Northern NY News
Written by Nathan Barker
Tuesday, 01 December 2009
A Summary of our coverage of the problems and pitfalls in New York's 2009 Special Election. ImageCast electronic voting machines were used in many districts under a New York State "Pilot Program" causing myriad errors and problems with the election results. Our exclusive coverage of these issues, in chronological order:
Virus in the Voting Machines: Tainted Results in NY-23 by Nathan Barker
Voting Machines Used were Not Certified by Nathan Barker
Statement from the NYS Board of Elections
Fact Check: The Gouverneur Times vs. NYS Board of Elections
Ghost in the Machine by Scott A. Reddick
Updated December 2nd, 2009: Impossible Numbers Certified in NY-23 by Richard Hayes Phillips Ph.D.
First the Impossible, Now the Improbable in NY-23 by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
NY-23, Sequoia, and the Private Corporate Takeover of your Once-Public Democracy by Brad Friedman
Letter to the Editor on NY-23 Election Results by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
December 1st, 2009: Because Your Vote Should Count by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
December 2nd, 2009: False Vote Counts in Four Counties in NY-23 by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
3rd in a series
For related articles, click topic link NY23
Hoffman Votes Switched to Other Candidates
False Vote Counts in Four Counties in NY-23Northern NY News
by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
Dec. 3, 2009
CANTON, NY – It is now widely known that zero votes were initially reported for Doug Hoffman in numerous election districts in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. What has not been previously reported is that these votes were shifted to other candidates. While most of these counts were corrected during recanvassing, they never should have been reported in the first place.
This vote switching is best illustrated in Madison County, where the Board of Elections (to its credit) released, for each election district (or precinct), its preliminary results, before the recanvass, and its final results, as certified to the State. A comparison of the two reveals what really happened on Election Night.
In the initial vote count, Hoffman got zero votes in three election districts in Madison County. In Fenner, the count was 157 for Owens, 248 for Scozzafava, and zero for Hoffman. In Hamilton’s 3rd district, the count was 75 for Owens, 79 for Scozzafava, and zero for Hoffman. In Sullivan’s 2nd district, the count was 173 for Owens, 251 for Scozzafava, and zero for Hoffman.
Somebody should have noticed this. On Election Night, Scozzafava was awarded 578 of 983, or 58.8%, of the votes in these three districts, while winning only 583 of 16,770, or 3.5%, of the votes in the rest of the county. This illustrates perfectly why election results need to be released at the precinct or district level.
These numbers were corrected during recanvassing of the results, and absentee ballots have since been added to the totals. In Fenner, the certified count is 159 for Owens, 242 for Hoffman, and 21 for Scozzafava. In Hamilton’s 3rd district, the certified count is 76 for Owens, 77 for Hoffman, and 4 for Scozzafava. In Sullivan’s 2nd district, the certified count is 174 for Owens, 250 for Hoffman, and 11 for Scozzafava. This amounts to a gain of 4 votes for Owens, a gain of 569 votes for Hoffman, and a net loss of 542 votes for Scozzafava.
Vote Counts Were SwitchedThe Board of Elections has attributed the false initial numbers to human error. Poll workers mistakenly read the wrong line on the computer tape, or so the story goes. But votes were not only denied to Hoffman; they were delivered to Scozzafava. What obviously happened is that vote counts were switched. Hoffman’s tallies on the Conservative Party line were given to Scozzafava, and Scozzafava’s tallies on the Independence Party line were given to Hoffman. If all of Scozzafava’s 36 rightful votes in these three districts were on the Republican Party line, the result would be false tallies of zero votes for Hoffman.
Thus, for the “human error” explanation to be true, poll workers in three different polling places must have made the same two mistakes.
Also in Madison County there were two other districts with egregious errors that somebody should have noticed:
* In Nelson’s 1st district, Hoffman was awarded 100 extra votes on Election Night. This is obvious because, after the counting of absentee ballots, Hoffman’s count has decreased by 93 votes; and because the revised total of 336 votes counted for Congress more closely resembles the other contests in this district, the next highest number of votes counted being 333 votes for County Sheriff. Unfortunately, the numbers for “blank” ballots are not reported, so we have no way of knowing the number of actual voters without auditing the poll books and the absentee voter lists.
