State Never Certified NoCo Voting Machines: Too Busy Plowing Snow?

When Northampton County voter registration employee Howie Erney demonstrated the WinVote system to our citizens' election panel on February 7, he smugly told them it's easier than those pesky levers, and is getting "better and better." But then Erney made a mistake. He was willing to answer questions, even from the people like me in the peanut gallery.

Unfortunately for Erney, I had spent that afternoon looking at documentation obtained from BlackBox Voting. I already knew the Pennsylvania Department of State had reluctantly certified WinVote Version 2.0.2 in February, 2006, noting twelve specific problems. But when Howie Erney confidently booted up his system, I was shocked to see that the system we had used was WinVote Version 2.0.3 instead of the certified version. When I started questioning this, the elections office suddenly didn't want any more questions. Fortunately, citizen panel co-chair Russ Shade had the same questions. And he wanted answers both from the state and vendor Advanced Voting Solutions. "They have this nasty habit of not returning phone calls."

In addition to this software problem, there are allegations that what we see is not what we got. According to BlackBox Voting, machines with identical appearances have completely different components "under the hood." Cheap Chinese hardware may have been substituted for what was approved.

When the panel met again on February 13, 21 and 28, there still was no response from our state apparatchiks. I know they weren't busy plowing snow. Astonishingly, HRH DePaul actually insisted at one point that the state would only speak through her. Fed up, the citizens' election panel finally sent a letter to state elections commissioner Harry VanSickle, asking to see "the certification of the specific machines used in the last two elections. The Committee wants documentation that the hardware shipped by Advanced Voting Solutions is, in fact, what was approved."

Instead of speaking through his oracle, HRH DePaul, or just answering the damn questions, the state elections commissioner ran to the Morning Call editorial board in an obvious effort at damage control. It was beginning to appear that we had voted with machines that were never state certified.

Now, thanks the The Express Times, we know that is so. VanSickle has finally answered the county elections panel, and guess what? The machines used in November's election were never certified by the state. For all the state cares, we could have been voting on copy machines. Let's face it. A state bureaucracy willing to strand pregnant women for over twenty hours on a freezing highway could care little about whether our elections are run properly.

The state elections commission couldn't even be bothered to list campaign finance reports for online viewing until well after the election, completely defeating the very reason for online access. Government has no problem posting all kinds of personal information about us on the net, but can't be bothered to let voters know who is funding a candidate until after an election, when it is too late to do any good.

Elections? We don't need no stinkin' elections!

Problems in the land of midnight payraises extend well beyond its legislators. An arrogant and unresponsive bureaucracy, on both state and local level, is increasingly becoming the norm. Our Lehigh Valley delegation to the state house and senate should be all over this. Why, for example, is PennDot Secretary Biehler still on the public payroll? Why is VanSickle still at the public trough after permitting an election to occur with uncertified voting machines? What gives him the right to ignore calls from a county executive? Why can't he get expense reports online until after an election is over?

Attitudes like these are what make Katrinas possible. New Orleans is not the exception.

Voting Activist Asks That Norco Voting Machines Be Tested

"Lever machines are unconstitutional. We cannot use them. A paper ballot we cannot use. There's only one choice left."

That's what Northampton County Exec John Stoffa said nearly a year ago, when the county decided upon electronic touchscreen voting machines manufactured by Advanced Voting Solutions. Pennsylvania voters are justifiably concerned by the lack of a paper trail. They also question the state's inadequate testing and subsequent certification. Some of them, including voters' rights activist Dr. Alan Brau, have sued.

Dr. Brau has just announced a press conference for Thursday, February 15, at 11 AM, in front of the Northampton County courthouse, to address his concerns with our voting machines. He charges AVS with "bait and switch" tactics. Here's what he says.

Officials from Northampton County and the Pennsylvania Department of State continue to defend AVS WINvote computerized voting machines, despite evidence that the new voting machines use hardware which is radically different from the original machines which were certified.

According to reports, Advanced Voting Solutions, of Frisco, Texas, has substituted internal components which are completely different from the hardware that was originally certified. Bradley Spencer, a former elections employee who is familiar with the hardware used for AVS WINvote, has posted photographic evidence of the company's “bait and switch” on BlackBoxVoting.org.

This includes testimony from two former AVS employees, who paint a picture of a failing company which is more concerned with sales and profits than certification or accuracy.

