Did Advanced Voting Solutions Pull a Fast One in Pa.?

Northampton, Lackawanna and Wayne Counties are the three Pennylvania counties using touchscreen voting machines supplied by Advanced Voting Solutions (AVS), a Texas vendor. Perhaps that relationship should be re-evaluated. BlackBox Voting charges that AVS shipped Pennsylvania different machines from those certified by the Department of State. What's worse, at least in my mind, is the allegation that elections officials knew, but did nothing.

1. Who is Advanced Voting Solutions?

AVS is a Frisco, Texas company established in 2001 by CEO Howard Van Pelt. Some in the industry laud its "great ideas." But GOTV is a bit more suspicious.

"Advanced Voting Solutions is the new name of another voting company, Shoup Voting Solutions. Their current top management, Howard Van Pelt and Larry Ensminger, were executives for Diebold-Global until last year. Officers of Shoup Voting Machine Co. were indicted for allegedly bribing politicians in Tampa, Florida in 1971, according to the San Francisco Business Times. Ransom Shoup was convicted in 1979 of conspiracy and obstruction of justice related to an FBI inquiry into a lever machine-counted election in Philadelphia. Shoup got a three-year suspended sentence. Meanwhile, Philadelphia has bought new voting machines from Danaher-Guardian, which appears to only sell voting machines formerly known as the 'Shouptronic.' "

When the "Velvet Revolution" demanded verifiable paper ballots as well as a paper trail, AVS top dog Van Pelt snorted, "What in the hell are these people talking about? ... They think we’re all crooks, and I resent that! ... The reason we got rid of paper ballots was to ensure the accuracy of elections."

2. Did AVS Pull a Fast One in Pa?

BlackBox Voting is one of many grassroots movements engaged in a noble effort - ensuring that our votes are counted honestly and accurately. Recently, a BBV member accused AVS of knowingly selling uncertified hardware and software to Pennsylvania. Here's an excerpt of the report, which contains links to statements from two former AVS employees.

Advanced Voting Solutions have recently in 2006 sold and delivered electronic voting equipment (DRE) and software to jurisdictions in PA.

The voting hardware that has been delivered in PA is not the voting hardware that was certified for these sales. (Please refer to the testimony of Ex AVS employee #2 as stated below)

An older version of hardware was certified at Wyle Labs in Huntsville, and then a new and completely different voting machine has been delivered to PA.

The only resemblance between the old hardware and the new hardware is the exterior case which is the same. What’s under the hood is completely different and was not certified. Different hardware components were used to build the new hardware.

This can easily be verified by comparing a voting unit as delivered to PA against the "Technical Documentation Pack" at Wyle Labs in Huntsville, which lists the "Bill Of Materials" used to build the hardware that was certified. (Wyle Labs contact details can be found towards the end of this document).

(The "Bill Of Materials" is basically a full list and description of every component used in the voting machine, mother board, processor, wireless card etc etc)

Advanced Voting Solutions hoped to certify the old hardware, deliver the new un-certified different voting machine hardware, and then attempt to certify the new hardware that they had delivered, at a later stage before anyone in PA noticed.

These un-certified voting machines were used to run the May 2006 Primaries in PA.

Advanced Voting Solutions has not only defrauded the state of PA and its tax paying voters, it also gained an unfair advantage on its primary competitor in the state, which is ES&S.

If Advanced Voting Solutions had acted within the rules and the law, then they would not have been able to gain certification of the new version of hardware that they were planning to sell to PA, in time to win the business from jurisdictions in PA. Therefore they put forward the old version of hardware which looks identical to the new version of hardware from the outside.

AVS has been asked to send a rep to Northampton County's citizens' advisory committee on February 7. These serious accusations should not go unanswered.

3. Elections' officials circle the wagons.

After Sarah Cassi's report describing the wide discrepancy between unofficial (Dent loses by 127) and official (Dent wins by over 3,000) totals in last November's election, a BlackBox Voting activist had this reaction.

Perhaps PA might start to wake up a little ?

Just about everyone in the elections departments of the counties who have purchased from Advanced Voting Solutions were sent concrete information just prior to the Nov 06 election, about the lack of, or rather the fraudulent manner in which Advanced Voting Solutions sold them the un-tested, un-certified voting units, in place of a totally different voting unit that they had agreed to purchase.

Guess how many responses were received back ?

That's right.....ZERO !

As encountered over and over again, the election departments appear to do everything in their power to sweep everything under the carpet in an attempt to keep this type of information out of the voting public's view, and by doing this, they are protecting criminal behavior by election vendors in my opinion.

Problems with Advanced Voting Solutions Winvote voting unit in PA ???

Of course there is !......the voting unit you guys in PA bought is not tested, not certified, and is not the voting unit you agreed to buy. It just looks the same from the outside, but as shown on photos posted on BBV, whats under the hood is not what was tested, or what you thought you were buying !

So WHAT did you expect??

Ironically, the biggest obstacles to meaningful elections have been elections officials and machine manufacturers, who want to be able to certify the tally that appears on the machine, even if it is inaccurate. Northampton County Elections Commission Chair Walt Garvin will tell us things like this. "The staff at the elections office and the chief registrar are all hard-working, caring and dedicated. They take their responsibilities very seriously and work tirelessly." Really? Then why such a high turn over, Walt?

Garvin disparages concerns like mine as "groundless accusations by a few county politicos." His reaction reflects the attitude of most elections officials, who have consistently opposed public input because it interferes with their control.

4. Grassroots reform efforts.

Grassroots efforts like the citizens advisory committee in Northampton County, are beginning to make a difference. One group of citizens has sued in Commonwealth Court. Congress is closer than ever to adopting a bill requiring a verified paper trail.It's about time.