DOCSLIB.ORG

Voting Equipment and Procedures on Trial

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Voting Equipment and Procedures on Trial From quill to touch screen: A US history of ballot-casting 1770s Balloting replaces a show of Voting hands or voice votes. Voters write out names of their candidates in longhand, and give their ballots to an election judge. 1850s Political parties disperse Equipment preprinted lists of candidates, enabling the illiterate to vote. The ballot becomes a long strip of paper, like a railroad ticket. 1869 Thomas Edison receives a patent for his invention of the and voting machine, intended for counting congressional votes. 1888 Massachusetts prints a ballot, at public expense, listing names of all candidates nominated Procedures and their party affiliation. Most states adopt this landmark improvement within eight years. 1892 A lever-operated voting machine is first used at a Lockport, N.Y., town meeting. on Trial Similar machines are still in use today. 1964 A punch-card ballot is introduced in two counties in Georgia. Almost 4 in 10 voters used punch cards in the 1996 presidential election. 1990s Michigan is the first to switch to' optical scanning, used for decades in standardized testing. One-quarter of voters used the technology in the 1996 election. 2000 A storm erupts over Florida's punch-card ballots and Palm Beach County's "butterfly ballot" in the presidential election. 2002 New federal law authorizes $3.9 billion over three years to help states upgrade voting technologies and phase out punch cards and lever machines. Georgia is the first state to use DRE touch-screen technology exclusively. Sources: Federal Elections Commission; "Elections A to Z," CQ, 2003; International Encyclopedia of Elections, CQ Press, 2000; League of Women Voters. Reproduced with permission. Copyright © Published by 2003 The Christian Science Monitor League of Women Voters of Washington Education Fund (www.csmonitor.com). All rights reserved Winter 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Help America Vote Act Current Voting Equipment in Washington Voting Equipment in Various Stages of Development Security Issues Arguments Pro and Con HAVA Timing and Funding Present Voting Procedures Registration Voting Without Going to the Polls Ballot Counting Conclusion Appendices VOTING EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES ON TRIAL Hanging chads! Lost registrations! Double voting! Florida! The impetus for election reform all across America stems from the chaos that occurred in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. In October 2002, the Congress of the United States responded by passing the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). In 2003, the League of Women Voters of Washington responded by adopting a study to examine how elections are conducted in this state and changes being considered. The first year of the two-year study looks at voting with absentee/vote-by-mail ballots, reviews the security checks in the ballot counting process, evaluates the role voting equipment plays in voting and tallying, and includes a definition of terms. New developments are occurring every day, and the committee has made a sincere effort to make this study as current as possible. In the second year, the League will examine timelines for elections in Washington, consider how this state is implementing HAVA requirements, and update developments since this was written. HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT (HAVA) election management systems compatible with the new state system. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) directs • $14 million for voter education, training states to improve their voting administration, record and a new complaint procedure. keeping systems and voting equipment. The Act requires that this be done through the use of While HAVA funds may be used for a wide provisional ballots, statewide computerized voter variety of voting related purposes, the requirement lists, and private access for the disabled, the that has drawn the most public discussion and visually impaired and for language minorities. debate is the one requiring each polling place to have at least one computerized voting machine One of the challenges faced by HAVA is equipped for the visually handicapped, usually that election administration is primarily a state thought of as a DRE. With many election officers responsibility; consequently, it is difficult to planning to replace all their current voting generalize about problems at the federal level and equipment with DREs, some people are concerned appropriate solutions at the state level. Because about the security of these machines, particularly election laws vary from state to state, each state is those that do not have a voter verifiable paper trail. required to draw up its own plan for HAVA The potential impact of this HAVA requirement is implementation. The federal government budgeted magnified by a combination of events: pressure to $3.9 billion to assist states in meeting HAVA eliminate punch card machines, demands for requirements. A member of the LWV of ballots in an increasing number of languages, and Washington served on the Help America Vote Act availability of federal money to buy new equipment. steering committee appointed to help devise the As a result, election administrators throughout the plan for Washington State. country have been preparing their spending plans and planning their equipment orders. Washington’s plan was completed in August 2003. It allocates approximately: CURRENT VOTING EQUIPMENT • $14.5 million to replace voting IN WASHINGTON equipment in the 16 counties that still use punch cards, and to place at each Washington voters currently vote using polling place at least one voting punch cards, optical scan ballots, or DREs. machine capable of enabling sight impaired voters to cast ballots without • Punch Cards: The