Slashdot Mirror
California County Sues State Over E-Vote Ban
An anonymous reader writes "Riverside County teamed up this week with groups representing the disabled to sue California's secretary of state, who banned voting machines that, the plaintiffs argue, help the disabled exercise their right to vote anonymously. Here's the story. I guess Diebold does have some fans afterall."
This sig intentionally left blank.
BS. I mean, I understand what they're thinking, but this is insecure!
Try voting with a write-in, or ask someone you trust (relative? friend? hired personal aid?) to help, either in-booth, or with a write-in.
IANAL, but I believe you are allowed to bring an assistant into the booth if you so choose.
So what is with these ignoramuses figuring that, back in the days of the punch cards, WE (the people who sat there all day so you can get off your sorry butts and vote) WOULDN'T ACTUALLY GET OFF OUR BUTTS AND ASSIST THE VOTER WITH THEIR BALLOT! Yes, kids, that's right, we go in there and help people vote if they need help! Blind? Ask them who to vote for and get a witness! Wheelchair? Have them bring their sample ballot and punch it, let them do a comparison to make sure! No arms? Same thing!
So disabled, QED, is no excuse for this, as there are bits in the California election code that provide for assistance. The point here is that we were instructed to do whatever it took to help them vote, with the understanding that their vote does not leave our brains or the collection box, so if you are a disabled voter in some way, we helped. Besides, the feds would shoot down California on ADA violations if we didn't.
This sig no verb.
wasnt there a recent emergency election in CA involving the governer's office where the ENTIRE STATE used a printed hard-copy booklet because of the large number of candidates running? IOW, no computer system or other mechanical system in any locale? How did the disabled vote during those proceedings?
"This is another flip-flop by state officials, based on shifting political winds, rather than considering what is best for the people of California," County Supervisor John Tavaglione said. "They're punishing us for using a system that has worked effectively and without error."
What a disab^H^H^H^H stupid thing to say. This totally overlooks the fact that there's no error because the machines leave no way for people to verify correct results in an election. That's like a hospital not recording statistics on surgically caused deaths and then claiming that they have no record of any deaths being caused under surgery.
Until a suitable alternative presents itself, the disabled will have to cast their vote in an environment of reduced anonymity. That's been the procedure before the Diebold machines were available, and that should be the procedure until a suitable alternative to paper ballots is made available.
My blog
When somebody claims that somebody "under color of law" has infringed a federally protected right (either constitutional or statutory), usually they sue under Section 1983.
It's an important avenue to be sure, giving a right of action to folks who've had their rights squandered by public officials. It is however REALLY easy for a plaintiff to get their legal fees from the defendant (CA, in this case) in a 1983 action. Basically if they win on any of their claims (even say, one of a dozen claims) they'll get their legal fees paid for.
IANAL - but the lawyers love this one. Even if it's not a great case (like, I don't know... this one) it's worth a shot, because the lawyers get paid.
Ryan Kennedy opposes comm
As president I promise to transfer the funds of the entire US treasury to the employees and families (and investors) of the major e-voting companies in the country. I smell landslide.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
While there is quite a lot of hoopla surrounding Diebold, Riverside County's electronic voting systems were manufactured by Sequoia Voting Systems.
I lived right across the "tracks" so to speak, in San Bernardino County, but attended Riverside Community College and had many friends who lived in Riverside. We've talked at legth about electronic voting issues and I've never heard any concerns about Riverside's electronic voting system. In fact, they were one of the first county's in California to turn to completely electronic voting, starting with the 2000 presidential elections.
Googling for some random info, I see that there are a few complaints about how data is handeled (and namely the neccesity of a paper ballot). I think a lot of people replying are just using knee-jerk reactions. Riverside's systems have been running for four years now nearly without a hitch.
I will note that they can always be improved though. But the main reason Riverside is suing is because they *got rid* of their regular voting gear 4 years ago and upgraded to complete electronic voting. It will be quite expensive for them to go back, and with less than 6 months notice as well.
Pens and paper work fine for the rest of the world, and aren't expensive at all.
Ever make a relay call (I have, both ways, tty->relay->voice and v->r->t)? The CAs (Communication Assistants) are trained well enough that it's considered secret/anonymous. They cannot divulge conversations, even under police order or with a warrant. The only way to tap your conversation is to tap the wire. See the previous /. articles. This kind of privacy issue is dealt with all the time in the disabled world.
Try reading some of the standards of ethics set out by the National Association of the Deaf for interpreters sometime - or any other body that sets standards for assistants or interpreters. Arguing that your vote is no longer secret is like arguing that we have to trust POTUS' translators to be honest. If you don't trust them, find someone you do trust.
Or here's an idea, if you don't trust anyone very much, or need a truely secret vote. Get an assistant to fill out multiple ballots - one real one and several fake. Have them put them all in envelopes. They leave; you take the envelopes with the fake ballots, and throw them away. The one you want gets mailed. Or if you can't throw them away (can't pick 'em up or whatever), get one person to fill out the ballots and seal them. Have them leave. Get a second person to select the envelope you want, mail it, and throw the others away.
I don't think e-voting is ready for primetime yet. But it's not a conspiracy against the disabled.
The state is only requiring them to allow voters to use an alternative method. State grabs a handfull of absentee balots, places them in a stack in the precincts. People now have a choice to vote paper if they want too. Is that too hard??
[ducks and runs]
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
The counties who are suing the state over the eVote ban may be run by fundamentally ignorant people, or unethical people if this really is a about Diebold partisanship, but at least some of these suits are due to the ongoing California budget crisis. No Arnie hasn't really solved anything; he's mostly pushed the inevitable pain onto local budgets who are too disorganized and red-inked to do much about it other than lash out irrationally.
Riverside's systems have been running for four years now nearly without a hitch.
How do you know there was no hitch? For instance, in this Spring's recall vote in Riverside, Larry Flynt beat Gary Coleman 540 to 593 - less than 50 votes. How do you know some pr0n loving programmer with an lingering childhood crush on Dana Plato didn't rig those results? No paper trail to prove it either way. And why so many candidates in the last election with 100%? How do you do write-ins on a touch screen? Do you really claim that there was not one single vote for Arhnold for prez?
As I am sure we all know, Diebold's machines were designed to be tampered with.
So to rephrase your sentance a little bit "pressure on Diebold to release a product that isn't customized for election fraud, and hasn't the abillity to deliver a negative amount of votes".
I still call election-fraud on these assholes. This system doesn't "suck", it's specificly designed to be this weak and to be tampered with.
And thus they cannot add a paper-trail, as this would only prove our claims. That more or less goes without a saying, at least I thought so.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.