May 09, 2008

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

« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »

April 09, 2007

"Judge rules Monterey planning wording must change"

"Arguments made by proponents of a slow-growth alternative to the Monterey County General Plan are misleading and must be reworded before placement on a ballot for a special election in June, a judge ruled Thursday.

The ruling by Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O'Farrell came just days before ballot arguments regarding the General Plan, written by the county Board of Supervisors, and the competing General Plan Initiative are due at the Registrar of Voters.

The ballots for the June 5 election are scheduled to be printed next week.

Chris Fitz, executive director of LandWatch Monterey County, the group that wrote the slow-growth, General Plan Initiative, says the changes O'Farrell ordered were minor.

"There were four changes made out of 17 allegations, and two of them involved one word -- that word being 'small,'" Fitz said.

In another instance, where LandWatch's argument read "In 2004, thousands of citizens testified in favor of (General Plan 3)," the judge ordered the language be changed to "testified in favor of the principals" of that plan, Fitz said.

"We remain very pleased with our ballot arguments. They say everything we wanted them to say," he said. "To me, this is akin to a bunch of medieval theologians arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin."

Rich Smith, owner of Paraiso Vineyards and plaintiff in Thursday's proceedings, said he brought the challenge because he attended many of the General Plan debates held by the Board of Supervisors and contends that ballot arguments made by Initiative backers were inaccurate.

"You can say anything in a campaign. The ballot measure itself is what it is, and the only thing you can do is make your arguments for and against," Smith said. "I assume when I read a ballot argument it's been vetted, but the process depends on citizen input."

According to a press release sent by General Plan supporters, Judge O'Farrell ruled that several claims made in ballot arguments are misleading."

The story is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:59 AM | Permalink. . .

Editorial: Petition madness

From the Sacramento Bee:

"Six petition drives already are gathering voter signatures. Ten initiatives are pending at the California attorney general's office. We even have two competing initiatives awaiting title and summary on the issue of eminent domain, the power of the state to take private property for public use. One of those is sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, another by the California League of Cities. Chances are, many more initiative petitions are still to come.

Voters tired of long ballots with confusing, even contradictory initiatives do have power.

When faced with well-meaning people who wave petitions in your face at the grocery store or post office, you can just say No. Refuse to sign.

Or if you don't like that simple approach, be more discerning. Instead of indiscriminately signing all petitions, no matter the cause, ask questions. Not every initiative should make it to the ballot.

Two questions are key.

First, ask the signature gatherer if he or she volunteers or is paid for the petition drive.

While three of the 24 states that allow initiatives prohibit paying petition circulators on a per-signature basis, California isn't one of them. The going rate in California is more than $1 and sometimes $5 and more for every signature collected. Those getting paid by the signature, so-called "bounty hunters," may or may not know anything about the initiative. They may even have an incentive to misrepresent the measure to get you to sign, but more often they simply may be clueless about what they're promoting.

Also ask who's backing the measure. Signature gatherers aren't required to know or disclose that information, but it tells you something if they don't know or don't reveal it. The reality is that paid signature gatherers may know only who is paying them.

These questions can help voters decide whether the initiative is a genuine grassroots effort with volunteer support or one dominated by wealthy groups or individuals buying a way onto the ballot. If the signature gatherer can't give you information, don't sign the petition.

What many observers have called California's "Initiative Industrial Complex" isn't going to go away. Initiatives have become big business, evolving far beyond their 1911 origins as a means of direct democracy to check legislative excesses or abuses by special interests.

"The days of romanticizing the 'citizens' initiative process are over at the statewide level," a state commission said in a report on initiatives in 2002.

Likewise, if you do your part, the days of romanticizing the process in parking lots all over the state can end today."

Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:57 AM | Permalink. . .

"Secretary of State Debra Bowen: Californians must know their vote counts"

From the Santa Cruz Sentinel:

"Are all of California's voting systems secure, accurate, reliable and accessible?

It's a relatively simple question and I believe California's voters are entitled to an answer. If the answer to that question is "no," then some voting-machine vendors and county elections officials who rely on their equipment will undoubtedly be inconvenienced. But it's the 37 million Californians who will truly suffer if we don't have the courage to ask that question in the first place.