voter perforates the help from another person. The only card to remove the chad in the location equipment currently certified to corresponding to each of the intended votes accomplish this task is called a Direct for candidates or ballot issues. The card is Recording Electronic machine (DRE). then placed in a sealed ballot box. The box • $11 million to create a statewide voter is taken from the polling place to the registration database and county elections office at the close of voting, where the cards are inspected for damage and basis. These machines are currently being stacked for insertion into the card reader for used in Snohomish County. counting. • Optical Scan: The voter marks the ballot with a pen or pencil, indicating candidate or VOTING EQUIPMENT IN VARIOUS STAGES ballot issue preferences. The ballot is OF DEVELOPMENT placed in the ballot box where it is “read” by the optical scan. If more than one The HAVA requires accommodation for candidate receives a vote for the same those voters who are not proficient in English. office (over vote), the machine will reject the Using software to generate instruction and ballots ballot so that the voter can make a on screen in other languages is more flexible and correction. As the machine accepts the economic than printing multiple versions in large ballot, the scanned votes are recorded on a quantities. All variants discussed below that have memory card that can be accessed only an on screen or audio ballot presentation can after the polls close. Depending on election incorporate other languages. Washington state law department policy, the vote totals for that requires that the Secretary of State certify any new polling place can be printed from the voting equipment, and that it has been used in at memory cards, the memory card contents least one other state prior to certification here. may be sent to election headquarters by telephone modem, or the memory cards • DRE with voter verified paper trail: may be physically transported to election Operates the same as the no paper DRE, headquarters along with all the ballots, except for the addition of one more where the final consolidation of votes takes verification step. Upon completion of place. selection of all desired choices, when the voter touches a “finished” spot, the • Direct Recording Electronic (DRE with confirmation steps include a printout of the touch screen only) machines: The voter ballot choices on an attached printer to signs in at the polling place and receives a permit the voter to review and approve the magnetic smart card activated by the poll choices displayed in both places, the screen worker, which is taken to the voting booth and the paper. If they are the voter’s and inserted into the smart card reader to choices, and both match, then touching a begin the voting process. Data on the card spot that accepts the final “finished” order directs the software to bring up the proper registers the vote both internally in the ballot style for that voter. The voter is memory of the machine and on the voter presented with on-screen instructions and inspected paper. The paper representation ballot choices for candidates and issues. of the ballot is then handled in much the Voting is done by touching a designated same way as optical scan ballots. spot on the screen with a finger, a pointer Completed and read sheets are collected in instrument or a dial for each individual race a ballot box and transported for storage to or issue. Upon completion of selection of the elections office. The computer tally is the voter’s choices, he/she selects a usually considered official. However, if an “Finished” option. One or more confirmation audit is required, the paper record is steps follow to permit the voter to review available as a check on the electronic and approve the choices displayed, or to record. Some find it helpful to think of this spoil the ballot and start over, eventually system as a kind of double-entry touching a spot that casts and finally bookkeeping. records the voter’s choices within the data archive of the equipment. The smart card is • DRE with controls for the sight-impaired: ejected if it remained in the reader, and the A standard DRE with the addition of tactile machine is locked.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Black Box Voting Ballot Tampering in the 21St Century
    This free internet version is available at www.BlackBoxVoting.org Black Box Voting — © 2004 Bev Harris Rights reserved to Talion Publishing/ Black Box Voting ISBN 1-890916-90-0. You can purchase copies of this book at www.Amazon.com. Black Box Voting Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century By Bev Harris Talion Publishing / Black Box Voting This free internet version is available at www.BlackBoxVoting.org Contents © 2004 by Bev Harris ISBN 1-890916-90-0 Jan. 2004 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form whatsoever except as provided for by U.S. copyright law. For information on this book and the investigation into the voting machine industry, please go to: www.blackboxvoting.org Black Box Voting 330 SW 43rd St PMB K-547 • Renton, WA • 98055 Fax: 425-228-3965 • [email protected] • Tel. 425-228-7131 This free internet version is available at www.BlackBoxVoting.org Black Box Voting © 2004 Bev Harris • ISBN 1-890916-90-0 Dedication First of all, thank you Lord. I dedicate this work to my husband, Sonny, my rock and my mentor, who tolerated being ignored and bored and galled by this thing every day for a year, and without fail, stood fast with affection and support and encouragement. He must be nuts. And to my father, who fought and took a hit in Germany, who lived through Hitler and saw first-hand what can happen when a country gets suckered out of democracy. And to my sweet mother, whose an- cestors hosted a stop on the Underground Railroad, who gets that disapproving look on her face when people don’t do the right thing.
