Verified Voting Blog: Internet Voting – Not as Easy as You Think

Recently the Huffington Post published an article about Hawaii’s recent Internet and phone-based elections (“America’s Newest State Holds America’s Newest Election“). The article presents an optimistic and patriotic view of the Everyone Counts (E1C) election system that allows voters to cast their ballots from their home computers or over the phone. It was written by E1C executive Aaron Contorer and is effectively a marketing piece for E1C that exaggerates the scope of the election, overlooks or insults other election methods, and glosses over the formidable technical challenges and dangers posed by the electronic submission of voted ballots.

The election in Honolulu was for neighborhood board members, and thus was not covered by Hawaii’s public election laws. That matters because Hawaii’s election laws, fortunately, require a voter-verified paper ballot and a post-election hand audit of a percentage of these ballots. Since such verification and audits are impossible with a purely Internet-based voting system, there is no legal way to use the E1C system under current Hawaii state law. Nevertheless, because this small election is being used to promote Internet voting generally, and because Internet voting schemes are being proposed across the United States, the issue demands thorough discussion. In response to multiple efforts to allow voting over the Internet in major elections, many of our nation’s prominent technology experts have signed a statement cautioning against adopting Internet-based voting systems without first understanding and guarding against the numerous and well-documented dangers. This is not because, as Mr. Contorer suggests, those opposing Internet voting find “[t]he introduction of technology to any process … scary”. The signatories to this statement are not at all intimidated by technology; in fact many are established experts in voting systems who are most certainly aware of the major risks associated with Internet voting.

Michigan judge allows ‘Cyber Ninjas’ to refute report on election errors in lingering lawsuit | Gus Burns/mlive.com

A Michigan judge on Monday said he’ll allow a dozen tech and election experts, including the Florida firm Cyber Ninjas and others who alleged election fraud following the November presidential election, to refute a secretary of state election report that determined mistakes in Michigan voting results were caused by human error and didn’t signal vulnerability or tampering with election machines. Cyber Ninjas is the name of a Florida-based consulting firm owned by Doug Logan, who’s expressed support for election fraud “Stop the Steal” conspiracy theories on social media. The company was recently hired by the Republican-majority Arizona Legislature to conduct an audit of election results in Maricopa County. That audit began last week. Now the Cyber Ninjas, as well as other experts put forth by the plaintiff in an ongoing election fraud lawsuit, are likely going to weigh in on challenges to results in Michigan’s Antrim County. Many of the experts have been involved in other election challenges across the nation, sometimes espousing debunked data in support of their election fraud claims. Proposed experts include: Retires Col. James P. Waldron, a cyber security expert who during post-election hearings before Michigan lawmakers cited incorrect reports that indicated 100% or more eligible voter turnout in some Michigan precincts; Russell James Ramsland Jr., a cybersecurity analyst and former Republican congressional candidate who produced the erroneous voter turnout report after apparently confusing Minnesota cities as locations in Michigan; and Seth Keshel, a former Army intelligence officer who has alleged numerical voting anomalies that would suggest fraud.

Full Article: ‘Cyber Ninjas’ to refute Michigan report on election errors in lingering lawsuit – mlive.com

New Hampshire: Pilot ballot counting machines move forward in certification process | Jeongyoon Han/New Hampshire Public Radio

New audit reports from the Secretary of State show that ballot machines piloted in this year’s spring municipal elections counted votes accurately, moving all of the vendors forward in the process to certify new machines in time for elections in 2024. At a Ballot Law Commission meeting Wednesday, Eric Forcier, the Secretary of State’s constitutional deputy, said all the ballot counting devices used in the March elections had minor errors — but all within what are typical margins. “I think all the vendors are excited to show New Hampshire all the great things that the machines can do if we’re willing to take her along,” he said. Four vendors are vying to gain certification from the Commission, which approves voting machines for elections in New Hampshire. The state wants to replace the current machines produced by AccuVote. Brad Cook, the chair of the Commission, said he hopes the group will select two machines at most. From there, municipalities would be able to decide which machines to purchase and use for their local races. Milford, Ashland, Winchester and Londonderry piloted ballot machines produced by three different companies: Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Clear Ballot and Dominion Voting Systems. The machines will continue to be piloted in future elections. May elections in Moultonborough and Hanover will test VotingWorks and ES&S machines, respectively.

Full Article: Pilot ballot counting machines move forward in NH certification process | New Hampshire Public Radio