Tag Archives: vote suppression

Losing Sins, Sacramental Cheating: Vote Suppression Issues in 2017

“A faith that makes losing a sin will make cheating a sacrament.” — Michael Gergen

Case in point: The incredibly petty assault on the election of state Senator Joyce Woodhouse by sore losers among the Clark County Republicans who think a ‘recall’ election on a trumped up issue will allow them to overturn election results.  And, this single sentence is about all the publicity the recall effort deserves.

Case in point:  The trumped up (literally) claims of vote fraud in the 2016 election, for which there is NO evidence whatsoever.  The vote suppression efforts rely on conflation and obfuscation.  First and foremost, it requires that we conflate issues of voter registration with actual incidents of voter impersonation fraud.  No one is arguing that periodically cleaning up voter registration lists to remove names of those deceased or moved from the precinct is necessarily a bad thing.  If done in a rational and professional manner such removal makes the lives of poll workers on election day a bit easier, and I, for one, am all for making their lives as easy as possible.  However, there are voices asserting that because there remain names un-removed, there is therefore the potential for fraud, therefore there must be evidence of fraudulent voting.  This is fear-mongering of the first water.  Please review the 3 instances of voting fraud in Nevada since 2012.  (More discussion here) An additional objection to this assertion is that the vote suppression advocates are personalizing the issue — “If there is One instance of fraudulent voting, then the vote thus cancelled out must be ‘yours.'”  Please.  “But! What happens in close elections?”  One instance repeatedly hauled out by the vote suppressors as an example of  a close loss blamed on illegal voting, the Rizzo case, has been thoroughly debunked.  It’s become an article of faith among the right wing that because Democrats might cheat, then “election integrity” requires that they be closely monitored to prevent “those people” from winning elections.  Election integrity should mean that every eligible voter in this country is treated equally as the ballots are cast.  However, this brings us to yet another sacrament of the vote suppressors.

Case in point:  The following report comes from the Indianapolis Star: (August 10, 2017)

“State and local Republicans have expanded early voting in GOP-dominated areas and restricted it in Democratic areas, an IndyStar investigation has found, prompting a significant change in Central Indiana voting patterns. From 2008 to 2016, GOP officials expanded early voting stations in Republican dominated Hamilton County, IndyStar’s analysis found, and decreased them in the state’s biggest Democratic hotbed, Marion County.   That made voting more convenient in GOP areas for people with transportation issues or busy schedules. And the results were immediate.”

Yes, how convenient, for Republican voters only.  This becomes yet another example of those for whom winning is an article of faith, and one’s sacramental duty is to cheat to gain an advantage.

Case in point:  North Carolina Republicans became the poster children for vote suppression tactics,  such as curtailing early voting, strict ID requirements, reduced polling hours, to such as extent that they’ve not managed to pass muster in the courts.   In short, the battle’s not over by a long shot.  States that manage to restrict voting hours, reduce voting sites, curtail early voting, and otherwise strive to make voting as difficult as possible are engaged in nothing less that organized disenfranchisement.  Nothing could argue more forcefully for the importance of state elections than these kinds of patently suppressive legislation.

Case in point:  We should focus for a moment on the closing of polling stations as an example of vote suppression. Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and (you guessed it) North Carolina all closed polling places in 2016 that were in predominantly Democratic areas. [Reuters]

Unreasonably strict voter ID laws, the closing of polling stations, the restrictions on early voting, the selective purging of voter rolls (Remember Florida in 2000?), the arbitrary lengthening or contracting voting precinct schedules, and the other schemes to restrict voting fly in the face of Madison’s observation in his Federalist 52:

“The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. “

This, not the modern Republican version of disenfranchisement, ought to be the statement of faith that makes cheating so egregious.

