Jonathan B. Robison

A STEP TOWARDS GOOD TRANSPORTATION - Meeting MONDAY
Transportation in Oakland and the East Corridor
The Oakland Community Council will meet Monday, Feb. 13, 6 pm, in AlunmiHall, 4227 Fifth Ave., Oakland.
————————————————————————————-

COMPUTERIZED VOTING MACHINES
What is to be done? A MAY/NOVEMBER OPTION to act NOW to comply with both federal and state law - and protect our elections

Feb. 10, 2006
We won Round 4 in the fight to protect our elections – apparently.
The Allegheny County Elections Board – the County Executive and the two at-large County Council members - had its third meeting Feb. 7 to decide what to do about computerized voting machines for the May primary. Both County council members do NOT want to buy Diebold machines to replace all our lever machines for the May primary.
Finally, they voted to adjourn.
Another meeting may be called this week. The possibility also was raised that County Executive Dan Onorato might act on his own authority to purchase the Diebold machines, as if he were purchasing new dump trucks. He is concerned about state interpretation of federal requirements, and concerned that we might lose some $12 million in federal funds.

Many of us want open source codes and voter verification. We are concerned about usability by persons with disabilities. And we are dubious about Diebold Inc, and its record, in Ohio and elsewhere. The state government is apparently insisting that we should buy all new machines for the May primary, even though apparently only Diebold, Inc. could supply the necessary 5,000 in time for the primary. Meanwhile, citizens in Westmoreland County are in state court in Harrisburg stating that the Pennsylvania Constitution and state law require a referendum before any electronic voting system is adopted.

There is one possible middle way to comply with both state and federal law, and protect the integrity of our election process. We might call it the May/November option.
In the May/November option, Allegheny and possibly others in the 20-county consortium would get machines from several vendors, and try them in 15 or 20 districts each. This could include AccuPoll machine which many people like, at least one optical scan machine which Councilman Dave Fawcett prefers, and even a Diebold machine. The ballots could be voter verifiable, as Councilman John DeFazio and a County Council resolution urge.
After the primary, we can see the performance and problems of each system and what computer bugs each had. The state and the federal government can do their certification processes, which are both seriously late. We can consider the cost of purchase, supplies, and maintenance. The County can pick the best, negotiate modifications with the company, do our necessary preparation and training, and have an election we can trust for November. (This is based on a suggestion at the meeting Tuesday by Sue Broughton of the League of Women Voters.)
The May/November option makes a referendum possible. State law permits “experimental” use of electronic voting machines without a referendum. (There might still be a problem with the state Constitution.) The experimental machines would be a good faith effort to bring Pennsylvania into compliance with the Help America Vote Act.

The May/November option does not mean “doing nothing.” On the contrary, much must be done, now as well as after May.
The county Election Division must set a deadline for machines to be DELIVERED if we are going to distribute them to chosen election districts and train the poll workers. The County must negotiate terms for the vendors to make available machines for a May trial run. The hard-working Elections Division will have to prepare and train its staff to compile results from different machines in the regional reporting centers. And if there is to be a referendum to approve electronic voting machines, county legislation is needed.
Explicit standards should be developed for evaluation of the machines including voter verification with privacy. We must, under HAVA, have a system that can be used by persons with various different disabilities – but should we articulate what that means? Many want “open source coding” to be sure that the system isn’t rigged – but what does that mean? A task force should develop these standards. The three meetings of the County Elections Board showed that the citizens have a wealth of expertise that should be involved.

We urge our elected officials to help protect our elections. We must make changes to bring our voting system will comply with HAVA but let’s DO IT RIGHT.
EVERYONE, from Dan Onorato on down, should lobby the state and federal government not to take away the federal funds earmarked for compliance. And we should lobby our legislature to pass H.B. 2000 and S.B. 977 which require voter verification and open source coding.
The Westmoreland County lawsuit, now in Commonwealth Court, will probably be appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week. We can also urge the Court, through an amicus brief, to comply with HAVA, comply with state law, and protect the integrity of our election.

ss/ Atty. Jonathan Robison, 154 N. Bellefield Av. #66 Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-683-0237 jon@jonrobison.org
(more…)

Feb. 5, 2006

WHO OWNS OUR ELECTIONS? (Round 3)
Meeting Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2 p.m.

