May 11, 2008

Providing legal resources and election news to California election officials and the attorneys who represent them.

« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »

May 30, 2006

Instant runoff voting to be demonstrated in Eureka on June 6

"The Humboldt Voters’ Association is holding an Instant Runoff Voting demonstration election on June 6 at Eureka’s Municipal Auditorium poll site, 1120 F St.

Voters will be able to cast a ballot using the Instant Runoff Voting ranked-voting system, where voters rank the candidates in order of preference rather than simply picking one from the list.

The HVA is focusing this demonstration on the Humboldt County 4th District Supervisor race. All voters eligible to vote in the supervisors’ race can vote in the demonstration, whether or not their assigned polling place is the Municipal Auditorium.

“The Neely-Flemming-Marks race is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate how IRV works,” stated HVA co-founder Scott Menzies in a news release. “With voters being able to rank the candidates from 1 to 3, we can get a clearer picture of the will of the voters and determine a clear majority winner from that information.”

Instant runoff voting renders expensive primary and runoff elections — like the June 6 election — unnecessary, supporters say.

“We hope that voters will see that Instant Runoff Voting, and ranked voting in general, is a far superior voting system to the plurality system we currently use, which often results in winners being elected with less than majority support,” HVA co-founder Mark Konkler stated in a news release."

The story is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:05 AM | Permalink. . .

May 26, 2006

"DA to examine absentee ballots"

"The Los Angeles District Attorney's office will look into allegations that the campaign for 43rd Assembly District candidate Paul Krekorian submitted absentee ballot requests with fraudulent signatures, a county official said Tuesday.

The campaign of Glendale Councilman Frank Quintero, who is also vying for the Democratic nomination to the 43rd District seat, accused Krekorian's campaign of engaging in voter fraud at a press conference Tuesday.

"This is about signature forgeries on absentee ballot applications," said Stephen Kaufman, an attorney for Quintero's campaign.

Several voters contacted Quintero's campaign offices last week about letters they had received from the registrar's office, in which they were asked to confirm absentee ballot applications they had never requested, Kaufman said. All of the applications in question were submitted by the Committee to Elect Paul Krekorian, he added.

advertisement

The allegations that his campaign would tolerate any unethical behavior are "despicable and disgusting," said Krekorian in a statement to the media, adding that Tuesday's press conference was an attempt by Quintero to save his failing campaign.

"I call upon the county registrar to investigate these allegations thoroughly, carefully and immediately," Krekorian said. "There is simply no basis whatsoever for Frank Quintero's false implication that my campaign has done anything inappropriate."

The story is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:36 AM | Permalink. . .

May 25, 2006

California Supreme Court Decides Proposition 60 "Separate Vote" Case

From the decision:

"We granted review to address an issue of first impression: the proper interpretation of California Constitution, article XVIII, section 1 (article XVIII, section 1), which requires in its second sentence that when the Legislature proposes an amendment of the state Constitution, “[e]ach amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately.”

We conclude, as did the Court of Appeal below, and consistently with our provision’s language and history and more than a century of out-of-state decisions construing the essentially identical provisions of nearly 30 other state constitutions, that the separate-vote provision is a limitation upon legislative power to submit constitutional amendments to the voters.

We disagree, however, with the Court of Appeal below, concerning the applicable test for determining whether, in a given case, the Legislature’s submission of constitutional changes in a single measure violates article XVIII, section 1. In addressing that question, the Court of Appeal followed a minority rule that recently was reinvigorated by Armatta v. Kitzhaber (Or. 1998) 959 P.2d 49 (Armatta) — a decision in which the Oregon Supreme Court construed its state’s separate-vote provision as establishing a test different from and stricter than the traditional test employed by courts under a related constitutional provision also found in most state constitutions — the “single subject rule” (see Cal. Const., art. II, § 8, subd. (d) & art. IV, § 9). Unlike the Oregon court and a few other courts that have followed Armatta under their respective state constitutions, we find no basis in the history of the California Constitution for such a conclusion, and hence we shall follow the approach that is, and has been, the majority rule for nearly 130 years: the separate-vote provision should be construed consistently with its kindred provision, the single subject provision.

So construing the separate-vote provision of article XVIII, section 1, we conclude that the Legislature’s proposed submission, in a single constitutional amendment, of two changes to the state Constitution that are not germane to a common theme, purpose, or subject, violated the constitutional separate-vote requirement. Accordingly, we affirm this aspect of the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal, although for reasons different from those relied upon by that court.

We also address the question of remedy. The Court of Appeal, by a two-to-one vote, ordered the Secretary of State to separate the two proposed constitutional changes at issue in this matter into two measures for submission to the voters. When ruling upon this matter in the weeks preceding the November 2004 general election (and only days before the deadline for the printing of ballot materials), we declined to disturb the Court of Appeal’s order, and the voters of this state subsequently adopted each separated constitutional amendment. Although we conclude that the Court of Appeal erred by ordering bifurcation, we find it unnecessary and inappropriate to invalidate either of these separately submitted and approved constitutional amendments."

Thanks to Richard Winger for the heads up.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 01:26 PM | Permalink. . .

May 23, 2006

Group seeks reversal of ruling based on Padilla

"A conservation group is asking a judge to reverse her earlier decision invalidating an initiative that sought to impose strict limits on hillside and citywide development.

The attorney representing Save Loma Linda last week filed a motion asking a judge to dismiss her March ruling that the group's initiative petition was invalid because it was not translated into Spanish.

U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins should reverse her decision because it was based on a ruling in another case that is now being reconsidered by a higher court, said Kathy Glendrange, Save Loma Linda spokeswoman.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that recall petitions in Orange County had to be translated into Spanish as a requirement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Two federal court rulings in March, including Collins' decision, held that if the translation requirement applies to recalls, it must also apply to initiatives and referendums.

However, the 9th Circuit last month vacated the panel's decision the legal effect being as if the ruling had never been issued until the entire 11-member appeals court hears the case June 22.

The article is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 04:18 PM | Permalink. . .

Voter Registration in 43rd Assembly Race Examined

From the LA Times:

"An inquiry into possible voter registration irregularities allegedly engineered by state Assembly candidate Paul Krekorian's campaign has been referred to prosecutors, county officials said Monday, and Krekorian's opponent in the race for the 43rd Assembly District seat has been quick to cry fraud.

With just two weeks left before the June 6 primary, candidate Frank Quintero's attorneys sent a letter to the registrar of voters Monday demanding swift action against Krekorian. "We have every faith that the D.A.'s public integrity unit will prosecute this to the fullest extent of the law," said Phil Giarrizzo, Quintero's campaign consultant."

Posted by Randy Riddle at 03:10 PM | Permalink. . .

May 18, 2006

New Case Involving Scope of the Initiative Power

"Here we conclude that the electorate cannot, by initiative, in a general law county, enact an ordinance prescribing minimum future annual budgets for county public safety agencies. Such an ordinance exceeds the electorate's initiative power and is constitutionally invalid."

The opinion is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 03:48 PM | Permalink. . .

Secretary of State Appointments

"Secretary of State Bruce McPherson today announced the appointments of Charles Hahn as Chief Assistant Secretary of State and Susan Lapsley as Assistant Secretary of State for Elections.."

The press release is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:49 AM | Permalink. . .

May 12, 2006

"Voting machines lack state approval"

"Brand-new touch-screen voting machines can't be used in Volusia, Polk and three other Florida counties because they still require state approval, officials said Thursday.

The problem, uncovered by an election official in Volusia County, apparently violates a state law prohibiting vendors from selling "uncertified" equipment in Florida, according to Susan Pynchon, a voting-equipment activist.

Not so, said Jenny Nash, a spokeswoman for the state Division of Elections, who said the machines from Diebold Election Systems are nearly the same as those already certified.

"It's just a modification," Nash said. She compared it to a routine software update on a home computer. "It's very similar to that."

Nash said a routine examination of the new machine is set for May 30 and June 1 in Tallahassee. Because no elections are planned before those dates, it's not a problem, she said.

Nonetheless, Pynchon, executive director of DeLand-based Florida Fair Elections Coalition, said her organization is contemplating "legal options" because she thinks the state approval should have been completed before delivery.

Nash said the issue affects five counties: Volusia, Polk, Leon, Putnam and Glades.

County election officials contacted Thursday said they were surprised to learn they had received machines that still needed to jump through another hoop at the state level.

Volusia County Elections Supervisor Ann McFall and Polk County Elections Supervisor Lori Edwards said the machines they told Diebold they wanted were certified.

"It's just what arrived was not [certified]," Edwards said.

A Diebold official contacted Thursday referred questions to a company spokesman, who did not return voice-mail and e-mail messages."

The story is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 10:48 AM | Permalink. . .

May 11, 2006

U.S. House panel votes to retain bilingual ballots

"A key House panel on Wednesday voted to continue requiring bilingual ballots and translation assistance for voters in 31 states, including help for Native Americans and Hispanics in Arizona who are not fluent in English.

The House Judiciary Committee rejected efforts to cut the language-assistance provision from a bill to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act, set to expire next year.

The action also signaled that, with legislation still pending to curb illegal immigration and beef up border security, there is little appetite among House Republican leaders to further upset Hispanic voters in an election year."

The story is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 01:29 PM | Permalink. . .

"Scientists call Diebold security flaw 'worst ever'"

From Ian Hoffman at the Oakland Tribune:

"Computer scientists say a security hole recently found in Diebold Election Systems' touch-screen voting machines is the "worst ever" in a voting system.

Election officials from Iowa to Maryland have been rushing to limit the risk of vote fraud or disabled voting machines since the hole was reported Wednesday.

Scientists, who have conferred with Diebold representatives, said Diebold programmers created the security hole intentionally as a means of quickly upgrading voting software on its electronic voting machines.

The hole allows someone with a common computer component and knowledge of Diebold systems to load almost any software without a password or proof of authenticity and potentially without leaving telltale signs of the change.

"I think it's the most serious thing I've heard to date," said Johns Hopkins University computer science professor Avi Rubin, who published the first security analysis of Diebold voting software in 2003. "Even describing why I think it's serious is dangerous. This is something that's so easy to do that if the public were to hear about it, it would raise the risk of someone doing it. ... This is the worst-case scenario, almost."

Diebold representatives acknowledged the security hole to Pennsylvania elections officials in a May 1 memo but said the "probability for exploiting this vulnerability to install unauthorized software that could affect an election is considered low."

California elections officials echoed that assessment Friday in a message to county elections chiefs."

Posted by Randy Riddle at 12:57 PM | Permalink. . .

States mandate more security for Diebold voting machines

"Officials overseeing elections in three states have directed local authorities to take additional security measures with a popular type of electronic voting machine to prevent election fraud.

California, Iowa and Pennsylvania issued the voting directives in recent weeks after researchers discovered a feature that could allow someone to load unauthorized software on Diebold Election Systems computerized machines.

A hacker theoretically could use the software to rig or sabotage an election or to perform some other unauthorized function, said Michael Shamos, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University.

"It's worse than a hole," said Shamos, who has been briefed on the vulnerability of the Diebold machines. "It's a deliberate feature that was added by Diebold that we all believe is unwise."

In the wake of the ballot-tabulating problems that plagued the 2000 presidential election, electronic voting has become a flash point for many people concerned about fair elections. Critics charge that electronic voting machines are too susceptible to fraud and error to be trusted and should not replace traditional balloting until proper safeguards are installed."

The story is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 11:27 AM | Permalink. . .

"Voting machines a key issue in bid to lead elections office"

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Questions about the accuracy of electronic voting machines have become a dominant issue in the race for California secretary of state, with the two Democratic challengers for the job carving out differing positions.

State Sens. Debra Bowen of Marina del Rey (Los Angeles County) and Deborah Ortiz of Sacramento are vying to face Republican incumbent Bruce McPherson. McPherson has grappled with certifying electronic voting machines since his appointment in March 2005 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to fill the remainder of Kevin Shelley's term after he resigned from office while being investigated for alleged financial misdeeds.

The secretary of state is California's chief elections official who coordinates statewide elections and works with county registrars to maintain voting rolls.

Early polls show few voters know of Bowen, Ortiz or McPherson. Neither Bowen nor Ortiz appears to have the campaign funds to remedy that through extensive television advertising.

"I don't think voters have a clue who the two Debs are -- even though both of them have distinguished Senate careers," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at California State University Sacramento.

"But while voters may not know much about the candidates, they care about the issues the secretary of state's office deals with. They certainly care about the security of electronic voting machines," O'Connor said.

