Thursday, October 05, 2006

Voter group sues Alameda County over new voting system

Three Alameda County voters filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court Wednesday afternoon against the county and its registrar of voters office, over concerns about security and accuracy of the county's new voting system.

The group of voters -- being coordinated by the nonprofit Voter Action organization -- claims Alameda County has not performed independent, expert security vulnerability testing on its new Sequoia voting equipment. The group claims such testing was a prerequisite stipulated by county supervisors before the county would issue payment for the system.

Dave Macdonald, the county's acting registrar, said the county did in fact hire an independent third party to perform vulnerability tests, and those test results will be shown to the supervisors during a public meeting Oct. 10. He called the results "very positive."

"I would challenge anyone to find another county that is going to the lengths we are to ensure the security of our voting system," said Macdonald, adding the county also has yet to start payment for the new system.

In June, Alameda County supervisors approved the purchase of the new Sequoia voting system, which consists mainly of paper ballots that will be scanned electronically as well as 1,000 touch-screen machines.

The handful of voters suing claim the county and registrar, however, did not abide by the county supervisors' decision to test the equipment before purchase. This group contends the county entered into a contract with Sequoia that calls for the company to decide which tests to conduct, and does not stipulate that the testing be done by a third party.

Alameda County Counsel Richard Winnie said that allegation is incorrect, and the contract does not call for Sequoia to decide testing parameters. Winnie added the county has indeed performed its own third-party testing and is anticipating sending payment to Sequoia only after this November results have been certified and the county judges the equipment satisfactory.

Robert Friese, attorney for the trio of plaintiffs, said he does not believe the county and the registrar of voters have performed any testing. If they have, Friese said, that testing has not been done to an acceptable level. He added that he would like the independent, third-party tester to be observed by another impartial referee during the testing to verify the results.

"We are seeking these measures to make sure whoever receives the most votes in a given election in Alameda County is declared the winner," Friese said.

In March, Voter Action sued 18 counties, including Alameda, and the state for allowing touch-screen machines built by the Texas-based Diebold Election Systems to be used in elections. That lawsuit has since been dismissed.

The county's supervisors agreed to purchase the new Sequoia system after having problems with its Diebold machines, purchased in 2001. Those problems included once assigning votes to the wrong candidate.

Diebold eventually agreed in 2004 to pay the state and Alameda County $2.6 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that it made false claims when it sold its equipment to the county.

Source

No comments: