About the Post

Author Information

Former member of Scholars & Rogues.

E-voting screwup leads judge to void election results

By Martin Bosworth

As an amusing coda to my posts discussing the need for paper audit trails in electronic voting, and the industry’s opposition to same, here’s a look at what happens when you trust e-voting machines to handle a simple ballot initivative, and things go very wrong:

An Alameda County judge has voided election results for a failed 2004 Berkeley medical marijuana measure, ordering it returned to the ballot next year because county election officials failed to hand over data from voting machines, attorneys in the case said Thursday…In her ruling Tuesday, Smith said county officials had failed to retrieve backup data from electronic voting machines, logs of activity on the machines and other records as she had specifically ordered. Instead, the county ignored the request and returned the devices to their manufacturer, Diebold Election Systems, after the measure’s advocates had sued the county seeking access to the data, the judge said.

If there had been some kind of verifiable paper audit trail to use after the votes had been cast, this might not have happened. By retaining the audit records solely in electronic form on the machines, Diebold was able to eliminate the vast bulk of the vote records, necessitating a fresh start. While the bulk of culpability lies with the county election officials who undoubtedly returned the machines to Diebold to avoid revealing that the measure won, the fact remains that this data is all too easy to destroy, and we can’t trust any single source to maintain control over it. Democracy and the voting process are too important to entrust to avaricious companies, faulty technology, and corrupt officials.

More about this from Techdirt and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

4 Comments on “E-voting screwup leads judge to void election results”

  1. Sam Smith October 2, 2007 at 10:42 am #

    Jeez. Well, the good news here is that cases like this remove the discussion from the realm of the hypothetical. If you can’t execute on a little old vote like this, how significant is the risk when you’re talking about something the size of a general election?

  2. Dr. Denny October 2, 2007 at 11:21 am #

    Where in hell are the contempt-of-court citations? Sheesh.

  3. Robert Silvey October 2, 2007 at 11:31 am #

    We Berkeleyans knew the fix was in when marijuana lost. Not the will of the people, you know. A bit more info on the content here, from The Daily Cal.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Scholars and Rogues » E-voting company slapped with lawsuits for terminal stupidity - November 21, 2007

    [...] responsibility of the public infrastructure is placed in the hands of a private company and they drop the ball, it makes voters that much more disenfranchised and uninterested in participating in the process. [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,617 other followers

%d bloggers like this: