The disconnect between voter ID laws and voter fraud

By Philip Bump 

Almost no one shows up at the polls pretending to be someone else in an effort to throw an election. Almost no one acts as a poll worker on Election Day to try to cast illegal votes for a candidate. And almost no general election race in recent history has been close enough to have been thrown by the largest example of in-person voter fraud on record.

That said, there have been examples of fraud, including fraud perpetrated through the use of absentee ballots severe enough to force new elections at the state level. But the slew of new laws passed over the past few years meant to address voter fraud have overwhelmingly focused on the virtually non-existent/unproven type of voter fraud, and not the still-not-common-but-not-non-existent abuse of absentee voting.

In August, Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola University Law School, detailed for Wonkblog 31 instances of documented, in-person voter fraud that would have been prevented by stricter rules around identification at the polling place. The most severe instance Levitt outlined involved as many as 24 voters in Brooklyn who tried to vote under assumed names.

There are almost no elections in which 24 votes makes a significant difference, particularly at the federal level. The graph below compares the vote total and the margin of victory for every race with less than a million votes in general elections since 2006.

Read Full Story

Latest Internet voting reports show failures across the board

According to reports obtained by Al Jazeera America, Toronto found proposed Internet voting platforms below standards.

Internet voting, a technology often cited as a solution to the United States' problematic voting machines, received failing security and accessibility grades in the latest in-depth audit conducted by the City of Toronto. Two of the three vendors audited by the city currently have contracts with over a dozen U.S. jurisdictions for similar technologies.

The accessibility report, prepared by researchers at the Inclusive Design Research Centre at OCAD University, and the security report, prepared by researchers at Concordia and Western universities, were obtained by Al Jazeera America through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Proponents of Internet voting, largely disabilities groups and advocates for military voters overseas, point to the apparent ease-of-use of other Internet-based activities, such as banking, and claim the technology would lead to higher turnout rates.  

The reports highlight the difficulty in creating a voting system that isn't more susceptible to corruption than existing voting technology and that is easy enough to use for voters with a variety of personal computer setups, including those with disabilities who often use alternatives to traditional mice, keyboards and screens.

Thirty-one states in the U.S. allow overseas and military voters to print and deliver ballots electronically. A Pentagon unit, the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) has largely spearheaded the effort by funding state programs providing assistance to overseas troops and others. A nonprofit watchdog group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, sued FVAP last month to force them to disclose their own audits of Internet voting conducted three years ago. In 2012 the program told Congress it would release the records to the public by the middle of 2013.

Other countries including Germany and the Netherlands have banned all forms of electronic voting, including Internet voting. Norway experimented with Internet voting in 2011 and 2013 for a select subset of voters. A recent government-commissioned report on the trial found that it did not increase voter turnout nor did it mobilize smaller demographic groups. Officials noted that increasing turnout was not an intended or expected outcome and it confirmed previous findings that voting was easier for some, but those with disabilities had issues with error messages, text contrast and other elements.

Read full story

Why Voting Online Puts Your Vote and Privacy at Risk

Written by Susannah Goodman, Pamela Smith

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia allow military and overseas voters (not domestic voters)  to return voted ballots by email, facsimile and/or other Internet transmission; six allowInternet return for military members in “hostile fire” zones, and one – Alaska -- allows it for all absentee voters. But Internet voting is very insecure; ballots returned this way are at risk for manipulation, loss or deletion. 

According to the National Institute for Standards and Technology, the agency charged with reviewing the security of Internet voting systems, even the most sophisticated cyber security protections cannot secure voted ballots sent over the Internet and secure Internet voting is not feasible at this time. The integrity and reliable delivery of ballots returned electronically over online balloting systems – even those that employ security tools such as encryption or virtual private networks -- can’t be guaranteed.

Just as important, ballots sent by electronic transmission cannot be kept private. Most States which accept electronically transmitted ballots require voters to sign a waiver forfeiting the right to a secret ballot.  In some cases, this waiver conflicts with state law or constitutional provisions which guarantee the right to a secret ballot. 

In light of these facts, cybersecurity experts at the Department of Homeland Security have advised against sending marked ballots back via email or Internet portal. Moreover, the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) has advised that postal return of voted ballots is the most responsible method of ballot return.

Read Full Story

America's Looming Crisis in Voting Technology

The nation’s voting equipment is quickly becoming obsolete. But even if local governments could afford upgrades, no new machines exist to buy.

More and more often these days, Neal Kelley and his staff find themselves rooting through shelves at used computer stores in Orange County, Calif., looking for something they can’t find anywhere else: laptops that run on Windows 2000. Kelley is the registrar of voters in Orange County, and one component of his election equipment still runs on the Microsoft operating system from 14 years ago.

As in most places around the country, Orange County’s voting technology is based on federal standards set after Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002. The razor-thin presidential election in 2000 between Al Gore and George W. Bush revealed that outdated technology had left thousands of votes uncounted. With HAVA, Congress encouraged local governments to install electronic voting equipment, resulting in a wave of upgrades across the country. Between 2002 and 2004, Congress allocated more than $3 billion for some 8,000 local jurisdictions to replace the punch card devices and lever machines they had been using for more than 30 years. But today, a decade later, that upgraded election infrastructure is quickly becoming obsolete.

In a worst-case scenario, current equipment will start to fail in the next couple years, forcing fewer voting booths to process more ballots, a recipe for longer lines and voter frustration. “What you don’t want is disenfranchised voters who are deciding not to cast a ballot because of these issues,” says Kelley. “We can’t let ourselves get to that point. We need to be ahead of this curve.”

It’s an impending crisis for states and localities. “Jurisdictions do not have the money to purchase new machines,” the Presidential Commission on Election Administration reported in January, “and legal and market constraints prevent the development of machines they would want even if they had the funds.” In other words, the newer technology simply isn’t there. And even if it were, localities couldn’t afford it.

89 ARTICLES ON WHY VOTING BY MAIL IS A VERY BAD IDEA

89 ARTICLES ON WHY VOTING BY MAIL IS A VERY BAD IDEA

From the No Vote by Mail Project

1. What’s Wrong With Voting by Mail or Absentee Ballot

2. The Death of the Polling Place

3. Absentee Ballot Fraud Hits Texas, Grannyfarming a longterm problem

4. Milwaukee Police Find Numerous Cases of Absentee Vote Fraud

5. Vladimir Putin Prefers Voting By Mail

6. Don’t Forget to Sign Your Ballot

7. Absentee voting on the rise, who’s pushing this agenda?

8. Vote-By Mail disenfranchises 1/3rd of Kitsap County Primary Voters

9. New Jersey Voters Vote Again?

10. MIT Study says “Abolish on-demand absentee voting”

11. Vote-By Mail and Electronic Poll Books

12. More Vote By Mail Problems in California

13. Oklahoma State Auditor and wife charged with Mail Fraud

14. California’s televised primary debates miss many voters

15. California Primary Slowed By Vote-By Mail, Absentee Ballot Count

16. Another Case of Vote-By Mail Fraud

17. Democrats say, ”An easier way to vote fraudulently is by mail”

18. How VBM is Screwing Up California’s Primary

19. Postmasters Lobby for Vote-By Mail

20. Absentee Ballot Fraud Alleged in Putin’s Election

21. Just where or where has my mail ballot gone?

22. Colorado Voter Group Opposes Vote-By Mail Switch

23. 4204 Passing, King County Gets the Blame

24. Absentees and Optical Scans, a Combination that Doesn’t Work

25. Day 6 of vote counting in King County

26. Poll Votes much faster to count then Absentee Ballots

27. Did you already vote by mail? Well it’s too late to change your mind now…

28. More Absentee Ballot Fraud

29. Expanding and Improving Opportunities to Commit Vote By Mail Fraud

30. Vote by Mail Fraud, You Don’t Say

31. Absentee Ballot Problems in Akron, Ohio

32. More research shows vote by mail systems do NOT increase turnout

33. King County Executive, Ron Sims, Contracts to Buy Ballot Tracking Vaporware

34. Hanky Panky In Union Vote-By Mail Scheme

35. The Election is in the Mail… Day 14

36. Some Democrats Reject Forced Vote-By Mail

37. Vote by mail increases turnout?

38. My mail from June 13, 2006

39. Vote Buying (You don’t say)

40. Voter turnout – higher or lower or the same?

41. VBM turns out about 1/3rd of Washington Voter’s

42. King County Adds 27,114 Votes in 3rd Day of Counting

43. 4th Day of Vote Counting brought to you by Vote-by Mail

44. 1 Week Later… Votes still coming in to King County Elections

45. 798 More Ballots Arrive One Week After the Election…

46. US Postal Service Unions Pushing Vote-By Mail

47. King County wraps up seventh day of vote counting

48. Diebold Dazzles (King County) Democrats

49. Colorado Editorial: Ripe for Fraud

50. Montana’s Secret Ballot Increasingly Endangered Species

51. Postmaster General Adresses National Association of Secretaries of State

52. Let’s all vote by mail, just like…Texas

53. Hand Counted Paper Ballots for 2008?

54. Barack Obama Targets Vote Banking through Vote By Mail in California

55. Pierce County Sacrifices Polling Places for Forced Vote By Mail Absentee Voting

56. Granny Farming of Absentee Ballots in NJ

57. More on Kentucky Absentee Ballot Fraud

58. Take the Last Train to Clarksville, and Don’t forget to Vote

59. More Absentee Votes Might Not Count Due to County Errors

60. King County’s Wreckless Plan to Switch To Vote-By Mail

61. Harvard’s Ben Adida on Vote By Mail and the Secret Ballot

62. Saving Money At The Price Of Democracy

63. Vote-By Mail Lobbyist Targets Colorado

64. King County, WA, 13 Days of Vote Counting, Seattle Special Election, 2007

65. Why Mail Ballots Are a Bad Idea

66. New Report on Vote By Mail, VBM Does Not Really Increase Turnout

67. George Galloway Blasts UK’s Postal Voting System

68. Oregon and Other States Mail Service Outsourced?

69. Vote Buying, Bath County, KY

70. New Group to Push VBM Nationally

71. Taiwanese Mull Absentee Voting, and China’s Potential Influence On Voters

72. The “Myth” of Vote Fraud

73. The Death of the Polling Place, Island County, WA

74. “Granny Farming” Allegations in Michigan, Virginia, and California moves towards VBM

75. Vote By Mail a Growing National Attack on Democracy

76. More Postal Vote Fraud in the UK

77. Vote Buying in Kentucky

78. When a Secret Ballot Isn’t Really A Secret Ballot

79. Prosecuting Honest Voters Does Not Restore My Confidence In Forced Mail Voting

80. Vote By Mail, Not Cheaper, No Suprise

81. Absentee Ballot Fraud Allegations and other News, 1/24/2007

82. California Declares Mail Ballot Only Precincts 

83. NJ Absentee Ballot Stuffing

84. Oregon We Have a Problem

85. The Ongoing Drama of Absentee Voting Problems

86. Mayor Uses Absentee Ballots to Rig Election, Dateline Nov. 30th, 2006

87. One Month After the Election… Votes Still Being Counted

88. Vote By Mail-A Great Example of Voting Badly

89. More Electoral Fraud By Mail – Dec. 12, 2006

“Election rules should seek to minimize the number of provisional ballots cast."

— Thad E. Hall and Tova Andrea Wang

"The more provisional ballots that are cast by voters, the longer it will take to authenticate the provisional ballots, integrate these ballots with the ballots tabulated on election day, and achieve an accurate vote count," write Hall and Wang in "International Principles of Election Integrity."

