This announcement (attached) went out to the county registrars and clerks.
An important meeting to make in person, for those of you who can.
The original is posted at: http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/hearings/
The Future of Voting in California:
The People, the Equipment, the Costs
Secretary of State's Office
First Floor Auditorium
February 8, 2010, 10:00 a.m.
I. Introductory Remarks
- Debra Bowen, Secretary of State
II. Heading into 2010: Taking Stock of the Post-HAVA
Voting System and Election Administration Environment
- Brian Hancock, U.S. Election Assistance Commission
- Lowell Finley, Office of the California Secretary of State
- Doug Chapin, Pew Center on the States
III. Existing Voting Systems in California
- John Groh, Election Systems & Software
- Eric Coomer, Sequoia Voting Systems
- Marcus MacNeill, Hart Inter Civic
- McDermot Coutts, Unisyn Voting Solutions
- Curt Fielder, DFM Associates
IV. New Developments in Voting and Election Administration
- Bob Carey, Federal Voting Assistance Program
- Gregory Miller, Trust the Vote/Open Source Digital Voting Foundation
- Efrain Escobedo, Los Angeles County, Voting Systems Assessment Project
- Bill O'Neill, Runbeck Election Services
- Sandy McConnell, King County Elections, State of Washington
V. Public Comment Period
See instructions below for submitting written testimony.
Privacy Statement | Free Document Readers
Copyright © 2010 California Secretary of State
Submit Written Testimony for the Record
February 2, 2010
County ClerklRegistrar of Voters (CCROV) Memorandum #10050
TO: All County Clerks / Registrars of Voters
Assistant Chief Deputy Secretary of State
RE: Voting Systems: Public Infonnational Hearing on the Future ofVoling in California
Secretary of State Debra Bowen will be hosting a public informational hearing on "The Future of Voting in California: The People, the Equipment, the Costs" to be held Monday, February 8, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in the Secretary of State's auditorium at 1500 11th Street in Sacramento.
Attached is the agenda for the hearing.
Anyone can view a live webcast of the hearing by going to
The public is invited to attend and to provide testimony during the public comment portion of the hearing.
Written comments may also be submitted prior to or following the hearing and should be addressed to:
Secretary of State Debra Bowen
1500 11th Street, 6th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn: Jennie Bretschneider
or via email to email@example.com
All written comments will be posted on the Secretary of State' s website.
If you have any questions, please contact the Office of Voting Systems Technology Assessment
at (916) 653-7244 or via email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
EDA mail: Dan@electiondefensealliance.org
EDA News and Alerts: Click Here to Subscribe for E-mail Updates
The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected.
To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery. . . Thomas Paine
California's Electronic Voting Booths Need An Upgrade But It Won't Be CheapAired 2/8/2010 on All Things Considered Aired
2/9/2010 on Morning Edition
Sacramento, CA -- California elections officials say their computerized voting booths are in need of upgrades, but they can’t afford to make big improvements. Capital Public Radio's Steve Shadley reports: Listen
But County Gets Negative Marks for Pushing DREs
Coverage from Riverside Press Enterprise
Voter Advocacy Group Praises Special Election
By DUANE W. GANG
The Press-Enterprise Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A watchdog group critical of how Riverside County has handled past elections said Wednesday that Tuesday's special election vote went smoothly with added accountability.
Temecula-based Save R Vote monitored Tuesday's election and praised Registrar Barbara Dunmore for putting a series of safeguards in place to maintain the integrity of cast ballots.
"This was the most improved, smoothest election that I have seen in seven elections," said Tom Courbat, the group's founder.
The safeguards came from an audit led by former district attorney Grover Trask.
The measures include adding a redesigned ballot statement that precinct workers fill out to account for ballots and signatures, adding a form at ballot collection centers for workers to report if there is something wrong with ballot boxes and installing two computer monitors at the registrar's headquarters for observers to monitor ballot counting.
"This proves they could do it in a big election. It didn't result in that much additional work," Courbat said. "It gives a higher degree of accountability."