* In Georgetown, all the votes were double-counted on Election Night. This is obvious because the initial count was 178 for Owens, 28 for Scozzafava, and 284 for Hoffman; and the certified count is 91 for Owens, 16 for Scozzafava, and 149 for Hoffman. If the initial count is divided in half and subtracted from the certified count, the remainder represents the absentee ballots: 2 for Owens, 2 for Scozzafava, and 7 for Hoffman. By comparison, the certified count is 256 votes for Congress, and 260 for County Sheriff.
Countywide, the initial count for Madison County, reported on the morning after the election by the Watertown Daily Times, was 7743 for Owens, 8110 for Hoffman, and 1128 for Scozzafava. With corrections and adjustments made, and absentee ballots counted, the final (certified) count is now 8290 for Owens, 9155 for Hoffman, and 724 for Scozzafava. Thus, Hoffman’s lead of 367 votes on Election Night has grown to 865 votes – a net gain of 498.
For Oneida County, at 11:50 P.M. on Election Night, the Albany Times-Union posted these vote tallies: 3510 for Owens, 2432 for Hoffman, and 274 for Scozzafava. Owens was reportedly winning Oneida County by 1078 votes, with 56% of the total. The next morning, the Watertown Daily Times reported very different numbers: 2024 for Owens, 2779 for Hoffman, and 362 for Scozzafava. Owens was now losing Oneida County by 755 votes, with only 39% of the total. This represents an overnight reversal of 1833 votes. But by that time, Hoffman had already conceded the election.
Preliminary precinct results obtained a few days after the election contained no votes from Lee’s 2nd and 5th districts. The partial results from elsewhere in the county match what was reported in the Watertown Daily Times, so these were the only two districts not reporting.
But even the corrected partial results were incorrect. In Camden’s 2nd district, the Board of Elections was still reporting 100 (74%) for Owens, 23 (17%) for Scozzafava, and 12 (9%) for Hoffman. Somebody should have noticed this. By comparison, Hoffman’s lowest percentage anywhere else in the county was 43% in Boonville’s 4th district. In Camden’s other two districts, Hoffman received 66% and 67% of the vote.
Vote-Switching MethodologyThe Camden example demonstrates clearly the methodology for vote switching. Hoffman was awarded 12 votes, not zero. These votes had to come from somewhere. The simplest explanation is that Hoffman’s tally on the Conservative Party line was given to Owens, and Owens’ tally on the Working Families Party line was given to Hoffman, who suffered a net loss of at least 75 votes. If these votes were shifted not to Scozzafava but to Owens, the other leading candidate, the margin was affected by 150 votes.
Whether these numbers from Camden’s 2nd district have been corrected is not certain, because Oneida County has not released its final precinct results. The final countywide results show 2243 for Owens, 3225 for Hoffman, and 459 for Scozzafava, which represent, since the corrected partial results reported the morning after the election, gains of 219 votes for Owens, 446 votes for Hoffman, and 97 votes for Scozzafava. Either way, Hoffman’s countywide percentage has grown from 39% on Election Night to 54% today.
The Oneida County Board of Elections has confirmed that optical scanners were used only in the Town of Marcy. Lever machines were used elsewhere. Thus it seems likely that the numbers from Camden’s 2nd district would have been corrected during recanvassing, because the true ballot positions that correspond with the vote tallies are plainly visible on a lever machine.
In Jefferson County, Sean M. Hennessey, Democratic elections commissioner, said that poll inspectors in four districts reported that Hoffman had received zero votes after inadvertently reading the wrong line of the poll system’s printout. Hennessey said that results in some other districts were either incorrectly relayed by the poll worker or incorrectly typed by the part-time staff answering phones at the Jefferson County Board of Elections office.
'Altogether, vote switching in four counties
altered the reported margin between Owens and Hoffman by an estimated 2,650 votes.
And this is only what we know about. . . .
With concealed electronic vote counting, partial shifts of the vote count
could occur without a trace, and not be readily apparent in the election results.
And yet the New York State Board of Elections is expected to certify these election results
and the untrustworthy machines that produced them.'
The initial vote count reported in the Watertown Daily Times was 9996 for Owens, 9439 for Hoffman, and 1155 for Scozzafava. By the time the Jefferson County Board of Elections provided its preliminary precinct results to one of the involved campaigns, three days after the election, the zero vote counts had been corrected in all four districts. The corrected preliminary results were 10,238 for Owens, 10,358 for Hoffman, and 1179 for Scozzafava. This represented net gains of 242 votes for Owens, 919 for Hoffman, and 24 for Scozzafava, and a change of 677 votes in the countywide margin. The combined increase of 1185 votes (5.8%) indicates that not all districts had reported their results when the Watertown Daily Times went to press, and suggests that vote shifting had altered the margin by about 640 votes. But more importantly, the ratio of the newly counted votes (Hoffman got 78% of them, Owens 20%, and Scozzafava 2%) indicates that, in the four districts with the zero vote counts, most of Hoffman’s votes had gone to Owens. The “tally sheets” from these four election districts should tell the tale.
But even the corrected preliminary results were not correct.
Click NY 23 tag for related articles
Commentaryby Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
Tuesday, 01 December 2009
For nearly a century, as long as most of us can remember, lever machines have been used for voting in elections throughout New York State. They have proved durable and reliable. The votes have been counted at the polling place, in public, with the tallied numbers in plain view for all to see. Any errors in reporting have been easily corrected by simply looking at “odometers” on the machines.
This fall, for the first time, as a “pilot” program, optical scanners were substituted for lever machines in much of the state, including most of the 23rd Congressional District, and problems with the vote count emerged on an unprecedented scale.
In at least four counties, the initial vote counts reported on Election Night were so far from the truth as to cause a candidate to concede prematurely. Having never before witnessed such unreliable numbers, he doubted not the vote count, but his own ability to draw enough supporters to the polls.
'All of the shifting of votes from one Congressional candidate to another
hurt Hoffman and helped an opponent.
So far as I know, the vote shifting that occurred in these counties
was never once to Hoffman’s benefit.'
It is not entirely clear how this vote switching happened. The Boards of Elections tend to blame the poll workers for misreading the computer printouts. But votes were not only denied to Hoffman; his votes were delivered to his opponents. For the “human error” explanation to be true, poll workers in more than a dozen polling places must have made the same two mistakes.
Perhaps the machines themselves reported the false numbers, or perhaps the votes were deliberately shifted in an attempt to run up a high enough margin on Election Night to get Hoffman to concede. A forensic examination of the computer tapes and the “tally sheets” from the affected polling places should tell the tale.
This is not idle speculation. The vote counts in these districts make clear that thousands of votes were affected. And this is only what we know about. With concealed electronic vote counting, partial shifts of the vote count could occur without a trace, and not be readily apparent in the election results.
Most, perhaps all, of the false counts reported on Election Night may have been corrected during recanvassing, especially in Oneida County where lever machines were still used. But that is not the point. The results reported on Election Night should never have been so terribly wrong in the first place.
Perhaps these alterations of the vote count were not of such magnitude as to reverse the outcome of the election. But that is not the point. Thousands of votes were not counted as cast. We were denied our most fundamental right in what passes for a democracy.
The short-term remedy is to call this federally funded, court-ordered, “pilot” election
an utter failure, and bring back the lever machines that served us so well for so long.'
But I have seen enough to be convinced that not all of the false numbers can be attributed to “human error.” All of the shifting of votes from one Congressional candidate to another hurt Hoffman and helped an opponent. So far as I know, the vote shifting that occurred in these counties was never once to Hoffman’s benefit.
The short-term remedy is to call this federally funded, court-ordered, “pilot” election an utter failure, and bring back the lever machines that served us so well for so long. If a states’ rights movement is required to bring this about, so be it.