Advertisements

Comments Off on Losing Sins, Sacramental Cheating: Vote Suppression Issues in 2017

Filed under civil liberties, Nevada politics, Politics, Vote Suppression, Voting

Go To The Telephones

If you are reading this post and you haven’t yet made a phone call to Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) urging him to oppose the motion to proceed on the health insurance bill — whatever health insurance bill — in the US Senate, please take a break and go call.  There is nothing in this post that’s more important than what is going on in the Senate this morning for 1/6th of the US economy, for 1.75 million veterans who rely on Medicaid, and for the Nevada state budget which needs the support of Medicaid reimbursements… and on and on.  It’s time for All Hands On Deck.  This Zombie bill won’t be dead until it’s dead, and reports of its demise are, as Twain really said, “premature.”

Other thoughts of the day —

What the president said to the Boy Scouts probably wasn’t the End of Democracy, but it was highly inappropriate.  Highly inappropriate. In fact, it was a perfectly visible (and audible) impersonation of that guy at the end of the bar who, if given even the most tangential cue, will regale his audience with How He Caught The Winning Touchdown Pass In The Big Game Against Big Rival High back in ’75.  This is the kind of tale that doesn’t even capture the attention of the entire bar crowd, most of whom have moved away from the braggart with a yawn and eye-rolls.  Our braggart in chief misses the point that all he’s managed to accomplish is to further diminish himself with the audience, an audience increasingly aware of his insecurities and ever less willing to tolerate yet another display of them.  It’s also a blatant admission that there’s been nothing else about which to celebrate in our braggart’s life.

The president’s tendency to personalize anything and everything deflects from what ought to be the focus of our investigations into Russian assaults on our electoral system.  Perhaps in his eyes it’s an attempt to de-legitimize his election, but the reality is that the Russians did ‘attack’ us in a cyber-warfare assault, and we need to find out what happened and where we might be vulnerable to future incursions.  How do we cope with ‘weaponized’ data and information?  How do we better secure our voting rolls?  How do we best secure our voting machines and systems?  To get answers we need to look ahead, retrospectives being of some use only in revivals on Broadway and in art museums.

The Election Integrity Commission of zealous, die-hard, vote suppression advocates won’t give us answers to any of these questions — focused as it obviously is on purging voter rolls.  It won’t help us deal with the problem of gerrymandered districts.  It won’t assist in plans to secure our election infrastructure.  It’s just one more panel enlisted in the battle to convince the dwindling bar audience that the score in that last Big Game should have been 6 points higher because the referee should have allowed a score on a play during which the right tackle was clearly offside.

And, now it’s time to get back to the important business at hand — calling our Senator to urge a ‘no’ vote on the motion to proceed into insurance market chaos.

 

 

 

Comments Off on Go To The Telephones

Filed under Politics

A Little Help For The Fraudulent Election Commission: Nevada Edition

I’m not sure why an investigation of election irregularities is necessary, at least as far as Nevada is concerned, when the information a person would want is easily located in the Reports from the Secretary of State (pdf)  However, there’s some information contained therein which needs a bit of explication and expansion.  Details below, first the Secretary of State’s description of the 3 (that would be only three) incidents of prosecutable election related crimes, then the follow up.

Roxanne Rubin

“In 2012, EITF agents arrested a southern Nevada woman charged with
attempting to vote twice in the same election. Roxanne Rubin early voted in
the 2012 general election at a polling location in Clark County. Later the same
day she appeared at a different Clark County early voting polling location and
attempted to vote a second time. The poll worker conducted a routine
computer database search which indicated that Rubin had already voted and
informed her of this. Rubin responded that she had not already voted, but a
search of the computer database reconfirmed that she had already voted at a
different polling place. Poll workers did not allow Rubin to vote and reported
the incident to the Clark County Registrar of Voters’ office, which notified the
Secretary of State’s office. Rubin was taken to the Clark County Detention
Center, and charged with one count of voting more than once in the same
election, a Category “D” felony.”

The outcome of this case was a plea deal for Rubin, who offered an interesting defense of her actions.

