said she believes it is unlikely there will be a challenge filed on Westmoreland County's vote totals.
The boundary between the two districts falls on the road beside the new development. Election Bureau staff attempted to
verify the proper voting district for the development but had to rely on old maps, advice from the U.S. Post Office and, in
some cases, an educated guess.
"We want to get the most accurate information, but we rarely send people out in person to investigate because we don't
have enough staff. We are seeing a lot of growth in areas such as Hempfield and Unity townships and we're happy to have it,
but it does make for a lot of checking," Pedicone said.
Because much of that new development is former farmland, new-home construction that straddles voting districts has become
a problem for election officials.
Pedicone said errors such as the one that affected Meadow Lane Farm residents have occurred in the past but typically involve
fewer voters.
The solution, according to Pedicone, is for the county to have access to better maps.
That could happen by next year. For the last several years, officials have been working on a project to create a GIS mapping
system for the county. Commissioner Phil Light said those maps should be completed by next year. ..
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_479651.html SURE Issues Act 2002-34
E-voting not easy in Westmoreland County
Rich CholodofskyTRIBUNE-REVIEW Wednesday, November 8, 2006
Programming errors in every voting machine in Westmoreland County left voters standing in long lines at
some polls, turned away at others and using paper ballots in one Jeannette precinct.
A software glitch that caused more than 800 touch-screen machines to act as though it was not Election Day prompted some
computers to shut down early and others to never function at all.
Officials blamed the failures on a glitch in which the electronic ballots loaded into the new computers were given an incorrect
time stamp. All of the county's voting machines, more than 800, reflected Monday's date and were not ready to accept votes
when the polls opened at 7 a.m. Tuesday.
Commissioner Tom Ceraso said hardware might have to be stripped from the computers to verify that vote totals matched the
number of ballots cast in yesterday's election.
"Worst-case scenario, it could be a few days before we can verify the counts," Ceraso said. "The election results (reported
last night) will be very unofficial."
In some voting locations, poll workers hit a button that manually allowed ballots to be accepted on the computers. At about
a half-dozen locations -- including precincts in Monessen, Arnold, Greensburg, Jeannette and Unity Township -- workers turned
off the machines. That required technicians to be dispatched to retrieve the ballot software, transport it to the courthouse
for reprogramming and then return it to the polling place.
The issue kept reoccurring throughout the day, causing some machines to be shut down rather than reprogrammed. Because
of the glitch, poll workers were asked to reset the machines after every ballot was cast. ..
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_478760.html
Electronic Voting Machines' Testing Unreliable
Excerpt Lou Dobbs Tonight October 26, 2006
Turning now to our special series, "Democracy at Risk", it's a case of special interest over the national interest. The
laboratories testing and certifying e-voting machines are paid, paid by the manufacturers of e-voting machines. It's an outrageous
conflict of interest that is putting our democracy, tonight, at risk.
Kitty Pilgrim reports. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY
PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With only 12 days before the November election, the Election Assistance Commission
was begging manufacturers and testers of electronic voting machines to reassure them the election would work.
UNIDENTIFIED
MALE: Is my vote going to count? Your comment, please?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If
you go to the polls, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 100 percent.
PILGRIM: But at this hearing in Washington, a clear
demonstration of just how cozy manufacturers are with the labs who test their machines. Executives sat elbow to elbow on the
same panel and testified together.
Electronic voting machines have proven reliability and security flaws. But the
labs who test and certify those machines are actually hired and paid by the manufacturers themselves.
WARREN STEWART,
VOTETRUSTUSA: The manufacturers contract directly with the laboratories and pay for the testing that is done. So the manufacturers
essentially are the clients of the testing labs.
PILGRIM: Sure enough, testing labs at today's hearing refer to the
manufacturers as their clients.
FRANK PADILLA, WYLE LABORATORIES: Independent test labs normally do not release test
report data to any other source but the client and who the client directs us to release them to.
PILGRIM: Shouldn't
the testing labs be more independent of the manufacturers? The government panel ducked the question.
BRIAN HANCOCK,
ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMM.: If there are other ways of trying to do that, we would be more than happy to hear from anyone out
there that would like to talk to us. Virtually every other governmental program does it that way.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM
(on camera): Manufacturers say their electronic voting machines are proprietary and the labs can't release the information
publicly. But voters are demanding to know why the entire process is so secret, why the manufacturers and the testing labs
are defending their relationship and most importantly, why voting machines are failing in elections all across this country
-- Lou.
DOBBS: These manufacturers -- the entire government must think that the American people are the biggest fools
on this planet. This is absolutely -- there's no other word for it. It is scurrilous, disgusting. It is ridiculous. Why in
the world is anyone tolerating this relationship and this entire process?
PILGRIM: Well, many of the voters activists
we've been talking to are delighted that some of this is coming to light, because the relationship has been so secret and
so quiet that the public has not been aware.
DOBBS: Well, Kitty Pilgrim, thanks for making them so.
Kitty
Pilgrim, reporting tonight from New York.
Thank you, Kitty.
Coming up next here, the election is nearing. The
stakes are high and we'll have three of the best minds in politics here to tell us what's happening, what's likely to happen.
Testimony Michael I. Shamos
| School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
University |
| October 27, 2006 |
|
The following testimony was delivered at the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Public Hearing on the Draft Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual in Washington, DC on October 26, 2006. It is reposted with permission of the author. |
...The fundamental problem with federal testing to the [2005] Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) is a built-in
lack of transparency. The laboratories are paid by the manufacturers seeking certification, and they are answerable to the
manufacturers. They have no other perceived responsibility other than to retain their accreditation. They have no defined
duty to the public or even
to the states that rely on their certifications.
via links
Currently in PA, Provisional Ballots must be paper ballots.
Be aware of what is coming, the computerization of PBs.
PA, ready, set...
|
