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

Voting machines under review ohio Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/106085860541010.xml http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/106085860541010.xml Voting machines under review in Columbus 08/14/03 Julie Carr Smyth Plain Dealer Bureau Columbus - One of the new electronic voting machines being paraded before state lawmakers and marketed to county elections officials has yet to receive federal certification or to be used in an election. The machine's maker, North Canton-based Diebold Election Systems, is in line to be named as a finalist tomorrow for selling voting machines statewide. And state negotiators say the firm could conceivably deploy the new machine, the Accu-Vote TSX, around the state under county contracts it lands. The state's own specifications said machines presented to negotiators had to be federally certified before negotiations began. Eric Seabrook, legal counsel to Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, insisted yesterday that Diebold did not violate those guidelines because its earlier machine, the TS, was the subject of negotiations. He said the TSX could be used in Ohio, but only after it receives the proper approvals. "There will be no machine used in an Ohio election that hasn't met all criteria in Ohio," Seabrook said. "It was required of all vendors that they provide their latest and best technology for us to evaluate. But, more critically, if they have a better version that comes out, they have to give us that technology at no additional cost." Seabrook said the TSX is akin to a new model year of an automobile. He also said, despite Diebold's plans to deploy the TSX exclusively, the state could still reject the newer model if it wants. "We're not putting ourselves in a bait-and-switch situation here," he said. Another vendor finalist - Election Systems & Software - was also apparently asked during negotiations to provide Ohio with an upgraded version of its software, which also is not yet certified. That request followed reports about slow boot-up times of ES&S machines cited in a Florida Inspector General's report. But ES&S Senior Vice President Dan McGinnis said the machines it has presented in negotiations with the state were all certified before negotiations began, as bid documents required. In the certification process, federal experts review and test both the hardware and software of each machine and, once their recommendation is approved by the Federal Elections Commission, states follow up with their own tests. "We were told as recently as yesterday [Tuesday] that we should be showing only certified products, and we are," McGinnis said. "The system we have presented is tried and proven and it is the one that will be delivered to Ohio." Diebold, a politically connected and generous machine maker, has been under national fire for purported security flaws in its software. Studies by Johns Hopkins and Rice universities and a report in the online Wired magazine all suggested the system could be easily hacked - charges the firm has contested. Diebold featured two machines - including the uncertified TSX - in voting equipment demonstrations at the Statehouse last week, and company spokesman Mike Jacobsen said the company intends to use the TSX in Ohio. He said the machine is lighter and friendlier to disabled voters, such as those in wheelchairs or who are blind, than the TS predecessor. He said the machine viewed by lawmakers was a prototype and that the machine has not yet been in "heavy manufacture." Certification is expected in four to five weeks, he said. Based on Blackwell's own timeline, that could mean that Ohio counties selecting Diebold will have to commit to an uncertified, untested technology - despite the rigors of Blackwell's vendor screening process. Catherine Turcer, an elections expert with Ohio Citizen Action, called that prospect "scary." "I think the secretary should consider slowing down," Turcer said. "Sure, it would be fabulous to have new machines by next year, but it's important that people have faith in this process. The process has been very worrisome." Ohio's conversion to new machines, which could cost as much as $161 million, follows the debacle that occurred in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. Blackwell wants to replace punch cards in Ohio by next year's presidential election. To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: jsmyth@plaind.com, 1-800-228-8272 © 2003 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.

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.