The long-term remedy is to question the very system that presumed to tell us how to run our elections. This country belongs to the people, not to the federal government. All New Yorkers, regardless of party affiliation, should demand a transparent, reliable vote count. Our only power is our right to vote. And if our votes are not counted as cast, then we have nothing. We are powerless and disenfranchised, and we don’t live the lives we think we do.
Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D., is one of the leading election fraud investigators in the United States. His book on the 2004 Ohio election, Witness to a Crime: A Citizens’ Audit of an American Election, based on examination of some 30,000 photographs of actual ballots, poll books, and other election records, is available at http://www.witnesstoacrime.com
Updated 23rd District Election CountsNorthern NY News
Written by Nathan Barker
Monday, 16 November 2009 15:36
GOUVERNEUR, NY - Today (Nov. 16th) was the final day for absentee ballots to be received in New York's 23rd District Special Congressional Election. Already three counties have completed the final vote counts, and Hamilton County has already certified those counts to the State Board of Elections.
* - These counties are reporting final counts with absentee ballots included.
With three counties' absentee ballots included, Doug Hoffman now trails Bill Owens by 2,856 votes.
Our counts as of this afternoon show an additional 5798 absentee votes as yet uncounted.
Jefferson County began counting their 1304 returned absentee ballots this morning.
Clinton and Essex Counties have begun counts and expect to have final results before Friday.
Franklin County, St. Lawrence County, and Oswego County do not anticipate a completed absentee count until early next week.
Fulton County results are now included.
Lewis County Board of Election representatives were unavailable early this morning.
Check this page daily for the most current results available.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 16:14
2nd in a series
Click NY23 tag to see all related stories.
First the Impossible, Now the Improbable, in NY-23Northern NY News
by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
Friday, 27 November 2009 12:14
Editor's Note: Based on additional information provided by the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections, Dr. Phillips revised this article to improve clarity and accuracy.
CANTON, NY – As reported last week, impossible numbers were found in the St. Lawrence County election results for the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. Ninety-three (93) “phantom votes,” more votes counted than the number of ballots cast, were reported in six election districts, and negative numbers reported for the “blank ballots,” or “undervotes.”
These were not the certified results. The author deeply regrets having said that they were. The numbers, which the Board of Elections attributes to data entry errors, have since been corrected. However, scrutiny of the certified election results reveals numerous districts (precincts) where the results, although not always mathematically impossible, are not credible.
'The court-ordered 'pilot' election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District was an utter failure . .
. . . the time-tested lever machines were much more reliable.'
On Friday, November 6, three days after the election, one of the involved campaigns obtained from the Board of Elections a spreadsheet of the preliminary (unofficial) election results, precinct by precinct. Absentee ballots had not yet been counted. This serves as an important “snapshot” with which to compare the final (certified) results.
As previously reported, voting machine failures at eight polling places in St. Lawrence County caused the Board of Elections to hand count those ballots. Realistically, there was no other choice but to do so. According to the Board, the locked voting machines were transported to a warehouse in Canton where the ballots were counted by hand. The problem with this procedure is that it is illegal under § 9-100 of New York State Election Law, which requires that the votes be counted at the polling place:
§ 9-100 At the close of the polls the inspectors of election shall, in the order set forth herein, lock the machine against voting, account for the paper ballots, canvass the machine, cast and canvass all the ballots, canvass and ascertain the total vote and they shall not adjourn until the canvass be fully completed.
Onondaga County optical scanner
An audit of the poll books and absentee voter lists for three of these eight polling places reveals that the preliminary hand count could not have been correct. In Louisville, there were 885 actual voters at the polls, but only 691 votes were counted for Congress on Election Night. In Waddington, there were 754 actual voters at the polls, but only 347 votes were counted for Congress on Election Night. In Rossie, there were 138 actual voters at the polls, but only 94 votes were counted for Congress on Election Night. 53 votes were counted later. Bill Owens got 50 of them.