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Voting & Counting Technologies
    ELECTION TECHNOLOGY SERIES Electronic Voting & Counting Technologies A Guide to Conducting Feasibility Studies Ben Goldsmith Senior Electoral Advisor Electronic Voting & Counting Technologies Ben Goldsmith Senior Electoral Advisor International Foundation for Electoral Systems Electronic Voting & Counting Technologies A Guide to Conducting Feasibility Studies Ben Goldsmith Senior Electoral Advisor May 2011 Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Electronic Voting & Counting Technologies: A Guide to Conducting Feasibility Studies Ben Goldsmith © 2011 by IFES. All rights reserved. International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) 1850 K Street, NW Fifth Floor Washington, D.C. 20006 U.S.A. Notice of rights All rights reserved. No part of this report can be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed in USA ISBN: 1-931459-64-9 Photo Credits Cover: Ripple Effect Productions Page 36: Ripple Effect Productions Garie Briones Page 51: Lean Pasion Page 1: John Lawrence Page 59: Everton Bahl Grabski Page 9: Francisco Samões Page 70: Júlio Henrique da Silva Lopes Page 17: Ripple Effect Productions Page 75: Oliver Scott-Tomlin Page 25: João Cesário ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are due to a number of colleagues and friends who were kind enough to take the time to review and comment on the initial drafts of this guide. Special thanks are due to Susanne Caarls, Peter Erben, Juhani Grossmann, Ole Holtved, Manuel Kripp, Ronan McDermott, Vladimir Pran, Amna Qayyum and Mike Yard, all of whom provided invaluable suggestions for improvements and additional areas which needed to be covered by the guide.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Notion of “Software Independence” in Voting Systems
    On the notion of “software independence” in voting systems Ronald L. Rivest John P. Wack Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139 [email protected] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Information Technology Laboratory Gaithersburg, MD 20899 [email protected] DRAFT Version July 28, 2006 Abstract. This paper defines and explores the notion of “software in- dependence” in voting systems: A voting system is software-independent if an undetected change or error in its software cannot cause an undetectable change or error in an election outcome. We propose that software independent voting systems should be pre- ferred, and software-dependent voting systems should be avoided. VVPAT and some cryptographically-based voting systems are software-independent. Variations and implications of this definition are explored. This white paper is also for discussion by the Technical Guidelines Devel- opment Committee (TGDC) in its development of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) of 2007. 1 Introduction The main purpose of this paper is to introduce and carefully define the ter- minology of “software-independent” and “software-dependent” voting systems, and to discuss their properties. This paper is definitional in character; there are no “results” as such. The contribution is to help provide crisp terminology for discussing voting systems and some recommendations for its usage in the VVSG 2007, currently under development by NIST and the TGDC. This paper starts by describing the problem that software-independence ad- dresses: complex and difficult-to-test software in voting systems. It then defines what constitutes a software-independent approach to voting system design.
    [Show full text]
  • Randomocracy
    Randomocracy A Citizen’s Guide to Electoral Reform in British Columbia Why the B.C. Citizens Assembly recommends the single transferable-vote system Jack MacDonald An Ipsos-Reid poll taken in February 2005 revealed that half of British Columbians had never heard of the upcoming referendum on electoral reform to take place on May 17, 2005, in conjunction with the provincial election. Randomocracy Of the half who had heard of it—and the even smaller percentage who said they had a good understanding of the B.C. Citizens Assembly’s recommendation to change to a single transferable-vote system (STV)—more than 66% said they intend to vote yes to STV. Randomocracy describes the process and explains the thinking that led to the Citizens Assembly’s recommendation that the voting system in British Columbia should be changed from first-past-the-post to a single transferable-vote system. Jack MacDonald was one of the 161 members of the B.C. Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform. ISBN 0-9737829-0-0 NON-FICTION $8 CAN FCG Publications www.bcelectoralreform.ca RANDOMOCRACY A Citizen’s Guide to Electoral Reform in British Columbia Jack MacDonald FCG Publications Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Copyright © 2005 by Jack MacDonald All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by an information storage and retrieval system, now known or to be invented, without permission in writing from the publisher. First published in 2005 by FCG Publications FCG Publications 2010 Runnymede Ave Victoria, British Columbia Canada V8S 2V6 E-mail: [email protected] Includes bibliographical references.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF of Law As Amended to 14/12/2010
    REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON REFERENDUM 4 June 2002 No IX-929 (As last amended on 14 December 2010 — No XI-1229) Vilnius The Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, relying upon the legally established, open, just, harmonious, civic society and principles of a law - based State and the Constitution: the provisions of Article 2 that “the State of Lithuania shall be created by the People. Sovereignty shall belong to the Nation”; the provision of Article 3 that “no one may limit or restrict the sovereignty of the Nation and make claims to the sovereign powers belonging to the entire Nation”; the provision of Article 4 that “the Nation shall execute its supreme sovereign power either directly or through its democratically elected representatives”; and the provision of Article 9 that “the most significant issues concerning the life of the State and the Nation shall be decided by referendum”, passes this Law. CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1. Purpose of the Law This Law shall establish the procedure of implementing the right of the citizens of Lithuania to a referendum, the type of referendum and initiation, announcement, organising and conducting thereof. 2. The citizens of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter - citizens) or the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter - Seimas) shall decide the importance of the proposed issue in the life of the State and the People in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and this Law. Article 2. General Principles of Referendum 1. Taking part in the referendum shall be free and based upon the democratic principles of the right of elections: universal, equal and direct suffrage and secret ballot.
    [Show full text]
  • § 163-182.2. Initial Counting of Official Ballots. (A) the Initial Counting Of
    § 163-182.2. Initial counting of official ballots. (a) The initial counting of official ballots shall be conducted according to the following principles: (1) Vote counting at the precinct shall occur immediately after the polls close and shall be continuous until completed. (2) Vote counting at the precinct shall be conducted with the participation of precinct officials of all political parties then present. Vote counting at the county board of elections shall be conducted in the presence or under the supervision of board members of all political parties then present. (3) Any member of the public wishing to witness the vote count at any level shall be allowed to do so. No witness shall interfere with the orderly counting of the official ballots. Witnesses shall not participate in the official counting of official ballots. (4) Provisional official ballots shall be counted by the county board of elections before the canvass. If the county board finds that an individual voting a provisional official ballot is not eligible to vote in one or more ballot items on the official ballot, the board shall not count the official ballot in those ballot items, but shall count the official ballot in any ballot items for which the individual is eligible to vote. Eligibility shall be determined by whether the voter is registered in the county as provided in G.S. 163-82.1 and whether the voter is qualified by residency to vote in the election district as provided in G.S. 163-55 and G.S. 163-57. If a voter was properly registered to vote in the election by the county board, no mistake of an election official in giving the voter a ballot or in failing to comply with G.S.
    [Show full text]
  • IC 3-11.5-5 Chapter 5. Counting of Absentee Ballots Cast on Paper Ballots
    IC 3-11.5-5 Chapter 5. Counting of Absentee Ballots Cast on Paper Ballots IC 3-11.5-5-1 Applicability of chapter; counties of application Sec. 1. (a) This chapter applies in a county only if the county election board adopts a resolution making this chapter applicable in the county. (b) A copy of a resolution adopted under this section shall be filed with the election division. (c) A county election board may not adopt a resolution under this section less than: (1) sixty (60) days before an election is to be conducted; or (2) fourteen (14) days after an election has been conducted. (d) A resolution adopted under this section takes effect immediately and may only be rescinded by the unanimous vote of the entire membership of the county election board. As added by P.L.3-1993, SEC.176 and P.L.19-1993, SEC.2. Amended by P.L.2-1996, SEC.202; P.L.3-1997, SEC.335. IC 3-11.5-5-2 Applicability of chapter; paper ballot cast votes Sec. 2. This chapter applies to the counting of absentee ballots cast on paper ballots. As added by P.L.3-1993, SEC.176 and P.L.19-1993, SEC.2. IC 3-11.5-5-3 Time for counting ballots Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), immediately after: (1) the couriers have returned the certificate from a precinct under IC 3-11.5-4-9; and (2) the absentee ballot counters or the county election board have made the findings required under IC 3-11-10 and IC 3-11.5-4 for the absentee ballots cast by voters of the precinct and deposited the accepted absentee ballots in the envelope required under IC 3-11.5-4-12; the absentee ballot counters shall, in a central counting location designated by the county election board, count the absentee ballot votes for each candidate for each office and on each public question in the precinct.