“A Nevada Republican arrested for voter fraud in the 2012 election, after claiming she was trying to test the system’s integrity, pled guilty and accepted a plea deal Thursday, forcing her to pay almost $2,500 and promise to stay out of trouble.

Roxanne Rubin, 56, a casino worker on the Las Vegas Strip, was arrested on Nov. 3, 2012 after trying to vote twice, once at her poling site in Henderson and then at a second site in Las Vegas. The poll workers at the second site said that she had already voted, but Rubin said that she hadn’t and insisted on casting a ballot, which the poll workers refused to allow her to do.

Rubin said that she was trying to show how easy it would be to commit voter fraud with just a signature. “This has always been an issue with me. I just feel the system is flawed,” she told the AP Thursday. “If we’re showing ID for everything else, why wouldn’t we show our ID in order to vote?”

Rubin, like many Republicans, claim that the threat from voter fraud — which is close to non-existent — is why voter ID laws need to be in place. But Nevada has no voter ID law — other than for first-time voters who didn’t show ID when they registered to vote — and she was caught anyway.”  [HPost]

There’s more than a handful of irony in this case.  A Republican, filled with the thoughts of all those “illegals” voting, decided to “test” the system — and got a conviction for a class D felony.  In short, the system worked.  And now, the second case:

Ortencia Segura 

The EITF also worked on a case in 2014 involving an undocumented
immigrant who registered to vote under a false name and cast ballots in the
2008 and 2010 federal elections in Nevada. Ortencia Segura was charged with
one count of an act concerning registration of voters and one count of
possession of personal identifying information for the purpose of establishing
false status and/or identity. She pleaded guilty to willfully and unlawfully
giving a false answer to the Washoe County Registrar of Voters and falsifying
her application to register to vote.
An immigrant living in the country illegally has pleaded guilty in Reno to violating election laws after she registered to vote in Washoe County under a false name and cast ballots in the 2008 and 2010 Nevada elections.

This is one of those cases that gets cited as “proof” there could be massive fraud perpetrated by those “illegals.”  However, as in the previous case, there’s a kicker.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports Hortencia Segura-Munoz was sentenced Wednesday to 103 days in jail. But she was given credit for 103 days already served on the single gross misdemeanor count of “conspiracy to commit violations concerning registration of voters.”

Segura-Munoz also was ordered to pay $1,000 in costs and fees. She originally was arrested on two felony charges of voter fraud.

Prosecutors say she registered as a Republican, but it’s not known which candidates she voted for or if her voting affected any close elections.  [KOLO]

We might reasonably surmise she voted the way she registered?  And now we come to the third and last prosecutable case in the state of Nevada:

Tina Marie Parks

“Most recently, in July 2016 EITF agents arrested a Pahrump, Nevada, woman
accused of falsifying voter registration applications. Tina Marie Parks, an
employee of the community organization group Engage Nevada, is charged
with 11 felonies related to fraudulently marking the party affiliation of three
people while assisting them to register to vote and attempting to register to
vote herself while being a convicted felon without her voting rights restored.
Parks is currently awaiting trial.”

This third case really isn’t about fraudulent voting at all, it’s about fraud committed on registration forms, and yet again — we have a fly in the ointment.

A Pahrump woman was arrested Wednesday on 11 felony charges involving allegations she falsified party affiliations while registering voters before the June 14 Nevada primary, the secretary of state’s office said.
An arrest warrant issued for Tina Marie Parks listed bail at $50,000 cash or $100,000 bond.
The arrest follows an investigation conducted by the state’s Election Integrity Task Force after it received complaints from voters who said Parks, while working for the conservative outreach group Engage Nevada, filled out their applications and listed the wrong party affiliation.
In two instances, voters said Parks marked their party as Republican. Another was marked as nonpartisan. All three told investigators they wanted to register as Democrats.  [LVRJ]

It’s hard to draw any major conclusions from a data set of three, only two of which involve actual voting, but all three are related to voting related frauds by those identified as Republicans.  Only one involves voting by a person not a citizen of the United States, one was a deliberate attempt (unsuccessful) to game the system, and one was in violation of voter registration statutes.