One possible reason for the short counts on Election Night is that the Sequoia/Dominion ImageCast machines have two slots and two bins for ballots. There is a slot which sucks a ballot into the optical scanner, much like a dollar bill is sucked into a vending machine, and after the ballot is scanned it drops into a locked box. There is another slot in the front of the machine which can be opened when the scanner breaks down and emergency paper ballots need to be segregated and counted by hand; these ballots drop into a separate locked box. It is possible that the Board of Elections initially counted the ballots from one box but not the other. But this is precisely why § 9-102.3(b) of New York State Election Law requires that the ballots be counted in public at the polling place, and why § 9-108.1 requires that the number of ballots be cross-checked with the poll books to be sure that all the ballots have been counted.
Ballots Should Be Counted in Public
§ 9-102.3(b) Paper ballots and emergency ballots cast during voting machine breakdowns which have been voted shall then be canvassed and tallied, the vote thereon for each candidate and ballot proposal, announced and added to the vote as recorded on the return of canvass.
§ 9-108.1 The board of inspectors, at the beginning of the canvass, shall count the ballots found in each ballot box without unfolding them, except so far as to ascertain that each ballot is single, and shall compare the number of ballots found in each box with the number shown by the registration poll records, and the ballot returns to have been deposited therein.
Another problem with these voting machines is that it is mechanically possible to open both ballot slots, and both locked boxes, even while the optical scanner is operating. This opens the possibility that ballots could be deposited into the wrong ballot box, inadvertently or deliberately, and never be counted. An eyewitness who voted at the only polling place in Russell told me that she was not allowed to place her own ballot in the machine; a poll worker examined her ballot and placed it into the machine for her. This caused her to be concerned about both the privacy of her vote and the security of the vote count.
Blank Ballots Beyond BeliefAs previously reported, the number of “blank” ballots, or “undervotes,” is calculated by subtracting the number of votes counted for a given office from the total number of ballots cast. In the Congressional race, the highest percentage of “blank” ballots anywhere in St. Lawrence County was in Russell’s 2nd district. According to the poll book there were 590 actual voters at the polls, and there were 11 absentee ballots, for a total of 601, in Russell’s 1st and 2nd districts combined. According to the certified results there were 338 ballots cast, of which 23 (6.8%) were blank, in the 1st district, and 262 ballots cast, of which 27 (10.3%) were blank, in the 2nd district. It is highly unlikely that 10.3% of the voters made no choice among three candidates in one of the most hotly contested races in the nation.
Northern NY News
Virus in the Voting Machines: Tainted Results in NY-23
Written by Nathan Barker
Thursday, 19 November 2009 12:44
GOUVERNEUR, NY - The computerized voting machines used by many voters in the 23rd district had a computer virus - tainting the results, not just from those machines known to have been infected, but casting doubt on the accuracy of counts retrieved from any of the machines.
Cathleen Rogers, the Democratic Elections Commissioner in Hamilton County stated that they discovered a problem with their voting machines the week prior to the election and that the "virus" was fixed by a Technical Support representative from Dominion, the manufacturer. The Dominion/Sequoia Voting Systems representative "reprogrammed" their machines in time for them to use in the Nov. 3rd Special Election. None of the machines (from the same manufacturer) used in the other counties within the 23rd district were looked at nor were they recertified after the "reprogramming" that occurred in Hamilton County.
'Whether the erroneous results are computer error, or tampering,
significant doubt now exists with regard to the accuracy of the vote counts from November 3rd . . . A manual paper-ballot recount of the vote could resolve computer vote accuracy questions.'
At least one County official thus far has raised concern that it's possible that ALL of the machines used in the NY-23 election had the 'virus' but only a few malfunctioned as a result. The counts from any district that used the ImageCast machines are suspect due to "the virus" discovered in Hamilton County, last-minute "reprogramming" by Dominion workers, and security flaws in the systems themselves. A manual paper-ballot recount of the vote could resolve computer vote accuracy questions.
