“Some of the flaws are notable but need to be considered in the context of the use of the technology. Instead of throwing the machines out, the state should rank the potential vulnerabilities by likelihood and impact and then develop state minimum security standards to prevent against the realistic tampering potentials identified. Just because a person could cause a machine to maybe reboot when slamming against the floor in a precinct should not be among the justifications for scrapping the machines (such a scenario is outlined in the EVEREST executive summary or the press release, I can’t recall which.)
He went on to say:
“Regionalized voting centers, expanded in person early voting, etc.. are all interesting election administration reform ideas that should be debated and discussed and hopefully acted upon to some extent…”
He went on to point out that he believed that the report’s concern with industry standards did not take into account that in his view the machines meet Ohio legal standards. Damschroder also pointed out that the report said AutoMark was fatally flawed but encouraged its use for disabled voters.
Association lobbyist Aaron Ockerman liked the response so much he wrote back and said,
“If I do not attribute this and erase the link to Phil, do you mind if I share the substance of the email? I will only attribute it to “an election official.” This is great, because it does give credit to the SOS for the findings, but also points to solutions for fixing those problems.”
One day later, Damschroder was pointedly not so open to the debate over some of the reforms in EVEREST (mentioned in the Rudell email) when he pointed the news division of the Dispatch in a different direction:
“What’s your timeframe for getting a story to press? I’m pretty slammed today; can probably get some thoughts to you tomorrow. You should call Scott Doyle in Colorado (Larrimer County). He “invented the idea of vote centers (a different kind, though than Brunner is proposing – under his program, a voter can go to any location in the county as opposed to an assigned mega-precinct.) He could give you some real insights. I would also call the elections director in Denver – they tried vote centers in 2006 and had major meltdowns… long, long, long lines. As I understand it, their problem was data connectivity problems for the electronic po9ll books with the central server…”
Niquette was after the cost factors of EVEREST on the 20th but had already considered vote centers and replied at 8:40 a.m.:
“I’m probably going to put this out tomorrow in a story, likely led with what happens in Cuyahoga County. If you have time by the end of the day just to provide initial reaction to the assumptions [cost], that would be great. Also would you have time to shoot me a comment with your take on Brunner’s vote center concept I could use in a story for Sunday? Do you like the approach? Would the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? I have talked to Doyle and others already about it.”
One day after Niquette inquired about costs of the reforms, the Association’s lobbyist Aaron Ockerman sent out a questionnaire to Boards in order to “better get our hands around the expected costs associated with the proposed EVEREST recommendation versus your current system…”
Co-opting the Election Activists
For Larry Norden, Counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Ohio’s politicized elections process has to be a blessing and curse. The blessing is the attention that donors and academics give to the Ohio elections.
But the curse is that his findings, like those of the EVEREST scientist, fall victim to murky agendas and conspiracy theories which abound when discussing Ohio elections.
Norden first met Damschroder, Candice Hoke of Cleveland State University and other Ohio elections experts testifying before Congress on opposite sides of an issue. He and Damschroder developed a rapport and eventually appeared on panels together.
The day after Christmas, when Damschroder first approached Norden, he complimented his statement on the controversy over Secretary Brunner’s Cuyahoga County Board of Elections changes and pointed out:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