However, much like the motive in the unfortunate Rubin case, the mythology lingers on in conservative Republican circles that there must be massive voting fraud in this country —  Why else would Democrats win elections in urban areas? Why else would Republican candidates of ideological purity and righteousness lose at the polls?  For those who cannot admit that the GOP didn’t run a very good candidate, or that the candidate didn’t have an appealing message, the answer must lie in the mists of Machine Politics of Yesteryear.   The hard fact my well be that Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the old machinery redundant.

After the New Deal provided jobs, the precinct captains and ward bosses were no longer the place to find employment.  After Social Security was enacted, the donations from the wards and precincts weren’t necessary to put food on the tables of elders in the neighborhood.  True, there are still some effective political organizations in the US, but in the wake of Medicare, Medicaid, and employment training programs their activities are now more overtly political and far less covertly economic.

Anchors Away

There are some emotional anchors for the mythology, which underpin the conservative fears in the face of overwhelming evidence that voting fraud is definitely not a significant problem in the US, and that states are perfectly capable of handling what few instances there are.

Frankly, one of the anchors is embedded in racism and racial stereotypes.  “They” must be voting against us, if we (read: white) aren’t winning.  “They” aren’t “real Americans.”  The roots go back to Black Codes, Jim Crow, and the segregated South of the Lost Cause.  They also catch on to elements of anti-Semitic, anti-Irish and anti-Italian sentiment of this earlier era.  The latest targets of these attacks are those people of Mexican or Central American heritage.  The target may change but the anchor doesn’t.  Commission member Chris Kobach is still on national television peddling the debunked North Kansas City case of Somalis illegally voting in the Rizzo-Royster Case. As long as these contentions go unchallenged the argument will live on.

Another anchor, related to the one described above, is the the Tip of the Iceberg argument.  If there is one instance of voting fraud then there must be much more hidden from our view.  It’s hard to present a rational argument to counter this irrational perspective.   Present the fearful with:

“And yet the numbers indicate that voter fraud is incredibly rare. According to NBC, a News21 analysis of 2,068 instances of alleged fraud nationwide during the elections between 2000 and 2012 pinpointed just 10 cases of voter impersonation in a pool of about 146 million total voters.” [aol]

The rejoinder nearly always resembles something like, “Well, prove that there aren’t millions of illegal voters who get away with it.”

A third anchor relies on another a fear of the potential.  If an enhanced fear of actual voting fraud is statistically irrational, then the fear that there is an immense potential for ever more fraud is based on little more than an unadulterated sense of peril.  The dead-voter-fraud argument is illustrative of this kind of anchor.  If the rolls of Precinct 10 in West Elk Hair contain the names of two individuals who are now deceased, then there is the Potential for two acts of voting fraud.  This argument only works IF ballots are cast in those two names.  It’s an uncontroversial fact that the dead don’t vote. However, if one amasses a long list of names which have not yet been removed from voter rolls then the argument contends that this represents a distressing potential for voting fraud — and again those of good faith in the system are called upon to defend a negative:  Prove that none of these people voted.

The infamous Cross Check voter suppression project is also related to this Potential Argument.  If James Smith is registered to vote in Ottumwa, IA and James Smith is registered to vote in Sarasota, FL then there is Potential double voting.  Probably not. Especially not if one is James L. Smith and the other James R. Smith, or if one is 22 and the other is 37, or if any other test is applied, which in some Cross Check cases seems to have been missing.

When we whittle away the “anchors” and examine the background of voting “fraud” fears in this country we are left back at the starting gate — there are simply some people who do not want other individuals who are unlike themselves voting in local, state, and national elections.  This is NO way to run a republic.

