Sequoia Voting Systems

'Future of Voting in California' Hearing, Sacramento, Feb. 8

Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:00am - 4:00pm
Just learned of this.  Not sure there has been any widespread public announcement by SoS office.

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:

--Dan Ashby

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

Jennnie Bretsclmeider
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
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

Dan Ashby
Co-Founder, Director

EDA mail:

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

Court Orders Re-Evaluation of New Jersey E-voting Machines


N.J.'s 11K Electronic Voting Machines Ordered  Re-evaluated to Determine Accuracy, Reliability

By Jeanette M. Rundquist
February 01, 2010, 8:22PM

TRENTON -- New Jersey’s 11,000 voting machines must be re-evaluated by a qualified panel of experts to determine whether they are "accurate and reliable," a Superior Court judge ruled today, in a case challenging the validity of computerized voting machines that do not produce a paper record.

All voting machines and vote tally transmitting systems must be disconnected from the Internet; all people who work with them, and third-party vendors who examine or transport the machines, must undergo criminal background checks; and the state must put in place a protocol for inspecting voting machines, to ensure they have not been tampered with, ruled Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg in Mercer County.

She did not, however, go one step further and enforce a 2005 state statute requiring that all voting machines in New Jersey produce a voter-verified paper ballot.


Technician James Kaufman checks out a back-up voting
in a Belleville warehouse
in this November 2009 file photo. 

"I am disappointed the court did not take the step of mandating a voter-verified paper trail or scrapping the electronic machines altogether," said Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Princeton Borough) one of a group of Mercer County residents who brought the suit against the state.

The suit was brought five and half years ago by plaintiffs who wanted to improve election security in New Jersey. The plaintiffs, including a voter who said, after casting her ballot in 2004, she received no indication her vote was recorded, charged the state’s touch-screen machines were vulnerable to tampering that could allow vote fraud.

E-Vendors Dominate "Future of California Voting" Hearing

Source: Capital Public Radio, KXJZ Sacramento, CA

California's Electronic Voting Booths Need An Upgrade But It Won't Be Cheap

Aired 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


CA-SoS-panel-future-voting-020810Two statewide elections are coming up later this year but local elections officials say they’re working with outdated electronic voting booths. 

Private companies that sell the equipment say the state and counties would be better off buying new systems rather than trying to modernize the old equipment.

That would require millions of dollars that governments don’t have right now.

At a public hearing on the issue in Sacramento, some citizens urged the officials to get rid of electronic voting, period.

Photo: Steve Shadley, Capital Public Radio

Tom Courbat is with the Riverside County group Save Our Vote:

“We’re not convinced there is enough security in these voting systems to justify continuing to purchase them. We have seen demonstrations over and over again of machines being hacked...”

Courbat says it would be more secure if voters cast paper ballots that would be counted by hand.  
But advocates for the disabled say not everyone can fill out a paper ballot.

Sequoia Claims Victory, But State Exam May Find to Contrary


Voting Machine Ruling a Victory, Says Sequoia

By Meir Rinde
February 02, 2010, 6:26PM

The maker of New Jersey’s voting machines is hailing a Superior Court ruling on the security of the devices as a victory, while the lawyer who sued to have the machines discarded said she still expects state experts to find they have serious flaws.

Sequoia Voting Systems “is exceedingly pleased with the court’s decision that affirms what Sequoia and our customers throughout New Jersey and the United States have long known and experienced — that our voting equipment is indeed safe, accurate and reliable,” CEO Jack A. Blaine said in a press release.

In her ruling Monday, Mercer County Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg acknowledged that New Jersey has used Sequoia systems for over 15 years without finding any evidence that an election has been compromised through manipulation of the machines, the firm said.


“If the judge thought their machines were really great,
she would not have said a panel of computer experts has to look at them
and has the option of finding them not fit for use” 
-- Penny Venetis, plaintiffs' attorney



The Colorado-based company highlighted a number of other favorable findings. Feinberg agreed that the mere possibility of criminal tampering with the machines was not sufficient to restrict their use, that during normal use they are “safe, accurate and reliable,” and that paperless voting does not violate voters’ rights.

The company said it supports measures Feinberg ordered the state to undertake, including keeping the machines disconnected from the Internet, monitoring them using video cameras or other means and instituting security training for municipal clerks and other officials.

Feinberg also ordered the state to have a reformulated panel of computer experts report on the machines’ reliability within 120 days, a decision that plaintiffs said could still lead to the machines being scrapped or retrofitted to produce an auditable paper record.

Sequoia said it was happy with the decision nonetheless.

“We look forward to the review of the (Sequoia) voting equipment by New Jersey’s expanded certification panel and working cooperatively with this group,” Blaine said.

Two members of the three-person committee that evaluates the state’s voting machines will be replaced to satisfy the judge’s order, said Paul Loriquet, a spokesman for the Attorney General’s office, which represented the Division of Elections in the suit.

The court called for “reexamining that committee and hiring two mechanical experts who have expertise in hardware and software,” he said. “The Division of Elections is in the process of finding replacements to carry out this mission.”

Division officials were “delighted” that Feinberg found no constitutional violations and that the machines met legal requirements, Loriquet said.

Penny Venetis, the Rutgers law professor who sued the state in 2004 on behalf of Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Ewing, and other plaintiffs, said Sequoia failed to acknowledge that Feinberg had deferred to the state on the machines’ fate, rather than simply upholding their use.

“If the judge thought their machines were really great, she would not have said a panel of computer experts has to look at them and has the option of finding them not fit for use,” she said yesterday.

Venetis said it was unfair to say the state’s 11,000 voting machines have been free of problems, since the plaintiffs’ experts were only able to examine two of the machines, and then only after a lengthy legal battle.

If members of the reconstituted state panel conduct an objective examination, “they are going to agree with our world-class computer voting experts that these machines cannot be used,” she said.

She also dismissed the Sequoia argument, which Feinberg accepted, that manipulating the machines by installing a computer chip or other tampering would take too long to pose a real threat.

“To think somebody wouldn’t spend six months doing something that is fairly easy to do to alter an election is naïve, considering how much effort is put into placing a candidate on the ballot,” Venetis said.

Contact Meir Rinde at or (609) 989-5717.

New Jersey Voting and Elections News

Suit Prompts New Jersey to Reinvent Voting System New York Times, NY - Mar 19, 2007 By Ronald Smothers. TRENTON, NJ March 19 — With the reliability of the state’s electronic voting machines on trial in Superior Court and under the gaze of the ...
Judge urges state to raise bar on electronic voting machines Newark Star Ledger, NJ - 22 hours ago
BY Kevin Coughlin. Volunteers who approve electronic voting machines in New Jersey lack technical savvy and rely too much on vendors to explain how the ...
Judge: Electronic voting machine advisors needed
Newark Star Ledger, NJ - Mar 19, 2007
A state judge voiced concerns today that state volunteers who approve electronic voting machines lack technical expertise and must rely too heavily on ...

Sequoia Machines Hacked, Suit Filed to Decertify in NJ

Original source:

N.J. voting machines face twin challenge

A lawyer calls them uncertified. A professor calls them easy to rig

Sunday, February 11, 2007

The electronic voting machines used in most of New Jersey were never properly inspected as state law demands, according to a new legal claim filed by voter rights activists. Had the machines been tested, they would have proved to be a hacker's dream, the activists say. This week Newark attorney Penny Venetis, representing a coalition of plaintiffs, will ask a judge in Trenton to decommission machines used by 18 of the state's 21 counties.

Similar models of the computerized touch-screen machines made by an Oakland, Calif., company, Sequoia, are currently being tested by a Princeton University computer scientist, who says they easily could be rigged to throw an election. Venetis filed legal papers Friday claiming the state never certified some 10,000 Sequoia AVC Advantage machines as secure or reliable as required by law.

"There is zero documentation -- no proof whatsoever -- that any state official has ever reviewed Sequoia machines," Venetis, co-director of the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic, said in an interview. "This means you cannot use them. ... These machines are being used to count most of the votes in the state without being tested in any way, shape or form."

If Mercer County Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg agrees with Venitis to pull the plug on the electronic machines, it will create a giant headache for state election officials, who already are struggling to meet a January 2008 deadline to retrofit all voting machines with paper printouts. The state would have to find a way to recertify or replace them -- or come up with a lot of pencils and paper ballots -- in time for April school elections.

A spokesman for the state Division of Elections had no comment. The problem goes beyond a lack of documentation, according to Andrew Appel, a Princeton computer science professor. Appel bought five Sequoia machines for a total of $82 from a government auction Web site last month. Sold by officials in Buncombe County, N.C., after a decade of use, they are virtually identical to the machines Essex County bought for $8,000 apiece in 2005, Appel said.

For Appel, it was a lucky find. Sequoia and other voting companies have refused to let academic experts peek inside their proprietary software and machines. Appel had to submit only minimal personal information and a cashier's check to close the deal. A Princeton student picked one machine's lock "in seven seconds" to access the removable chips containing Sequoia's vote-recording software, Appel said.

"We can take a version of Sequoia's software program and modify it to do something different -- like appear to count votes, but really move them from one candidate to another. And it can be programmed to do that only on Tuesdays in November, and at any other time. You can't detect it," Appel said last week.

Citing more than a century in the election business, Sequoia Voting Systems asserts on its Web site that "our tamperproof products, including ... the AVC Advantage, are sought after from coast to coast for their accuracy and reliability." While promising to look into Appel's claims, Sequoia's Michelle Shafer asserted that hacking scenarios are unlikely. "It's not just the equipment. There are people and processes in place in the election environment to prevent tampering and attempts at tampering," she said.

But Appel said voting machines often are left unattended at polling places prior to elections. He is confident his students and other recent buyers of 136 Sequoia machines sold on -- where bidders also can find surplus coffins, locomotives and World War I cannons -- will crack Sequoia's code. Then, he said, it will be fairly simple for anyone with bad intentions and a screwdriver to swap Sequoia's memory chips for reprogrammed ones.

Another Princeton team, led by professor Ed Felten, did essentially the same thing last fall with a Diebold touch-screen machine, obtained by secret means. In a demonstration for Congress, Felten rigged an electronic election so Benedict Arnold beat George Washington every time.

The latest New Jersey legal challenge comes amid a national backlash against touch-screen machines. Through the Help America Vote Act, Congress doled out more than $3 billion -- at least $37million of it to New Jersey -- for new voting technology after Florida's punch card ballots and their hanging chads marred the 2000 presidential election.

But computer scientists have warned about potential flaws in electronic voting machines, which resemble ATMs. Last week Rep. Rush Holt (D-12th Dist.) reintroduced a bill to require e-voting machines to include paper printouts. Voters can review these printouts, and they can be recounted if disputes arise over electronic tallies. Warren County is the only place in New Jersey so equipped, but the state has earmarked $21million to retrofit machines elsewhere.

Without a paper trail, electronic voting machines "cannot be made secure," the National Institute of Standards and Technology cautioned last year. After touch-screen machines apparently failed to record 18,000 votes in a close Florida race last November, that state decided to replace them with optical scanners before the 2008 presidential election. Ballots will be cast on paper and scanned electronically. The paper can be counted manually if there are discrepancies.

New Mexico switched to optical scanners last year. Connecticut is going that way and New Jersey should, too, said Appel and Venetis.


On its Web site, the state Division of Elections says it certified the Sequoia AVC Advantage in August 1987. But Venetis said state officials could furnish no proof when she formally requested it. Venetis said the state has failed to follow its own hoary, vague laws demanding that voting machines must be "thoroughly tested and reliable." They should "correctly register and accurately count all votes cast" and be "of durable construction" so they may be used "safely, efficiently, and accurately," the law says.

But the section of New Jersey's Title 19 that outlines the actual certification process dates to 1953 -- long before computers became commonplace. It empowers New Jersey's secretary of state to oversee examinations of voting machines. Reviews by "an expert in patent law" and "two mechanical experts" must be completed within 30 days of a company's application.

These experts earn $150 apiece, from a fee paid by the voting machine company, to file a report with the state. Precisely what they are supposed to examine, Venetis said, remains a mystery. Once approved, a machine can be modified without further state scrutiny, as long as any changes don't "impair its accuracy, efficiency, or capacity," the law says.

When Essex County bought 700 AVC Advantages from Sequoia late in 2005, there was talk about their certification by a federally approved laboratory -- but no documentation from the state, said Carmine Casciano, the county superintendent of elections. "I've never seen anything from the state," Casciano said. "I just get a list from the attorney general saying 'Approved.' I've never seen anything from the individuals involved in the process."

Venetis represents the Coalition for Peace Action and other plaintiffs in a 3-year-old lawsuit pressing for secure and verifiable elections. She is expected to make her new argument before Judge Feinberg Friday.

Venetis also plans to raise concerns about the state's dependence on Sequoia. Its parent company, the Smartmatic Corp. of Florida, has been the focus of a federal probe into possible ties to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and has announced plans to sell Sequoia to an American buyer. Sequoia's Shafer said any sale of the company won't interfere with its obligations in New Jersey. "Sequoia's not going anywhere," said Shafer.

Kevin Coughlin may be reached at or (973) 392-1763.
© 2007 The Star Ledger © 2007 All Rights Reserved.

Syndicate content