Voter Action Press Release

DENVER, PRNewswire-USNewswire -- Today a non-partisan anddiverse group of Colorado voters, who in 2006 brought a successful courtchallenge to the certification of Direct Record Electronic ("DRE")computerized voting machines, publicly applauded Colorado Secretary ofState Mike Coffman's decision to support a return to paper ballots as thesolution for Colorado's 2008 elections, calling it a step in the rightdirection. The plaintiffs, however, continue to oppose Secretary Coffman's earlierdecision to re-certify certain Direct Recording Electronic ("DRE")computerized voting systems for use in Colorado's 2008 elections becausethe DREs manufactured by Premier Election Systems (formerly DieboldElection Systems), Sequoia Voting Systems, ES & S, and Hart InterCivic havea well-documented history of vulnerability to hacking and problems withsecurity, reliability, and verifiability. A lawsuit was filed in June 2006 by a diverse group of Colorado voters,among them Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Green Party members,as well as two disabled voters. The lawsuit challenged former Secretary ofState Gigi Dennis's cursory and illegal certification of DRE computerizedvoting machines manufactured by Premier (Diebold), Sequoia, ES & S, andHart InterCivic. After a trial in September 2006, the Denver District Courtordered the Secretary of State to comply with the law and adopt minimumsecurity standards for electronic voting machines and retest the foursystems under those standards before authorizing their use in any futureelections. In the ruling, the Court said the Secretary of State's officefailed to develop minimum security standards, as required by state law, anddid an "abysmal" job of documenting the testing during its certificationprocess. The law firm Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP in Denver represented theColorado voters in the trial. A copy of the Denver District Court documentsfrom the case are available at http://www.voteraction.org. "We enthusiastically support Secretary Coffman's recommendation thatColorado move to paper ballots," said Myriah Conroy, a plaintiff in theColorado voters' 2006 lawsuit. "We are pleased that Secretary Coffman hasrecommended that Colorado join with California, Florida, Michigan, and Ohioin rejecting the widely discredited DRE voting systems. DRE computerizedvoting systems are easily hacked and compromised, and have a history ofoperational problems that have disrupted elections across the country. Forthat reason we believe that the Secretary should support electronicballot-marking devices, not DRE computerized voting machines, toaccommodate voters with disabilities. Nonetheless, the Secretary's decisionto support paper ballots represents a major milestone on the path toelection integrity in Colorado," said Conroy. The Secretary of State joined those in several other states, includingCalifornia and Ohio, when earlier this month his voting systems testingboard identified numerous security and reliability flaws in thecomputerized DRE systems. The Ohio Secretary of State issued a new reporton December 14, 2007, detailing the results of its security testing ofthree voting systems manufactured by Premier, ES & S, and Hart. Ohio'sstudy discovered "serious vulnerabilities in the [three] systems and manyof their components," concluding that "[a]ll three vendor systems reviewedhave serious gaps in compliance with even the most basic set of informationsecurity guidelines used by systems in industries such as finance,insurance, medical care, manufacturing, logistics and other globalcommerce. Given the extremely valuable data that these systems process andthe fact that our very democracy and nation depend on the security of thatdata, much work remains to be done by all three vendors." California's andOhio's published reports regarding the electronic voting systems areavailable at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections andhttp://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/info/everest.aspx. "The sanctity of our elections is too important to turn over to privatecorporations, which operate without accountability to the voters. Some ofthe security risks with the DRE computerized voting machines are so highthat it is unconscionable that their manufacturers, who have known of theproblems for years, have not taken the necessary steps to correct them, andnow there is no time for the vendors to re-design their DREs in time forthe 2008 elections," commented Dr. Douglas W. Jones of the University ofIowa. "There are better and more secure options than DREs available,specifically paper ballot-based ballot marking and optical scan systems.Optical scan-paper balloting is more secure, less expensive, and can beverified, which is why neighboring New Mexico, Florida, Michigan, and otherstates moved to these systems," said Paul Hultin of Wheeler Trigg Kennedy,the law firm that represented the plaintiffs in Conroy v. Dennis. "Coloradovoters deserve to know that the state's voting systems preserve thefundamental right to have their votes recorded and counted as intended,"said Mr. Hultin. The group of voters also agrees with Secretary Coffman that anall-mail-ballot system is not the best alternative to computerizedelectronic voting machines. "A system that relies exclusively on centrallycounted mail-in ballots is less secure, less reliable, and less transparentthan a precinct-based paper ballot system," said Mike Williams, one of theplaintiffs' lawyers. "In 2002, Colorado voters rejected all-mail-ballotelections, and with good reason. Mail ballots carry a high risk oftampering, mishandling, and voter intimidation. Sometimes mail ballots evendisappear altogether by the thousands, as happened in Florida's 2000 and2004 elections. Every vote needs to be accurately counted," added Williams. "We urge the General Assembly to, like New Mexico, adopt newlegislation that provides for a less expensive and more reliable paperballot and optical scanning system, supplemented by one electronicballot-marking device in each polling location to accommodate voters withdisabilities," stated John Bonifaz, Legal Director of Voter Action,http://www.voteraction.org, a not-for-profit organization that supportedthe 2006 voter lawsuit and provides legal, research, and logistical supportfor grassroots efforts to ensure the integrity of elections in the UnitedStates. "The legislature should act as soon as it convenes next year toensure that the counties have sufficient time to prepare for the primaryelections in August."