Comments Off on A Little Help For The Fraudulent Election Commission: Nevada Edition

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics, Vote Suppression, Voting

ICYMI: In Case You Missed It, Instant Summer Reading Recommendations

The Nevada Independent has several excellent articles about the health insurance ‘reform’ battle in the state,  I’d recommend starting with ‘Senator Cortez-Masto’s denunciation of the Senate health bill,” and move on to ‘Dispatches from Washington.’

The Reno Gazette Journal reports (video) on Rep. Jacky Rosen’s (D-NV3) decision to run for Senator Dean Heller’s seat.

Please note TPM’s report from the conference of Secretaries of State concerning election data security.  If this conclusion doesn’t disturb us, it should:

“But both Republican and Democratic Secretaries of State, who are responsible for carrying out elections in many states, said they have been frustrated in recent months by a lack of information from federal intelligence officials on allegations of Russian meddling with the vote. They say that despite the best efforts by federal officials, it may be too late in to make substantive changes.”

Interestingly enough, vote suppression advocate Chris Kobach was a no-show at the meeting.  Perhaps this is because some election experts have identified major flaws in Kobach’s “election integrity” plans.

And, now we get to “muddle time” during which the current administration tries to muddy the waters about the  other election problem — Russian interference.  Spokespersons and advocates are on the air-waves saying that “Gee, it’s not 17 intelligence agencies, it’s actually just a handful of people who reached the conclusion that the Russians meddled,”  which is one tactic to discredit the reports that are unequivocal in their assessment that, yes, the Russians interfered.   Following this comes the Gee Whiz moment in which the apologist who says that “we’ve not actually seen the evidence of this.”  A statement such as this is simply a variation on the previous talking point:  We’ve investigated this enough, there’s nothing there, move along please.

Speaking of elections, please take a look at the bill introduced by Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV2) HR 2101, the Prior Approval Reform Act:  To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to expand the ability of trade associations to solicit contributions from the stockholders and executive or administrative personnel of their member corporations, and for other purposes.  The effective date, January 1, 2018, would allow more “corporate” money in politics just in time for 2018 campaign season.   The Associated General Contractors would be pleased to see this enacted. [pdf]  Those disturbed by the dark, and darker money, flowing into our campaigns should track this bill.

Comments Off on ICYMI: In Case You Missed It, Instant Summer Reading Recommendations

Filed under Amodei, Health Care, health insurance, Heller, Nevada politics, Politics, Vote Suppression, Voting

Election Integrity in Nevada: How Safe Is Safe?

We have a President of the United States of America who appears singularly uninterested in investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.  Nothing has originated from the Oval Office to indicate he is curious about (a) Russian intrusions into some 21 to 39 state election systems; (b) Russian disinformation efforts during the 2016 elections; and (c) European efforts to blunt Russian cyber attacks on their elections.  Perhaps there’s nothing surprising about this, he’s shown precious little interest in:

(1) Bolstering NATO nation confidence in US support for their interests in addressing Russian incursions into Crimea, Ukraine, and the Baltic States; (2) Extending or enhancing sanctions on Russia for these incursions; (3) Maintaining the sanctions initiated by the Obama Administration including the removal of the Russians from two facilities used for intelligence purposes.   And, now the President wants to have something to “offer” the Russians during the upcoming meetings of the G20.

“President Donald Trump has asked National Security Council staff to come up with “deliverables” that he can offer to Russian President Vladimir Putin during their meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Germany next week, The Guardian reported Thursday.”  [Business Insider]

At this juncture it would seem necessary for citizens in Nevada to multi-task.  On one hand we need to insure that the Administration isn’t encouraged to promote its voter suppression program, at present in the form of Chris Kobach’s extensive request for voter data which will be massaged into a report which will no doubt encourage more voter suppression legislation.  There’s nothing wrong with sharing the information any county chairperson can obtain from the voting registrar or the county clerk, but there’s all manner of things wrong with asking for military status,  Social Security numbers or portions thereof, voting history, and other personal data NOT previously part of the public record.  The Nevada Secretary of State has responded in the following press release:

“Many people have asked whether or not the Secretary of State’s office plans to comply with the request from the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity for voter registration information in Nevada.  Other than the previously identified confidential information, state law (NRS 293.558) prohibits election officials from withholding voter registration information from the public.  In addition, the state’s Public Records Act requires government entities to allow for inspection of public records.  As a result, the Secretary of State’s office will provide the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with only the publicly available voter registration information under Nevada law.”