Reviewing the accuracy and security of these instruments of our democracy shouldn't be viewed as a criticism of any county or county elections official. The single goal of the top-to-bottom review is to determine if the voting systems California's counties bought to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act HAVA are doing the job that California's voters count on them to do.

Contrary to the Sentinel's assertion, this assessment won't cost the counties any time or money because the review is being conducted under my authority as the state's chief elections officer. I have asked county officials for their input and it's heartening to know that some of them believe there is value in thoroughly examining the voting systems certified for use here in California. As one county clerk wrote about my proposed review:

"The right to vote and to have one's vote accurately recorded and counted is among the rights properly held to be most important to the citizens of a democracy. Citizens should expect this right to be vigorously protected by those public servants whose duties attach thereto. It is my opinion that the draft criteria you propose make significant progress in this effort on behalf of the citizens of California.

"Since the introduction of computer-based technology to the voting process, citizens have experienced a subtle closing of the window of transparency and accountability and a gradual dimming of the light of public inspection on elections. We are long overdue in our move to correct these defects"

Every election year, far too many voters are left to wonder if their voice matters, or if their vote even counts. To argue that because there are elections to conduct, California doesn't have time to determine if the voting equipment is secure, accurate, reliable and accessible ignores the fundamental reason why we hold elections in the first place.

People need to have confidence their votes are counted exactly as they were cast. If we fail to ensure the integrity of our voting systems, we'll do little but undermine the foundation of our democracy.

Debra Bowen is California secretary of state."

Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:53 AM | Permalink. . .

April 05, 2007

"Charges fly in Inglewood elections"

From the LA Times:

"Bad blood between Inglewood's mayor and its elected city clerk boiled over during the city's municipal elections Tuesday, with each accusing the other of interfering with the process.

City Clerk Yvonne Horton and an election volunteer said Mayor Roosevelt F. Dorn instructed a photographer to take pictures of workers verifying absentee ballots. He also accused them of pulling a "switcheroo" with the results, they said.

"Personally, I think that he's trying to overturn this election if his candidates don't win," Horton said Tuesday night, before the results were known. She said she reported the incident to the district attorney's office.

The election day dispute highlighted the fractious nature of Inglewood politics, with supporters of Dorn on one side and supporters of state Sen. Ed Vincent (D-Inglewood), Dorn's predecessor, and former Assemblyman Jerome Horton, Yvonne Horton's husband, on the other.

Up for grabs Tuesday were three City Council and three school board seats and the posts of city clerk and treasurer.

Incumbent Councilmen Eloy Morales Jr. and Ralph Franklin, who are not aligned with Dorn, won reelection, as did Treasurer Wanda Brown, a Dorn ally, and Yvonne Horton. George Dotson and Daniel Tabor, a Dorn foe, will face each other in a June runoff.

Winning seats on the Inglewood Unified School District board were incumbent Johnny J. Young and Carol Raines-Brown, both backed by Dorn, and Trina Williams.

But the drama that surrounded the election threatened to overshadow the results.

On Wednesday, Dorn acknowledged visiting the ballot workers but denied arranging for a photographer or questioning the workers' integrity, allegations he called an "out and out lie."

But Dorn said that Horton had "friends," one of whom recorded a campaign phone message for her, count ballots. He also said it was improper for Horton to oversee an election in which she was running.

"She should have had nothing to do with the election whatsoever because she was running for office," Dorn said."

Posted by Randy Riddle at 03:06 PM | Permalink. . .

Editorial: E-vote review must be careful but quick

From the San Jose Mercury News:

"Debra Bowen ran for secretary of state in November pledging to evaluate electronic voting comprehensively. True to her word, last month she announced plans for a "top to bottom review" of touch screen and other electronic systems.

But quick passage last month of a law moving up California's presidential primary from June to February 2008 compressed the amount of time available for thorough evaluation. And that has county elections officials understandably nervous, particularly if Bowen orders significant updates to the equipment.

A rigorous review is warranted to protect the integrity of votes and no doubt will turn up new issues related to security and reliability. Every review so far has. But Bowen must also be careful not to demand sweeping modifications that manufacturers can't possibly meet before the February election. She must weigh any potential problems with touch-screen technology against the confusion, disruption and likely litigation that would result from requirements for major changes or decertification of systems. Major flaws, not theoretical threats, should determine her actions.

