India: New Voting Machine For Extra Secrecy Nixed By Government | NDTV

A move that would have added another layer of secrecy to the voting process in India has been nixed by a team of ministers headed by Home Minister Rajnath Singh. The ministers have decided not to allow the Election Commission to introduce Totaliser voting machines, which make it difficult to learn how an area voted by scrambling data from polling booths. The Election Commission has been planning for over a decade to introduce the machines. The government, however, has been against it because it argues it will hamper polling booth management.

National: Internet Voting Leaves Out a Cornerstone of Democracy: The Secret Ballot | MIT Technology Review

If the risk of hackers meddling with election results is not enough, here’s another reason voting shouldn’t happen on the Internet: the ballots can’t be kept secret. That’s according to a new report from Verified Voting, a group that advocates for transparency and accuracy in elections. A cornerstone of democracy, the secret ballot guards against voter coercion. But “because of current technical challenges and the unique challenge of running public elections, it is impossible to maintain the separation of voters’ identities from their votes when Internet voting is used,” concludes the report, which was written in collaboration with the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the anticorruption advocacy group Common Cause. When votes are returned via the Internet, it’s technically difficult to separate the voter’s identity from the vote, says Pamela Smith, president of Verified Voting, since the server has to know that identity in order to authenticate the voter and record the vote. In the systems that states are using now, “the authentication typically happens at the same time as the voting process,” she says. That’s problematic. A previous experiment tested giving voters PIN codes, but hackers working with the researchers were able to find those numbers and associate them with voters, says Smith.

National: Voting Online Means You’re Giving Up Privacy, Researchers Warn | Vocativ

Online voting—currently a limited option in 32 states and Washington, D.C.—usually forces voters to give up their legal right to a guaranteed private ballot, a new study shows. The study, a joint effort by nonprofit advocacy groups including the Verified Voting Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, notes that a right to a guaranteed private ballot is the law in every state in the U.S., and that in all but six, it’s protected by a state constitution—specifically because the integrity of a vote is predicated on the voter’s trust that they’re making their decision in private. Alabama’s Constitution reads, for instance, that “The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental.”

Norway: Governments should consider the consequences when they decide whether to adopt Internet voting | Democratic Audit

The secret ballot is largely undisputed as a democratic principle. What this principle means in practice, however, may be contested when voting takes place outside the polling station in a so-called uncontrolled environment, i.e., remote voting including Internet voting, postal voting and telephone voting. Remote voting transfers the responsibility for vote secrecy from the authorities to the voters. The popular understanding of the principle of the secret ballot, therefore, becomes crucial, because this may influence whether voters actually keep their vote secret. The secrecy of the vote has two aspects. First, it requires that voters are able to cast their votes in private, unobserved by anyone. Second, it requires that no one is able to break the anonymity of the vote at a later stage. Even though both aspects are important, we focus on the former. Voter attitudes towards the privacy aspect have received little attention in the literature on remote voting. The secrecy of the vote is usually taken for granted, and questions about this issue are therefore rarely asked in surveys.

Minnesota: Ballot barcode draws questions | Brainerd Dispatch

A Crow Wing County resident Tuesday raised concerns about whether a barcode on his ballot could contain identifying information. Charlie Makidon of Gail Lake Township told the county board during open forum he believes the primary election ballot he received by mail is “marked” by a QR code printed at the bottom. “To 99 percent of the people, this is a marked ballot,” Makidon said. “What does the code say? Does it say, ‘Republican, throw it away?’ Does it say, ‘Democrat, count twice?'” Makidon said he called the county Monday for more information on the code, which is a type of machine-readable barcode that can store website URLs, phone numbers, email addresses and other alphanumeric data. The codes have proliferated in recent years, along with smartphone apps allowing users to acquire the information they contain. An employee in the administrative services office first directed Makidon to call the Minnesota Secretary of State’s office, who then redirected Makidon back to Crow Wing County. Administrative Services Director Deborah Erickson, whose office is in charge of elections in the county, called Makidon to discuss the matter. Erickson told Makidon the employee had erred in directing him to the secretary of state’s office.

Oregon: Switch in ballot procedures has some worried about secrecy | The Oregonian

Ever since Oregon approved voting exclusively by mail in 1998, Hasso Hering took comfort that a sealable “secrecy envelope” would guarantee his right to a private ballot. So when the 72-year-old from Benton County opened his ballot for the May primary, he was confused to see a non-sealable “secrecy sleeve” instead. Benton is among at least five Oregon counties, including Multnomah County, Marion County, Deschutes County and Washington County, to trade sealed envelopes for sleeves in hopes of speeding up ballot counts while still protecting voters’ privacy. But voters such as Hering worry the change could make it easier for elections workers to put a name to a ballot marking. “It is a principle of our ballot,” said Hering, a retired journalist. “How you vote is your business and no one else’s.”

Australia: Electoral Commission sends electoral roll data of Victorian voters to the wrong people | ABC

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has mailed private information of Victorian residents to the wrong postal addresses, in a series of privacy breaches that raises questions about the security of voter details on the electoral roll. The privacy breaches exposed the date of birth, email address, driver’s licence number, gender, previous home addresses, country of birth and mobile numbers for electorates, including those held by Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester. ABC’s 7.30 understands the privacy of at least seven residents has been breached by the AEC.

National: Voter Privacy: What You Need to Know About Your Digital Trail During the 2016 Election | EFF

The right to an anonymous vote is a cornerstone of the U.S. democratic process. Yet from the time until you walk into the voting booth until long, long after you cast your ballot, your personal information is a highly sought-after commodity. Often your name, contact details, and political leanings are frighteningly easy for political campaigns to access, collect, share, trade, and sell. First, a caveat. As a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, we are prohibited from electioneering, i.e., endorsing or opposing any particular candidate. So while we’ll offer some illustrative examples, none of what follows is intended to single out any particular candidate—candidates and independent campaign committees across the political spectrum are collecting information about you. This post is not intended to influence your vote, but rather to inform you as a citizen about the privacy implications of your participation in the democratic process. Data collection is an entrenched part of how modern political campaigns work, and that should concern you regardless of your political affiliation.

Nevada: Caucus problems: Cards not counted, computer issues | Reno Gazette-Journal

Democratic caucus-goers in Northern Nevada are reporting a wide range of problems from long lines and cards not being counted to being turned away and too few paper ballots. Michael and Diana Jones were turned away from participating this morning in the caucus in Gardnerville despite being registered Democratic voters in Douglas County. This is because they registered as “confidential voters,” meaning their names are not available as a public record to the Democratic Party, which runs the caucuses. Michael Jones said he talked to multiple volunteers and Democratic Party staff who were unfamiliar with the issue until he was finally turned away. “I was told I had to reregister (not confidential),” he said. “The whole point is not to put up with the 30, 40, 50 robocalls and three pounds of campaign literature in the mailbox.” He said his wife spoke with someone in line who was a confidential voter but planned to reregister so he could participate.

National: Voter targeting becomes voter surveillance | CSO Online

Political candidates have always done everything in their power to target voters. But in the current election cycle, with primary election season officially under way, technology is giving them a lot more power than before. It is at the point where privacy advocates are referring to it as “voter surveillance.” Bruce Schneier, author, blogger and CTO of Resilient Systems, wrote in his recent book “Data and Goliath” that voter surveillance data can cause “unique harms” to the political process due to, “personalized marketing’s capability to discriminate as a way to track voting patterns and better ‘sell’ a candidate or policy position.”

Maine: Supporters say limits on videotaping at polling places are needed to avoid conflict | The Portland Press Herald

Supporters of a bill that would put some distance between voters and videographers monitoring referendum signature-gathering said Monday that the proposal is a modest step to address an activity that could one day escalate into fistfights or discourage election participation. The proposal by Sen. Bill Diamond, D-Windham, is a response to several complaints last Election Day of gun rights activists videotaping – and in some cases confronting – voters signing a petition to stiffen background checks on gun sales. Diamond, a former Maine secretary of state, said he was disturbed by the reports and is worried that the issue could “mushroom,” leading to conflicts at the ballot box. “What we don’t need is to have fistfights at polling places or videotapers videotaping vidoetapers,” Diamond said.

Editorials: Political Campaigns Are Spying on You, and There Are No Rules to Stop Them | Brendan Sasso/National Journal

If In­ter­net com­pan­ies like Google or Face­book mis­lead users and vi­ol­ate their pri­vacy, they can find them­selves in trouble with fed­er­al reg­u­lat­ors. If gov­ern­ment agen­cies spy on people without the prop­er au­thor­iz­a­tion, they can get slapped down by a judge. Polit­ic­al cam­paigns, however, face no such hurdles when it comes to scrap­ing in­form­a­tion from private cit­izens. In­stead, they op­er­ate in a leg­al dead zone out­side the reach of fed­er­al reg­u­lat­ors. The Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion reg­u­lates com­mer­cial pri­vacy is­sues, but has no jur­is­dic­tion over polit­ic­al cam­paigns. The Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion reg­u­lates cam­paigns, but has no pri­vacy reg­u­la­tions.
In re­cent years, cam­paigns have be­come in­creas­ingly ag­gress­ive in their ef­forts to build psy­cho­lo­gic­al pro­files on mil­lions of po­ten­tial voters. “There are no lim­its, and there should be,” said Jeff Chester, the ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Cen­ter for Di­git­al Demo­cracy, a pri­vacy ad­vocacy group. “Do you really want the Left or the Right to have a dossier about you to fig­ure out how to ma­nip­u­late you?”

Maine: Bill to control video recording at polling places among 50 vying for consideration | The Portland Press Herald

A proposal designed to ensure that video recording at polling places doesn’t intimidate voters is among about 50 bills that could be considered when a panel of legislative leaders meets Thursday. The Legislative Council will vote to determine if any of the bills will advance to the second regular session when the Legislature convenes in January. The poll recording bill was motivated by complaints that gun rights activists were intimidating voters when they gathered at several southern Maine polling places on Election Day to film the signature gathering effort by gun control activists hoping to advance a referendum next year. The proposal by Sen. Bill Diamond, D-Windham, is one of 26 bills that have been submitted after the Sept. 25 deadline. Others include a proposal to allow towns to prohibit firearms on municipal property, a bill to improve college graduation rates and a bill to encourage roller derby.

Virginia: Democrats accuse rogue elections official of compromising voter privacy | The Washington Post

Election officials in Prince William County this week asked the Commonwealth’s attorney to investigate one of their own. They say Guy Anthony Guiffré, a member of the county electoral board, might have broken state and federal laws in his quest to determine whether someone improperly used technology to impersonate voters in last month’s election. At issue is a state rule that says a voter can apply for an absentee ballot online using an electronic signature instead of the old-fashioned way — with paper and pen. Guiffré, a Republican, says the system opens the door to fraud. To prove it, he recruited four friends — while the county’s registrar was away — to inspect 151 absentee ballot documents and registration records laden with Social Security numbers and other personal information. In doing so, Democrats say, he compromised the meticulous process used to handle ballots, usurped his authority and violated voter privacy.

Missouri: College student would be sole voter in Community Improvement District sales tax decision | Columbia Daily Tribune

A mistake by representatives of the Business Loop 70 Community Improvement District means a sales tax increase the district needs to thrive will require approval by a single University of Missouri student. On Feb. 28, Jen Henderson, 23, became the sole registered voter living within the community improvement district, or CID, meaning she is the only person who would vote on a half-cent sales tax increase for the district. The Columbia City Council established the district on a 5-2 vote in April in response to a petition from a group of property owners in the CID boundaries. The “qualified voters” in a CID are capable of levying various taxes or assessments within the boundaries of the district to fund improvement projects. Under state law, decisions to impose sales taxes in a CID are to be made by registered voters living in the district boundaries. If no such registered voters are present, property owners vote. Many homes surrounding the university-owned property where Henderson resides were not included in the district when it was drawn because district organizers wanted a district free of residents.

Nebraska: Citing voter concerns over mail-in ballots, Nebraska lawmaker calls for ‘secrecy sleeve’ | Omaha World Herald

Paul Schumacher hears it all the time: More and more voters in Nebraska are worried about the secrecy of their ballots in the age of mail-in elections. The angst is especially acute in small towns, where everybody knows everybody, and some voters worry that an election worker will sneak a peek at their ballot and realize they didn’t vote for their crazy brother-in-law. “I have some people who are just outraged by the fact that they know, or think they know, their ballots are being viewed,” said Schumacher, a Republican state senator from Columbus. “In a small community, they worry that someone can see that they didn’t vote for their relative or they voted for someone in another party.”

India: Election Commission for new machine to enhance voter secrecy | The Economic Times

The Election Commission wants to use a new machine which prevents disclosure of voting pattern during counting to enhance voter secrecy and has received the backing of the Law Commission, but the government is yet to take a final call on the issue. The EC has approached the Law Ministry with a proposal to introduce ‘Totaliser’ machine for counting of votes. The poll panel is of the view that by use of Totaliser, a further level of secrecy in voting and the mixing of votes at the time of counting will be achieved, which will prevent the disclosure of pattern of voting at a particular polling station.

India: Election Commission wants to use new machine to enhance vote secrecy | Zee News

The Election Commission wants to use a new machine to enhance secrecy of votes during counting which prevents disclosure of voting pattern. The Election Commission has moved the Law Ministry with a proposal for introduction of ‘Totaliser’ machine for counting of votes. The poll panel is of the view that by use of ‘Totaliser’, a further level of secrecy in voting and the mixing of votes at the time of counting will be achieved, which will prevent the disclosure of pattern of voting at a particular polling station. The Law Ministry is the administrative ministry for the poll body. But the government has not taken a considered view on introduction of the machine.

National: Technology Makes Voting Less Private | Government Technology

Where is the line between technology and voter privacy? Secret ballots are one of the tenets of voting, and as technology moves forward there’s a push to keep voting secret, with Monroe County poll sites banning cellphones and photos of the ballots themselves. But what happens once a vote is cast, and it becomes one point in a data set about voting trends throughout the region? Voting data can reveal various trends, from where Democrats and Republicans are voting, to where the most voters live, to the ages of most voters. Data like this was always available in some form, but it was usually buried in hundreds of sheets of paper and information was rarely gathered, given the large time commitment necessary to do so. Monroe County Clerk Linda Robbins said in a particularly busy election, it might take a year to get a precinct-by-precinct breakdown of votes. This election, it took one day due to the first-time use of the electronic poll books. Voter data information is now available with the click of a button, and that information can be pretty revealing for trying to determine how someone voted.

Canada: Internet voting not secure enough yet: Elections BC | CTV British Columbia News

Internet voting requires more fine tuning — especially when it comes to eliminating security risks — before it can be widely used in provincial and municipal elections, says an independent report released Wednesday by British Columbia’s elections agency. The report, produced by a panel appointed by Elections BC, also warns that online voting may not necessarily lead to higher voter turnout and cheaper elections. The 100-page report concludes it is still too early to move to Internet voting in B.C., including for next year’s municipal elections, with security remaining the top barrier. “At the current time, we’re not there yet for universal Internet voting,” B.C.’s chief electoral officer, Keith Archer, told a news conference in Victoria. “The overall conclusion that people will likely draw from this report is it’s cautionary. It suggests that there are still lots of challenges to be worked out in the application of Internet voting in a public election in B.C.” The panel’s preliminary report, which kicks off six weeks of public consultations, recommends provincial and municipal governments launch a provincewide examination of Internet voting. The report says such a process should include the creation of a technical committee to evaluate online voting systems.

Hawaii: Judge to determine if Hawaii primary election system is ‘severe burden’ to free association | Associated Press

A federal judge said at a hearing that he will likely rule in favor of a lawsuit challenging Hawaii’s open primary election if he finds there’s a “severe burden” on the First Amendment right to free association. Judge J. Michael Seabright said at Monday’s hearing that the case could ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Democratic Party of Hawaii’s lawsuit claims the primary system allowing every registered voter to participate in the party’s nomination process is tantamount to forced political association and is unconstitutional. The party wants to ensure Democrats are selected at the primary stage by those willing to identify as Democrats. “What the party does not want is anonymous persons deciding its candidates,” Tony Gill, an attorney representing the party, told the judge.

