This suit bears Reed Gusciora's name as plaintiff, along with Mercer County voter Stephanie Harris, who tried to vote in 2004 on a Sequoia Advantage machine but received no indication that her vote was recorded, and the Coalition for Peace Action & NJ Peace Action. Full opinion is here. Thank you, Assemblyman. - - Promoted by Rosi
I know a lot of individuals were disappointed in yesterday's court decision regarding the electronic voting machines. I share in that disappointment. Since 2004, I have been fighting to get a voter-verified paper trail system in New Jersey. Over 30 states have some type of paper trail when voters cast their ballots. Jersey needs to get on board with this.
Yesterday's decision stopped short of what I would have liked to have seen happen. The court did not say electronic voting machines needed to be phased out in favor of optical scan machines. The court did not mandate electronic machines be retro-fitted with paper recording devices, which would have forced the implementation of the law I sponsored in 2005.
Despite that outcome, there is some good news. The court did agree that there were serious risks associated with these electronic machines and corrective steps were needed. The court also agreed the State needed to do more to ensure the integrity of elections and set specific requirements for this.
The State now has 120 days to re-evaluate our 11,000 voting machines with a new panel of experts to see if the machines are accurate and reliable. There will also be new security procedures to secure equipment and mandated background checks for device vendors.
While these are all common sense approaches to protecting elections, I still contend they do not go far enough. The court was correct in pointing out deficiencies, but then only gave minimal guidance on how to fix it. It's as if a water main broke and the water company came out with a 12 pack of Brawny paper towels to clean up the mess.
My one hope is that this new panel of experts, who have actual knowledge of computers and computer security, will see the flaws in our current system and make the recommendation the court did not; to mandate new machines with paper trails. Otherwise, I'll be ready to continue the fight to make sure everyone's vote is counted and counted right.
Finally, a special thanks to the Coalition for Peace Action and the Rutgers Law Clinic for all their hard work - we wouldn't have come this far without you.
A ruling yesterday was issued in a lawsuit challenging computerized voting machines that do not produce a paper record:
Mercer County Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg held that New Jersey's 11,000 voting machines have to be re-evaluated by a qualified panel of experts within 120 days to determine whether they comply with NJ law requiring that they be accurate and reliable. Unlike the panel that currently evaluates voting machines, the new panel must have requisite knowledge of computers and computer security.
Does anyone find it disturbing that the current panel which evaluates our voting machines doesn't need to have knowledge of computers and computer security already and we need the court to direct that?
Judge Feinberg also ordered that all voting machines and vote tally transmitting systems be disconnected from the Internet immediately. Judge Feinberg also required that criminal background checks be performed on personnel who work with voting machines and all third-party vendors who examine or transport the machines. Currently, no such checks are in place. Judge Feinberg further required that a protocol be put in place for inspecting the voting machines to ensure that they have not been tampered with. Judge Feinberg found that the State of New Jersey should no longer leave voting machines unattended in polling places, to prevent tampering. Currently they are left unattended at polling places for up to two weeks before and up to two weeks after each election.
But what the Judge did not require is that the state actually follow the 2005 statute that said all NJ voting machines needed to have a voter verified paper ballot. Here's what Congressman Holt said about the Court decision
"If, as the court acknowledges, security vulnerabilities exist, then the court and the citizenry should want the possibility of audits capable of detecting and mistakes or misbehavior," Holt said. "The fundamental purpose of the lawsuit has been to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the vote tallies by requiring the use of paper ballots as the basis of those tallies. Until New Jersey implements a paper ballot voting system, we will have faith-based voting."
Holt's release also noted that there won't be the ability to have an independent audit of the results from the re-evaluation. Assemblyman Gusciora, who was one of the plaintiffs in the case had this reaction to the ruling:
"It defies common sense that this process takes place," said Gusciora. "The state should take note that this is an electronic age, and should retrofit Sequioa voting machines with a paper trail. At least in this decision there is a recognition that there could be security breaches."
Until some of these elected officials start losing their seats in close, contested elections where they don't have the ability to get an accurate recount, we're going to continue seeing half measures that don't truly ensure every vote is counted. You can view the full ruling from the court here.
