'Challengers' - Blackwell VI.A

Then on the 23th of July, John Hopkins University threw a wrench into the whole works. JHU professors Adam Stubblefield and Aviel D. Rubin released a study questioning the security capabilities of electronic voting machines. In section 6, the study concluded after examining the C++ code of Dibold's AccuVote-TS 4.3.1 that

"voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no built-in treaceability; administrative functions can be performed by regular voters; and inside threats such as poll workers, software developers, and janitors is even greater."

In sections 3 and 4 the reasearchers determined that the "inside threats" can rig the code to cast more votes for one candidate over the other.

* Although later rebuttals pointed out the limits of the study by noting that the JHU review analyzed only one machine written in one code in one way, and many more machines written in many different ways and in different codes do exist, the damage to voting via eloctrinic machines had been done. Even after the Washington Post reveald on August 19 that Rubin had shares in, and sat on the board of one of Diebold's rivals, VoteHere, Inc., the public relations damage took its toll. The study also retained its credibility when Rubin replied that he had not been contacted by the board of VoteHere, Inc., in the two years since he had purchased stocksold all his stock in VoteHere, Inc.; sold all his company stock; resigned from its board; and, asked JHU to review all his outstanding consulting work.

To allow the 7-member panel time to review all the proposals, Blackwell extended the deadline for their report from August 1 to August 15. From this latter date county boards of elections would have 30 days to choose their election's system. On August 21 and 22 Blackwell would hold a special information session for election officials, media and others at the Marriott North in Columbus. Blackwell analyzed the JHU study and the subsequent media storm by stating on July 29

"In response to the avalanche of allegations, counter allegations and subsequent news stories covering the electoral process, I believe it is necessary for me to reaffirm the process of careful checks and balances associated with Ohio elections. This process has always been about qualified people, well-founded procedures and good elections practices.”

“It is exceedingly difficult in Ohio elections to get away with cheating because our process involves so many people and so many checks and balances. In evaluating the security of any voting system we must take into consideration these procedures and the checks and balances that are always present in actual elections."

Confirming the sanctity of Ohio's voting process and endeavouring to quell the insecurities of the Ohio citizens, Blackwell assured the voters that Ohio's voting processes were safe and accurate.

On August 6, Governor Bob Ehrlich of Maryland delayed purchasing 55.6 million dollars of new voting machines from North Canton based, DieBold Technologies based on a new risk assessment of the voting machines. This too stemmed from JHU's study. While Blackwell had given final approval unto three vendors to sell new equipment unto its counties: Diebold; Election Systems and Software Inc. (Omaha, Neb); and Maximus and Hart InterCivic (Austin, Texas), both Sequoia and Microvote Corp. of Indianapolis were disqualified.

* On August 27, news accounts revealed that an August 14 fundraising letter sent out from Diebold's CEO Walden O'Dell invited guests to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser at O'Dell's mansion in Upper Arlington suburban of Columbus, asked for donors to raise $10,000/apeice for a federal election account that would help fund the Republican federal candidates for elective office, and wrote"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." The clamor i

Ohio Senate Democratic Leader, Greg DiDonato, charged that "Ordinary Ohioans may infer that Blackwell's office is looking past Diebold's security issues because its CEO is seeking $10,000 donations for Blackwell's party - donations that could be made with statewide elected officials right there in the same room."

* O'Dell responded to Democratic criticism with the remark "I can see it now, but I never imagined that people could say that just because you've got a political favorite that you might commit this treasonous felony atrocity to try to change the outcome of an election. "I wouldn't and couldn't." O'Dell insisted that his letter was speaking about his own personal goals, rather than his company.

Next Sequoia they filed a claim citing bribery by DieBold's CEO. Ohio Court of Claims Judge Fred Shoemaker issued a temporary restraining order against Blackwell, who had planned later in the day to an nounce a final list of vendors qualified to participate in Ohio’s elections upgrade. Blackwell reacted by stating, “While one system opened the door for them to walk through, their concerns apply to all [electronic] systems." However, accepting a subse quent bid from Sequoia, after finalizing the decisions, “would be ultimately detrimental to the public’s confidence in the entire process.” Until the facts in the case have been heard, “I am not going to participate in that sort of sabotage of the system.”

On August 15 Blackwell responded by officially implementing a 15 day delay in approval for selecting a new voting system. He stated

“At the beginning of this process our goal was to offer Ohioans the most accurate and secure voting machinery available, with the best service, price and warranty available as well. Based on our market analysis, we are confident that the price, service and warranty we have negotiated is one of, if not, the best in the nation.”

“However, our initial inquiries into security issues regarding electronic voting devices leave some unanswered questions. As a result, we will put these voting devices through an extensive security assessment and validation process.”

Blackwell then contracted with Science Application International Corporation (San Diego, CA) and InfoSentry (Raleigh, NC) to assessments the overall safety and security of the eletronic machines.

Blackwell expanded on his remarks onn September 3 by stating,

“It is my responsibility to determine which election system vendors offered the taxpayers of the State of Ohio the best value. Judge Shoemaker substituted his judgment for the discretion afforded to me as Ohio’s chief elections officer. His decision flies in the face of the facts and the law. It is an unnecessary assault on the professionalism of my team and our process. The real irreparable harm is allowing Sequoia to have a second bite at the apple.”

Hearkening back to H.B. 5, Blackwell strongly opposed the Judge's interference, since Judicial activism tharted the letter and spirit of that law. Blackwell had removed Sequoia from consideration because it failed to provide a “low-cost and best value” voting system proposal during the negotiating process. According to the agency’s issued request for proposal, “the secretary of state reserves the right to reject any and all proposals submitted in response to this request.” Judge Shoemaker thwarted Ohio Law.


Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.