B. Transmission of election data over county Intranet system is
contrary to recommendations of numerous voting security sources.
C. Loss of control/chain of custody of voting cartridges and printers
at collection site
D. Scanning equipment is over 20 years old and never qualified for
Federal approval
III. AUDITABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY:
A. No provision for outside, independent audit of election.
B. The legally sanctioned Election Observer Panel was denied
"meaningful access" as prescribed by law.
IV. FISCAL:
A. Delays by the Registrar of Voters office compelled the county to
spend $13 million on new equipment while a retrofit of existing
machines would have saved taxpayers at least half that amount.
B. Purchase of uncertified equipment may have violated state law
C. Averaging the past six years, Riverside County has spent $5 million
per year on a voting system purported to save taxpayers $600,000 in
annual ballot printing costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Independent outside process audits:
a. Audit of existing procedures and compliance with appropriate laws
and regulations and recommendations for changes needed for General
Election in November 2006
b. Audit of the November 2006 General Election while in progress with
recommendations for improvements
2. Independent outside financial audit by a qualified audit firm of
costs of e-voting system from 2000 (inception) to June 30, 2006 with a
comparison to cost (including cost per voter) of using paper ballots
for that same period. Absentee ballot costs and trends should be
reviewed separately.
3. Establish a year-round Citizens Independent Voting Integrity
Commission (CIVIC) to provide direct and meaningful observation of all
aspects of the election process and make recommendations to the Board
of Supervisors. Such commission shall be comprised of one member
appointed by the County Central Committee Chair of each political
party and five members from the election integrity community.
contrary to recommendations of numerous voting security sources.
C. Loss of control/chain of custody of voting cartridges and printers
at collection site
D. Scanning equipment is over 20 years old and never qualified for
Federal approval
III. AUDITABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY:
B. The legally sanctioned Election Observer Panel was denied
"meaningful access" as prescribed by law.
IV. FISCAL:
A. Delays by the Registrar of Voters office compelled the county to
spend $13 million on new equipment while a retrofit of existing
machines would have saved taxpayers at least half that amount.
B. Purchase of uncertified equipment may have violated state law
C. Averaging the past six years, Riverside County has spent $5 million
per year on a voting system purported to save taxpayers $600,000 in
annual ballot printing costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Independent outside process audits:
a. Audit of existing procedures and compliance with appropriate laws
and regulations and recommendations for changes needed for General
Election in November 2006
b. Audit of the November 2006 General Election while in progress with
recommendations for improvements
2. Independent outside financial audit by a qualified audit firm of
costs of e-voting system from 2000 (inception) to June 30, 2006 with a
comparison to cost (including cost per voter) of using paper ballots
for that same period. Absentee ballot costs and trends should be
reviewed separately.
3. Establish a year-round Citizens Independent Voting Integrity
Commission (CIVIC) to provide direct and meaningful observation of all
aspects of the election process and make recommendations to the Board
of Supervisors. Such commission shall be comprised of one member
appointed by the County Central Committee Chair of each political
party and five members from the election integrity community.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