The Divison of Elections certified the official voter turnout numbers the other day and we set a record:
Turnout was 46.9% - the lowest on record for a gubernatorial election, down from 48.5% in 2005 and 49.3% in 2001, the only other times less than half of registered voters turned out at the polls.
Looked at another way, though, the turnout of 2,451,704 voters was the most for a governor's race since 1997 and marked a 105,000 voter increase over the election four years ago.
The percentage turnout is affected by the presidential election registration surge typically seen every four years, which was particularly large in 2008. There were 390,000 more registered voters in 2009 than four years - and it's likely that a goodly number were interested in the race for the White House but less jazzed about the run for Drumthwacket.
Along with Assemblymembers Riley and Chivukula, Assemblywoman Joan Quigley is pushing legislation that would allow for online voter registration:
The measure (A-4189) would create an online voter registration form, hosted on a secure site within the Department of State's Web site, that would allow residents to register to vote, change their voting address after a move or change their name in the voter file, all from a computer. Before registering or making a change, an individual's identity would be confirmed utilizing the digital signature found on the state's new digital driver's licenses.
Here is the video press release on the bill the Assembly Majority office put out:
Quigley makes the argument that of all the things we can do online from the comfort of home, we can't register to vote because NJ is "stubbornly rooted in the past." She says making it easier to register may be what we need to get more people to get out and vote. I personally think you need to give people something to vote for once you get them to register too, but that's a separate issue.The legislation has not been assigned to a committee as of yet and there is also no Senate counterpart yet from what I see. What do you think of the idea of utilizing online voter registration?
The deadline for registering to vote is fast approaching this Tuesday. This is pretty cool, the Corzine campaign put out a picture of a 75 year young Cape May resident registering to vote for the first time:
Good for them. There's no time like the present to start participating in the process of choosing your leaders. People that aren't sure if they are registered can check at NJvotefromhome.com and if they are, it lets them apply to vote by mail. If you're already registered, will you be voting by mail or do you still prefer to go vote on election day?
The NJ Democratic State Committee the other day launched the website NJvotefromhome.com:
"This election is critical to the future of New Jersey's working families and our state -- we must do all that we can to ensure every voter has the ability to cast their ballot to re-elect Governor Corzine and Democrats across the state," said Cryan. "Voting from the comfort of their own home will take the difficulty out of making it to a poll and casting a ballot for many New Jerseyans. This new Web site is simply about being in tune to the needs of New Jersey voters."
"In today's world we all lead busy lives but no one should be prohibited from making their voice heard - voting is a right. Democrats recognize the needs of New Jersey voters and this Web site will help to meet these needs by making it easier than ever for residents to cast their ballot. Every vote counts and expanding access to voting for all New Jerseyans will be integral to re-electing Governor Corzine and electing Democrats at all levels across the state."
Here is a video they put together about how voting in New Jersey is easier than it has ever been with the use of Vote by Mail ballots:Take the poll below the fold and lets us know if you vote by mail or if you prefer to cast your ballot at the polls on election day still?
We've all consumed so much propaganda from politicians who want to redirect our attention by demonizing the very people who can ask some of the toughest questions they don't wan't to answer- the press. This is a refreshing take on what Christie's avoidance means to one mindful voter. - - - Promoted by Rosi Efthim
It's become an almost daily occurrence: Chris Christie won't answer questions from the media while on the campaign trail.
He's not the first. Incumbents refuse to participate in debates all the time. (See: Frank Lautenberg in the '08 primary; Scott Garrett every two years.) And these few examples unfortunately won't be the last.
Politically, I understand Christie's tactic, especially during the primary when a candidate must campaign to the "base." The candidate wants to try to avoid saying anything he or she will regret in the general election, where the center is crucial to victory. To prevent an "I voted for it before I voted against it" incident that will come back to haunt you later on, just shut up and stick to the stump speech. Makes sense.
Pragmatically, it's beyond stupid. And not just because a candidate who ignores the "evil media" will be hounded ad nauseum.
