Judge Voids Election Results Over E-Voting Results That Couldn't Be Audited

from the nice-work dept

Apparently a judge in Alameda County, California, has voided some election results after the e-voting tallies from Diebold machines couldn’t be audited. The vote was on a controversial ballot measure, where the end result was quite close. Some activists went to court to demand a recount, but elections officials had already sent the machines back to Diebold, who had conveniently erased 96% of the necessary audit information. The issue will return to the ballot in the next election. Either way, this highlights one of the problems of e-voting machines that have no verifiable audit trail, and it’s nice to see a judge actually recognizing that. Of course, this time it was for a ballot measure that can wait until the next election. What about cases where these machines were used for electing officials?

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: diebold

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Judge Voids Election Results Over E-Voting Results That Couldn't Be Audited”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
23 Comments
Derek Currie (profile) says:

Hello, California? Who's the ignoramus that approv

Come on. We’ve known for a number of YEARS now that Diebold make GARBAGE voting machines and that they are INSISTENT upon doing so. Like DUH California! Hasn’t the catastrophe in Maryland over Diebold machines taught you anything? Or is your state government just another club of bought and sold old boys who want to be able to throw an election with no paper trail to hinder their chicanery?! Hmm?!

It is time for Diebold to DIE. Any computer science graduate in America could make a working, successful voting machine system with a fool proof paper trail. It’s that frickin’ easy! Clearly the continued use of this Diebold CRAP is a total SCAM on the US voters. There is no other conclusion.

WAKE UP California!

PTTG says:

Re: Hello, California? Who's the ignoramus that ap

I’m from CA, and your’e absolutely right. We can’t stand those guys. However, that ‘we’ refers to the liberal population. The redneck republicans are quite prolific in the Valley and Foothills, and they are the majority in some of these counties.

Dan says:

Re: Re: Hello, California? Who's the ignoramus tha

Amazing how the California liberals continue to play the victim card, when they pretty much control every single facet of government from the top to the bottom. Yet we still have to hear “it’s them damned redneck republicans that’re at fault!” Republicans in California border on disenfranchisemen, yet still, everything is their fault.

sharpinchitown says:

Re: Re: Re: Hello, California? Who's the ignoramus

California’s governor is republican. If he would have spoken up every machine would have been decertified…but it doesn’t serve his controllers. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how many democrats are in office if the top dog wishes something to be ignored, it will be so.

Regardless, there isn’t a lick of difference between the mainstream republican and democrat candidates; only where they get their money.

Dan says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Hello, California? Who's the ignor

The California has a republican governor is pretty much a matter of happenstance. He was put into office after the last one was given the boot by voters for incompetence, and there were simply no other candidates that were viable. Be that as it may, all of Arnold’s attempted reforms have been blocked by special interests and the Democrats that control the California legislature. To suggest that he is able to take the lead on anything is pretty much wishful thinking.

As for the case at hand, the voting machines are picked by the local counties and then certified for use by the secretary of state. Alameda county, which includes the towns of Berkeley and Oakland, is dominated by the Democratic party. The California Secretary of State, Debra Bownen, is a Democrat, just like all of the other elected officials that hold statewide offices in California, with the exception of the Govenor.

So, to suggests that it was some sort of Republican chicanery that these machines were bought and used as the earlier poster suggested, is just stupid.

csnet says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Hello, California? Who's the i

“The California Secretary of State, Debra Bownen, is a Democrat, just like all of the other elected officials that hold statewide offices in California, with the exception of the Govenor.”

It is misleading to omit from your post that Debra Bowen replaced the Republican SOS last January. The Republican certified Diebold and all the other voting machines in the state and blocked all reform efforts.

Debra Bowen immediately ordered a top to bottom review of all electronic voting machines used in the state. The result of that review conducted by the University of California is that now ALL of the electronic voting machines have been de-certified.

California is way ahead of any other state in making election officials accountable to the voters, thanks to Debra Bowen and the smart voters who elected her to do that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Let me get this straight –

1) The presidential elections were a f’ing mess because of political wrongdoing – on many levels.

2) Instead of thoroughly investigating, we blame paper ballots, which have been used successfully around the world, and here, forever.

3) Then the politicians fall over themselves buying electronic voting machines from big contributors – Diebold is only one.

4) Now the entire conversation is about audit trails.

How easily we are distracted! How f’ing stupid!

Does anyone actually think anymore?

WTF is happening in my country? !!!!!

Be afraid – be very afraid!

jeff says:

Re: all because someone could punch a hole with a

actually, the ‘chads’ weren’t completely punched through because, conveniently, someone refused to properly maintain machines in selected areas, thereby allowing a buildup of paper behind new votecards that would not allow for the voter to do anything but stab uselessly and without adequate result. all the pictures of the people judging a chad as ‘hanging’ or ‘dimpled’ was a simple smoke and mirror routine to distract everyone from the fact that they had been had by inventive, deceitful, and definitely not democratically minded election officials. so, before you go insulting an entire state of people for the most part like yourself, you should get your facts straight.

brisa says:

E-voting

The obvious answer to this problem is for governmnet officials to insist on using open source code
in voting and vote tabulation software with mandatory paper back up. Mandatory random audits by precinct to discourage hanky-panky is also needed.

The fact that no DC politician is demanding these requirements indicates to me that vote fraud has become institutionalized.

JR says:

E-Voting vs. Paper Ballots

When you go to vote, you just have to say the magic words: “I’d like a paper ballot, please.” In California they are supposed to provide one for you if you request it (and at election training in Orange County they told us NOT to tell voters that paper ballots are available unless they ask for them). The other option (which I chose) is to be a permanent absentee voter – you have to put this on your voter registration form – and, as long as you vote every time, they will automatically send you a paper ballot in the mail to be mailed back to them by election day.

Michael P says:

If they are de-certifying electronic machines....

If they are de-certifying electronic voting machines in California – then how did the machines in question get used in the election that the judge ultimately threw the results out for?

Sorry – that makes no sense to me that supposedly decertified machines could be used in an actual election. Somebody please explain the logic…

Kim G says:

Sent the machines back?

“…elections officials had already sent the machines back to Diebold…”

What official in their right mind… Oh, never mind.

Why would any election official allow the machines out of control of the local or state election organization. and be sent back to the manufacturer. Did they *RENT* them? I wouldn’t trust those farther than I could throw the machines.

They should be property of the election commissions (or whatever the officials are called), not the manufacturer!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...