Maryland Files Claim to Recover Voting Machine Expenses

Thursday 25 December 2008

»

by: Laura Smitherman, The Baltimore Sun


After years of problems with the state's touch-screen voting
system, Maryland has filed a claim to recover $8.5 million from the
maker of the machines, Premier Election Solutions, Attorney General
Douglas F. Gansler announced yesterday.

The claim seeks costs the state incurred to correct security gaps
in the voting system that were uncovered several years ago by
independent investigations. The state has paid $90 million under a
contract with Premier, formerly known as Diebold, since 2001. During
that time, the two parties have had a sometimes-rocky relationship as
hitches in the voting system surfaced.

"Under basic contract law, this is money that should be paid by
Diebold or its successor and not by the taxpayers," Gansler said in an
interview. "This is sort of the final chapter of the touch-screen
machines that we've had issues with in Maryland since we've gotten them."

Last year, Gov. Martin O'Malley and the General Assembly decided to
eventually dump the touch-screen equipment and instead move toward
buying new optical-scan machines, which read paper ballots filled in by
voters with pencil or pen and allow for a manual recount. The new system
is expected to cost about $20 million.

Premier President Dave Byrd said in a statement that the state's
claim appears to be based on "inaccurate and unfounded assumptions." He
also said the 2008 election, in which Premier's machines were used, was
one of the "smoothest" in the state's history, culminating what he
called a "seven-year track record of success."

The "claim may be an attempt to retroactively change the rules of
the contracts, but it does not change or reflect the actual record of
successful performance," Byrd said.

State officials contend, however, that the November election came
off with few glitches precisely because they had spent so much money on
upgrades and technical fixes. According to the claim, the state Board of
Elections has implemented, largely at its own expense, measures to
correct flaws uncovered by assessments ordered by former Gov. Robert L.
Ehrlich Jr. and by the General Assembly.

Premier and the state haven't always been on the outs. After
warnings about security vulnerabilities from three computer experts -
Johns Hopkins University professor Avi Rubin and the two hired by the
state - a voter advocacy group sued in 2004. The group alleged that the
state should not have certified Premier's machines for use in elections.
The state defended Premier at the time, and won.

That history is not lost on Premier, which said its good relations
with the state made the attorney general's recent claim "all the more of
a surprise," according to the company's written response.

The company said its system satisfies contractual security
requirements and that the state decided to incorporate additional
measures based on the reports it commissioned. The company's response
relied in part on the state's legal defense from four years ago that
contended no system is perfect and pointed out that there had not been a
single report of a security breach.

Premier also said that it has provided additional services and
materials beyond what was required under the contract at no additional
charge.

Other problems have surfaced that aren't addressed in the state's
claim. Diebold had to replace parts in voting machines used in the 2004
election because of glitches in the "motherboard," the main circuit
board, that could cause the machines to freeze. Then in the 2006 primary
election, the state's new "e-poll books," electronic check-in terminals
made by Diebold that are distinct from the touch-screen voting units,
crashed repeatedly.

"Voter confidence and the integrity of the process were undermined
by the use of these machines," Gansler said. "It took nearly 10 years
for us to figure out we shouldn't be using them, but during the course
of that time we did everything we could to ensure reliability."

The claim now goes before a state procurement officer, whose
decision on the matter could then be petitioned to the Maryland State
Board of Contract Appeals. Until the dispute is settled, the state is
withholding payment on $4 million in bills for services Premier provided
for the 2008 elections.

- - -

Damned machines are an abomination. What is needed is a machine that
creates a paper trail, like an ATM machine. The voter gets a receipt
telling him/her for whom or what the votes were cast, and a long roll of
receipts remains with or is associated with each machine, in case of
electronic or mechanical failures.

Boater wrote:

Maryland Files Claim to Recover Voting Machine Expenses

Thursday 25 December 2008

»

by: Laura Smitherman, The Baltimore Sun


After years of problems with the state's touch-screen voting system,
Maryland has filed a claim to recover $8.5 million from the maker of the
machines, Premier Election Solutions, Attorney General Douglas F.
Gansler announced yesterday.

