'Challengers' - Blackwell VI.B

ON September 10th Blackwell split the difference and added Sequoia to the list at the same time that his office was in the process of appealing Judge Shoemaker's decision.

“The implementation of election reform in Ohio is far too important to be sidetracked by mounting litigation and legal appeals. It is time to move forward as we continue with the process of providing Ohioans with voting equipment that is more accurate, more reliable and easier to use.”

“From 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.”

Echoing former statements about the value of the new contract (saving $33 million), Blackwell sidestepped the Sequoia legal hurdle in order to implement the voting systems into the various counties. The prices for the voting machines and FAQ support to placed into each one of Ohio's 11,614 precincts (and 48,000+ workers) ranged from $2,896.68 (ES&S iVotronic) to $5,499 (Diebold Elections' Systems AccuVote ES&S Model 100). The prices also included a five year warranty.

Having previously aimed to implement the new electronic voting systems by the March, 2004 primary elections, Blackwell sounded hesitant on that day when he analyzed the short timeframe available to implement the machines and educate the workers. He stated

“The number of counties involved in a March election systems upgrade is entirely dependent on our security review and the resources available from the federal government. While vendor negotiations were ongoing, it was not possible to develop an implementation priority list without total cost figures. Now that we have concluded our negotiations, we can begin coordination with
county boards of elections and develop a priority list.”

Any voter reformer could only remember the problems overcome thus far and realize with trepidation that more than likely the security review and federal resources would be slow in forthcoming. Whether state beuracracy, federal beuracracy, contracting parties, interested parties, or frivolous lawsuits would further delay the nonsense, one did not know. Yet, ever energetic, Blackwell pushed on to reach the date.

On September 30, Blackwell announced that another change required fixing, although this time the error was a conflict-of-interest on the part of SAIC (San Diego), which was one of the companies, formerly contracted to perform security reviews on the machines. During a routine procedure, designed to vet out self-serving parties, SAIC revealed to Blackwell's office that its venture capital subsidiary has committed $5 million for investment in a venture capital fund currently holding a 12 percent interest in Hart Intercivic. Hart is an Ohio HAVA qualified vendor. While SAIC’s subsidiary is a passive investor in the venture capital fund, therefore having no role in Hart's management, operations, or investments, SAIC's fully-diluted ownership interest of less than 2 percent of Hart Intercivic (with a net worth more than 250 million dollars) disqualifies SAIC from assisting in the security inquiries.

Blackwell's office then qualified Detroit-based Compuware corporation to perform the security reviews. The review process examined the computer's source code, scrutinized the potential for hacking into the machines' hard drives, and sought to know if each voting machine had points of failure . The status of InfoSentry (Raleigh, NC) remained the same. It had helped qualify vendors and would now assess the companies claims about their respective machines. Onsite examinations, both at the company warehouses and in the polling places would test the functionality and durability of HAVA-qualified electronic voting systems by using and abusing the machines in the environmental conditions common to the use, storage, and transport of such equipment.

Testing would take six weeks, so results would be available in mid-November or later.

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