“On August 14, the Boston Globe cited Galvin
as saying that he ‘is near the end of a lengthy vetting process and could order the machines within days, depending upon an outside expert’s evaluation of three models.’ The Globe further reported that ‘he hopes to have at least some of the machines for the primary but does not want to rush into purchasing a potentially flawed model.’
“There were no new machines in the primary. Two months later – and four years after the law’s passage – Galvin has decided to purchase and test the flawed TSx Diebold machine during a critical election. Massachusetts remains one of only two states (New York is the other) that have yet to comply with the federal law.
“The second problem is the technology itself. The TSx model has been at the center of controversy for several years.
“California banned the use of any Diebold machines from its elections, pending further examination. The state also sued the company because of voting problems in four counties. Diebold eventually settled with the state and paid a $2.6 million settlement.
“The Maryland House, after several problems with the TSx machines, voted unanimously this year to approve a bill that would prohibit election officials from using the Diebold equipment in this
fall’s elections and use a paper-based optical scan system instead. Maryland’s Governor has called for a return to full paper ballots and, just last month, Baltimore election director Gene Raynor resigned over the use of the TSx machines.
“In September, USA Today reported that Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia have also reported problems with touch-screen machines.
“Yet, here in Massachusetts, Galvin has green-lighted the use of the TSx machines in select cities and towns next month.
“This issue transcends any candidacy and any campaign. It goes to the heart of whether the integrity of our elections will be safeguarded. We must guarantee the openness and transparency of our elections with paper trails, hand-recorded paper ballots, access to the source codes and data for all electronic voting machines, and public control of our vote-counting process. There is no reason, in light of the problems the nation has witnessed with touch-screen electronic voting machines – especially Diebold’s TSx model –
that these machines should be introduced into our elections here in Massachusetts. Our right to vote, including our right to have our votes properly counted, must be protected.”
Does anybody have more specifics on where they might be used? And which city/town clerks will admit to wanting them? (My guess, big cities with lots of poor and/or minority people, would you believe.)
By “tested”, what the Secretary’s office means is that they’re only going to be used in a few locations, and I understand that people will have the option of using them or not. That’s a trial, not full adoption, yes… but it’s not “testing”. It means that real voters in a real election will use these Diebold touchscreen machines, and the vote totals from the machines will be part of the official tallies. We’re using them for real, not “testing”.
<
p>
If you have a buggy (or hacked) Diebold in use in a precinct, it doesn’t matter if only a small percentage of voters use it – it’ll still throw off the final tally. And the fact that you can accurately handcount the paper ballots for all the non-Diebold votes doesn’t help you get an accurate tally.
I’ll be sending emails and making phone calls on this. I hope you’ll all do the same.
I was at a Mass. City Clerks’ Association this past week where I saw a demonstration of the other, non-Diebold equipment for people with disabilities that will be used in approximately 15 cities in the November election, including Boston and Cambridge. It would be inaccurate to call the equipment voting machines, as they don’t actually count votes, just help people with disabilities mark their ballots, which then get scanned into the ballot boxes like all other ballots. They are touch-screen machines.
<
p>
I understand that two different types of equipment have been leased for the November election, to see how well they operate in an actual election. I haven’t seen the Diebold equipment, so I can’t comment on that, but the other equipment to be tested in cities looks good to me.
<
p>
Yes, there have been delays, and Massachusetts may face consequences for not having the equipment in place for the September primary, but I understand that one of the major reasons for the delays is the problems with the equipment that other states have encountered, and I think it makes sense to make sure that the equipment Mass. purchases is the best available – in terms of helping people with disabilities and insuring the integrity of our elections – before making a final decision. Massachusetts is benefitting from the mistakes already made by other states. I don’t think Bonifaz’s criticism here is warranted.
Some may think it makes sense to see what happens in other states, but the HAVA requirements are quite specific to the best of my knowledge. There is no provision, so far as I am aware, that says “Oh, and by the way, the Massachusetts Secretary of State is free to make up the rules about how this legislation will be implemented however he thinks best.”
As I blogged last month on Bonifaz’s site, Galvin’s office was considering three options:
What you’re describing is the AutoMARK, which is a ballot marking machine. Bonifaz and I both support trying the AutoMARK and offerring it as an option to cities and towns for disabled voting – it’s a reasonable option.
<
p>
The problem is not the AutoMARK, it’s the Diebold TSx, which is a touchscreen voting machine. What’s more, it’s the touchscreen voting machine most in the news or being a disaster. It’s the machine that was banned in California; the one that Hursti found the security holes in; the one that screwed up Maryland’s recent primary; etc. etc. etc.
<
p>
There’s another problem: For towns that can’t afford to buy and maintain computer voting machines, we need a low-cost option. The Vote-PAD is the perfect option for disabled voting without computers, and Galvin’s office completely brushed it aside. So instead of offerring AutoMARK and Vote-PAD in time for the primary, they skipped the primary and are now “testing” AutoMARK and Diebold TSx in the general.
<
p>
I’m disgusted and queasy at the notion.
everything I’ve read about voting machines is that they are not only the poster child for “evil DRE” voting machines but they are the most poorly-designed, insecure, all-aound piece of crap compared to all DRE voting machines, which all leave a lot to be desired.
Okay BMGers, here is where the rubber meets the road for many of you; the time and place where you are actually asked to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. The question is are you progressive forward thinking political human animals OR are you Democrats? IF you are true political progressives who supported John Bonifaz in the Democratic primary for Secretary of State over Bill Galvin (and for good cause, as noted in this post and its comments), then you really should be casting your vote for the Green-Rainbow Party’s Jill Stein. Her platform is virtually identical to that of Bonifaz. However if party loyalty is more important to you than actual ideas and real democratic reforms, then by all means vote for Bill Galvin who you criticize here. With your support, we can actually have a Sectretary of State that would do what Bonifaz would have done. She will be a woman from another party, but the agenda is exactly the same. OR you can hide behind a blue veil of indifference and help keep Bill Galvin in office. You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem. Which will it be? Walk the walk or just talk the talk? Gut check time.
<
p>
PEACE all,
<
p>
Saint Kermit
Thank you, Tony, for beating me to the punch!
<
p>
Here’s where progressives can learn more regarding the campaign of Dr. Jill Stein, William Galvin’s SOLE opposition:
<
p>
http://www.jillstein…
<
p>
Friends of Jill Stein
12 Locust Avenue
Lexington, MA 02421
<
p>
info@jillstein.org
Since I turned 18 in October I was denied the oppurtunity to vote in the primary, I likely would not have voted for the SoS office since Bonifaz was a raving ranter who would have used a supposedly neutral voting office as a bully pulpit to espouse positions that although I agreed with them have no place in the SoS office. Also he had very weak credentials or concrete proposals on any of the other SoS duties besides election management.
<
p>
That said although Galvin is a very nice and personable man and Ive supported him in the past, I will cast my vote for Jill Stein as a protest for his use of Diebold machines, and other examples of him getting lazy on the job including a very poor prediction of primary day voter turnout. Also he is a more socially conservative Democrat and although he DOES NOT use his office to espouse these positions he DOES want to use it as a stepping stone to the Corner Office and we dont want another socially conservative Democratic Governor either.
<
p>
That said Jill has great credentials, as a consumer activist and an electoral reformer who will get the job done admirably, and although she has an uphill battle if enough of the Patrick supporters going to the polls cast ballots for Jill she could amass a large percentage of the vote, maybe not enough to win but definitely enough to get noticed and put Galvin on notice.
Just trying to wrap my head around your harsh criticism for John Bonifaz, who I am very certain actually understood the issues important in the Secretary of State race…And Jill Stein, who I’m sure is a wonderful Green candidate, but hasn’t come out at all making issue of specific voter matters. That you would support Stein doesn’t blow me away, Galvin needs enough opposition to scare him out of the doldrums, but the fact that you would knock Bonifaz, who actually has considerable experience in this area…Well…It’s just disappointing. I hope that you as a young voter will put your subsequent votes to good use.
<
p>
When Bonifaz was running, I supported him. He had my vote in the primary when it became clear that Galvin had no interest in supporting the democracy he’s sworn to uphold. We had very intelligent bloggers like Cos stumping on Bonifaz’s behalf. I’ve seen none of that with Jill, and I wonder what makes her worthy of my consideration, let alone my vote.
<
p>
I’m no supporter of Galvin, let me be clear. I’m also a staunch opponent of his Diebold voting shenanigans, if they should occur…But I’m not convinced to put a no-name, no-experience candidate in his position simply due to my dissatisfaction. Can you provide specifics to make me choose to do otherwise?
One blogger posted this on Jill’s behalf:
<
p>
http://mterry.name/l…
<
p>
“Jill Stein (GR). Bill Galvin (D) has been a good Secretary, but Stein favors real voting reform. She supports clean elections, fair redistricting, and most importantly, instant runoff voting.”
<
p>
Regrettably, very few political bloggers appear willing to move beyond the shackles of misplaced partisan allegiance to the Democratic Party to take a closer look at her.
<
p>
Dr. Stein was the first place candidate for Town Meeting in Lexington in 2004, a candidate for State Representative in 2004, and a celebrated gubernatorial candidate in 2002.
<
p>
Prior to her run for Secretary, she chaired the Massachusetts Coalition for Healthy Communities – whose website I truly do believe you ought to scour. Read everything, and I mean everything, and you will have an even greater insight into her politics and what policies she would practice: http://www.masschc.o…
<
p>
Her campaign has been endorsed by Boston city councilor Chuck Turner, the legendary Dr. Mel King, and the World Citizens Party as well as the Green-Rainbow.
<
p>
She has been very clear what steps are needed to bring democracy to the Commonwealth, and has been no less specific in this regard than John Bonifaz himself, quite frankly:
<
p>
http://www.jillstein…
<
p>
Listen to this candidate’s own words, and please have a very good read of her press releases, before dimissing her:
<
p>
http://www.jillstein…
<
p>
http://www.jillstein…
<
p>
http://www.theboston…
<
p>
Jill presently serves on the Board of Directors of both MassVoters for Fair Elections and the Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility. Have a look at her bio – tell me that this is not beyond impressive:
<
p>
http://www.jillstein…
<
p>
http://www.jillstein…
John Bonifaz deserves credit for speaking up on William Galvin’s decision to go forward with Diebold machines.
<
p>
Jill Stein also deserves credit for advocating for “a verifiable (i.e. paper) trail for all electronic voting machines”. I note that she responded to a candidate questionnaire with the comment that “Without such verification, electronic voting machines are too vulnerable to fraud. There is no reason to bet our democracy on the security of these machines.”
<
p>
It would be good to get Galvin to discuss these issues with Jill. Recently, Emily Rooney invited both Secretary of State candidates to appear on her Greater Boston program. Jill showed up and Bill was missing. I understand that the Pittsfield Gazette also asked Bill agree to a debate under their sponsorship, and he has declined to respond. He slid through the primary without answering questions, and he seems to want to do the same thing in the general election. Not very admirable behavior for the person who wants to be in charge of maintaining a healthy electoral process in Massachusetts.
<
p>
Remember that a vote for Jill Stein on November 7 will send a message that the 12-year incumbent needs to start taking our concerns seriously.