brennan center for justice
brennan center for justice brennan center for justice
May 2005November2008October 2008January 2008ES&S:M550ES&SiVotronicES&SiVotronicES&SiVotronicPennsylvaniaSouth CarolinaSouth CarolinaSouth Carolinarecord votes were accidentally programmed astraining cartridges. Election results showed that threeraces were determined by less than 111 votes. 468Cumberland County, PAA ballot programming error for straight-line ticketvotes gave the office of magisterial district judge tothe wrong candidate, according to the Sentinel.Straight-ticket Democratic votes were given to theRepublican candidate. Straight-ticket Republicanvotes were not counted at all. Initial vote totalsshowed the Republican candidate had won by a1,650 to 1,468 margin. Ultimately, however, theDemocratic candidate won by a two-vote margin –1,703 to 1,701 – in the recount. 469Charleston County, SCAccording to local television station WSCS, localofficials experienced “an error with the machine thatautomatically reads the electronic votes. Thecommission instead decided to enter the informationinto the system manually, a process that took morethan 6 hours.” It was unclear what caused theerror. 470Beaufort County, SCIsland Packet reported that the votes of some votersfor Bluffton Town Council did not appear on thereview screen of the electronic voting machines,leading voters to believe that the votes were notrecorded correctly. Voters who recognized theproblem were able to cast their votes with paperballots. 471Florence and Horry Counties, SCAccording to the Sun News, election officialsincorrectly programmed the voting machines to closeon the wrong date: “In both counties, the votingmachines were incorrectly set to close on Jan. 26, thedate of the Democratic presidential primary, insteadof Jan. 19, the date the Republican primary washeld.” Results were thus delayed as officials couldnot access the data until technicians manually closedeach machine. During polling, voters in HorryCounty also complained of malfunctioningmachines; according to the paper, supplies ofemergency paper ballots “were running out.” 472November ES&S: South Carolina Charleston County, SC86 | Brennan Center for Justice
2006 iVotronicThe Post & Courier reported that iVotronic machinesfailed to allow voters to review their choices incontests in which they voted for more than onecandidate.November2005June 2009November2008ES&S:iVotronicES&SModel 650PremierAccuVote-TSXSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennessee“If voters can vote for only one candidate, the reviewscreen shows who they voted for, but if they can votefor two or more candidates, as is the case in aCharleston County School Board race and theCharleston County Soil and Water Commission race,then the review screen indicates only whether theyhave voted for the maximum number allowed. Itdoes not state for whom they voted.” 473Kershaw County, SCAccording to The State, initial vote totals in theRepublican and Democratic primary races for aCounty Council seat, showed that 3,208 votes hadbeen cast in District 2. A manual count discoveredthat only 768 votes had been cast. Election officialssuspected that the error had occurred becausemachine cartridges were incorrectly programmed torecord some votes more than once. A state electionofficial apparently did not check a box that wouldhave prevented multiple readings. 474Pennington County, SDKOTA Radio reported that a “glitch” with theelectronic scanning machine caused additional votesto be added to the total number of votes from thecounty. The problem was discovered and corrected,but the cause was unclear. 475Shelby County, TNThe Memphis Commercial Appeal reported that theBartlett municipal election “ballot did not load ontothe voting machines” in Shelby County.Consequently, some voters used paper ballots insteadwhile others simply did not vote in that race at all.According to the paper, “Election Commissionofficials said part of the problem was poll workers notputting the proper code in for the Bartlett ballot inprecincts, such as Bartlett Elementary, whereresidents and non-residents are registered.” Precinctswhere all registrants were Bartlett residents also hadproblems, which candidates said they understood toBrennan Center for Justice | 87
- 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 and 56: November2006November2006ES&SiVotron
- Page 57 and 58: June 2008SequoiaOptech 400CCaliforn
- 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: May 2008April 2008November2006May 2
- 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
- Page 107 and 108: 49. E-mail from Carolyn Crnich, Cle
- Page 109 and 110: 95. Kleinberg, supra note 92.96. Ma
- Page 111 and 112: 143. Telephone Interview with Rokey
- Page 113 and 114: 187. Id. at 22.188. See Thomas, sup
- Page 115 and 116: 1801 (“[T]he Secretary shall init
- Page 117 and 118: 258. See United States Department o
- Page 119 and 120: 294. John Archibald & Brett J. Blac
- Page 121 and 122: 334. Jane Musgrave, Palm Beach Coun
- Page 123 and 124: 374. Glitch Keeps Fulton Voters Wai
- Page 125 and 126: 417. Joe Dejka & Chris Olson, A Lat
- Page 127 and 128: 457. Letter from Dave Byrd, Preside
- Page 129: 498. Lauren Glendenning, Voting Gli
- Page 132: ennancenterfor justiceAt New York U
2006 iVotronicThe Post & Courier reported that iVotronic machinesfailed to allow voters to review their choices incontests in which they voted <strong>for</strong> more than onecandidate.November2005June 2009November2008ES&S:iVotronicES&SModel 650PremierAccuVote-TSXSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennessee“If voters can vote <strong>for</strong> only one candidate, the reviewscreen shows who they voted <strong>for</strong>, but if they can vote<strong>for</strong> two or more candidates, as is the case in aCharleston County School Board race and theCharleston County Soil and Water Commission race,then the review screen indicates only whether theyhave voted <strong>for</strong> the maximum number allowed. Itdoes not state <strong>for</strong> whom they voted.” 473Kershaw County, SCAccording to The State, initial vote totals in theRepublican and Democratic primary races <strong>for</strong> aCounty Council seat, showed that 3,208 votes hadbeen cast in District 2. A manual count discoveredthat only 768 votes had been cast. Election officialssuspected that the error had occurred becausemachine cartridges were incorrectly programmed torecord some votes more than once. A state electionofficial apparently did not check a box that wouldhave prevented multiple readings. 474Pennington County, SDKOTA Radio reported that a “glitch” with theelectronic scanning machine caused additional votesto be added to the total number of votes from thecounty. The problem was discovered and corrected,but the cause was unclear. 475Shelby County, TNThe Memphis Commercial Appeal reported that theBartlett municipal election “ballot did not load ontothe voting machines” in Shelby County.Consequently, some voters used paper ballots insteadwhile others simply did not vote in that race at all.According to the paper, “Election Commissionofficials said part of the problem was poll workers notputting the proper code in <strong>for</strong> the Bartlett ballot inprecincts, such as Bartlett Elementary, whereresidents and non-residents are registered.” Precinctswhere all registrants were Bartlett residents also hadproblems, which candidates said they understood toBrennan Center <strong>for</strong> Justice | 87
Change language