Kansas: Secretary of State: Protecting Voter Privacy, or Politics as Usual? | State of Elections

A U.S. District Court ruling handed down Wednesday in Kansas granted disclosure of the names of provisional ballot voters to candidates in a tightly contested state house race, thereby clarifying the scope of voter privacy protection under federal law. The ruling was issued in response to a federal lawsuit filed by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach to prevent disclosure of the names. Kobach argued that federal election law protects voters’ identities from disclosure, citing § 302(a) of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA): “Access to information about an individual provisional ballot shall be restricted to the individual who cast the ballot.” U.S. District Court Judge Marten rejected Kobach’s argument, reading the plain text of the statute to protect only disclosure of how someone voted, not the identity of the voter. The day following the election, when unofficial results showed incumbent Democratic Representative Ann Mah of Kansas’ 54th House district trailing her Republican challenger by 27 votes out of a total 10,633 cast, she issued a request for the names of the individuals who had cast provisional ballots in her district. That afternoon, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to prevent disclosure of the names.

Colorado: Ballots are traceable, unconstitutional, voters group claims | Westward

A Colorado voter advocacy group has filed a lawsuit against the Colorado Secretary of State and six county clerks, arguing that ballots in the current system are traceable — violating voters’ right to secret, anonymous ballots. This flaw, the group says, exposes Coloradans to voter intimidation and could discourage people from casting their ballots. But the county clerks deny there are threats to voter privacy and say the allegations put forward by activist Marilyn Marks are not true. “It’s an absolutely fundamental right that we have to a secret ballot,” says Marks, the founder and president of Citizen Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that focuses on accountability and transparency in elections. “If we start thinking about what happens if we lose that right…voters can be intimidated. Voters may stay away from polls. Voters can’t vote their conscience. That’s such an undemocratic proposition. We just cannot let that happen.” Here’s the problem, according to Marks: Election staff can trace specific ballots right back to voters through unique barcodes assigned to each ballot.

Colorado: Why votes in Larimer County CO aren’t as secret as you think | The Coloradoan

It’s a secret locked away from lovers, parents, children and best friends. Now a voter-advocacy group is suing some Colorado election officials, including Larimer County Clerk and Recorder Scott Doyle, to assure that greater ballot security keeps voters’ preferences from prying eyes. Because of the way they are sorted, stored and preserved, each voted ballot in some counties — including Larimer — can be traced back to the individual who cast it, the Citizen Center claims in its federal lawsuit against six county clerks and Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler. Legal pleadings of the election officials and conversations with others leave little doubt that ballot data in some counties can be mined deep enough to reveal who cast each ballot and, consequently, how they voted. “We acknowledge that there are some traceable ballots,” said Andrew Cole, spokesman for the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.

Colorado: How secret is your ballot? | Summit County Citizens Voice

A see-saw Colorado legal battle over voter privacy has ended with a win for open-access advocates, who claim that the public’s right to inspect voting results at least equals the right to private voting — as long the ballots can’t be connected to individual voters. The Colorado Supreme Court last week let stand a lower court ruling that gave losing Aspen City Council candidate Marilyn Marks the right to inspect the instant runoff voting information from the 2009 election. While there may not have been as much at stake as in the hotly contested 2000 Gore versus Bush presidential election, Marks cited the inspection of the ballots in Florida as part of her legal arguments in the Aspen case, according to city attorney Jim True. The case was complicated by the fact that the State Legislature changed the with regard to ballot privacy after the election, during the course of the lawsuit. Under the revision, adopted in May, 2012, state lawmakers said they want ballots to be considered open records, viewable by anyone as long as their are privacy safeguards.

Colorado: Ballot bill passes Colorado Senate committee | The Pueblo Chieftain

A Senate committee passed a bill Wednesday that would limit when completed ballots can be inspected, despite objections from voters’ rights advocates who said the documents should be publicly available on demand. Lawmakers introduced SB155 in response to a Colorado Court of Appeals ruling that affirmed ballots are subject to inspection under the Colorado Open Records Act. It would limit the availability of ballots around election time and institute safeguards to prevent individual voters’ ballots from being traced back to them. “It’s not a problem for Pueblo, because our ballots aren’t being requested under CORA,” said Pueblo County Clerk Gilbert “Bo” Ortiz, who supports the bill. “Our job is to protect voter privacy. That’s why we need this. Transparency is important, but voter privacy is sacred.” The bill would shield ballots from inspection for 45 days preceding an election through a recount time period. Sponsors said that would prevent the inspection process from compromising the election process.