Category: Internet Voting

Article in The Star by Michael Geist: Hackers, viruses threaten online voting validity <read>  Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.

New trials would require the approval of a legislative committee, but the province’s Chief Electoral Officer acknowledged that online voting may be coming, noting “online voting is something that’s on the forefront of people’s minds … people say, ‘I can do my banking online, but I can’t do my voting online.’ ”

The enthusiasm for Internet voting is understandable. At first blush, there is a certain allure associated with the convenience of Internet voting, given the prospect of increased turnout, reduced costs and quicker reporting of results. Moreover, since other security sensitive activities such as banking and health care have gravitated online, supporters argue that elections can’t be far behind.

Yet before rushing into Internet voting trials, the dangers should not be overlooked.

Democracy depends upon a fair, accurate and transparent electoral process with outcomes that can be independently verified. Conventional voting accomplishes many of these goals – private polling stations enable citizens to cast their votes anonymously, election-day scrutineers offer independent oversight and paper-based ballots provide a verifiable outcome that can be re-counted if necessary.

Geist gives an educational overview of problems:

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the organization that administers the domain name system, ran an online board of directors election in 2000. The experience was fraught with technical difficulties, leading a reviewer to conclude “the technical weakness in the registration system made it virtually impossible to assess the integrity of the voters’ list, the security of the PINs, and secrecy of vote.”

More recently, the Netherlands used Internet voting as part of its 2006 parliamentary elections. The online option was an alternative for Dutch citizens working or living abroad. Nearly 20,000 valid Internet votes were received at a cost of approximately 90 euros per Internet voter. Two years later, the country implemented a ban on Internet voting…

Caution on Internet voting appears prudent, since experts have identified a long and costly list of necessary precautions, including random spot checks and post-vote verification programs to preserve anonymity. Given the security risks, opening the door to provincial or federal Internet voting seems premature. In the zeal to increase voter turnout, the reliance on Internet voting could inadvertently place the validity of the election process at risk.

As CTVotersCount readers know we have long opposed internet voting, unless and until a viable mechanism is reviewed and approved by the majority of Computer Scientists, Security Experts and Advocates. <reference> <reference>

We welcome the comment of Bob Carey, Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP)<read>

The FVAP comments on our criticism of the Military and Overseas Voters (MOVE) Act.

We have criticized Connecticut officials for supporting the well intended, yet flawed, Military and Overseas Voters Empowerment Act (MOVE)  because of provisions which open the door to unproven Internet voting which threatens democracy.  Supporters of the act tell us we should accept the risks of Internet voting pilot programs, because the rest of the bill would help our troops overcome problems they have had in getting their votes in by election deadlines.

Now we learn of a flaw in the bill which will actually make it more difficult for military and overseas voters to vote this year. Direct from the Stars and Stripes: Overseas military will have to register again to get ballots this year <read>

Veterans, military dependents and other U.S. civilians living overseas will have to as well. Changes in federal law mandate that voters must request a new absentee ballot each year in order to participate in state and federal elections, instead of the previous practice of requiring new applications only every few years.

“The message is for military voters to send in that (federal postcard application) as soon as possible, because they won’t be able to vote without it,” said Bob Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program. “You need to submit a new postcard every year, and every time you change duty stations, and every time you move.”

In a letter to the NC State Board of Elections, the Federal Voting Assistance Program has recommended that individual soldiers be left to determine the viability of returning their votes by email.  Thanks to N.C. Voter for this story <read>

Until secure electronic transmission of voted ballots has been established, we recommend that States allow voters to return static copies of voted ballots through available electronic means. However, the decision to send a voted ballot by unsecure electronic means must rest with the individual voter based on the voter’s desire to cast his or her vote electronically or to ensure the secrecy of their ballot.

We see some problems with this.

• Very few soldiers are in a position to assess the security of sending their votes over the internet.  Its unlikely many are computer scientists or security experts, unlikely that many are in a position to evaluate the network they use or would have an opportunity to consider the Technologists’ Statement On Internet Voting
• Even the risky, questionable amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill only includes the possibility of pilot programs.
• Finally, the purpose of the secret ballot is not primarily to protect the voter of the ballot, but to protect all voters, and to protect our Democracy.  Its not just my loss if my vote is lost or changed its everyone’s.

The Senate approved a amendment to the defense authorization bill that would speed voting for service members.  According to the Army Times <read>   (Later the entire bill as amended was passed by the Senate)

The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, or MOVE Act, would require states that accept federal funds to support elections to set up a streamlined process for service members to register to vote and to request, receive and return absentee ballots.

The use of e-mail and fax to get registered and request ballots would be required, and delivery of completed ballots would have to be done by priority mail or other express service, under terms of the legislation that was attached by voice vote to S 1390, the Senate’s version of the 2010 defense authorization bill…

The legislation seeks to take advantage of technology to resolve problems with regular mail delivery that are part of the reason why military members, their families and other U.S. citizens living overseas have problems voting — but technology can’t solve everything.

In an attempt to ensure that a completed ballot gets counted after someone has gone through all of the effort to register and request a blank ballot, the bill would require, under most circumstances, that a state deliver ballots at least 45 days before a federal election and count ballots that are postmarked on election day or earlier up to 10 days after the election is over.

We have one caution and one concern.

Our caution is that the 45 day ballot requirement will likely require that elections and primaries be separated by more time than in the past.  Minnesota Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie pointed this out in an interview on Minnesota Public Radio on Wednesday.  It is his opinion that September primaries would need to be moved to August.  We don’t think this is a reason not  to assist overseas and military voters, but something election officials need to be concerned with.

Our concern is with a provision in the law which requires a pilot of internet voting.  We would rather have a test than a pilot program – a pilot program implies actual votes.  Such a test should require extensive review and comment before and after by computer scientists and security experts.  We see no mention of such criteria in the bill which includes a list of criteria under “Design And Conduct” <amendment text>  (See the section starting with: “SEC. 589. )

We are not alone in our concerns.  Consider the bill endorsed by Secretary of the State Bysiewicz and its prohibition of internet voting.  And the Technologists Statement on Internet Voting.

We have nothing against internet voting other than that nobody has demonstrated that it is safe.  We have noting against a test if it is evaluated by technologists.  We do object to pilot projects that involve actual votes and with no technical scrutiny required.

Update: 11/11/2009.  MA Passes similar bill, advocates react <read>

BOSTON — Voting advocacy groups are raising doubts about a proposal to allow Massachusetts soldiers stationed overseas to return ballots by e-mail.

The measure was included in a veteran’s benefits bill approved by lawmakers on Tuesday. Gov. Deval Patrick signed the bill Wednesday.

John Bonifaz of the group Voter Action said he supports efforts to make it easier for soldiers to cast ballots, but said there is no way to guarantee that e-mailed ballots aren’t lost or computer systems hacked.

He and other advocates say a better way is to allow soldiers to download ballots off the Internet and then mail them in.

He said that’s an improvement on the current system which requires ballots be mailed from Massachusetts, then returned.

Update 09/15:  Maui judge formalizes ruling that bans electronic voting <read>

Update 05/28: [Former] U.S. EAC Chair Cashes In to Head Company Running ‘All-Digital’ Elections <read>

Update 05/26: Voting Drops 83 Percent In All-Digital Election <read>

Perhaps there is more to it than the PR Releases disguised as news stories:

About 7,300 people voted this year, compared to 44,000 people who voted in the last neighborhood board race in 2007.

*****************

Honolulu: Everyone Counts, a vendor, generates publicity for election conducted via internet and telephone: <press release> Somehow this same organization convinced the Huffington Post to publish a similar puff piece written by an Everyone Counts executive: <read post>

For too long we have tolerated the idea that elections should be difficult. If you think voting is inconvenient, too bad for you, say pundits. And if elections are expensive and a logistical nightmare to run, oh well, at least there aren’t too many of them.

America’s newest state, our southernmost state, has a different idea. Right now, as you read this article on the Internet, citizens of Honolulu are voting in America’s first all-digital online and telephone election. Residents of neighborhoods with contested board seats received pass-codes in the mail, along with a Web address and a phone number allowing them to vote at any time, day or night, from anywhere in the world.

Recall that the telephone and internet are less than secure.  We have convered the risks of internet voting several times <read>.  We are amazed that anyone would trust the phone system, realizing that any phone can be tapped, the phone companies and the NSA have demonstrated their ability to ignore law and listen in to any and all phone calls.

But wait, there are more problems:  Hawaii used Hart Interactive voting machines in 2008, yet they also violate Hawaii law in several ways, including apparently a prohibition on transmitting votes over the internet or phone lines.  Now a judge has agreed with a citizen suit and has issued an injunction against their use in 2010.  Brad Blog has a summary <read>.  From a Disappeared News article quoted by Brad:

1. The use of electronic voting machines was not adopted through lawful rulemaking in accordance with the Hawai’i Administrative Procedure Act (HAPA).

2. The use of the Internet and/or telephone lines to transmit vote counts was not adopted through lawful rulemaking (HAPA).

3. The use of the Internet and/or telephone lines to transmit vote counts is not allowed under current state law.

Last year Ellen Theisen of VotersUnite.org wrote an extensive report on the perils of outsourcing elections.  Hawaii was one of the highlighted jurisdictions in the study.  The index entry summarizes the situation:

Hawaii. State officials have handed elections to voting system vendors. Now the state cannot run elections without a vendor.

Senator Schumer(D) is holding hearings on military voting delays and lost votes.  Senators Inhof(R) and Chrnyn(R) are offering legislation to get the job done, without risking security and privacy <American Chronicle Story>

The legislation attempts to reduce delays in the current absentee voting process for our overseas troops by allowing the U.S. Postal Service to express-ship their completed absentee ballots to local election offices. The bill amends the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) and ensures that the ballots are delivered to the appropriate state election officials by the jurisdiction´s statutory deadline, while safeguarding voter privacy and ballot secrecy.

And from Representative Rush Holt(D): <H.R.2082>

To amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to require States to accept absentee ballots of overseas military and civilian voters which are submitted by the voter to a provider of express mail services not later than the day before the date of the election involved for transmission to the appropriate State election official, to require the Secretary of Defense to reimburse overseas military voters for the costs of using a provider of express mail services to transmit the ballot to the official, and for other purposes.

These are the right ways to do it.  No need to compromise security.  No need for Connecticut’s Secretary of the State to develop methods that Computer Scientists and the Department of Defense are unable to develop.  No need to spend upwards of $500 per vote.  Earlier coverage <here>