brennan center for justice
brennan center for justice brennan center for justice
May 2004December2008ES&SM150PremierAccu-Vote ES2000ArkansasCaliforniaThe Jonesboro Sun reported that the initial results of aconstable race in District 13 showed that onecandidate received all 158 votes cast in one precinct.When the opponent questioned the results of theelections, the machine was inspected and an error wasfound in a computer chip’s code. A recount showedthat both candidates received votes, though theoutcome of the election was unchanged. 308Fulton County, ARAccording to the South Missourian, a malfunction ina ballot scanner caused county election officials torecount ballots for the primary election by hand.County officials blamed the machine manufacturerfor incorrectly programming the machine. Thecompany blamed the county officials for not sendingall of the sample ballots needed for the company toprogram the machines accurately. 309Humboldt County, CAAccording to the Times Standard, “a glitch in the[Humboldt] county election's software . . . resultedin almost 200 ballots not being included in initialvote totals and the county certifying inaccurateelection results.”Carolyn Crnich, the Humboldt County Registrar ofVoters, told the paper that she realized there was aproblem when “she discovered a deck of 197 vote-bymailballots for the precinct that had been runthrough the ballot counting optical scanner, but didnot seem to appear in the final vote tallies.” 310Wired and Computerworld magazines reported thatthe voting system manufacturer, Premier, was awareof the software flaw that caused the problem foryears, but failed to notify federal or state authorities,opting instead to send an e-mail to county officials.Crnich states that the information in this e-mail wasnot passed onto her. 311November2008SequoiaAVC Edge IICaliforniaFor more on this incident, see case study 2 on pages 12 -13 of this report.Santa Clara County, CAIn Santa Clara County, the San Jose Mercury Newsreports, “fifty-seven electronic voting machines forthe disabled malfunctioned Tuesday and could not50 | Brennan Center for Justice
June 2008SequoiaOptech 400CCaliforniabe replaced for hours, despite requirements that theybe available in each precinct.” Indeed, “backupmachines took three hours to prepare, with somearriving as late as 2 p.m.” It was unclear what causedthe malfunction of the machines. 312San Bernardino County, CAAccording to the Press Enterprise, a “computer glitchin the San Bernardino County registrar of voters'ballot-counting system sent some losing candidates inTuesday night's election to bed thinking moreprecincts were left to be heard from when, in fact, allthe votes were in and counted.”San Bernardino County voter Registrar Kari Verjiltold the paper, “the glitch is embedded in computervote-counting software provided by Sequoia VotingSystems, the Denver-based contractor that servesmany counties in California.”March 2008February2008ES&SModel 650SequoiaOptech 400CCaliforniaCaliforniaA staffer in the registrar’s office told the paper thatSan Bernardino County officials discovered the glitchlast year and told the manufacturer. A Sequoiaspokeswoman acknowledged that San Bernadinoreported problems and stressed that the issue “hasabsolutely nothing to do with vote totals ortabulations.” 313Sacramento County, CAThe Sacramento Bee reports that “impropermaintenance of some of Sacramento County's votingmachines⎯and the tint of the Feb. 5 ballots⎯wereto blame for malfunctions that sidelined votecountingscanners and delayed results of last month'spresidential primary, according to the county's topelection official.”The county, during its investigation, “said that thevendor that supplies and maintains the scanners,Elections Systems & Software, conducted improperrecalibration and preventive maintenance on themachines in December.” Moreover, according to theBee, “the [county] report said that ballots printed byConsolidated Printers were too dark to allow theballot to be correctly read by the faulty scanners.” 314Santa Clara County, CAThe San Francisco Chronicle reported that, at onepolling station, “more than a dozen people trying toBrennan Center for Justice | 51
- Page 5: IV.A BETTER WAY TO TRACK AND ADDRES
- Page 11: 4. Pressure Vendors to Voluntarily
- Page 14 and 15: its newly established Voting System
- Page 16 and 17: iii.failures of the current system:
- Page 18 and 19: 2. Humboldt County, California, Nov