Again, we won a battle last Tuesday morning, Jan. 31, but the struggle continues.
The Allegheny County Election Board recessed until 2 p.m. Tuesday afternoon, in Conference Room 1, Court House. They postponed for another week a decision whether to buy Diebold, Inc. voting machines to replace all our lever machines. Over thirty people showed up on short notice, with questions and objections to buying Diebold’s machines and its “proprietary” computer programs.
There are several problems with the Diebold system.
The biggest, in my opinion, is the lack of “open source” coding. The computer code is “proprietary,” meaning that it is private property. If we buy the system, we don’t buy the right to analyze the code. We can’t tell whether the computers have been told to reduce the vote totals for certain candidates. The limited but informative article in today’s Post-Gazette Region Section revealed an additional complication. The Diebold system partially relies on Microsoft Windows, with its own limitations on what can be looked at by the public. This could means that even if we found out that the voting results had been jiggered, we wouldn’t know which company did it.
Another problem is the lack of any paper records of the vote totals, so that the computers’ totals can be audited. This is mandated by several states, but not by Pennsylvania – yet.
There are also problems with accessibility for persons with handicaps, including the blind and persons who have to use a wheelchair. Under the federal Help America Vote Act, HAVA, the voting systems must enable people to vote in privacy, without another person assisting them. Supposedly, the Diebold system does this, but advocates doubt this.
The county is under pressure to get new machines in time to use them in the May primary. But it is not clear whether the pressure is coming from the state government, particularly the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, or from the federal government. There is also pressure from Diebold. Diebold offers us major discount if we buy its machines, and extended that deadline again, until Feb. 7. The state has funds available, but apparently only if we get machines in time for the May primary. The feds require us to have machines this year that comply with HAVA, but it is not clear that we lose the federal money if we don’t contract to have the machines in place for the primary.
Diebold’s discount may not save taxpayer money after the initial purchase. With Diebold, all their equipment and supplies are also “proprietary” - so if we need replacements, we have to buy from them.
People don’t trust Diebold. The former head of Diebold, after they provided the voting machines for Ohio, boasted in a letter that he would help deliver Ohio to George Bush.
Buying a new system for Allegheny County and training people, including the election boards, will take weeks. It does seem that if want machines for May, we will have to buy Diebold’s system. If we don’t buy from Diebold, we will have to put pressure on the state to continue the availability of the money as long as we work diligently. Deciding not to contact with Diebold Tuesday will give us time for new legislation on standards for voting machines.
.
The Allegheny County Administrative Services and the Allegheny County Election Board will meet at 2 pm Tuesday Feb. 7, in Conference Room 1, Court House. The meeting is open to the public. Either we buy Diebold electronic voting machines for every poll in Allegheny County, or we use our lever machines this May, and reason with the state.
The decision to delay new machines until the fall may be taken out of the hands of the Election Board. To my surprise, there is a provision in the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article VII, Section 6, implemented by 25 P.S. Sec. 3031.2 ff., requiring a referendum on electronic voting machines. I plan to be among the plaintiffs if such a suit is filed. I hope this suit helps our hard working Elections Division with their awesome responsibilities. It we have do buy new voting machines, let’s do it right.

Come to the public meeting at 2 p.m. Tuesday. Demand machines with “OPEN SOURCE” codes — computer codes which can be reviewed by the public. Why should we have elections if Diebold can control the results?
CALL the three members of the Election Board Monday - that’s County Executive Dan Onorato, 350-6500, and the two at-large members of County Council, John DeFazio (D), 350-6516, and Dave Fawcett (R), 350-6520. Or e-mail them at executive@county.allegheny.pa.us, dfawcett@county.allegheny.pa.us and jdefazio@county.allegheny.pa.us.
Let’s do it right - including “open source” coding.
More information about this danger to our elections can be seen on the web at www.votergate.tv
Love and Peace, Jonathan Robison
154 N. Bellefield Av. #66 Pittsburgh, PA 15213
412-683-0237 jon@jonrobison.org

Well, we won a battle 8am Friday, but the struggle continues.
The Allegheny County Election Board recessed until 8:30 am Tuesday morning, in Conference Room 1, Court House. They postponed until then a decision whether to buy Diebold voting machines to replace all our lever machines. Over a dozen people showed up on less than 24 hours notice, and asked questions to which Allegheny County Administrative Services didn’t have definite answers.
So the Election Board recessed until Tuesday.
Will we choose voting machines which give Diebold the power to
determine the results in Allegheny County in any election? Maybe!
Why is this decision being made in such haste? Friday we heard a lot of vague talk about state and national deadlines - and we need to contract for new machines in a matter of wee4ks. But the Jan. 31 deadline is DIEBOLD’S. That is the expiration of THEIR option to buy machines at a discount.
Is this savings real? With Diebold, all their equipment and supplies are “proprietary” - so if we need a replacement, we have to buy from them.
Much worse, the computer code is “proprietary,” so nobody can review it. We have no way to know if the computer has been programmed to reduce a candidate’s vote totals in every district by 5%or 10%. We have to trust Diebold’s integrity.
There is also no paper record that can be audited if there is a challenge.
The Allegheny County Administrative Services and the Allegheny County Election Board will meet at 8:30 am Tuesday Jan 31, in Conference Room 1, Court House. The meeting is open to the public. The agenda is a final decision on
selection of new electronic voting machines for every poll in Allegheny
County. As of Friday, there were only two companies under consideration -
Diebold and ES&S.
Diebold made all the machines in Ohio, and the head of Diebold
openly boasted that he would deliver Ohio to George Bush. (He is also
a major financial contributor.) ES&S is owned by his brother.
The computer codes for both companies’ machines are “proprietary,” meaning no one can review the codes. That means that there is no way to tell if the
machines, or some of them, are programmed to reduce the vote count of
certain candidates by five or ten per cent.
Come to the public meeting 8:30 am Tuesday and demand machines with “OPEN SOURCE” codes — computer codes which can be reviewed by the public. Why should we have elections if Diebold can control the results?
CALL members the three members of the Eldction Board Monday - that’s County Executive Dan Onorato, 350-6500, and the two at-large members of County Council, John DeFazio (D), 350-6516, and Dave Fawcett (R), 350-6520. Or e-mail at dfawcett@county.allegheny.pa.us
jdefazio@county.allegheny.pa.us
executive@county.allegheny.pa.us
Demand “Open Source” coding.
More information about this danger to our elections can be seen on the web at www.votergate.tv
I’m sorry about this late notice. The decision to meet Tudsday was made Friday morning.
Love and Peace,
Jonathan Robison