NewsMine — cabal-elite — election-fraud — electronic — dissent — Viewing Item

California official seeks probe of evoting { April 30 2004 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190 California official seeks criminal probe of e-voting Machines banned in four counties;10 more counties must meet conditions The Associated Press Updated: 9:25 p.m. ET April 30, 2004 SACRAMENTO, Calif. - The state’s top election official called for a criminal investigation of Diebold Election Systems Inc. as he banned use of the company’s newest model touchscreen voting machine, citing concerns about its security and reliability. Friday’s ban will force up to 2 million voters in four counties, including San Diego, to use paper ballots in November, marking their choices in ovals read by optical scanners. Secretary of State Kevin Shelley asked the attorney general’s office to investigate allegations of fraud, saying Diebold had lied to state officials. A spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer said prosecutors would review Shelley’s claims. Diebold issued a statement saying it was confident in its systems and planned to work with election officials in California and throughout the nation to run a smooth election this fall. Affects 14,000 machines The ban immediately affects more than 14,000 AccuVote-TSx machines made by Diebold, the leading touchscreen provider. Many were used for the first time in the March primaries and suffered failures. In 10 other counties, Shelley decertified touchscreen machines but set 23 conditions under which they still could be used. That order involved 4,000 older machines from Diebold and 24,000 from its three rivals. The decision follows the recommendations of a state advisory panel, which conducted hearings earlier this month. Made just six months before a presidential election, the decision reflects growing concern about paperless electronic voting. A number of failures involving touchscreen machines in Georgia, Maryland and California have spurred serious questioning of the technology. As currently configured, the machines lack paper records, making recounts impossible. “I anticipate his decision will have an immediate and widespread impact,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation and a frequent critic of the machines. “California is turning away from e-voting equipment, and other states are sure to follow.” Activists have been demanding paper printouts — required in California by 2006 — to guard against fraud, hacking and malfunction. Diebold has been a frequent target of such groups, though most California county election officials say that problems have been overstated and that voters like the touchscreen systems first installed four years ago. 50 million voters At least 50 million voters nationally were expected to use the ATM-like machines from Diebold and other companies in November. California counties with 6.5 million registered voters have been at the forefront of touchscreen voting, installing more than 40 percent of the more than 100,000 machines believed to be in use nationally. A state investigation released this month said Diebold jeopardized the outcome of the March election in California with computer glitches, last-minute changes to its systems and installations of uncertified software in its machines in 17 counties. It specifically cited San Diego County, where 573 of 1,611 polling places failed to open on time because low battery power caused machines to malfunction. Registrars in counties that made the switch to paperless voting said Shelley’s decision to return to paper ballots would result in chaos. “There just isn’t time to bring this system up before November,” Kern County Registrar Ann Barnett said. “It’s absurd.” Diebold officials, in a 28-page report rebutting many of the accusations about its performance, said the company had been singled out unfairly for problems with electronic voting and maintained its machines are safe, secure and demonstrated 100 percent accuracy in the March election. The company, a subsidiary of automatic teller machine maker Diebold, Inc., acknowledged it had “alienated” the secretary of state’s office and promised to redouble efforts to improve relations with counties and the state. Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Activist absentee campaign draws scrutiny { July 29 2004 } California official seeks probe of evoting { April 30 2004 } Counties worry about paper trail Diebold vast right wing conspiracy { February 24 2004 } Ehrlich orders voting system study { August 7 2003 } Electronic voting coup Electronic voting machines dealt blow { April 23 2004 } Experts say fraud is easy { July 24 2003 } GOP urges abesntee ballot due to machine irregularities { July 29 2004 } Hopkins study pods ehrlich action { August 6 2003 } How to get the vote back again Jolted over electronic voting { August 11 2003 } Machines lack paper trail Md voting security challenged { July 25 2003 } Rep rush holt on voting machines Republicans back e vote bill Sanbernadino sequoia decision halted Santa clara postpones { March 4 2004 } Shadowy voting machine vendors Students fight diebold { November 17 2003 } Voter activists want paper trail { August 25 2004 } Voter theft chip away { July 30 2003 } Voting machine study divides md officials { July 26 2003 } Voting machines cant be trusted { July 30 2003 } Voting machines under review ohio Voting systems assailed { March 28 2003 } Voting systems have electronic risks { September 25 2003 } Vulnerable to hackers Woman who broke diebold { August 21 2003 } Files Listed: 29

Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security Archives

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.