Sequoia told "NO," again!

From: Alan Dechert <dechert_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Thu Feb 22 2007 - 14:34:03 CST

I'm copying this to OVC-Discuss in case anyone here wants to discuss it!

<<<<<<<<
Yesterday, San Francisco supervisors again held firm and told Sequoia no
deal without disclosure. The Sequoia contract was number 2 on the agenda,
and took very little time. There wasn't that much to say after last week,
and only a few of us got up and spoke during the public comments time. It
will be on the agenda again next week. This can't continue very long before
Sequoia will be forced to walk away.

There was more in print about it today, and I've copied two articles below
from the San Francisco Examiner [1] and the San Francisco Chronicle [2].
The Chronicle article is straight forward reporting.

The Examiner article repeats a couple of specious claims made by Sequoia and
the SF Director of Elections, John Arntz. It is not true that the Sequoia
deal would be more economical, and Sequoia's claim that the security of
their systems would be compromised by disclosure is absurd. I will address
these issues more thoroughly in a letter I am preparing for members of the
Board of Supervisors.

Thank you.

Alan Dechert
http://openvoting.org

http://www.examiner.com/a-579026~Software_fight_delays_use_of_high_tech_ballots.html

Software fight delays use of high-tech ballots

John Arntz, The City's election director, says that in the last election, 25
percent of voting machines needed in-field service on Election Day. Joshua
Sabatini, The Examiner
Feb 22, 2007 3:00 AM

SAN FRANCISCO - San Franciscans may vote using costlier and older machines
this November as voter rights advocates staunchly oppose a proposed contract
between The City and an electronic voting machine company until it agrees to
reveal its software secrets.

Electronic voting machines throughout the nation have come under fire by
voter rights advocates who say keeping private how the software counts the
votes could lead to voter fraud and provides no assurance that every vote
is, in fact, counted.

The City's election director, John Arntz, is trying to convince the Board of
Supervisors to approve a $12.6 million contract with Sequoia Voting Systems
Inc. in time to put brand-new machines in place for the November election.

Arntz said the existing voting machines are old and in the last election at
least 25 percent of the machines required in-field service on Election Day.

The Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee refused for the second
time on Wednesday to send the contract out of committee for full board
approval. Supervisor Chris Daly, who chairs the committee, has indicated he
will not allow the contract out of committee until Sequoia agrees to
publicly release its software and how it counts the votes. San Francisco
would become one of the first cities to require an electronic voting machine
company to publicly disclose its software.

"Nobody and no machine should be counting votes in secret. And that's what
at issue here today," senior software consultant Jim Soper said.

Arntz said if The City does not approve the Sequoia contract it will have to
extend the existing contract and pay $4 million, for maintenance and
operation of the old system, for the four elections in 2007 and 2008.

The Sequoia contract would result in The City paying $6.8 million over four
years with half of the contract cost coming from state and federal grants.
The City would not be able to use any of the grant money for the old system.

Steven Bennet, a Sequoia representative, said Sequoia won't agree to public
disclosure since it would "jeopardize the security to all of our customers
in California and across the country." Electronic voting machine companies
also want to keep their software secret for proprietary reasons.

Under the contract, The City would receive 610 optical scan voting machines
(machines that read a paper ballot) and 610 touch-screen voter machines,
intended for use only by the disabled.

Very few people will use the touch-screen machines, which would keep a paper
record of each vote within the machine itself, according to Arntz. He said
the system will remain paper-based and the voters won't notice any
difference.

jsabatini@examiner.com

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/22/BAGFMO8UDR1.DTL
This article appeared on page B - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle

SAN FRANCISCO
Supes want to know how voting machines count
Company balks at public disclosure, offers alternative
Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, February 22, 2007

San Francisco supervisors told representatives of a voting machine company
Wednesday that the firm will need to publicly display details of the
software it uses to count ballots in order to win a $12.6 million, four-year
contract with the city.

At a Budget and Finance Committee hearing, Supervisors Tom Ammiano and Chris
Daly urged representatives of Sequoia Voting Systems of Oakland to place
software codes for touch-screen voting devices and paper ballot-scanning
machines on the Internet or in another public forum, so the public can
review how the machines tabulate votes.

Some counties have adopted touch-screen voting in response to suspicions
about the 2000 presidential election recount in Florida. But computer
experts have warned that the devices are susceptible to fraud and
programming errors.

Most of San Francisco's current voting machines use an optical scan to read
paper ballots. The city also requires at least one touch-screen device to be
installed in each of the city's 561 polling stations to make voting easier
for the disabled.

The city's Department of Elections negotiated a contract with Sequoia in
which the company would install a new system by this November's elections,
but it did not require that the firm reveal its software. The contract would
cost the city's general fund $6.8 million, and the remaining $5.8 million
would come from federal and state sources.

Under the City Charter, the contract is subject to Board of Supervisors
approval because it totals more than $10 million. Daly and Ammiano have held
up the deal because they want full disclosure of the firm's voting device
software codes.

"I have concerns about the public trust, and right now the contract language
does not have satisfactory language that requires public disclosure of the
source codes that determine how votes are counted." Ammiano said. "Those
codes are considered proprietary and only available to the vendor."

Representatives of Sequoia said the company would make the codes available
to a third party that could review the software and certify for the city
that the machines count votes properly and are not susceptible to fraud.

Ammiano and Daly were unenthusiastic about the offer, but did not commit one
way or the other. Daly, the committee's chairman, placed the issue on hold
to be discussed later. The third member of the committee, Supervisor Bevan
Dufty, was on vacation.

The delay places Elections Director John Arntz in a bind. He said he must
know in the next few weeks whether the contract with Sequoia will go through
because he needs to replace existing machines, train election workers and
make other preparations for the Nov. 6 election.

If the contract with Sequoia is not approved soon, Arntz said, the Elections
Department will propose a yearlong deal with Election Systems and Software
Inc. of Nebraska, whose contract to supply voting machines was extended
after expiring in 2005.

Arntz said the city would ultimately lose money if it goes that route. An
agreement with Election Systems will cost the city $4 million for one year
and cannot be supplemented with state or federal funds.

E-mail Robert Selna at rselna@sfchronicle.com

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Wed Feb 28 23:17:22 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 23:17:27 CST