State of Alaska Election Security Project Phase 2 Report

A laska’s election system is among the most secure in the country, and it has a number of safeguards other states are now adopting. But the technology Alaska uses to record and count votes could be improved— and the state’s huge size, limited road system, and scattered communities also create special challenges for insuring the integrity of the vote. In this second phase of an ongoing study of Alaska’s election security, we recommend ways of strengthening the system—not only the technology but also the election procedures. The lieutenant governor and the Division of Elections asked the University of Alaska Anchorage to do this evaluation, which began in September 2007.Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell. State of Alaska Division of Elections.List of Appendices / Glossary / Study Team / Acknowledgments / Introduction / Summary of Recommendations / Part 1 Defense in Depth / Part 2 Fortification of Systems / Part 3 Confidence in Outcomes / Conclusions / Proposed Statement of Work for Phase 3: Implementation / Reference

Myth Breakers: Facts About Electronic Elections

Election transparency is the fundamental basis of election integrity. In transparent elections, all the processes of handling and counting ballots are completely open to public view. Nothing is hidden, nothing is secret -- except, of course, each individual's voting choices.Election fraud and miscounts have occurred throughout history, and they will continue to occur. Transparency is the only way to minimize them, but with electronic voting, transparency is eclipsed. Electronic processes that record and count the votes are not open to public scrutiny. Courts have ruled that election software is a trade secret, so even a losing candidate with a computer consultant cannot view it.With electronic voting, the most important and vulnerable election processes -- storing and tallying the votes -- are performed in secret, without public oversight. These processes were not developed by government officials charged with ensuring election integrity, but by anonymous software engineers, hired by vendors and not publicly accountable for the results of their work. One would expect overwhelming benefits to accompany this sacrifice of transparency and the resulting loss of public control over election processes. That's the myth. Ironically, overwhelming disadvantages accompany the sacrifice. The logical question is "Why make the sacrifice?" It's a question more and more people are asking.The facts presented in this document dispel many of the myths surrounding electronic voting. It is crucial to lay these myths to rest quickly, for as long as they are held by decision-makers, our democracy is at risk

Pathways to a Trusted Electronic Voting System

In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) [1], largely in response to voting irregularities in the 2000 presidential election in Florida. Congress intended that HAVA resolve the lingering public confidence issues arising from inconsistent local election administration procedures, punch card voting machines, and voter registration. With HAVA, Congress authorized payments to the states to implement significant reforms of the voting system. However, the use of electronic voting machines to meet HAVA requirements threatens to damage public confidence in the voting system. Several reports have been published that note security flaws in voting systems in use all over the country [2]. California sued a manufacturer claiming that the company had misrepresented the security of its voting machines and falsified certification information [3]. In Ohio, a battleground state, recount irregularities also resulted in a lawsuit [4]. The public outcry and enormous media attention on these problems prompted Congress's Government Accountability Office (GAO) to launch an investigation [5]

Vendors are Undermining the Structure of U.S. Elections

As we approach the 2008 general election, the structure of elections in the United States -- once reliant on local representatives accountable to the public -- has become almost wholly dependent on large corporations, which are not accountable to the public. Most local officials charged with running elections are now unable to administer elections without the equipment, services, and trade-secret software of a small number of corporations. If the vendors withdrew their support for elections now, our election structure would collapse. Case studies presented in this report give examples of the pervasive control voting system vendors now have over election administration in almost every state, and the consequences some jurisdictions are already experiencing.However, some states and localities are recognizing the threat that vendor-dependency poses to elections. They are using ingenuity and determination to begin reversing the direction. This report examines the situation, how we got here, and steps we can take to limit corporate control of our elections in 2008 and reduce it even further in the future

Improving Access to Voting: A Report on the Technology for Accessible Voting Systems

Twenty percent of U.S. adults with disabilities--more than 8 million eligible voters--say they have been unable to vote in presidential or congressional elections due to barriers at or getting to the polls. Improving Access to Voting is a new report by technology expert Noel Runyan, published by Demos and Voter Action, that finds that state voting systems are widely noncompliant with federal ADA and HAVA access requirements for voters with disabilities

Final Report of the Cuyahoga County Election Review Panel

The Panel was charged with identifying the deficiencies in the May 2, 2006 Cuyahoga County election, ascertain the causes and contributing factors of those deficiencies and provide recommendations to remedy the deficiencies

Resolving the Unexpected in Elections: Election Officials\u27 Options

This paper seeks to assist election officials and their lawyers in effectively handling the technical issues that can be difficult to understand and analyze, allowing them to protect themselves and the public interest from unfair accusations, inaccuracies in results, and conspiracy theories. The paper helps to empower officials to recognize which types of voting system events and indicators need a more structured analysis and what steps to take to set up the evaluations (or forensic assessments) using computer experts