Frank Hoar, an attorney for the Democratic Party, initially ordered the impound of malfunctioning machines but released the order on Nov. 5th so that Bill Owens could be sworn in to Congress in time to vote on the House Health bill on November 7th. Pahler said that once the impound order was released they opened the locked ballot box and had the ballots scanned. Pahler also stated that after they were able to get data from the malfunctioning machines, they did a hand-count of the ballots as well to ensure that the counts matched. Even though not required to, both commissioners in St. Lawrence County agreed that the manual count was necessary due to the malfunctions
The machines themselves are languishing at the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections until after the election results have been certified to the state on November 28th, 2009. Pahler indicated that they have not yet been able to examine the machines to determine why they malfunctioned. A qualified technician would be able to verify the presence of a virus in the computers, but, other than the infected machines, no security precautions were taken to ensure chain of custody on the remaining computerized voting machines utilized in the 23rd district.
This article was based upon unofficial results provided to the author by the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections in a .pdf file on the same day that the election results were certified. These were not the certified results, and the author deeply regrets having said that they were.
Five days after the publication of this article, the Board of Elections provided an .xls spreadsheet of the certified results, district by district, in which only the numbers for ballots cast and blank ballots had been changed; and a .pdf file, dated Monday, November 30th, with numbers for blank ballots inserted, district by district. The changes in the numbers for ballots cast are duly noted in this revised article.
The Board of Elections has stated that only the numbers for “blank ballots” were computer generated in the original .pdf file, and that the “whole number” of ballots cast for each election district was entered manually. The data entry program then automatically subtracted the vote counts for each of the candidates and the remainder would appear in the final column as “blank ballots.” In these six election districts (and perhaps others), data entry errors were made in the first column, for “whole number” of ballots cast, which resulted in the erroneous numbers in the final column, for “blank ballots."
Impossible Numbers in NY-23Northern NY News
by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
CANTON, NY – The election results certified by the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections for New York’s 23rd Congressional District did not contain the mathematically impossible numbers reported here last week. Those were not the certified results, and the author deeply regrets having said that they were.
For six election districts in St. Lawrence County (the 2nd, 4th, 6th and 7th districts in Canton, the 14th district in Massena, and the 2nd district in Oswegatchie) negative numbers had appeared in the unofficial results, in the column for “blank” ballots, known in other states as “undervotes.”
Blank vote counts are ballots in which the voter did not choose any candidate in a given election and are determined by subtracting the total number of votes cast for the candidates from the number of voters who completed ballots. The remaining number would be those voters who didn’t cast a vote for that election.
In Canton’s 7th district, the unofficial results showed a total of 148 ballots cast. The results of those votes were counted as 88 votes for Owens, 11 votes for Scozzafava, and 80 votes for Hoffman. The problem was that these numbers add up to 179 votes counted for the candidates, and the unofficial results reported only 148 ballots cast; so the number of ‘blank’ ballots appeared as -31.
Election analysts refer to this phenomenon as “phantom voters,” because they are apparitions. They do not actually exist. There can never be more votes counted for any office than the number of actual voters who cast ballots. There could be one or two, if on occasion an actual voter forgot to sign the poll book, but never 31.
“Phantom votes” can be introduced into the system.
The computer can be programmed to add votes to one candidate’s total,
and the unsuspecting Board of Elections
will dutifully subtract all the candidates’ vote counts from the total ballots cast,
report the remainder as “blank votes,” all the numbers will add up perfectly,
and no one will be the wiser –
except, of course, if negative numbers turn up in the column for “blank votes.”
A “phantom vote,” which is a vote counted with no ballot cast, is the opposite of a “blank vote” or “undervote,” which is a ballot cast with no vote counted. They cancel each other out. Thus, if “phantom votes” are allowed into a vote counting system, they can be masked if there are fewer of them than the number of “blank votes” or “undervotes.”
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.
This section of the Topics division includes reports and analyses of various proposals for election auditing methods.
NEW, June 1, 2008:
Presentation by R. H. Phillips at the "Building a New World" Conference, Radford, VA, May 24, 2008
As an introduction to the subject of election auditing, EDA recommends this essay by Richard Hayes Phillips, What Constitutes an Election Audit? With the help of Ohio volunteers, Phillips conducted an audit of the actual ballots cast in the 2004 Ohio presidential elecion, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 2004 election was stolen in Ohio.