Why You Can't Vote Online

Fundamental security problems aren’t solved, computing experts warn.

By David Talbot

A decade and a half into the Web revolution, we do much of our banking and shopping online.   So why can’t we vote over the Internet? The answer is that voting presents specific kinds of very hard problems.

Even though some countries do it and there have been trial runs in some precincts in the United States, computer security experts at a Princeton symposium last week made clear that online voting cannot be verifiably secure, and invites disaster in a close, contentious race.

“Vendors may come and they may say they’ve solved the Internet voting problem for you, but I think that, by and large, they are misleading you, and misleading themselves as well,” Ron Rivest, the MIT computer scientist and cryptography pioneer, said at the symposium. “If they’ve really solved the Internet security and cybersecurity problem, what are they doing implementing voting systems? They should be working with the Department of Defense or financial industry. These are not solved problems there.”

The unsolved problems include the ability of malicious actors to intercept Internet communications, log in as someone else, and hack into servers to rewrite or corrupt code. While these are also big problems in e-commerce, if a hacker steals money, the theft can soon be discovered. A bank or store can decide whether any losses are an acceptable cost of doing business.

Voting is a different and harder problem. Lost votes aren’t acceptable. And a voting system is supposed to protect the anonymity of a person’s vote—quite unlike a banking or e-commerce transaction—while at the same time validating that it was cast accurately, in a manner that maintains records that a losing candidate will accept as valid and verified.

Given the well-understood vulnerabilities of networked computer systems, the problem is far from solved, says David Dill, a Stanford computer scientist. “Basically, it relies on the user’s computer being trustworthy. If a virus can intercept a vote at keyboard or screen, there is basically no defense,” Dill says. “There are really fundamental problems. Perhaps a system could be tightened so some particular hack won’t work. But overall, systems tend to be vulnerable.” 

This year, the U.S. Department of Defense canceled plans to allow Internet voting by military personnel overseas after a security team audited a $22 million system developed by Accenture and found it vulnerable to cyberattacks.

Read the Full Story

Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — On the morning of the primary here in August, the local elections board met to decide which absentee ballots to count. It was not an easy job.

The board tossed out some ballots because they arrived without the signature required on the outside of the return envelope. It rejected one that said “see inside” where the signature should have been. And it debated what to do with ballots in which the signature on the envelope did not quite match the one in the county’s files.

“This ‘r’ is not like that ‘r,’ ” Judge Augustus D. Aikens Jr. said, suggesting that a ballot should be rejected.

Ion Sancho, the elections supervisor here, disagreed. “This ‘k’ is like that ‘k,’ ” he replied, and he persuaded his colleagues to count the vote.

Scenes like this will play out in many elections next month, because Florida and other states are swiftly moving from voting at a polling place toward voting by mail. In the last general election in Florida, in 2010, 23 percent of voters cast absentee ballots, up from 15 percent in the midterm election four years before. Nationwide, the use of absentee ballots and other forms of voting by mail has more than tripled since 1980 and now accounts for almost 20 percent of all votes.

Yet votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show. Election officials reject almost 2 percent of ballots cast by mail, double the rate for in-person voting.

“The more people you force to vote by mail,” Mr. Sancho said, “the more invalid ballots you will generate.”

Election experts say the challenges created by mailed ballots could well affect outcomes this fall and beyond. If the contests next month are close enough to be within what election lawyers call the margin of litigation, the grounds on which they will be fought will not be hanging chads but ballots cast away from the voting booth.

In 2008, 18 percent of the votes in the nine states likely to decide this year’s presidential election were cast by mail. That number will almost certainly rise this year, and voters in two-thirds of the states have already begun casting absentee ballots. In four Western states, voting by mail is the exclusive or dominant way to cast a ballot.

The trend will probably result in more uncounted votes, and it increases the potential for fraud. While fraud in voting by mail is far less common than innocent errors, it is vastly more prevalent than the in-person voting fraud that has attracted far more attention, election administrators say.

Read the Full Story