- Page 20 and 21: 4. Pulaski County, Arkansas, May 20
- Page 22 and 23: 7. Florida, June 2004According to t
- Page 24 and 25: Denise Lamb, who currently serves a
- Page 26 and 27: Ms. Poucher has stated that it “w
- Page 28 and 29: Sequoia identified four possible ca
- Page 30 and 31: Had advocates and researchers in Ne
- Page 32 and 33: elative to voting system vendors. A
- Page 34 and 35: or potential vulnerabilities by any
- Page 36 and 37: Finally, the Department of Justice
- Page 38 and 39: Provide Timely & Organized Access t
- Page 40 and 41: the CPSC may compel the manufacture
- Page 42 and 43: Civil Division of the Department of
- Page 44 and 45: C. Analogous RegimesCivil penalty p
- Page 46 and 47: Of course, adding these kinds of pr
- Page 49 and 50: v. conclusionVoting is the most imp
- Page 51 and 52: System Vulnerabilities: should incl
- Page 53 and 54: February2008September2004November20
- Page 55: November2006November2006ES&SiVotron
- Page 59 and 60: March 2004March 2004DieboldAccuVote
- Page 61 and 62: February2008September2008PremierAcc
- Page 63 and 64: event of an overvote displayed a co
- Page 67 and 68: January 2008January 2008PremierAccu
- Page 69 and 70: November2004ES&SM650FloridaSupervis
- Page 71 and 72: October 2008February2008PremierAccu
- Page 73 and 74: February2008February2008October 200
- Page 75 and 76: 2004 AccuVote 2000ESNovember2008Nov
- Page 77 and 78: November2008November2008Hart InterC
- Page 79 and 80: February2008May 2006August 2004May2
- Page 81 and 82: March 2008June 2009November2008Prem
- Page 83 and 84: February2008November2006SequoiaAVC
- Page 85 and 86: November2008SequoiaImageCastNew Yor
- Page 87 and 88: November2004November2004UnilectPatr
- Page 89 and 90: November2008November2008March 2008E
- Page 91 and 92: May 2008April 2008November2006May 2
- Page 93 and 94: 2006 iVotronicThe Post & Courier re
- Page 95 and 96: AccuVote TSR6; HartInterCiviceScan;
- Page 97 and 98: November2006ES&S:iVotronicTexasHida
- Page 99 and 100: November2003November2009November200
- Page 101 and 102: October 2008October 2008May 2008ES&
- Page 103 and 104: appendix c : dupage county election
- Page 105 and 106: and resolve problems with certified
June 2008SequoiaOptech 400CCali<strong>for</strong>niabe replaced <strong>for</strong> hours, despite requirements that theybe available in each precinct.” Indeed, “backupmachines took three hours to prepare, with somearriving as late as 2 p.m.” It was unclear what causedthe malfunction of the machines. 312San Bernardino County, CAAccording to the Press Enterprise, a “computer glitchin the San Bernardino County registrar of voters'ballot-counting system sent some losing candidates inTuesday night's election to bed thinking moreprecincts were left to be heard from when, in fact, allthe votes were in and counted.”San Bernardino County voter Registrar Kari Verjiltold the paper, “the glitch is embedded in computervote-counting software provided by Sequoia VotingSystems, the Denver-based contractor that servesmany counties in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia.”March 2008February2008ES&SModel 650SequoiaOptech 400CCali<strong>for</strong>niaCali<strong>for</strong>niaA staffer in the registrar’s office told the paper thatSan Bernardino County officials discovered the glitchlast year and told the manufacturer. A Sequoiaspokeswoman acknowledged that San Bernadinoreported problems and stressed that the issue “hasabsolutely nothing to do with vote totals ortabulations.” 313Sacramento County, CAThe Sacramento Bee reports that “impropermaintenance of some of Sacramento County's votingmachines⎯and the tint of the Feb. 5 ballots⎯wereto blame <strong>for</strong> malfunctions that sidelined votecountingscanners and delayed results of last month'spresidential primary, according to the county's topelection official.”The county, during its investigation, “said that thevendor that supplies and maintains the scanners,Elections Systems & Software, conducted improperrecalibration and preventive maintenance on themachines in December.” Moreover, according to theBee, “the [county] report said that ballots printed byConsolidated Printers were too dark to allow theballot to be correctly read by the faulty scanners.” 314Santa Clara County, CAThe San Francisco Chronicle reported that, at onepolling station, “more than a dozen people trying toBrennan Center <strong>for</strong> Justice | 51