One of the key differences between Ortiz and Bowen is their position on electronic voting systems. Bowen doesn't like them. Ortiz thinks they're fine as long as they are "secure, accurate and accessible to all Californians."

In the November 2005 special election, 16 of California's 58 counties -- including Alameda and Santa Clara -- used electronic voting machines.

This year, McPherson certified those systems and several upgraded ones for use in the June primary after imposing a battery of tests on manufacturers, including additional security reviews of the machines.

Bowen's primary objection to the systems isn't security, it's simplicity.

"The question isn't whether you dislike electronic voting, it's why are we spending $5,000 per machine if there's a less expensive, simpler system that's easier for people to understand, easier to train poll workers about, more transparent and more auditable," Bowen said.

Bowen favors systems like those used in Contra Costa and Sacramento counties in which voters mark their ballots with a pencil."

Posted by Randy Riddle at 11:17 AM | Permalink. . .

May 10, 2006

"Voting glitch said to be 'dangerous'"

"Elections officials in several states are scrambling to understand and limit the risk from a "dangerous" security hole found in Diebold Election Systems Inc.'s ATM-like touch-screen voting machines.

The hole is considered more worrisome than most security problems discovered on modern voting machines, such as weak encryption, easily pickable locks and use of the same, weak password nationwide.

Armed with a little basic knowledge of Diebold voting systems and a standard component available at any computer store, someone with a minute or two of access to a Diebold touch screen could load virtually any software into the machine and disable it, redistribute votes or alter its performance in myriad ways.

"This one is worse than any of the others I've seen. It's more fundamental," said Douglas Jones, a University of Iowa computer scientist and veteran voting-system examiner for the state of Iowa.

"In the other ones, we've been arguing about the security of the locks on the front door," Jones said. "Now we find that there's no back door. This is the kind of thing where if the states don't get out in front of the hackers, there's a real threat."

The Argus is withholding some details of the vulnerability at the request of several elections officials and scientists, partly because exploiting it is so simple and the tools for doing so are widely available. A Finnish computer expert working with Black Box Voting, a nonprofit organization critical of electronic voting, found the security hole in March after Emery County, Utah, was forced by state officials to accept Diebold touch screens, and a local elections official allowed the expert to examine the machines."

The story is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 03:58 PM | Permalink. . .

Court Rejects Challenge to Initiative Petition Based on Full Text Requirement

You can find the opinion here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 02:15 PM | Permalink. . .

May 08, 2006

"Proposed ordinance brings turmoil"

From the Riverside Press Enterprise:

"San Bernardino officials are hurrying to decipher the implications of a proposed crackdown on illegal immigration.

What's Next: The City of San Bernardino Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance goes before the City Council on May 15.

San Bernardino officials are scrambling to estimate the cost to enforce a proposed illegal immigration law before the City Council considers the measure on May 15.

But officials say the city's voters and not the council may have the final say on the City of San Bernardino Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance. Under the city charter, the council has 20 days to either approve the measure without alteration or reject it. The measure goes to a referendum if the council rejects it or if the mayor vetoes it. That vote might not come until November.

Meanwhile, the activist who wrote the measure is demanding an immediate decision by the City Council.

The turmoil comes as San Bernardino's leaders confront an unprecedented use of the city's initiative process to bring a fiercely contended national issue into local government.

On Thursday, the county registrar of voters verified that 2,217 registered city voters had signed petitions supporting the Relief Act. That's enough to force the council to vote on whether to make the measure a city law.

The measure would prohibit the city from operating day-laborer centers and require private centers to ensure that day laborers are authorized to work in the United States. It would empower police to seize vehicles of employers soliciting undocumented immigrants as day laborers.

Council members, ranging from supporters like Chas Kelley to critics like Gordon McGinnis, predicted Friday that the voters will make the final decision.

But they can't say when.

City Clerk Rachael Clark said city law requires such special elections occur no sooner than 90 days and no later than 135 days after the City Council calls for one.

That means the earliest date would be Aug. 15, the latest Sept. 22, Clark said. But that period does not include any other scheduled election, so San Bernardino would have to bear the entire cost of the balloting.

The last time the city went solo, the election cost a quarter-million dollars, Clark said. She said a consolidated election with other ballots might cost half that much or less.

The City Council could extend its deadline to six months, the period stipulated under California election law. Then, the San Bernardino referendum could be included on the Nov. 7 general election ballot.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 04:38 PM | Permalink. . .

Ballots absent in San Joaquin

"The San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters office will be unable to proofread 702 separate versions of the June ballot on time and will send out sample and absentee ballots about a week later than usual.

County Registrar of Voters Deborah Hench said the delay could create problems for some people who are away from home, so the department will take telephone calls in an effort to resolve problems before they occur.

“We don’t want to disenfranchise any voters because of this delay,” Hench said.

There are more variations on ballots than usual, Hench said, because of more separate issues in different voting districts. For a June election, the department usually sends out sample and absentee ballots May 8."

The article is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:46 AM | Permalink. . .

May 03, 2006

"First all-electronic election marred by problems"

From the Cleveland Plain Dealer story:

"Electronic voting in Cuyahoga County began with a thud, with results of most races unknown late Tuesday while an army of election workers prepared to use the most old-fashioned of voting technology - a hand count - to tally thousands of votes.

Glitches with optical scan machines prevented the planned counting of 17,000 absentee ballots. Workers planned to begin hand-counting votes on the ballots at midnight and expected to be at it for hours. And because new touch-screen voting machines did not function properly at first in some polling locations, voters had to fill out paper ballots, which also were to be hand-counted early today.

With the paper ballots accounting for such a substantial percentage of all votes cast Tuesday, the winners in many county races could not be called.

"An investigation will take place over the next couple of weeks" to find out the cause of the problem, said Bob Bennett, chairman of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections. "Everyone's vote will be counted . . . but we're not going to get the results in a timely manner."

Posted by Randy Riddle at 01:05 PM | Permalink. . .

May 02, 2006

Alameda County Registrar Takes Marin Position

"Alameda County officials said today that Acting Registrar of Voters Elaine Ginnold has resigned, only a month before the June 6 election, to become the top election official in Marin County.

Ginnold's resignation is effective May 12. She announced her decision to her election staff late Monday.

In a statement, Ginnold said, "This was not an easy decision. But I have been offered the newly-created position of Registrar of Voters in Marin County, which is a great opportunity and an exciting challenge."

Ginnold said she has agreed to take over as Marin County's registrar in time for the June 6 election but "will probably continue to help Alameda County gear-up for the same election on a part-time basis."

The story is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 05:28 PM | Permalink. . .

Effect of Padilla en banc review on the Monterey case

From the Monterey County Herald:

"Another twist in legal wrangling over bilingual election materials and voter petitions is being studied like tea leaves by opposing camps in Monterey County land-use battles.

On Monday, the leading opponent of the Butterfly Village development in Rancho San Juan north of Salinas said an order last week by a federal appeals court could clear the way for the project to go before county voters in November.

"It's certainly encouraging," said Julie Engell, chairwoman of the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition, which has spearheaded two ballot measures to defeat county-approved growth plans.

She was upbeat about an order last week by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that federal courts should disregard a controversial ruling that earlier blocked an Orange County recall election because petitions weren't circulated in both English and Spanish.

That decision -- known as Padilla vs. Lever -- provided the key legal ammunition for the county Board of Supervisors to block the latest Rancho San Juan referendum from the June ballot. It also was the cornerstone for a federal district judge to prevent the controversial, slow-growth General Plan Initiative from going on the ballot.

Now the entire 9th Circuit Court, in a proceeding known as "en banc," will reconsider the Padilla ruling, which has created widespread confusion over voter petitions since it was handed down last fall.

"That indicates to us that some of the judges have serious concerns about Padilla," Engell said.

Two suits over the Rancho San Juan referendum are pending in U.S. District Court in San Jose. They would be greatly affected by any change in the earlier Padilla ruling.

But Lee Blankenship, assistant county counsel, said the federal appeals court order against citing the Padilla ruling doesn't necessarily mean the court is leaning toward reversing the decision.

"A number of people around the state are putting a variety of spins on things," Blankenship said. "It's not entirely clear what it all means, except the court has decided to rehear Padilla.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 06:21 AM | Permalink. . .

syndicate this blog 

© 2008 Randy Riddle

home   postings   resources   about

design: sko media