Furthermore, there is evidence that the software used in the November election, WINvote version 2.0.3, was uncertified at the time of the election. The last reported state certification was in February of 2006, when software version 2.0.2 was re-approved. No public documentation of certification of version 2.0.3 is available.

I am a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania, requesting that the AVS WINvote machines be re-examined. The Secretary of State, Pedro Cortes, has ignored Pennsylvania statute by refusing the requests from nearly 100 Pennsylvania voters, who demand their legal rights to have the machines re-examined.

There has been some response at the county level. An advisory committee, appointed by County Supervisor John Stoffa, agrees that concerns raised are serious and valid, but committee members have chosen to work through the Pennsylvania Department of State, which continues to obstruct any re-examination of these machines.

Secretary of State Cortes filed a motion that our multi-county voters' lawsuit be dismissed, suggesting that the Secretary of State may be complicit with the fraud and should not be trusted to perform any inquiry into voting machine problems. The investigation must be transparent, public and immediate.

Mr. Walt Garvin, a county official, has offered to have the Northampton County's voting machines examined. I request that Mr. Garvin, Ms. Deborah DePaul and the board of elections conduct a thorough investigation of these allegations of a “bait and switch”, including opening the cases of all of the voting machines to see if the internal hardware matches the specifications of the AVS machine which were certified in 2002 and 2005.

In addition, I call for documentation from the County Board of Elections that version 2.0.3, the software used in the November election, was, in fact, certified.

If the voting machines are uncertified, then the past two election results for Northampton County, including results for the November 2006 election, are void.

Brau's Take on Yesterday's Election Committee Meeting - Dr. Brau offers his own perspective on yesterday's meeting.

I presented the information that Brad provided about the hardware. The hardware bait and switch seemed to resonate with members of the advisory board, particularly those who had seen Brad's post on BBV. I will make sure to have prints of the machines-on-the-half-shell (side-by-side) for the next meeting to distribute to all of the members.

There is a clear interest in finding a definitive answer to this allegation, if for no other reason than to dispel it.

"Open the cases!"

Unfortunately, the proposed plan is to first request that the Secretary of State authorize and perform the inspection. This is the same Secretary of State whom I am suing to re-examine these very same machines. I am guessing that he will say "no". The written request will sit on the attorney's desk for a few weeks before we receive his "that won't be necessary" response. After that, I predict that AVS will claim that all warranties are void if the clamshell is opened.

AVS is also being contacted about the internal hardware inspection. Their cooperation, or lack thereof, will be telling.

Mr. Conklin, the County Administrator, focused on maintaining the working operations of the elections department, but seemed to have little concern about certification issues.

Ms. DePaul, the Registrar, continued to personalize all general criticism about the department, the AVS machines, or computerized voting in general, which effectively kept her from discussing anything substantive. Much deflection. Job poorly done.

Mr. Bradt, out of his gentle nature, forgave the errors of the department and gave the Registrar an undeserved pat on the back.

With regards to the software- less promising.

I have yet to see a certification for the software update 2.0.3, although I am told that it exists.

More to come.

WinVote System Was Certified Before November's Election

In Northampton County's last election, the electronic touchscreen machines were programmed with WinVote Version 2.0.3. That concerned me, because the only certification I saw was for WinVote 2.0.2, an earlier version.

I have since been informed that Version 2.0.3 was, in fact, tested and certified before November's election. So that answers one question and I don't want to mislead you.

But as I noted last week, "Even if that version was certified, there remain allegations that what we see is not what we got. According to BlackBox Voting, machines with identical appearances have different components 'under the hood.' " There is an unresolved "bait and switch" allegation.

That's an entirely different question. More about that later.

Citizens' Election Panel Questions Voting Machine Certification

Northampton County's citizens elections committee met last night in Courtroom #1, surrounded by portraits of scowling jurists against whom final judgment has long since been rendered. Some say the place is haunted, and that those brooding and dark paintings move every night. Last night, I wondered whether these claims are true. When the elections office made its evening presentation concerning those controversial touchscreen machines, the sound system began making erratic noises. And when the panel finally adjourned, those judges looked much nastier than they had when I first walked in. Those dudes know a snow job when they see one. Neither they nor I was impressed.