Thus much for Kobach’s grand plan for a 50 state data accumulation of personal voting histories and “targets” for vote suppression.  However, we can reasonably predict that this will not be the end of Kobach and Von Spakovsky’s efforts to impede voting by the elderly, the young, and minority ethnic group members; in short, people who are likely to vote for Democratic candidates.

On the other hand, we need to watch out for insecurities in our own electoral systems.  One element, of course, is the integrity of our mechanical and electronic voting machines.  For those wishing to delve into the weediest of the weeds should refer to NAC Chapter 293B which specifies how these are to be maintained, tested, and audited, which led Verified Votin g.Org to declare Nevada’s overall performance as “generally good.”  Additional information concerning Nevada’s audit limitations can be found on this Verified Voting page.   We have some soft spots, but none of these seem like major issues at the moment, and most appear to be capable of repair by a legislature paying attention to the details.

Now, we need a third hand.  Since the intelligence agencies at the Federal level haven’t released the names of those states (21 to 39) which suffered Russian intrusion, we don’t know if Nevada is among the list.  The only ones which have self-identified to date are Illinois and Arizona.  This situation raises more questions:

(1)  Is the voter registration data maintained by the Secretary of State’s office fully secure and safe from hacking?  Is access to this information secured in such a way as to prevent unlawful or illicit compromise?  What tests are performed to verify the security, and by whom are the tests conducted?  To whom are the results reported? Are those receiving the test reports empowered to fix any and all issues discovered?

(2) Is the voter registration data maintained at the local level secure from unauthorized access?  Is there sufficient funding and expertise at the local level to conduct tests of access security?  Is the ‘calendar’ of security testing at the local level adequate to prevent unauthorized or illicit access?  Are there “gaps” in access security, such that some localities are more secure than others?

(3) Are local voting systems/machines secure from unauthorized access and tampering?  Is the State (or local agencies) doing adequate security testing and auditing of results? Are our present systems safe, or is there more we could be doing?  Do we need to consider more in the way of risk limitation auditing .

It’s now beginning to look like we need to have some more hands involved, rather more like an octopus to get a handle on all the questions.

There are some things that Nevada may not have the capacity to do on its own.  We probably shouldn’t be required to conduct our own “elves vs. trolls” in the manner of the Lithuanian government’s efforts to fight off disinformation campaigns.  Germany, the United Kingdom, France, the Baltic nations, Sweden and the European Union have all devised national and cross-border efforts to publicize and blunt Russian efforts. [WP]

It would be extremely helpful to have a federal Executive Branch more engaged in countering Russian meddling than in vote suppression and declaring the obvious FACT of Russian cyber assaults to be Fake News.

Comments Off on Election Integrity in Nevada: How Safe Is Safe?

Filed under Nevada, Nevada politics, Politics, von Spakovsky, Vote Suppression, Voting

They’ve Only Just Begun: Hacking the Silver State?

If the President of the US isn’t all that interested in how the Russians hacked and meddled in the 2016 election, voters and voting officials in the US should be, and this includes the state of Nevada.  There are several layers to the issues, the voting itself and the processes which are elements of the total election system.