Dunmore said Wednesday that the light turnout made the election a perfect time to unveil the new measures.
"We wanted to put them in place as quick as possible," she said. "We worked very hard on that."
Dunmore said she is pleased to hear that Save R Vote found the improvements well executed.
Still, the group remains critical of Riverside County for what it sees as the over use of electronic touch-screen voting machines.
"There's an agenda here, to prove people like electronic voting when given the choice.
It is not about liking. People like to drive 120 on the freeway, but it is not safe.
You cannot adequately secure these machines."
Secretary of State Debra Bowen decertified the use of touch-screen voting machines in 2007, citing security vulnerabilities. She then set conditions for their limited use.
In Tuesday's election, poll workers asked voters whether they wanted to use a paper ballot or an electronic machine.
"There's an agenda here, and the agenda here is to prove people like electronic voting when given the choice. It is not about liking," Courbat said. "People like to drive 120 on the freeway, but it is not safe. You cannot adequately secure these machines."
Courbat criticized the county for not informing voters at polling sites that there have been issues surrounding the machines.
Dunmore said her office must offer voters the choice. She said poll workers can't provide a history of the machines to each voter, and if voters have questions, they can contact her office. The use of electronic voting machines on Tuesday complied with election rules, she said.
"We did see precincts where there were more votes cast on the electronic voting unit than on paper ballots," Dunmore said. "That is a choice made by the voter." On Tuesday, there were 28,148 votes cast on electronic machines, about 41 percent of the ballots cast a precincts, Dunmore said.
Riverside County had at least three precincts, two in Corona and one in Murrieta, where all the votes were cast on the electronic machines, Dunmore said. Fifty-seven precincts didn't have any votes cast on electronic machines.
Reach Duane W. Gang at 951-368-9547 or dgang@PE.com
The following photos were taken on the night of the May 19, 2009 special election in Riverside County by Tom Courbat, as he made his rounds observing election procedures and conditions.
This photo guide to election monitoring explains the purpose of each election document or item pictured, commenting on recent improvements in election procedure, contrasted to the lax practices of the past, and pointing out where problems still persist.
Tom and the SAVE R VOTE group he founded have been thoroughly monitoring Riverside County elections for the past four years. Their repeated reports documenting serious breaks in the Riverside election system finally move the county Board of Supervisors to commission a countywide elections audit. Tom served as citizen advisor to the accounting firm hired to carry out the $300,000 review, which resulted in the Riverside County Elections Department finally implementing many of the procedural safeguards SAVE R VOTE had been advocating for years.
In the May 19th election, Tom was pleased to find Riverside's election procedures vastly improved as a result of the new policies adopted following the recommendations of the election auditing consultant and SAVE R VOTE.
Tom notes: "Many documents now contain the date and type of election on every page for the first time, as recommended by SAVE R VOTE (SRV). Previously, when pages were removed from a document for copying or scanning, there was no way to categorically state the page was from a specific election on a specific date."
Ballot Statement Instruction Sheet and Ballot Statement (left and right respectively).
Vastly improved from prior versions. The Ballot Statement is an official form required to be accurately completed by election workers following the close of polls and prior to sending all voting materials to collection centers. This form accounts for all regular and provisional paper ballots – blanks received, ballots spoiled, voted ballots, and unused ballots. It also accounts for all regular and provisional electronic ballots cast. SAVE R VOTE (SRV) had recommended numbering each line and constructing instructions accordingly. This was accomplished for the first time in the May 2009 Election.
HOWEVER, this form omits critical information, previously recorded in prior elections until a procedural change starting with the November 2008 election. The information that should be recorded on this form, but that is now missing, would compare information from the Voter Roster about how each voter cast their ballot, with the numbers of each type of ballot cast: electronic, electronic provisional, paper, or paper provisional. Without this comparison, there is no way to confirm that the voters who signed the roster as having cast a provisional electronic ballot, for example, actually did cast an electronic provisional ballot. The signature counts from the Voter Roster are simply “grossed up” to the total number of ballots cast, with no reference to the numbers of each type of ballot cast. So, for example, if more people voted on paper than signed up to do so, and fewer voted electronically than signed up to do so, the numbers could “balance” (one error offsets the other) but the discrepancy will not be noted, investigated, or reconciled. This is a step backwards.