    [Show full text]
  • Cost of Counting the Vote
    Cost of Counting the Vote The Price of Upgrading Voting Systems in 43 U.S. Counties By Aquene Freechild and Hamdi Soysal, Public Citizen’s Democracy Is For People Campaign May 31, 2018 - Amid serious concerns about whether our elections are secure from hackers and computer error, many state and local governments are looking to replace out-of-date paperless voting systems with paper ballot and electronic scanner systems. Pricing of voting equipment is often opaque, and in many cases, prices are negotiated on a local level. To bring some much-needed clarity to the issue, this report examines how much 43 county governments in 10 states paid for voting equipment. With this information in hand, local election officials and citizens can make the most of limited election equipment dollars. The states are: California, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia. Our key finding: While most precinct ballot scanners cost around $5,000 to $6,000, some counties have been able to negotiate more favorable pricing. However, a few counties paid a much higher than average price for their equipment. Our key conclusion: It’s important that counties band together or engage state authorities where appropriate to negotiate prices and get the best contract terms for voting equipment. Leasing equipment is an option for county officials to address the security threats quickly without committing to buying new systems on a short time frame. Limited Federal Funding In the 2018 federal spending bill passed by Congress in March 2018, lawmakers made $380 million in election security funding available to states for replacing paperless voting systems, implementing post-election audits and securing election databases.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Jersey Voting-Machine Lawsuit and the AVC Advantage DRE Voting Machine
    The New Jersey Voting-machine Lawsuit and the AVC Advantage DRE Voting Machine Andrew W. Appel∗ Maia Ginsburg Harri Hursti Brian W. Kernighan Princeton University Princeton University Princeton University Christopher D. Richards Gang Tan Penny Venetis Princeton University Lehigh University Rutgers School of Law – Newark Abstract As a result of a public-interest lawsuit, by Court order we were able to study, for one month, the hardware and source code of the Sequoia AVC Advantage direct-recording electronic voting machine, which is used throughout New Jersey (and Louisiana), and the Court has permitted us to publicly describe almost everything that we were able to learn. In short, these machines are vulnerable to a wide variety of attacks on the voting process. It would not be in the slightest difficult for a moderately determined group or individual to mount a vote-stealing attack that would be successful and undetectable. 1 Litigation and legislation in New Jersey In October 2004 a group of public-interest plaintiffs, represented by Professor Penny Venetis of the Rutgers Law School, sued the State of New Jersey (in NJ Superior Court) over the State’s use of direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machines in New Jersey. By 2004, most of New Jersey’s counties had adopted the Sequoia AVC Advantage full-face DRE. Currently 18 out of New Jersey’s 21 counties use this DRE. The plaintiffs argued that the use of DRE voting machines is illegal and unconstitutional: illegal, because they violate New Jersey election laws requiring that all votes be counted accurately and that voting machines be thoroughly tested, accurate, and reliable; and unconstitutional, because they violate the New Jersey constitution’s requirement that all votes count.1 The plaintiffs argued that one cannot trust a paperless DRE machine to count the vote.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______
    No. 19-1399 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ______________________________ SHELBY ADVOCATES FOR VALID ELECTIONS, ET AL., Petitioners, v. TRE HARGETT, ET AL. Respondents. ______________________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ______________________________ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE INDIVIDUAL ELECTION SECURITY EXPERTS IN SUPPORT OF CERTIORARI ______________________________ Courtney Hostetler John D. Graubert Ronald Fein Counsel of Record John Bonifaz Megan C. Keenan Ben Clements Ryan Miller FREE SPEECH FOR PEOPLE Jeremy Patashnik 1320 Centre St. #405 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Newton, MA 02459 One CityCenter (617) 249-3015 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 [email protected] (202) 662-6000 July 22, 2020 Counsel for Amici Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE .............................