Last night's star was Voting Registrar Debbie DePaul, who repeatedly told told us "we're doing very well," and she has a "wonderful staff." She'd even like to close the office for an hour or so to have coffee with her underlings. Her leading man was Deputy Howie Erney, who demonstrated what elections workers go through in setting up and shutting down the WinVote system. He optimistically told us things keep getting "better and better" and that electronic touchscreens are actually easier to operate than those pesky lever machines. His explanation for the problem in tabulating results was that the old geezers who work polls on election day don't know what the hell they're doing. They don't know how to use a USB storage device, a simple flash drive system, to transfer data from one computer to another. He didn't put it that indelicately, but that's certainly what he meant.

Everything was going great for the elections office . . . until Erney said he was willing to take questions. He was even willing to take questions from the peanut gallery.

1. Problems with Advanced Voting Solutions Voting System

According to documentation obtained from BlackBox Voting, the Pennsylvania Department of State reluctantly certified WinVote Version 2.0.2 in February, 2006, noting twelve specific problems. One problem is exactly what frustrated those old geezers. When an AVS rep tried to use a USB storage device to tabulate results, the system failed. Well, AVS made all kinds of promises to fix the problem. Two elections later, that remains our biggest obstacle to a vote tally.

Last night, when Howie Erney confidently booted up his system, I was shocked by something else. The system is not WinVote Version 2.0.2, but is instead WinVote Version 2.0.3. When I started questioning why we're using a system that has not been certified by the state, I was told to take it up with them. Suddenly, our wonderful elections office didn't want any more questions. Even if that version was certified, there remain allegations that what we see is not what we got. According to BlackBox Voting, machines with identical appearances have different components "under the hood."

Citizen panel co-chair Russ Shade has the same questions. And he wants answers from the state as well as Advanced Voting Solutions. "They have this nasty habit of not returning phone calls."

2. Problems in Elections Office

During last night's meeting, chair Peg Ferraro noted several emails from poll workers about phone calls that weren't answered on election day. Gordon Santee, a 78 year-young voter, decried WinVote's lack of privacy. A helpful poll worker looked over Santee's shoulder as he voted. "We need privacy when we vote. This is just like the Soviet Union." DePaul actually tried to defend this lack of privacy, but Santee told her any votech could make dividers. Not a bad idea considering that Santee is one of those old geezers.

Councilman Ron Angle mildly noted the unusually high turnover in the elections office. "I don't get the feeling that someone is in control. There hasn't been a lot of stability there." And that's all DePaul needed for yet another eruption.

DePaul: "Take away the fact that you don't like the fact that I'm a Democrat. ... I'm very competent. ... You aren't the majority. The majority is positive."

Angle: "Frankly, I believe you are a part of the problem."

Angle's right. DePaul is undeniably dedicated, but the stress of a new system and her own personality work against her. Her office is unfriendly and unhelpful. Committee member Dick Benner nailed this in the first meeting. "People must be made to understand you're there to help them." I don't think DePaul gets that.

Those who came: Advisory committee members Russ Shade, Jack Bradt, Peg Ferraro and Dick Benner attended last night's meeting. County Executive John Stoffa and Director of Administration John Conklin were present. And it was encouraging to see four members of council in the peanut gallery. In addition to Angle, Charles Dertinger, John Cusick and Tony Branco dropped by. Walt Garvin, Joan Rosenthal and Ralph Stampone, members the elections commission, braved the cold weather for an evening in the haunted courtroom.

Meeting Schedule: This advisory group will meet again at the courthouse on the following dates: February 13 (4 PM), February 21 (7 PM) and February 28 (7 PM). If you can't attend, you can contact this committee with your concerns at voter.info@northamptoncounty.org. When minutes are available, I'll post them on the left sidebar.

BlackBox Voting Backs Up Charge That Advanced Voting Pulled Fast One in Pa.

On Monday, I told you about a claim made by BlackBox Voting's Brad Spencer. The charge? Advanced Voting Solutions provided Northampton County with electronic voting machines different from those certified by Pennsylvania's Department of State. The result? We voted with machines that the state never approved.

Today, BlackBox Voting substantiated these accusations with documentary evidence that includes a bill of materials, technical drawings as well as Pennsylvania's own examination.

If you look at the WinVote machines above, you'll see two black boxes that look pretty much identical. But pop open the hood, and you'll see two completely different animals, as illustrated on the right. One of these is what was delivered to Pennsylvania and the other is what was approved. I'm no rocket scientist, but even I can see there's a huge difference. I don't want to rush to judgment without hearing from AVS, but these are serious questions that need answers.

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.