Left side is the Certificate of Completion to be signed by all precinct board members and in the center is a small box to enter the number of voters who voted in that precinct. No changes were made to this form. Right side is a new Inspector’s Election Checklist for the precinct captain (inspector) to use to make sure all functions are performed. This is a great improvement and appears to be instituted by the ROV independently.
Precinct Posting Form. Compliance with completion and posting of this form in past elections had been very poor. This form reports critical information that enables citizens to check against central tabulator reports of ballots cast per precinct. The change for the May 19, 2009 Special Election was the addition of printed instructions on the form stating where/how to post the form and where the second copy is to go. Equally important was the insertion of letters (i.e. K, T, C & D) referring to the boxes on the Ballot Statement where the information is to be taken from. For the November 2008 Election, a color-coded sample was designed, as can be seen here. Although this sample of how to complete a precinct posting form seems clear enough, compliance in the November 2008 Election was still very poor. SRV believes the lettering of the boxes in May 2009 as recommended by SRV made the biggest difference by making it explicit where
information was to be taken from.
Illustration and instructions on how to complete the Voting Equipment Security Log. Another excellent improvement, this one recommended by the Management Review firm of Best, Best & Krieger (BB&K). The use of lettering lines and boxes, recommended by SRV, makes it much easier to follow the instructions. The form on the right side of the photo contains several checkmarks, indicating the seal may have been inspected at various points during Election Day. There should be some instructions or explanation for the multiple check marks and perhaps signing with initials should be required.
The electronic Results Cartridge (memory card) is placed in an unsealed clear plastic pouch and placed in the Voted Ballot carton along with the voted ballots and the carbon copy of the Ballot Statement. The Voted Ballot Carton is then sealed for delivery to the central counting location.
Tom Courbat, Founder, SAVE R VOTE
Save R Vote Delivers Critical Review of Riverside County Election Procedures
Report details election law violations, miscounts, security breaches in 2008 election
WHERE: Riverside County Board of Supervisors chambers, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA
WHEN: Tuesday April 14, 1:30 p.m. Live Video at 1:30: http://bosvideo.co.riverside.ca.us/ppportal/agenda/webcast.aspx
"Missing Pieces," a devastating citizen review of the 2008 presidential election conducted in Riverside County, CA, will be presented to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and the press today at 1:30 p.m. by SaveRVote founder and EDA Election Monitoring Coordinator Tom Courbat.
The presentation will be streamed live over the Internet via this URL: http://bosvideo.co.riverside.ca.us/ppportal/agenda/webcast.aspx
The report, prepared by Courbat and the citizen volunteers of the Save R Vote election monitoring organization, documents violations of election law and egregious failures by the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, Barbara Dunmore, and her departmental staff, to secure, track, or even properly count the ballots in the November 2008 presidential election.
Save R Vote volunteers on election day and night photographed evidence of election law violations, logged missing memory cards ("electronic ballot boxes"), and in their subsequent 5-month examination of Riverside County election records, found vote counting and ballot auditing errors in official county election reports numbering in the tens and even hundreds of thousands.
The exhaustively documented Missing Pieces report, presented in its entirety on the Election Defense Alliance website, consists of an executive summary, findings and recommendations, a slideshow of photographic evidence, and a spreadsheet analysis of oversized precincts exceeding legal limits.
SaveRVote concludes its report urging the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to commission an independent auditing firm to conduct a true forensic audit of the county's election canvass process, as well as a computer systems security audit of the county's Sequoia voting system by independent qualified experts. More than 120 citizen volunteers with SaveRVote examined 20,000 election documents in what is believed to be the most comprehensive forensic review ever performed on a single county election system.
April 14, 2009
"Missing Pieces," a devastating citizen review of the 2008 presidential election conducted in Riverside County, CA, will be presented to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and the press today at 1:30 p.m. by SaveRVote founder (and EDA Election Monitoring Coordinator) Tom Courbat.
