Share on Google Plus
  2
Share on Twitter
  11
Share on Facebook
  49
Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend
  2
64 Shares     
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats
1 comment

OpEdNews Op Eds

Another Husted Dirty Trick in Ohio

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

Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H2 11/5/12

opednews.com

Secretary of State's Office Admits Direct Reporting Function of Untested Election Software

Authors: Gerry Bello & Bob Fitrakis  

Citizen concerns about untested software have multiplied since the Columbus Free Press broke the news that  Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted's office installed uncertified and untested software  on the central vote tabulation machines in up to 39 counties in the state.

Memos circulated amongst senior staff  at the Ohio Secretary of States' indicate that they consider this skirting of Ohio Election Law is justified because the software does not directly tabulate or communicate actual votes. Their statements to the mainstream press reveal a different set of facts about the software and a different justification.

In statements to the  theGrio , NBC's political blog, SOS spokesman Matt McClellan said the software is to "assist counties and to help them simplify the process by which they report the results to our system." and that it was deemed experimental because "It is a pilot project that we're doing with about 25 counties or so. So it's not statewide, but it is a pilot project we're trying." 

Ohio election law does not allow software or hardware to be used in an election until it has been tested or certified by the Ohio Board of Voting Machine Examiners unless it is experimental. The confidential internal memos indicate that this software was never tested because of claims that it is not involved with the tabulation or communication of votes. Reporting election results from county tabulation systems to the secretary of state's office, which is the purpose of this software as explained by McClellan, is in fact communication of votes.

The potential federal illegality of this software has been hidden from public scrutiny by the Secretary of State's Election Counsel Brandi Seske. In a September 29 memo, Seske wrote, "Please see the attached letter from Matt Masterson regarding de minimis changes - one submitted by ES&S and one by Dominion Voting Systems. He has reviewed and approved the changes." "De minimis" is a legal term for minute. Federal election regulations have a very specific definition of de minimis. This definition was clarified to all state level agencies in a federal Elections Assistance Commission memo dated February 8, 2012 entitled "Software and Firmware modifications are not de minimis changes."

Ohio election law  provides for experimental equipment only in a limited number of precincts per county. Installing uncertified and untested software on central tabulation equipment essential affects every single precinct in a given county. Nowhere in the memos circulated by Seske, nor in the contract, is the software called "experimental."


The Secretary of State's office has given one questionable justification to its own Board of Voting Machine Examiners and another to the public.

The contract provides for testing, performed jointly by the counties and the vendor within 30 days of the software being installed. This testing was required to be independent and overseen by the Board of Voting Machine Examiners, as required by Ohio law.

McClellan told theGrio "I'm not sure the exact timeline of that [the installation and testing], but I know we've been working with the counties for the past couple of months on getting these in place, testing them to make sure they work properly, and working with the vendors as well."

This uncertified and untested software could easily malfunction and corrupt votes on the central tabulation machines, thus destroying any electronic record of the actual votes by citizens. This "experimental" software, as outlined in the contract, has no security protocols. A "man in the middle" attack, like the one that stole the Ohio election for George W. Bush in 2004, could be directly facilitated by this untested and uncertified software installation.

The Secretary of State's office has used every legal contortion to avoid the use of science and the possibility of public scrutiny of this possibly illegal software. The Free Press will continue to report on this story as it develops. 

Crossposted at The Free Press

 

http://www.freepress.org/index2.php

www.freepress.org www.bobforohio.com
Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Submit to Stumble Upon

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

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

New court filing reveals how the 2004 Ohio presidential election was hacked

Ohio Republicans pass new Jim Crow law disenfranchising 900,000 voters

Has America's stolen election process finally hit prime time?

Why Al Franken should NOT be riding private planes

The Lethal Media Silence on Kent State's Smoking Guns

The Ghost of Rigged Elections Past: New Revelations on the Death of Michael Connell

Comments

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  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

These treasonous acts against our democracy will c... by Dennis Kaiser on Tuesday, Nov 6, 2012 at 5:25:42 AM