Voting Machine Vulnerability

The good news is that Nevada has a relatively robust voting system in place that is more difficult for a foreign power — read Russian operatives — to hack, the bad news is that the Sequoia (Dominion) system could still have some issues most related to “insider” attacks

“The software suffers from numerous programming errors, many of which have a high potential to introduce or exacerbate security weaknesses. These include buffer overflows, format string vulnerabilities, and type mismatch errors. In general, the software does not reflect defensive software engineering practices normally associated with high-assurance critical systems. There are many instances of poor or absent error and exception handling, and several cases where the software behavior does not match the comments and documentation. Some of these problems lead to potentially exploitable vulnerabilities that we identified, but even where there may not be an obvious vulnerability identified, the presence of such errors reduces our overall confidence in the soundness of the system as a whole.” [VerifiedVoting]

The problems associated with Nevada’s voting machines are mostly of the variety perpetrated by “insiders,” those who have control of the machines during set up, maintenance, and handling.  This is good news for preventing ‘rigging’ issues in terms of election outcomes being vulnerable to outside forces.  A statement from the Secretary of State describes the election audit system. (pdf)

Voter Registration Record Security

The election voter data isn’t quite so reassuring.  Nevada is a “member” of the Cross Check system.   The system certainly can be used to remove individuals from the voter rolls with deleterious effect, and the exchange between

voting officials and the Nevada ACLU isn’t all that comforting:

Wayne Thorley, Nevada’s deputy secretary of state for elections, counters that the program just matches data and doesn’t target anyone. “Just because someone comes back as a match on the Interstate Crosscheck list, it doesn’t automatically trigger cancellation of their account,” he said. “And then, further investigation is done by the state.” He said Nevada also uses the Electronic Registration Information Center to match names from the Crosscheck list with DMV records. Voters then get a postcard to verify their address and if they don’t respond and don’t vote in two elections, they’re dropped from the rolls. Tod Story, executive director of the Nevada ACLU, worries that the postcard system could be problematic. “It does not seem to be fair and certainly would affect more low-income and minority voters, who tend to be more transient, who are going to move more frequently,” he said. Thorley said that is certainly not the intent. “If that has a disparate impact on members of minority communities, I’m not aware of that,” added Thorley. “But it’s not targeted that way at all. We’re simply following the federal law.”

First, Mr. Thorley should be aware of “that” — there is, and has been demonstrated to be a disparate impact on members of minority groups.  Secondly, the post-card system is, and has been demonstrated to be, an ineffective way of contacting individuals who are ‘challenged’ under the Cross Check system.  [RS]  The results of using the Cross Check system are also not reassuring:

“The program has since expanded to 30 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), but it’s been controversial from the start. For one thing, it’s resulted in very few actual cases of fraud being referred for prosecution, as alleged cases of double voting in multiple states turned out to be clerical and other errors. One tally found that while the program has flagged 7.2 million possible double registrants, no more than four have actually been charged with deliberate double registration or double voting. Meanwhile, some states including Florida dropped out of the program due to doubts about the reliability of its data — though others, including the swing state of North Carolina, joined despite those issues.”  [TVN]

Get that? Out of 7.2 million ‘flagged’ 4 individuals have been charged with double registration or double voting.  In addition to obviously being ineffective (A 0.00005.5% catch rate doesn’t seem worth the effort) the collection would appear to be a grand place for a hacker to start if he or she has mischief in mind.

Initial Russian assaults are still a matter of confidentiality, no Secretaries of State have yet been cleared to receive the reports of hacking collected by our security agencies although there is testimony that 21 states were subjected to attacks of some kind. [LAT]  We do know that Illinois was one on the states in which voter registration rolls were hacked.

“The hack had nothing to do with counting the votes in elections in Illinois. The hackers looked at voting registration data: name, address, date of birth, gender and the last four digits in the Social Security number.

The hackers searched through about 80,000 records overall, with the elections board confirming that the records of just under 3,000 voters were viewed by the hackers.” [CST]

The Chicago Sun Times reported how the hack was accomplished, and how it was detected.   The state of Arizona also had a major scare, as reported by Michele Reagan, AZ Secretary of State:

Reagan said she was alerted to the hack after the Federal Bureau of Investigation found a credential — a username and login — for the state system for sale on the dark web.