(Proceedings will be streamed live over the Internet via this URL: http://bosvideo.co.riverside.ca.us/ppportal/agenda/webcast.aspx ).
The report, prepared by Courbat and the citizen volunteers of the SaveRVote election monitoring organization, documents violations of election law and egregious failures by the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, Barbara Dunmore, and her departmental staff, to secure, track, or even properly count the ballots in the November 2008 presidential election.
SaveRVote monitors on election day and night photographed evidence of election law violations, logged missing memory cards ("electronic ballot boxes"), and in their subsequent 5-month examination of Riverside County election records, found vote counting and ballot auditing errors in official county election reports numbering in the tens and even hundreds of thousands.
The exhaustively documented Missing Pieces report, presented in its entirety here on the EDA website, consists of an executive summary, findings and recommendations, a slideshow of photographic evidence, and a spreadsheet analysis of oversized precincts exceeding legal limits.
SaveRVote concludes its report urging the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to commission an independent auditing firm to conduct a true forensic audit of the county's election canvass process, as well as a computer systems security audit of the county's Sequoia voting system by independent qualified experts.
More than 120 citizen volunteers with SaveRVote examined 20,000 election documents in what is believed to be the most comprehensive forensic review ever performed on a single county election system.
Save R VoteA Project of Citizens for Democracy-Temecula Valley*
32204 Calle Resaca Dr.
Temecula, CA 92592
Democracy for America-Temecula Valley
changed its name in late 2007 to
Citizens for Democracy-Temecula Valley (CfD-TV)
but remains the same organization.
Resolution of Affiliation with Election Defense Alliance
Whereas the effectiveness of the EDA is directly proportional to the number of organizations affiliated with it, and
Whereas a primary purpose of EDA is to promote and support open, fair, legal, transparent and auditable elections, and
Whereas EDA has requested that as many organizations as possible with concerns about election integrity affiliate themselves with EDA, and
Whereas the goals of Democracy for America-Temecula Valley (DFA-TV) include open, fair, legal, transparent and auditable elections, and
Whereas the DFA-TV has an election integrity project entitled SAVE R VOTE, and
Whereas the goals of the EDA and the goals of DFA-TV are closely aligned,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
Democracy for America-Temecula Valley hereby officially affiliates itself with Election Defense Alliance.
Passed this 20th day of September, 2006 in Temecula, CA.*
Maxine Ewig -- Coordinator
Jerry Ewig -- Coordinator
-- Tom Courbat, Executve Director of SAVE R VOTE
A Brief History of Citizen Election Monitoring in Riverside County, CA
SAVE R VOTE
Accomplishments to Date, and Goals for November '08
1. Formed EOP
2. Precinct results posted at precincts
3. Stopped illegal transmissions over Internet
4. Monitored & reported on 5 elections
5. Trained about 100 volunteer observers
6. Required “Paper Ballots Available” posters
7. Motivated BOS to appoint Blue Ribbon group
8. Memory cards & ballots come in front door
9. Brought Hursti from Finland for Blue Ribbon
10. Enhanced chain of custody thru video evidence
11. Video surveillance now in warehouse
12. Stopped ROV entry of paper votes into DREs
13. 1% tally random draw same day as tally
14. Halogen lights now at collection centers
15. Wider voting booths for wheelchairs
1. Video of any element except voter i.d.
Goals for November ‘08
2. HCPB or DIOS scanners in precincts
3. Observers in central tabulator room
4. Full viewing of EVERY election part
5. Criminal background checks - inspectors
6. Exit polls at select locations
Attached is the California Voter Registration Information as set forth in Making the List, Database Matching and Verification Processes for Voter Registration as published by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University on March 24, 2006. This document contains available information about voter regtistration current as of the date of publication.
Federal law now requires, as of January 1, 2006, that states create and maintain statewide databases to serve as the central source of voter registration information. Citizens’ ability to get on the rolls (and thus their ability to vote and have their votes counted) will now depend on the policies and procedures governing the use of these databases in the voter registration process. Evidence demonstrates that poor policy and procedure choices could result in the unwarranted disenfranchisement of millions of eligible citizens attempting to register to vote. The new statewide databases, and their role in the voter registration process, are poorly understood, but extremely consequential.
This Making the List report, issued just as the state databases begin to come online, presents the first comprehensive catalog of the widely varying state database practices governing how (and in some cases, whether) individuals seeking to register will be placed on the voter rolls. The report covers the state’s voter registration process, from the application form up through Election Day - including the intake of registration forms, the manner in which information from the forms may be matched to other government lists, the consequences of the match process, and any opportunity to correct errors. Each variation at each step of the process has tangible consequences for voters seeking to register and vote in 2006 and beyond.
IMPORTANT: Because of the possibility that voter information may differ from database to database (abbreviations, street designations, etc.) or because of data entry errors, valid voter registration data may be rejected. Individual voters are urged to contact their county clerk or local election board to determine that they are properly registered. Many such election authorities maintain online services for this purpose, other will require a telephone call or perhaps a written inquiry to determine the voter's eligibility.
As an addendum to this state report, a fill-in form for voter registration is presented which can be completed, printed and sent to the appropriate registratrar of voters (generally the county Clerk or local election board). The proper form of submission and location is included on the registration form.
This project demonstrates the power of organized citizen action in the movement for election integrity. In Riverside County near San Diego, CA, a group of more than 60 citizens involved in the Temecula Valley DFA took steps to observe, record, and report on every aspect of their county's election system and functioning during the June 6, 2006 primary.
The process revealed many alarming problems, all of which are documented in their 13-page report linked below.
Since then, SAVE R VOTE has continued to expand and refine their monitoring procedures, and most recently fielded over 100 volunteers on Super Tuesday 2008 monitoring 50 precincts in sprawling Riverside County, CA.
SAVE R VOTE has compiled and updated their thorough training manual, which you can download from this link: http://electiondefensealliance.org/files/SaveRVote_Election_Monitoring_G...
One of the group's leaders, EDA Election Monitoring Co-coordinator Tom Courbat, spoke at DemFest in San Diego, 2006 (see EDA TV clip linked below).
Tom has some jaw-dropping revelations about the ways Riverside election officials reinterpret the election code at their convenience; for example, making an "administrative decision" to disregard the state law requiring posting of precinct totals, and inventing another administrative fiat resulting in exposure of individual voters' ballot choices.
Unfortunately, such violations breaching election security are common practice, not rare exceptions, and will only continue unless citizens call election administrators to public account.
Please read about this powerful citizen effort and then take a stand for fair elections by systematically monitoring the election procedures in your county. This is a big job-- so form a group! Joining the EDA Election Monitoring Working Group is a good way to learn from others with experience.
Related article: The complete report, Citizen Exit Polls in Los Angeles County: An In-Depth Analysis, by R. H. Phillips
Was California's Proposition 8 Election Rigged?
By Sally Castleman and Jonathan Simon
This report presents evidence that in the November 2008 election the tabulation of the vote for California’s Proposition 8, the ballot initiative repealing marriage equality, was probably corrupted. It is beyond the scope of this study to know if any corruption was due to honest error or intentional fraud. Further investigation is warranted.
Much media attention has been focused on California over the past several years regarding gay marriage, abortion, and other hot-button social issues. In November 2008, two such issues appeared on the California ballot: Proposition 8 outlawed marriage equality (a “yes” vote opposed same-sex marriage); Proposition 4 mandated a waiting period and parental notification before non-emancipated minors were allowed an abortion (similar measures had been defeated twice before).
Election Defense Alliance, a national nonprofit group dedicated to restoring integrity and public accountability to the electoral processes, worked with several other election integrity groups to conduct public election verification exit polls (“EVEP”) in eight states in November. The polls were meant to validate or detect problems with the official vote counts. Ten sites, representing 19 precincts, were located in Los Angeles County, California. This paper presents the analysis of the L.A. County polling results as they pertain to Proposition 8.