I refuse to vote for any candidate -- Democrat or Republican, liberal or centrist -- who refuses to answer reporters' questions. And so should you and every other voter who cares about his or her community, state and country. Here's why.
The Governor's office put this out in a release this afternoon:
Governor Jon S. Corzine today signed the following bill into law:
A-3648/S-2547 (Quigley, Schaer/Sweeney, O'Toole) - Delays requirement that voting machines produce individual permanent paper record for each vote cast due to the State's critical economic situation and lack of appropriate technology
After three months of investigation, California's secretary of state has released a report examining why a voting system made by Premier Election Solutions (formerly known as Diebold) lost about 200 ballots in Humboldt County during November's presidential election.
But the most startling information in the state's 13-page report (.pdf) is not why the system lost votes, which Wired.com previously covered in detail, but that some versions of Diebold's vote tabulation system, known as the Global Election Management System (Gems), include a button that allows someone to delete audit logs from the system.
Auditing logs are required under the federal voting-system guidelines, which are used to test and qualify voting systems for use in elections. The logs record changes and other events that occur on voting systems to ensure the integrity of elections and help determine what occurred in a system when something goes wrong.
So no paper trail, delete the logs, did the vote ever really occur? They better hope it doesn't take one of their elections to be the test case.
"We simply don't have the money," said Assemblywoman Joan Quigley, D-Hudson. "We just can't do it right now. I don't think most people in New Jersey would see this as a priority.
"I know there will be a number of angry people there who feel that we are shortchanging the state's voters, although most of the people I talk with feel that it works. There haven't been major problems. The potential is there, but there haven't been major problems," Quigley said.
Just because she thinks the people of New Jersey don't have this as a priority, doesn't mean it shouldn't be one. The whole point of a paper trail is to ensure there are no major problems. How would you even know if you had any up until now, there's no paper trail to check. Quigley even acknowledges the potential for problems and questions about security have been raised:
A computer expert from Princeton University has found New Jersey's voting machines can be easily hacked, while a professor from Carnegie Mellon University scoffed at the findings, according to two divergent reports released yesterday by the Superior Court judge presiding over the case challenging the machines' reliability.
The lack of past problems does not mean we will have the same luck in the future. We can continue to hope, but I'm guessing that if some of our officials were in a close, questionable election with problems, it would become a little bit more of a priority. Unfortunately, it'll be too late once there is a problem.
With a three vote lead over Republican Jerry Stevenson, Democrat Dan Dunham, who petitioned to reopen the recount, has won the three-year Borough Council seat. Mr. Stevenson had been the certified winner by one vote back on Nov. 25 when the first recount took place after the Tuesday, Nov. 4, election.
Almost seven weeks after the General Election, on Christmas Eve, Judge Theodore Bozonelis directed that the prior certification of the elections results be invalidated and that the results be re-certified, with Mr. Dunham declared the winner with a three vote lead. The recount took place on Monday, Dec. 22, at the Board of Elections in Morristown. Mr. Dunham's total number of votes rose four to 3,370 while Mr. Stevenson's remained at 3,367, the same number since the Nov. 25 recount.
And that's why it's so important to make sure you file for a recount. We touched on that when the Democrats missed a deadline to file for a recount in Closter after a 3 vote loss. In Madison, they actually got this one on the recount of the recount:
Four previously uncounted ballots were opened and counted on Dec.22. Out of the four ballots, three votes were cast for Mr. Dunham and no votes were cast for Jerry Stevenson. Another unopened ballot was also discovered and counted, and that one also was for Mr. Dunham.
Ms. Tiritilli noted "pure clerical errors remedied the election. The correction of clerical errors was the sole factor for change in the election results. An election contest was never even reached," she said, adding that it was paramount that the votes that were properly cast be counted.
Mr. Dunham filed a petition on Friday, Dec. 5, to reopen the recount after he learned that he was only one vote behind Mr. Stevenson. Mr. Stevenson had 3,367 votes while Mr. Dunham had 3,366 votes. Both parties' attorneys met with Judge Bozonelis on Friday, Dec. 12. On Friday, Dec. 19, the judge granted the request to re-open the recount action. On Monday, Dec. 22, the recount took place.
