Last issue I reported in great detail that four out of the twelve votes I’d cast on my ballot on L.A. County’s e-voting system, during California’s state primary on June 3, were flipped to candidates that I hadn’t voted for. The ES&S InkaVote Plus system printed my ballot incorrectly.
I was voting on the audio ballot voting system meant primarily for blind and visually impaired voters. Had I not been able to inspect my ballot visually after it had printed, for example, had I been blind, I would never have known that I was about to cast votes for candidates that I had not selected.
Luckily, after noticing that the e-voting system had printed my ballot incorrectly, I was allowed to VOID that ballot, and this time chose to vote on a regular, hand-marked paper ballot instead. My hand filled in the ballot far more accurately than the computer.
That night, I alerted officials at the Calif. Sec. of State’s office and L.A. County’s acting Registrar of Voters, Dean Logan, about the problem, and the machines and ballots in question were isolated for testing. Whether someone who wasn’t a loud, muckraking journalist, specializing in issues of election integrity, would have had that kind of quick service, I can’t tell you.
Logan promised the machine would be tested, and the SoS office promised to follow the testing closely.
Earlier this week, Logan sent me an update via e-mail, with photos, on what the investigation had so far found. The problem, Logan wrote, is being attributed to the “human error” of the poll workers who, he says, entered incorrect information into the e-voting system when setting up my ballot for me to vote.
Logan’s complete e-mail detailing the findings of the cursory investigation follows below, along with my e-mail in response to it. As you’ll see, the all-too de rigueur “human error” excuse does not sit well with me. . .
Mr. Friedman — Brief update: As indicated last week, we have identified and secured the InkaVote Plus devices and other voting materials from your polling place at our Election Operations Center (photos attached).
Based on your report and photographs, our staff has conducted an initial assessment and review of what occurred. Our preliminary assessment is that what occurred was the result of human error in selecting and entering the ballot code and party selection when setting up the Audio Ballot Booth for your use. As a result you were presented a ballot with a ballot group designation that did not match the voting location/precinct you were in. This would account for a different rotation of candidate names from the rotation listed on your sample ballot and in the voting booths at your poll site. Using the photographs in your report, we were able to identify the incorrect ballot code printed on the VOIDED audio ballot slip and to match your selections to the rotation associated with the incorrect ballot code that was used. The incorrect ballot code and party identification also likely explain the reason you were not presented the partisan contests you requested as provisional ballot status should not affect your ability to cast a partisan ballot.
Had your voted audio ballot been inserted into the Precinct Ballot Reader (PBR) after it printed from the Audio Ballot Booth, it would have been rejected based on the incorrect ballot group identification and further action should have been taken to ensure the correct ballot was issued. In your case, however, since you were voting provisionally, procedures would have called for your ballot to be returned in a provisional ballot envelope for confirmation of voter eligibility. Once verification occurred, the audio ballot slip would have been duplicated to the correct ballot group format for the precinct in which you are registered to vote. Properly conducted, that process would have resulted in your selections being recorded and counted as you intended.
While preliminary indications are that this was not a system failure - rather, it appears to have been a process and training deficiency - it is clearly an issue that must be addressed. The complexity of the situation is further complicated by the variables and multiple party ballots associated with our Primary. Many of these factors will not apply in the November General Election. Your experience shows, however, that they do need to be improved for future primaries in which the InkaVote Plus system is used. Once our review and investigation is complete, we will demonstrate what occurred and show how the instructions were intended to be carried out. This e-mail is intended as an update only. A detailed report of these findings and an explanation of their impact will be prepared as part of our continuing review and investigation into the issues raised in your report. Additional review and analysis needs to be completed to ensure we have been thorough and complete in our investigation and findings. We will keep keep you informed of our progress.
I hope this information is helpful.
Dean
Next issue: Brad’s response.”
Read more of Brad Friedman’s reporting at http://www.bradblog. com/.
7|01|08