General News

Utah's New Election Audit and Recount Procedures Found Lacking by Utah's Desert Greens Party and Utah Count Votes

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 4 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

- Advertisement -

Utah's New Election Audit and Recount Procedures Found Lacking by Utah's Desert Greens Party and Utah Count Votes

DATE: Thursday, October 26, 2006

RE: "Election Policy" Adopted October 17, 2006 by the Office of the Lt. Governor of Utah
URLS: and

WHO: Utah's Desert Greens Party, and Utah Count Votes,
WHERE: Salt Lake City, UT
CONTACT: Kathy Dopp,, 435-658-4657

The Utah's Desert Greens Party, the Utah affiliate of the Green Party of the United States (, and Utah Count Votes, an election integrity group, oppose Utah's new election procedures for vote count audits and recounts. After a careful review of Utah's new internal audit procedures for the upcoming November 7, 2006 general mid-term election, Utah Count Votes and the Desert Greens Party feel that Utah's newly adopted election policies weaken Utah's election processes and fail to ensure Utah's election integrity.

Their concerns include:
The uncertainty of using volatile invisible electronic ballots that computer experts have shown are open to vote fraud and glitches makes manual audits important to give the public confidence in election results. Public comment was not solicited for Utah's new audit and recount procedures and no qualified mathematicians, degreed statisticians, or expert auditors were advisors to the Lt. Governor to develop these newly adopted election policies.
- Advertisement -

Major problems they identified with Utah's new audit and recount procedures include:

1. Not Verifiable by the Public

o No auditable report of election results (counts on each voting machine for each race or issue) is publicly released prior to selecting which counts will be audited, so the audit could be manipulated (by adjusting election results numbers to match aggregated vote totals, despite not matching detailed machine counts).

o The counts to audit may be randomly selected prior to poll closure and announcement of election results, and therefore the audit could be manipulated (by manipulating machine vote counts to alter election outcomes that are known will not be audited).

o Not publicly observable (the public is not permitted to observe either the random selection of the counts, or the
- Advertisement -

o No access to records needed to verify

o Results of the audit Not Publicly Released

2. Not Transparent

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4


The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

BPA Levels in Adults up 70 Percent after Drinking from Plastic Bottles

NYPD Commissioner Bratton compares NYC Black Lives Matter protests to Paris and Mumbai terrorist attacks

The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove, A Documentary Record

Zogby Poll: Palin Puts McCain Ahead of Obama


ADL: Holocaust & Nazi Imagery Abound at Anti-Israel Rallies in US


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments