Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

California County Sues State Over E-Vote Ban 33

Posted by timothy from the when-mandates-attack dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Riverside County teamed up this week with groups representing the disabled to sue California's secretary of state, who banned voting machines that, the plaintiffs argue, help the disabled exercise their right to vote anonymously. Here's the story. I guess Diebold does have some fans afterall."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California County Sues State Over E-Vote Ban More

California County Sues State Over E-Vote Ban

Comments Filter:

  • Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FreeMath ( 230584 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @08:12PM (#9102977) Homepage Journal
    "This is another flip-flop by state officials, based on shifting political winds, rather than considering what is best for the people of California," County Supervisor John Tavaglione said. "They're punishing us for using a system that has
    worked effectively and without error." Emphasis mine
    Well how would you know if there was an error if there is no physical evidence. Looks like someone forgot to check their facts.
    • This is interest considering what Avi Rubin talked about on CSPAN yesterday in front of the committee reviewing Electronic Voting in the U.S., where Avi Rubin and others discussed accessibility in addition to security.

      Avi's main concerns was that there is no way for the voter to verify that their vote was recorded properly, and that there is no way to publicly count the votes.

      It seems to me that those issues should also be of concern to the voter that would find the accessibility features of utility.

      I

    • "This is another flip-flop by state officials, based on shifting political winds, rather than considering what is best for the people of California," County Supervisor John Tavaglione said. "They're punishing us for using a system that has worked effectively and without error." Emphasis mine
      Well how would you know if there was an error if there is no physical evidence.

      Duh, because the people who paid the most money to Diebold won, just like it's supposed to work.

  • As a disabled person myself (Score:4, Insightful)

    by magefile ( 776388 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @08:16PM (#9102991)
    BS. I mean, I understand what they're thinking, but this is insecure!

    Try voting with a write-in, or ask someone you trust (relative? friend? hired personal aid?) to help, either in-booth, or with a write-in.

    IANAL, but I believe you are allowed to bring an assistant into the booth if you so choose.

    • Re:As a disabled person myself (Score:4, Informative)

      by dacarr ( 562277 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @08:30PM (#9103057) Homepage Journal
      See my rant below. In short, you are, and if you don't have one, one of the people working the precinct are obligated to get up and assist you.
    • IANAL, but I believe you are allowed to bring an assistant into the booth if you so choose.

      Just out of curiosity, why would you have to be a Lawyer to know if you are allowed to bring an assistant into a voting booth?

    • Re:As a disabled person myself (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      But that's the point they're making. If you need an assistant, your vote is no longer private and secret.

      Of course, the real issue here isn't anything that is suggested in the article. The truth is that they just want to take advantage of disabled people and they see e-voting as a way to do this.
      • Ever make a relay call (I have, both ways, tty->relay->voice and v->r->t)? The CAs (Communication Assistants) are trained well enough that it's considered secret/anonymous. They cannot divulge conversations, even under police order or with a warrant. The only way to tap your conversation is to tap the wire. See the previous /. articles. This kind of privacy issue is dealt with all the time in the disabled world.

        Try reading some of the standards of ethics set out by the National Associati
    • The problem with being allowed to bring an assistant in is that this "assistant" may be a representative of the person who bought your vote, making sure it stays bought.

  • More like knowledge disabled (Score:5, Informative)

    by dacarr ( 562277 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @08:26PM (#9103036) Homepage Journal
    It's already established that the machines are "not secure". Because of requirements in the voting system, you must have as much security as you can garner.

    So what is with these ignoramuses figuring that, back in the days of the punch cards, WE (the people who sat there all day so you can get off your sorry butts and vote) WOULDN'T ACTUALLY GET OFF OUR BUTTS AND ASSIST THE VOTER WITH THEIR BALLOT! Yes, kids, that's right, we go in there and help people vote if they need help! Blind? Ask them who to vote for and get a witness! Wheelchair? Have them bring their sample ballot and punch it, let them do a comparison to make sure! No arms? Same thing!

    So disabled, QED, is no excuse for this, as there are bits in the California election code that provide for assistance. The point here is that we were instructed to do whatever it took to help them vote, with the understanding that their vote does not leave our brains or the collection box, so if you are a disabled voter in some way, we helped. Besides, the feds would shoot down California on ADA violations if we didn't.

  • so, wait a second... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    wasnt there a recent emergency election in CA involving the governer's office where the ENTIRE STATE used a printed hard-copy booklet because of the large number of candidates running? IOW, no computer system or other mechanical system in any locale? How did the disabled vote during those proceedings?
    • I seriously doubt "the disabled" filed this lawsuit, but rather it was some idiot at the county who, in the same voice as "think of the children", uttered "think of the disabled".

      This is one of those Hobson's choice things: security or convenience, convenience or security? Personally, I'd vote security, but they won't give me a printout.
      • I seriously doubt "the disabled" filed this lawsuit, but rather it was some idiot at the county who, in the same voice as "think of the children", uttered "think of the disabled"

        Actually, California (and Berkeley in particular) is a center of disabled activism. Knowing nothing about this (hey, gimme a break), I wouldn't be surprised if it was filed by a disabled advocacy group.