That's a pretty significant clerical error. It actually will change the makeup of council creating a 3-3 split when Dunham gets sworn in on January 1.
We are poised to miss the deadline to have a Voter Verified Paper trail, and last week the Senate failed to pass the extension legislators were looking for. One of the questions has been whether machines would automatically be retrofitted as a result of inaction. Nia Gill summed up moving forward with current retrofitting plans:
"New Jersey, in New Jersey style, is one of the few states that has not decertified Sequoia machines," she said. "One of the few states in the nation. We don't only not decertify it, we're going to put an attachment on it that everybody knows doesn't work."
According to the article, the extension legislation that went down last week marked the first time a bill formally lost in Trenton in nearly five years. I had no idea it had been that long and that should say something.
According to figures compiled by the Secretary of State's Office, more than 3.65 million people cast ballots in the Garden State.
That broke a record set in 2004 when 3.63 million voted in the race between John Kerry and George W. Bush.
From the Division of Elections, McCain's highest vote total from a county was Bergen with 174,526 votes. Obama's best county was Essex with 215,373 votes, though he also pulled another 208,410 from Bergen. Despite the turnout numbers, we didn't set all the voting records:
But Tuesday's results were far short of a record in terms of percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots. About 67 percent of registered New Jersey voters cast ballots, according to preliminary calculations; when provisional and other ballots are counted, the figure could reach 70 percent.
The record was 91 percent, set in 1960, according to the Secretary of State's Office. On several other occasions, turnout percentage was in the mid- to high 80s.
I can't even imagine 91% voter participation. Still, those are some pretty impressive turnout numbers. We'll have to look for the demographic breakdowns to learn more about the make up of the voters.
I live in a suburban North Jersey town that historically has been Republican-leaning. Even yesterday, McCain won the town over Obama by about 5%. Turnout was huge, as it appears to have been all over the state. I arrived at my poll to vote at 6:15a. I was done in less under 5 minutes. Having taken the day off from work to volunteer in town all day, I know the polls were very busy, and that turnout will end up in the 85%-90% range. Yet, nowhere in my town of almost 20,000 did anyone ever wait more than 15 minutes to vote.
When I arrived to work today, my friend who lives in Jersey City reported that she had to wait 3 hours to vote. I've read and heard of similar stories that happened elsewhere, invariably in urban areas, of up to 4 and 5 hour waits to vote. You don't need to be Crazy Eddie to know that's insane!!! I'm not sure even I would wait that long.
Whenever I hear reporting or discussions about long lines at the polls, I hear talk of "enthusiasm" as the explanation. As if the 90% turnout in my suburban town isn't sufficiently enthusiastic.
No. It isn't enthusiasm that causes disproportionately long wait times for voting in urban areas - it's too few voting machines! Here's a solution: put more voting machines in places where there are 3 hour waits.
This kind of thing takes time, and sneaks up on election officials each year. So, like day after Christmas shopping for cards and decorations, I thought I'd take this moment to rant.
The following information is required Street Address, Street Name, City and County or Street Address, Street Name and Zip Code.
If an exact match is found in our records, you will be provided with your Polling Place, Voting Area District and the County Election Official information.
The polls are open from 6am until 8pm. Be patient as you may experience heavy traffic at some locations. If you've already voted absentee, you don't have to worry about any of this. Either way, happy voting!
[consider this an open thread, and please consider taking a vacation day on November 4 to do GOTV and bring us a lot of new Democratic elected officials - promoted by huntsu]
I know what I am doing to GOTV, as long as possible as well, but what are you doing?
Chime in below and share, with the assembled, what you are doing, besides voting, even if for an hour or two.
And if you aren't doing anything, why not? It's not to late to volunteer.
More than a half-million New Jerseyans have registered to vote this year, setting a new state record and overwhelming elections officials who are scrambling to process the surge of applicants before Election Day.
Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells said Tuesday that New Jersey now has a record 5.3 million registered voters. That's due in part to the 575,145 new voters who have registered since Jan. 1.
And they're not done processing yet:
Some county clerks have been inundated with new voter requests. In Essex County, employees are working staggered shifts around the clock to get as many new voters on the books as possible. Wells said election workers in other counties are working 12- to 14-hour days, seven days a week.
Those whose names don't make the book will still be able to vote by provisional ballot, she said.
If you're a first time voter, the Division of Elections actually offers an educational video. The next step is for you to decide whether you want to vote at the polls or by absentee ballot.
Participants will have the opportunity to cast their votes for the presidential race, along with the U.S. Senate and House contests in New Jersey. Students will vote for congressional candidates in the district according to their school's location.
Here's more about the National Student/Parent Mock Election. Depending on the school, students will either use paper ballots or vote online and they will also get to give their opinion on the economy, our energy policy, healthcare costs/policies and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:
The New Jersey Press Foundation, which is coordinating the event in the Garden State, says more than 725 schools around New Jersey have enrolled an estimated 333,000 students. Voting will be conducted between Oct. 20 and Oct. 30, and the students can choose to vote in all or some of the categories.
Here's more about why they are running the program
Mock election officials say the event is "an excellent way to encourage young people to become interested in voting" and help them become more involved in state and national issues and candidates. It also provides parents and children with the opportunity to discuss their beliefs and concerns about matters that affect them.
I think this is a great way to get students engaged and paying attention to what is going on around them. Speaking of voting, if you or someone you know are eligible to vote and haven't registered yet, this is your last weekend. The deadline to register to vote is this Tuesday, October 14. Click here to get a registration form for you, your friends or your family.
I could make this a long lecture, but I'll keep it short. The only person on the ballot that I'd actually want to cast a vote for is Steve Rothman - and he's running unopposed.
If you want to hear more, click on through. If not; then just move along. Nothing here to see.
On Wednesday, Hopeful made the case for election day registration (henceforth EDR) in New Jersey. I have been a staunch supporter of EDR ever since the practice helped spur record turnout in the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire primaries. That's why I support a bill introduced by Senator Ray Lesniak at the start of the 2008 legislative session to permit election day registration in New Jersey. Earlier this year, I asked another Democratic state senator to cosponsor Senator Lesniak's EDR bill. The senator replied that she didn't support EDR, because it increased the possibility for voter fraud.
This senator's concern about voter fraud is utterly unfounded. "Voter fraud" is largely a manufactured talking point concocted by the Bush administration and other Republicans who want to make it more difficult for low-income citizens to vote against them. A Brennan Center report found that allegations of voter fraud are often "grossly inflated", and that these claims are often used to justify further restrictions on voting.
Suggestions that EDR increase fraud are also unfounded. A study by the voting rights group Demos found that EDR laws do not facilitate voter fraud. If anything, EDR makes voter fraud more difficult, because it requires voters to be physically present when they register.
There is no evidence that Lesniak's bill would make voter fraud any less difficult or any more common than it is now. Lesniak's bill requires election-day registrants to vote by provisional ballot rather than on machines. A voter registering on election day must present identification, just as any other first time voter must, and his or her registration must be approved by the county clerk before his vote may count. On the other hand, there is also no doubt that the practice would stimulate eligible voter participation in New Jersey.
If I asked you who the most popular Democratic politician in the state - as evidenced by actual number of votes cast or by margin of victory - who would you guess? We'll limit it to elections in non-Presidential years since 2000. That gives us a choice of Jim McGreevey in 2001, Frank Lautenberg in 2002, Jon Corzine in 2005, or Bob Menendez in 2006.
If you guessed Jim McGreevey, give yourself a Machiavellian-sized double handful of M&Ms. In 2001, Jim McGreevey received 1,256,853 votes. His margin of victory was 328,679 votes - about 15% of all votes cast.
The number of votes cast in statewide elections since then has fallen, risen, and fallen again. In 2006, 2,198,618 votes were cast - only 13K more than the 2,185,027 votes cast in 2001. That's in the neighborhood of 1/2 of one percent growth in five years. But the margin of victory Bob Menendez claimed over Junior Kean was only 9.2%. That's a swing of 125K votes from a Democratic to a Republican candidate. Of course, there are all kinds of valid reasons for that - but it still isn't a good sign.