Gansler is an idiot. He is looking for face time more than he is to get
any money from Diebold/Premier Election Solution. Gansler would really
like to see a return to paper ballots when he makes his run for
Governor. It will make it easier for him and his cronies to stuff the
ballot boxes in Baltimore City, PG County and Montgomery county.

On Dec 28, 10:38*am, Boater wrote:
Maryland Files Claim to Recover Voting Machine Expenses

Thursday 25 December 2008

»

by: Laura Smitherman, The Baltimore Sun

* * *After years of problems with the state's touch-screen voting
system, Maryland has filed a claim to recover $8.5 million from the
maker of the machines, Premier Election Solutions, Attorney General
Douglas F. Gansler announced yesterday.

* * *The claim seeks costs the state incurred to correct security gaps
in the voting system that were uncovered several years ago by
independent investigations. The state has paid $90 million under a
contract with Premier, formerly known as Diebold, since 2001. During
that time, the two parties have had a sometimes-rocky relationship as
hitches in the voting system surfaced.

* * *"Under basic contract law, this is money that should be paid by
Diebold or its successor and not by the taxpayers," Gansler said in an
interview. "This is sort of the final chapter of the touch-screen
machines that we've had issues with in Maryland since we've gotten them."

* * *Last year, Gov. Martin O'Malley and the General Assembly decided to
eventually dump the touch-screen equipment and instead move toward
buying new optical-scan machines, which read paper ballots filled in by
voters with pencil or pen and allow for a manual recount. The new system
is expected to cost about $20 million.

* * *Premier President Dave Byrd said in a statement that the state's
claim appears to be based on "inaccurate and unfounded assumptions." He
also said the 2008 election, in which Premier's machines were used, was
one of the "smoothest" in the state's history, culminating what he
called a "seven-year track record of success."

* * *The "claim may be an attempt to retroactively change the rules of
the contracts, but it does not change or reflect the actual record of
successful performance," Byrd said.

* * *State officials contend, however, that the November election came
off with few glitches precisely because they had spent so much money on
upgrades and technical fixes. According to the claim, the state Board of
Elections has implemented, largely at its own expense, measures to
correct flaws uncovered by assessments ordered by former Gov. Robert L.
Ehrlich Jr. and by the General Assembly.

* * *Premier and the state haven't always been on the outs. After
warnings about security vulnerabilities from three computer experts -
Johns Hopkins University professor Avi Rubin and the two hired by the
state - a voter advocacy group sued in 2004. The group alleged that the
state should not have certified Premier's machines for use in elections.
The state defended Premier at the time, and won.

* * *That history is not lost on Premier, which said its good relations
with the state made the attorney general's recent claim "all the more of
a surprise," according to the company's written response.

* * *The company said its system satisfies contractual security
requirements and that the state decided to incorporate additional
measures based on the reports it commissioned. The company's response
relied in part on the state's legal defense from four years ago that
contended no system is perfect and pointed out that there had not been a
single report of a security breach.

* * *Premier also said that it has provided additional services and
materials beyond what was required under the contract at no additional
charge.

* * *Other problems have surfaced that aren't addressed in the state's
claim. Diebold had to replace parts in voting machines used in the 2004
election because of glitches in the "motherboard," the main circuit
board, that could cause the machines to freeze. Then in the 2006 primary
election, the state's new "e-poll books," electronic check-in terminals
made by Diebold that are distinct from the touch-screen voting units,
crashed repeatedly.

* * *"Voter confidence and the integrity of the process were undermined
by the use of these machines," Gansler said. "It took nearly 10 years
for us to figure out we shouldn't be using them, but during the course
of that time we did everything we could to ensure reliability."

* * *The claim now goes before a state procurement officer, whose
decision on the matter could then be petitioned to the Maryland State
Board of Contract Appeals. Until the dispute is settled, the state is
withholding payment on $4 million in bills for services Premier provided
for the 2008 elections.

- - -

Damned machines are an abomination. What is needed is a machine that
creates a paper trail, like an ATM machine. The voter gets a receipt
telling him/her for whom or what the votes were cast, and a long roll of
receipts remains with or is associated with each machine, in case of
electronic or mechanical failures.

And there would go your right to a privately cast your vote.

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:

Maryland Files Claim to Recover Voting Machine Expenses

Thursday 25 December 2008

»

by: Laura Smitherman, The Baltimore Sun


After years of problems with the state's touch-screen voting
system, Maryland has filed a claim to recover $8.5 million from the
maker of the machines, Premier Election Solutions, Attorney General
Douglas F. Gansler announced yesterday.

Gansler is an idiot. He is looking for face time more than he is to get
any money from Diebold/Premier Election Solution. Gansler would really
like to see a return to paper ballots when he makes his run for
Governor. It will make it easier for him and his cronies to stuff the
ballot boxes in Baltimore City, PG County and Montgomery county.


Gansler went to college and got a law degree, too. You went to the
Marine Corps and have no interest in getting the higher education you
need to figure out what is happening in this world.

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:

Maryland Files Claim to Recover Voting Machine Expenses

Thursday 25 December 2008

»

by: Laura Smitherman, The Baltimore Sun


After years of problems with the state's touch-screen voting
system, Maryland has filed a claim to recover $8.5 million from the
maker of the machines, Premier Election Solutions, Attorney General
Douglas F. Gansler announced yesterday.

Gansler is an idiot. He is looking for face time more than he is to
get any money from Diebold/Premier Election Solution. Gansler would
really like to see a return to paper ballots when he makes his run for
Governor. It will make it easier for him and his cronies to stuff the
ballot boxes in Baltimore City, PG County and Montgomery county.


Gansler went to college and got a law degree, too. You went to the
Marine Corps and have no interest in getting the higher education you
need to figure out what is happening in this world.

Did you learn to lie in college or did that come naturally? Was it part
of your journalism curriculum?

You know that my name is on the title to the house I occupy. Why isn't
your name on the house you occupy? Could it be to keep it from being
sized to satisfy legal judgments against you? Could it be that your
"wife" doesn't trust you?

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:

Maryland Files Claim to Recover Voting Machine Expenses

Thursday 25 December 2008

»

by: Laura Smitherman, The Baltimore Sun


After years of problems with the state's touch-screen voting
system, Maryland has filed a claim to recover $8.5 million from the
maker of the machines, Premier Election Solutions, Attorney General
Douglas F. Gansler announced yesterday.

Gansler is an idiot. He is looking for face time more than he is to
get any money from Diebold/Premier Election Solution. Gansler would
really like to see a return to paper ballots when he makes his run
for Governor. It will make it easier for him and his cronies to stuff
the ballot boxes in Baltimore City, PG County and Montgomery county.


Gansler went to college and got a law degree, too. You went to the
Marine Corps and have no interest in getting the higher education you
need to figure out what is happening in this world.

Did you ...

It must be quite pleasant to go through life being as dumb as you are...

wrote:
On Dec 28, 10:38 am, Boater wrote:
Maryland Files Claim to Recover Voting Machine Expenses

Thursday 25 December 2008

»

by: Laura Smitherman, The Baltimore Sun

After years of problems with the state's touch-screen voting
system, Maryland has filed a claim to recover $8.5 million from the
maker of the machines, Premier Election Solutions, Attorney General
Douglas F. Gansler announced yesterday.

The claim seeks costs the state incurred to correct security gaps
in the voting system that were uncovered several years ago by
independent investigations. The state has paid $90 million under a
contract with Premier, formerly known as Diebold, since 2001. During
that time, the two parties have had a sometimes-rocky relationship as
hitches in the voting system surfaced.

"Under basic contract law, this is money that should be paid by
Diebold or its successor and not by the taxpayers," Gansler said in an
interview. "This is sort of the final chapter of the touch-screen
machines that we've had issues with in Maryland since we've gotten them."

Last year, Gov. Martin O'Malley and the General Assembly decided to
eventually dump the touch-screen equipment and instead move toward
buying new optical-scan machines, which read paper ballots filled in by
voters with pencil or pen and allow for a manual recount. The new system
is expected to cost about $20 million.

Premier President Dave Byrd said in a statement that the state's
claim appears to be based on "inaccurate and unfounded assumptions." He
also said the 2008 election, in which Premier's machines were used, was
one of the "smoothest" in the state's history, culminating what he
called a "seven-year track record of success."

The "claim may be an attempt to retroactively change the rules of
the contracts, but it does not change or reflect the actual record of
successful performance," Byrd said.