Bowen's full-scale review would be the most stringent of any state. It would include a line-by-line analysis of the software code that runs electronic systems and the employment of "red teams" to try to hack into the systems.

Touch-screen skeptics, like Professor David Dill of Stanford, praised the plan. In a letter to Bowen, county registrars of voters generally welcomed it - a noteworthy change from their unflinching defense of the technology in the past.

But they also cautioned against setting unreasonable standards based on unclear definitions of reliability and security or imposing equipment requirements yet to be developed, like an audio device for the blind to read a voter-verified paper receipt. Their unstated worry is that their systems are being set up for failure - and mass decertification.

California has been the national leader in demanding protections against vote fraud and error. Touch-screen machines must provide a paper trail that lets voters verify the electronic choices they make and which serves as the official ballot in recounts. Previous secretaries of state instituted random machine testing on Election Day. And they have penalized companies that have surreptitiously modified programs without testing or approval.

These and other measures have spared California major problems like last year's disputed congressional election in Sarasota, Fla., in which thousands of votes in a close election came up blank. Santa Clara County's touch-screen system has encountered no significant problems.

However, some computer experts say more safeguards are needed to prevent vote tampering and make the machines more reliable.

Bowen has until Aug. 3 - six months before the February primary - to impose them. The goal should be to make electronic systems safe and reliable, not look for justifications to throw them out."

Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:48 AM | Permalink. . .

April 04, 2007

"Elections may prove to be very expensive"

"Local elections for city councils and school boards are set for November and the state's presidential primary, now moved forward, will occur in February. A primary for the rest of the state's partisan offices is set for June 2008, with a presidential election five months later in November.

Add to that a top-to-bottom review of the voting machines certified for use in California in August and the question becomes: Will San Mateo County actually be able to carry it out? And, more importantly, will the county be able to pay for it?

"The confluence of all these events creates issues in several are as, with money, with every aspect you can think of," said San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer Warren Slocum. "For us and for everybody it's going to tax election staff because youhave overlapping election schedules. It's going to cost money."

The county is still unsure of what, exactly, it might be facing.

On March 22, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen proposed a review at the state level "to ensure that California voters are being asked to cast their ballots on machines that are secure, accurate, accessible and auditable." Comments to Bowen's proposal were due Friday. She intends to release a final proposal of her plans for the machine review on Friday. Public hearings will follow.

It's not that Slocum doesn't support the path that Bowen is heading down.

"The main policy issue, the main question, is people need to have confidence that their votes are counted correctly," Slocum said."

The story is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:21 AM | Permalink. . .

April 02, 2007

"Hacker gives voters something to worry about"

"Voters concerned with election system security have more to worry about.

Finnish computer scientist Harri Hursti - who successfully tampered with a Diebold voting machine in the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" - testified Friday before the blue ribbon committee appointed by Riverside County supervisors that a high school student can breach most election systems.

"The level of expertise that you need is scarily low," he said.

More than 50 people turned out for the hearing in Palm Desert, the best attended of three.

Committee members will give a 90-day report to supervisors April 24 on the reliability of the county's electronic voting system.

In an hour-long presentation, Hursti said the best voting system approved by the state for use is a digitally scanned paper ballot. All systems, including paper-based ones, are vulnerable.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen is conducting a review of all the electronic systems in the state, something Hursti said is "unlike anything else done before."

A number of Coachella Valley city clerks told committee members that problems with the November election - long lines and paper printout shortages - show a lack of preparedness.

Many of the polling places with the longest lines that also ran out of paper receipts dealt with 300 more voters than the 1,000-per-precinct the state regulates.

Others expressed support for Riverside County Registrar of Voters Barbara Dunmore, who has been present at all the public hearings.

"There is no way I could do the election all by myself," said Pat Hammers, city clerk for Cathedral City.

Several members of the public also conveyed their distrust of voting machines."

The article is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:30 AM | Permalink. . .

syndicate this blog 

© 2008 Randy Riddle

home   postings   resources   about

design: sko media