Election
Integrity

Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count by Steven F. Freeman & Joel Bleifuss / Foreword by U.S. Representative John Conyers, Jr.

Read a PDF excerpt
Sequoia threat thwarts voting machine check
  About Blog Exit Polling Needs/Opportunities Reports/Presentations News/Commentary         Forum

Sequoia threat thwarts voting machine check

by Steven Freeman 3/18/2008 8:40:00 PM

Thanks to Jon Deutsch for alerting us to this. As pointed out in SlashDot (a reputable source of information to the technical community), Sequoia seems to be claiming that no one can make a report about their equipment without their permission.   

Legal threat thwarts Union voting-machine check

Tuesday, March 18, 2008
BY DIANE C. WALSH
NJ Star-Ledger Staff

Union County (NJ) backed off its plans yesterday to have a Princeton University computer scientist inspect electronic voting machines where errors occurred in the presidential primary tallies.

Sequoia Voting Systems, the manufacturer of New Jersey's voting machines, threatened to sue the county if it allowed Princeton professor Edward Felten to conduct an independent study of the machines.

A Sequoia executive, Edwin Smith, put Union County Clerk Joanne Rajoppi on notice that an independent analysis would violate the licensing agreement between his firm and the county. In a terse two-page letter, Smith also argued the voting machine software is a Sequoia "trade secret" and cannot be handed over to any third-party.

Last week, Rajoppi had persuaded the statewide clerks' association to hire Felten, who made national headlines two years ago when he demonstrated how a computer virus could alter the result on Diebold voting machines.

The Constitutional Officers Association of New Jersey called for the independent review to insure the integrity of the election process. Sequoia maintained the errors, which were documented in at least five counties, occurred due to mistakes by poll workers.

The firm, which is based in Colorado, examined machines in Middlesex County, and concluded that poll workers had pushed the wrong buttons on the control panels, resulting in errors in the numbers of ballots cast. But officials found it odd that such an error never occurred before and the clerks' association wanted further testing.

On the advice of the county's attorneys, however, Rajoppi said she must forgo all plans for independent analysis.

"We're not going to proceed and invite a lawsuit," said Norman Albert, first deputy counsel in Union County.

Union County's stance upset Penny Venetis, a Rutgers University law professor representing a group of activists trying to have electronic voting machines scrapped.

"We shouldn't have a corporation dictating how elections are run in the state," Venetis said. "If an elected official believes there was an anomaly and the matter has to be investigated, then the official should be able to consult with computer experts without interference."

Rajoppi uncovered the error when she was double-checking the results from the Feb. 5 presidential primary. On a handful of machines, she found the number of Democrats and Republicans casting ballots did not match when the cartridge printouts from the machines were compared against the paper-tape backup inside the devices. Bergen, Gloucester, Middlesex and Mercer county officials later identified the same errors.

The clerk said yesterday she is "disappointed we cannot go forward with some type of independent study."

John Carbone, an attorney representing the constitutional officers' association, said, "We don't have access to the machines, so we can't do anything."

While the county clerks must certify the election results, the voting machines are controlled and maintained by the board of elections in each county.

Rajoppi said she is concerned over the upcoming June primary where council races and party committee seats are often decided by one or two votes. She said the situation could result in lawsuits from candidates in close elections.

The Union County clerk said she intends to write to the state Attorney General's Office again in hopes of convincing the state to call for an independent study. The attorney general oversees the election process.

David Wald, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, said at least 10 counties, including the five where errors were found, have been trying to verify the explanation Sequoia gave that poll workers caused the errors. He said Sequoia recommended putting a hard plastic cover over the control panel to prevent poll workers from inadvertently hitting buttons that could cause the problem.

Diane C. Walsh may be reached at dwalsh@starledger.com or at (732) 404-8087.http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1205818545270600.xml&coll=1

Tags:

Related posts

Comments

3/19/2008 6:20:24 AM

My name is Patricia Axelrod. I am a pro se litigant in Axelrod v Sequoia et al. I want to make it clear that I am neither an attorney nor do I play one on television; rather I an American citizen who refuses to surrender my vote to Sequoia's electronic treachery. High powered, big shot Sequoia attorneys have threatened me with retalliation for defaming Sequoia's 'good name' and reputation, but unlike the N.J. Attorney General I am unafraid to stand up to legal thuggery and I have not been dissuaded from filing my lawsuit. I did so because the entire state of Nevada - wherein I reside and vote -is held captive to the failings of Sequoia Voting Machines and the AVC Edge with Verivote Printer. Therefore, I find it necessary to charge Sequoia with product defect, misrepresentation, negligence, and deceit. Fully cognizant of the malfunction of this machine - not only in Nevada but in others states and cities - I am asking that the District Court order the testing of this Sequoia system.

Now it's no secret to anyone that I have neither money nor the State of Nevada backing my effort, but I refuse to surrender my stake in U.S. democracy to Sequoia machine malfunction and human malfeasance. I've given up on the Nevada Attorney General - who has asked that my lawsuit be dismissed - but that doesn't keep me from hoping that the N.J. Attorney General - empowered by right and the full weight and power of his State - has at least the courage of one woman standing along in Nevada. Axelrod v Sequoia proceeds to lead the way for New Jersey to follow the path of litigation.

Patricia Axelrod us

3/20/2008 10:54:49 AM

Stand firm.

Paul Lenart us

3/26/2008 2:30:00 PM

Apparently the Judge thought little of Sequoia's threat with her ruling yesterday. The Princeton investigation is back on.

www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/03/25/ap4813115.html

Sequoia may still appeal, on the grounds that it infringes on their proprietary trade secrets.

Steven Freeman

Comments are closed

 

 

Home | About Us | FAQ | Contact Us | for Candidates
©Copyright 2008, Election Integrity. All rights reserved.

 

 


Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!


Recent comments

© Copyright 2012

Sign in