Voting Machine Update: Back to Court
Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens got a crash course in voting machine laws and computer science Wednesday afternoon as he tried to sort out whether the state Board of Elections examined the state's new crop of voting machines as carefully as the state legislature wanted.
His education will continue next week. Stephens wasn't prepared to make a ruling Wednesday but sounds like he wants to come to some sort of decision before Dec. 23, which is the date voting machine companies given the "OK" by the state can start selling their wares to counties.
By way of background: The state certified two voting machine makers - Diebold and ES&S - as meeting all the requirements laid down by federal and state laws.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, on behalf of Winston-Salem based advocate Joyce McCloy, sued, saying that the state did not go about that certification process correctly.
Hence Wednesday's hearing. Adding to the fun is a strong and probably not unfounded fear that no matter how quickly the state moves, the 100 counties won't be able to deploy new voting equipment quickly enough.
I'm not going to try right now to do full justice to the arguments on both sides of the case. But:
The EFF argues: the State Board of Elections did not hold Diebold and ES&S to the strict standards set forth by North Carolina. Specifically, the foundation argues that the state didn't properly examine the computer code that runs the machines. They further argue that the state should have required the voting machine makers to escrow their code BEFORE granting them certification.
The State Board argues: that they have required the voting machine makers to escrow their code by Dec. 22 and that's perfectly fine under the law. They further say that the code that tabulates votes got a thorough checking out by an undisclosed panel of experts. Further, they argued that state law does not require them to examine the source code for off the shelf produces such as Microsoft Windows.
Who's right? Hey, if the guy with a law degree and a gavel ain't saying, I'm not either. But Judge Stephens did ask both sides to submit more briefs. Stephens seemed bothered by the fact that if he granted what the EFF was asking, he could end up costing the state some money (North Carolina could be asked to hand back some federal funds if a hand-full of counties fail to meet a Jan. 1 deadline) and he could bollix up what's already a process running on a pretty tight time frame.
"I do believe what you are asking me to do is dramatic and could place some financial burden on the state," Stephens said. The EFF and McCloy will be asked if they're willing to post some sort of bond in case things go to trial and they turn out to be wrong.
The next hearing in this case is scheduled for Wednesday, Dec. 21 at 2 p.m.
Related voting machine vendor news:
- Sequoia, an other major voting manufacture, has withdrawn its application for certification in North Carolina. SBOE officials said they expected the company to re-apply in January. The problem Sequoia may run into, however, is that counties will have to make decisions on which voting systems to use pretty fast. By the time they get certified by the state, a lot of those decisions could already be made.
- Diebold has had a rough week. First the company's CEO resigned. Then it got hit with a lawsuit which alleges "the voting-machine maker lacked sufficient internal controls, was unable to be confident in the quality of its voting machines and made misleading statements about its condition."
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Let's take the state's claims one at a time.
The State Board argues: that they have required the voting machine makers to escrow their code by Dec. 22 and that's perfectly fine under the law.
No, the law EXPLICITYLY states that:
Prior to certifying a voting system, the State Board of Elections shall review, or designate an independent expert to review, all source code made available by the vendor pursuant to this section and certify only those voting systems compliant with State and federal law. At a minimum, the State Board's review shall include a review of security, application vulnerability, application code, wireless security, security policy and processes, security/privacy program management, technology infrastructure and security controls, security organization and governance, and operational effectiveness, as applicable to that voting system.
The law is quite plain. The SBoE has been deliberately trying to subvert the law.
They further say that the code that tabulates votes got a thorough checking out by an undisclosed panel of experts.
A secret panel of experts? Who? Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Lucky Charms Leprechaun? The whole point of our law was TRANSPERANCY.
Further, they argued that state law does not require them to examine the source code for off the shelf produces such as Microsoft Windows.
The law says no such thing. The law requires ALL software related to the functioning of the voting system.
Could someone please explain to me why public officials are working so hard for verndors AGAINST the interest of the voters?
Posted on December 15, 2005 2:51 PM
Let's take the state's claims one at a time.
The State Board argues: that they have required the voting machine makers to escrow their code by Dec. 22 and that's perfectly fine under the law.
No, the law EXPLICITYLY states that:
Prior to certifying a voting system, the State Board of Elections shall review, or designate an independent expert to review, all source code made available by the vendor pursuant to this section and certify only those voting systems compliant with State and federal law. At a minimum, the State Board's review shall include a review of security, application vulnerability, application code, wireless security, security policy and processes, security/privacy program management, technology infrastructure and security controls, security organization and governance, and operational effectiveness, as applicable to that voting system.
The law is quite plain. The SBoE has been deliberately trying to subvert the law.
They further say that the code that tabulates votes got a thorough checking out by an undisclosed panel of experts.
A secret panel of experts? Who? Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Lucky Charms Leprechaun? The whole point of our law was TRANSPERANCY.
Further, they argued that state law does not require them to examine the source code for off the shelf produces such as Microsoft Windows.
The law says no such thing. The law requires ALL software related to the functioning of the voting system.
Could someone please explain to me why public officials are working so hard for verndors AGAINST the interest of the voters?
Posted on December 15, 2005 2:55 PM