Conroy Plaintiffs Applaud Colorado Secretary of State's Decision to Support Optical-Scan...

Conroy Plaintiffs Applaud Colorado Secretary of State's Decision to Support
Optical-Scan Paper Ballots as Best Solution for 2008 Elections
Group Cites Lack of Time and Vendors' Inability to 'Patch' Fundamental
Security and Reliability Flaws in DRE Computerized Voting Systems

DENVER, Dec. 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today a non-partisan and
diverse group of Colorado voters, who in 2006 brought a successful court
challenge to the certification of Direct Record Electronic ("DRE")
computerized voting machines, publicly applauded Colorado Secretary of State
Mike Coffman's decision to support a return to paper ballots as the solution
for Colorado's 2008 elections, calling it a step in the right direction.
The plaintiffs, however, continue to oppose Secretary Coffman's earlier
decision to re-certify certain Direct Recording Electronic ("DRE")
computerized voting systems for use in Colorado's 2008 elections because the
DREs manufactured by Premier Election Systems (formerly Diebold Election
Systems), Sequoia Voting Systems, ES & S, and Hart InterCivic have a
well-documented history of vulnerability to hacking and problems with
security, reliability, and verifiability.
A lawsuit was filed in June 2006 by a diverse group of Colorado voters,
among them Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Green Party members, as
well as two disabled voters. The lawsuit challenged former Secretary of State
Gigi Dennis's cursory and illegal certification of DRE computerized voting
machines manufactured by Premier (Diebold), Sequoia, ES & S, and
Hart InterCivic. After a trial in September 2006, the Denver District Court
ordered the Secretary of State to comply with the law and adopt minimum
security standards for electronic voting machines and retest the four systems
under those standards before authorizing their use in any future elections.
In the ruling, the Court said the Secretary of State's office failed to
develop minimum security standards, as required by state law, and did an
"abysmal" job of documenting the testing during its certification process.
The law firm Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP in Denver represented the Colorado
voters in the trial. A copy of the Denver District Court documents from the
case are available at www.voteraction.org.
"We enthusiastically support Secretary Coffman's recommendation that
Colorado move to paper ballots," said Myriah Conroy, a plaintiff in the
Colorado voters' 2006 lawsuit. "We are pleased that Secretary Coffman has
recommended that Colorado join with California, Florida, Michigan, and Ohio in
rejecting the widely discredited DRE voting systems. DRE computerized voting
systems are easily hacked and compromised, and have a history of operational
problems that have disrupted elections across the country. For that reason we
believe that the Secretary should support electronic ballot-marking devices,
not DRE computerized voting machines, to accommodate voters with disabilities.
Nonetheless, the Secretary's decision to support paper ballots represents a
major milestone on the path to election integrity in Colorado," said Conroy.
The Secretary of State joined those in several other states, including
California and Ohio, when earlier this month his voting systems testing board
identified numerous security and reliability flaws in the computerized DRE
systems. The Ohio Secretary of State issued a new report on
December 14, 2007, detailing the results of its security testing of three
voting systems manufactured by Premier, ES & S, and Hart. Ohio's study
discovered "serious vulnerabilities in the [three] systems and many of their
components," concluding that "[a]ll three vendor systems reviewed have serious
gaps in compliance with even the most basic set of information security
guidelines used by systems in industries such as finance, insurance, medical
care, manufacturing, logistics and other global commerce. Given the extremely
valuable data that these systems process and the fact that our very democracy
and nation depend on the security of that data, much work remains to be done
by all three vendors." California's and Ohio's published reports regarding
the electronic voting systems are available at www.sos.ca.gov/elections
and here.
"The sanctity of our elections is too important to turn over to private
corporations, which operate without accountability to the voters. Some of the
security risks with the DRE computerized voting machines are so high that it
is unconscionable that their manufacturers, who have known of the problems for
years, have not taken the necessary steps to correct them, and now there is no
time for the vendors to re-design their DREs in time for the 2008 elections,"
commented Dr. Douglas W. Jones of the University of Iowa.
"There are better and more secure options than DREs available,
specifically paper ballot-based ballot marking and optical scan systems.
Optical scan-paper balloting is more secure, less expensive, and can be
verified, which is why neighboring New Mexico, Florida, Michigan, and other
states moved to these systems," said Paul Hultin of Wheeler Trigg Kennedy, the
law firm that represented the plaintiffs in Conroy v. Dennis. "Colorado
voters deserve to know that the state's voting systems preserve the
fundamental right to have their votes recorded and counted as intended," said
Mr. Hultin.
The group of voters also agrees with Secretary Coffman that an
all-mail-ballot system is not the best alternative to computerized electronic
voting machines. "A system that relies exclusively on centrally counted
mail-in ballots is less secure, less reliable, and less transparent than a
precinct-based paper ballot system," said Mike Williams, one of the
plaintiffs' lawyers. "In 2002, Colorado voters rejected all-mail-ballot
elections, and with good reason. Mail ballots carry a high risk of tampering,
mishandling, and voter intimidation. Sometimes mail ballots even disappear
altogether by the thousands, as happened in Florida's 2000 and 2004 elections.
Every vote needs to be accurately counted," added Williams.
"We urge the General Assembly to, like New Mexico, adopt new legislation
that provides for a less expensive and more reliable paper ballot and optical
scanning system, supplemented by one electronic ballot-marking device in each
polling location to accommodate voters with disabilities," stated John
Bonifaz, Legal Director of Voter Action, www.voteraction.org, a
not-for-profit organization that supported the 2006 voter lawsuit and provides
legal, research, and logistical support for grassroots efforts to ensure the
integrity of elections in the United States. "The legislature should act as
soon as it convenes next year to ensure that the counties have sufficient time
to prepare for the primary elections in August."
SOURCE Voter Action

John Bonifaz, Legal Director of Voter Action, +1-617-529-4611,
jbonifaz@voteraction.org; or Paul Hultin of Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP,
+1-505-982-6227, hultin@wtklaw.com