Washblog

I've kind of lost track here of what's going on  with the process of adopting this new business plan for election software/ equipment.  Zappini,  can you outline quickly what the process is?  Is this pretty much a done deal?  Or is public input still worthwhile?  And what's the best way to get that input?

I just called my council member's office and spoke with an aide who said he actually saw your article this morning.  I'm represented by Reagan Dunn.  The aide said he'll check with Dunn to see what his position is on this and get back to me.

This is a rare case where I'd guess that my Republican council member is more likely to be on the same side of an issue as I am -- than the council Democrats would be.  That's the case with 100% vote-by-mail, which I think is a big mistake.  So maybe that'll be the case here.  

He wanted to let me know that this is not, by any means, a "done deal".  It was the King County Council that required a business case to be made for the purchase/use of this equipment and new systems in the first place.  The Capital Budget Committee last year, made the request (Ferguson chaired it at the time).  

He said that there are at least three layers of review going on at the same time.

1. This business case and its review by the Council, along with the public input that it involves (there's a briefing of the committee of the whole this coming Monday at which the public is welcome -- King Co. elections officials, probably a Diebold representative, and others, will be there as well.)
2. The Citizen Election Oversight Committee is also taking public testimony and will make a recommendation.
3. The Council has hired consultants to review the business case -- including getting peer reviews of Diebold systems from other elections departments around the country.

I communicated to Councilmember Ferguson that I think this plan requires too much change right before a pivotal election -- the first presidential/state governor election after the problems of 2004.  

Millions of $ are involved here.  Yes, it's federal HAVA money, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be as fiscally prudent as we can.  This is not "use it or lose it".  There are plenty of other, more fiscally conservative ways to use this money to improve our election system.

King County is nationally recognized now for the effectiveness of its mail ballot processing system (see comment in Automotic Signature Verification).  Doing a complete 360 and changing everything around seems extreme.  As Zappini says in an earlier post -- why "smash" what's working (why fix what ain't broken.)

There's no need to "speed up" our ballot counting.  We can't count what we haven't received yet (a substantial portion of ballots are mailed right before or on election day).  And we should not be encouraging elections to be "called" by the media before they are certified or someone concedes.  This is how Democrats lose out.

This equipment has never been used or tested and it is uncertified. Some of it involves the use of secret software that citizens aren't legally permitted to review.  There are so many questions around the security of our elections nationwide that have never been adequately investigated.  There is considerable evidence that Diebold and other equipment can be readily hacked.  We just had a grueling experience in 2004.

So we step into this volatile mix and propose to completely change out how we sort and count our ballots?!  This clearly endangers the security of our elections.  And it is, in particular, dangerous for the Democratic majority in WA.  

It is guaranteed, as with any very complex system, but particularly a new one with radical changes -- and one that involves such high stakes and such a high level of public emotion and scrutiny, that there will be errors and mistakes.  It's possible that there will be catastrophic mistakes, that the equipment will malfunction in big ways or the systems will fail unexpectedly.

If this plan is adopted, and especially if it is adopted along partisan lines (with the Democrats voting for it and the Republicans voting against) it is also guaranteed that Democrats will take the political fall for whatever problems there are.

Bob Ferguson listened very attentively, I thought.  I appreciated him taking that time!  I really hope that the council tells KC Elections, "no" - that it asserts its oversight role and asks for an upgrade of our current

I hope that the council tells KC Elections, "no" - that it asserts its oversight role and asks instead that we upgrade our current equipment,  Diebold's GEMS (Global Election Management System) to increase its storage capacity -- rather than simply doing away with what we've already built and buying something new.

This plan benefits Diebold, not the citizens of King Co. and the state.