        In California, the disabled look after themselves.

  • This is Asinine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jmt9581 ( 554192 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @08:45PM (#9103136) Homepage
    The ban only applies to machines that don't leave a proper paper trail, these lobbying groups should be putting pressure on Diebold to release a product that doesn't suck.

    "This is another flip-flop by state officials, based on shifting political winds, rather than considering what is best for the people of California," County Supervisor John Tavaglione said. "They're punishing us for using a system that has worked effectively and without error."

    What a disab^H^H^H^H stupid thing to say. This totally overlooks the fact that there's no error because the machines leave no way for people to verify correct results in an election. That's like a hospital not recording statistics on surgically caused deaths and then claiming that they have no record of any deaths being caused under surgery.

    Until a suitable alternative presents itself, the disabled will have to cast their vote in an environment of reduced anonymity. That's been the procedure before the Diebold machines were available, and that should be the procedure until a suitable alternative to paper ballots is made available.

      • these lobbying groups should be putting pressure on Diebold to release a product that doesn't suck.

      As I am sure we all know, Diebold's machines were designed to be tampered with.

      So to rephrase your sentance a little bit "pressure on Diebold to release a product that isn't customized for election fraud, and hasn't the abillity to deliver a negative amount of votes".

      I still call election-fraud on these assholes. This system doesn't "suck", it's specificly designed to be this weak and to be tamper

  • When somebody claims that somebody "under color of law" has infringed a federally protected right (either constitutional or statutory), usually they sue under Section 1983.

    It's an important avenue to be sure, giving a right of action to folks who've had their rights squandered by public officials. It is however REALLY easy for a plaintiff to get their legal fees from the defendant (CA, in this case) in a 1983 action. Basically if they win on any of their claims (even say, one of a dozen claims) they'll ge
  • As president I promise to transfer the funds of the entire US treasury to the employees and families (and investors) of the major e-voting companies in the country. I smell landslide.
  • Moreno Valley, to be exact.

    That was a horrible, horrible place to grow up. School officials always took the sides of the kids who beat the crap out of me every day because of my speech impediment, or they didn't care. They even had rules against self defense. You just gotta take your beatings and watch the principal ignore your bruises and bleeding after hearing the other kid solemnly swear that it never happened.

    I thought the problem was just the schools, but appearantly the incompetence must have spread

  • Err... Was it ever that bad? (Score:3, Informative)

    by WhiteBandit ( 185659 ) on Monday May 10, 2004 @01:45AM (#9104337) Homepage
    While there is quite a lot of hoopla surrounding Diebold, Riverside County's electronic voting systems were manufactured by Sequoia Voting Systems.

    I lived right across the "tracks" so to speak, in San Bernardino County, but attended Riverside Community College and had many friends who lived in Riverside. We've talked at legth about electronic voting issues and I've never heard any concerns about Riverside's electronic voting system. In fact, they were one of the first county's in California to turn to completely electronic voting, starting with the 2000 presidential elections.

    Googling for some random info, I see that there are a few complaints about how data is handeled (and namely the neccesity of a paper ballot). I think a lot of people replying are just using knee-jerk reactions. Riverside's systems have been running for four years now nearly without a hitch.

    I will note that they can always be improved though. But the main reason Riverside is suing is because they *got rid* of their regular voting gear 4 years ago and upgraded to complete electronic voting. It will be quite expensive for them to go back, and with less than 6 months notice as well.
    • But the main reason Riverside is suing is because they *got rid* of their regular voting gear 4 years ago and upgraded to complete electronic voting. It will be quite expensive for them to go back, and with less than 6 months notice as well.

      Pens and paper work fine for the rest of the world, and aren't expensive at all.

      • The state is only requiring them to allow voters to use an alternative method. State grabs a handfull of absentee balots, places them in a stack in the precincts. People now have a choice to vote paper if they want too. Is that too hard??
    • Riverside's systems have been running for four years now nearly without a hitch.
      How do you know there was no hitch? For instance, in this Spring's recall vote in Riverside, Larry Flynt beat Gary Coleman 540 to 593 [ca.gov] - less than 50 votes. How do you know some pr0n [larryflynt.com] loving programmer with an lingering childhood crush on Dana Plato [imdb.com] didn't rig those results? No paper trail to prove it either way. And why so many candidates in the last election with 100%? How do you do write-ins on a touch screen? Do you
  • it is proposed in cali to give 14 - 18 year olds a quarter vote based on age. along these same lines, shouldn't handicappers votes be given a percentage based on the remaining functionality of thier bodies?

    [ducks and runs]

  • The counties who are suing the state over the eVote ban may be run by fundamentally ignorant people, or unethical people if this really is a about Diebold partisanship, but at least some of these suits are due to the ongoing California budget crisis. No Arnie hasn't really solved anything; he's mostly pushed the inevitable pain onto local budgets who are too disorganized and red-inked to do much about it other than lash out irrationally.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Close