State officials contend, however, that the November election came
off with few glitches precisely because they had spent so much money on
upgrades and technical fixes. According to the claim, the state Board of
Elections has implemented, largely at its own expense, measures to
correct flaws uncovered by assessments ordered by former Gov. Robert L.
Ehrlich Jr. and by the General Assembly.

Premier and the state haven't always been on the outs. After
warnings about security vulnerabilities from three computer experts -
Johns Hopkins University professor Avi Rubin and the two hired by the
state - a voter advocacy group sued in 2004. The group alleged that the
state should not have certified Premier's machines for use in elections.
The state defended Premier at the time, and won.

That history is not lost on Premier, which said its good relations
with the state made the attorney general's recent claim "all the more of
a surprise," according to the company's written response.

The company said its system satisfies contractual security
requirements and that the state decided to incorporate additional
measures based on the reports it commissioned. The company's response
relied in part on the state's legal defense from four years ago that
contended no system is perfect and pointed out that there had not been a
single report of a security breach.

Premier also said that it has provided additional services and
materials beyond what was required under the contract at no additional
charge.

Other problems have surfaced that aren't addressed in the state's
claim. Diebold had to replace parts in voting machines used in the 2004
election because of glitches in the "motherboard," the main circuit
board, that could cause the machines to freeze. Then in the 2006 primary
election, the state's new "e-poll books," electronic check-in terminals
made by Diebold that are distinct from the touch-screen voting units,
crashed repeatedly.

"Voter confidence and the integrity of the process were undermined
by the use of these machines," Gansler said. "It took nearly 10 years
for us to figure out we shouldn't be using them, but during the course
of that time we did everything we could to ensure reliability."

The claim now goes before a state procurement officer, whose
decision on the matter could then be petitioned to the Maryland State
Board of Contract Appeals. Until the dispute is settled, the state is
withholding payment on $4 million in bills for services Premier provided
for the 2008 elections.

- - -

Damned machines are an abomination. What is needed is a machine that
creates a paper trail, like an ATM machine. The voter gets a receipt
telling him/her for whom or what the votes were cast, and a long roll of
receipts remains with or is associated with each machine, in case of
electronic or mechanical failures.

And there would go your right to a privately cast your vote.

Our machines I think are the most reliable... We are handed a piece of
paper with dots on it just like the ones on the test at school. You
simply fill in the dots you want to vote for. Once you do that the paper
(with no name on it) is fed into a reader and counted. This also
leaves a clear paper trail if a recount is necessary.

You still could have a situation like in Minisota with the Frankin
people double counting the hard copy ballots, but it's as good as you
can get I think...
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

On Dec 28, 9:38*am, Boater wrote:


Damned machines are an abomination. What is needed is a machine that
creates a paper trail, like an ATM machine. The voter gets a receipt
telling him/her for whom or what the votes were cast, and a long roll of
receipts remains with or is associated with each machine, in case of
electronic or mechanical failures.


Harry, do you want it required that the voter sign his name to the
ballot so not only does he get a receipt, but every one can have
access to his voting records like the unions want?

On Dec 28, 2:15*pm, Tim wrote:
On Dec 28, 9:38*am, Boater wrote:



Damned machines are an abomination. What is needed is a machine that
creates a paper trail, like an ATM machine. The voter gets a receipt
telling him/her for whom or what the votes were cast, and a long roll of
receipts remains with or is associated with each machine, in case of
electronic or mechanical failures.

Harry, do you want it required that the voter sign his name to the
ballot so not only does he get a receipt, but every one can have
access to his voting records like the unions want?

Yes, that is what he wants.. Two of the best elections tools democrats
have are voter fraud and supression...

Tim wrote:
On Dec 28, 9:38 am, Boater wrote:

Damned machines are an abomination. What is needed is a machine that
creates a paper trail, like an ATM machine. The voter gets a receipt
telling him/her for whom or what the votes were cast, and a long roll of
receipts remains with or is associated with each machine, in case of
electronic or mechanical failures.


Harry, do you want it required that the voter sign his name to the
ballot so not only does he get a receipt, but every one can have
access to his voting records like the unions want?


Silly. All the voter needs is a receipt showing who he voted for...no
voter names are needed on the receipt or on the paper record the county
keeps.