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 4 I. ABSENT IMMEDIATE REVIEW, VOTING MACHINES IN SHELBY COUNTY WILL CONTINUE TO CAUSE FLAWED ELECTIONS. ...................................... 4 A. The Voting Machines At Issue Are Fundamentally Deficient. ............................5 B. The Voting Machines At Issue Cannot Be Reliably Audited. .................................. 12 C. As a Result of the Sixth Circuit’s Ruling, the Voting Machines At Issue Will Continue To Harm Voters. ................. 15 II. THE SIXTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PRECEDENT PERMITTING PLAINTIFFS TO CHALLENGE SIMILAR HARMS TO THEIR VOTING RIGHTS. ........... 17 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 27 APPENDIX: List of Individual Election Security Experts ............ 1a ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) ..................................... 20 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Election Fraud Facts & Details
    Election Fraud Facts & Details Supporting Files for all items listed can be found at the following URL: https://ufile.io/by3q159v 1 FOREIGN INFLUENCE & NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS IN US ELECTIONS 1.1 The core software utilized by Dominion, the 2nd largest US voting machine vendor, originates from intellectual property of Smartmatic; a company that was founded in communist Venezuala with links to Chavez. A. Smartmatic Ties to Hugo Chávez Warned About in 2006 B. SmartMatic Sells Sequoia Voting Systems to US Holding Company After CFIUS Probe C. Sequoia Admits that while they can change the source code (e.g. Software), Smartmatic still owns the intellectual property of the software. D. Dominion Buys Sequoia from Smartmatic and Diebold from ES&S 1.2 ES&S, Dominion, and Hart Intercivic represent 92% of voting machine market and have a long history of significant security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by a nation state in ways that would be difficult to detect. E. Map - Voting Machine Usage in the US F. Defcon 27 - Voting Machine Hacking Village - Vulnerablity Report G. Defcon 26 - Voting Machine Hacking Village - Vulnerablity Report.pdf H. History of ES&S and Diebold (Now Dominion) Vulnerabilities and Voting Inconsistiencies I. Antrim-Michigan-Forensics-Report-121320-v2-Redacted 1.3 An affidavit and scholarly statistical paper attest to Smartmatic rigging Venezualian elections. Smartmatic has also been accused of rigging elections in the Philippines and India J. Venezuala Smartmatic Affidavit K. Statistical Science - 2011 - Volume 26 - Number 4 - Analysis of the 2004 Venezuala Referendum - Official Results Verses the Petition Signatures L. Smartmatic Voting Technology Firm Linked to Alleged Fraud in Elections in Philippines, Venezuela M.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Evaluation of ES&S Voting Machines and Election
    Security Evaluation of ES&S Voting Machines and Election Management System Adam Aviv Pavol Cernˇ y´ Sandy Clark Eric Cronin Gaurav Shah Micah Sherr Matt Blaze faviv,cernyp,saender,ecronin,gauravsh,msherr,[email protected] Department of Computer and Information Science University of Pennsylvania Abstract EVEREST was the first major study of ES&S voting sys- tems, despite the system’s popularity (ES&S claims to be This paper summarizes a security analysis of the DRE the world’s largest e-voting systems vendor [1], support- and optical scan voting systems manufactured by Election ing more than 67 million voter registrations with 97,000 Systems and Software (ES&S), as used in Ohio (and many touchscreen voting machines installed in 20 states and other jurisdictions inside and outside the US). We found 30,000 optical ballot readers present in 43 states [4]), and numerous exploitable vulnerabilities in nearly every com- only the second comprehensive study that examined all ponent of the ES&S system. These vulnerabilities enable components – from backend registration systems to fron- attacks that could alter or forge precinct results, install tend ballot casting – of any electronic voting system. In a corrupt firmware, and erase audit records. Our analysis ten week period, our seven-member team was tasked with focused on architectural issues in which the interactions analyzing the nearly 670,000 lines of source code that between various software and hardware modules leads to comprise the ES&S system, encompassing twelve pro- systemic vulnerabilities that do not appear to be easily gramming languages and five hardware platforms1.
    [Show full text]