“It was really frightening and scary considering we’re in charge of almost four million people’s information,” Reagan said.

Reagan said her office had a lot of decisions to make in short amount of time to protect voter safety and took the system offline.

“At that moment in time, the most important thing was what do we do with that database,” she said. “How do we inspect it? We need to make sure that no information was taken, no information was altered, a virus wasn’t inserted into that system.”

She said, while the voter database was hacked, the voting registration system was not.

“We got lucky once,” she said, adding that the state has added multi-factor authentication, required the changing and strengthening of passwords and made other tweaks to better protect the system. [KTAR]

It would be reassuring to know if Nevada has implemented “multi-factor authentication” and other measures to better secure Nevada voter data.

I’ve not read any reports to date assuring me that the Russian hacking was a “one-off” and unlikely to be replicated.  Indeed, nearly every article asserts that what we’ve seen in 2016 was only the beginning.  A few intrusions in anywhere from 21 to 39 states, a peek into voter information data, some attempts to ‘phish” their way into systems — and many warnings that this indicates increasing interest in going deeper into US elections rather than any foray for temporary recreational purposes.

Recommendations

Retain the sanctions placed on the Russians by the Obama Administration, and enact new and greater sanctions on them as proposed by the U.S. Senate.  House Republicans have stalled the bill which passed the Senate on a 98-2 vote. [NYT] As of June 23, 2017 the White House indicated it would step up lobbying efforts against the Russian sanctions bill. [WP]  Those tracking the progress of this bill will want to follow GovTrack S 722.

Review and potentially revise Nevada voter data security processes and products.  Have issues revolving around the infamous Cross Check program been resolved?  Have procedures been adopted that would prevent access such as happened in Illinois and Arizona?

Russian probing, and interference, will not stop…it will be up to the US Congress and the 50 states, to reject their efforts.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics, Vote Suppression, Voting

Good Morning: The Administration wants all your voting data, and wants to make it public

The President’s “election commission,” established to cover his allegations that millions of illegal voters prevented His Vulgarity from attaining triumph in the popular vote, is requesting voter roll data from all 50 states. Nevada is included in this list.

“On Wednesday, all 50 states were sent letters from Kris Kobach — vice chair for the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity — requesting information on voter fraud, election security and copies of every state’s voter roll data.

The letter asked state officials to deliver the data within two weeks, and says that all information turned over to the commission will be made public. The letter does not explain what the commission plans to do with voter roll data, which often includes the names, ages and addresses of registered voters. The commission also asked for information beyond what is typically contained in voter registration records, including Social Security numbers and military status, if the state election databases contain it.” [ProPublica]  (emphasis added)

There are many layers of just how wrong this is.   First, and most obviously, why worry about Russian hacking into voter roll information for the purpose of making mischief if everything they want is right out there in public view?  Nothing like One Stop Shopping for voter data for the Kremlin?

Secondly,  conspicuously absent from the letter is any indication about what processes and procedures will be applied to protect voters’ privacy.  Mr. Kobach’s documented sloppy handling of his Cross Check program data is not reassuring.

Third, while full Social Security numbers may not be included, even partial number releases may be a bridge too far for those concerned with identity theft; and, does the Pentagon really want the status of members of the Armed Forces right out there for all the world to see?  How handy for the Bad Guys to have an instant way of finding out a soldier’s home address?

Finally (for the moment) there’s the purpose for which all this data is sought — rest assured, it’s NOT for the purpose of “election integrity,” in fact given the participation of Kobach and Von Spakovsky the obvious intent is to scramble the data for inclusion in a “report proving” that there’s a “need” for more voter suppression.

Nevada citizens who do NOT want their voter data/records shared in this haphazard and insecure way should call the office of Nevada’s Secretary of State: 775-684-5708, fax 775-684-5725; or e-mail at <sosmail@sos.nv.gov>

1 Comment

Filed under Nevada, Nevada politics, Politics, von Spakovsky, Vote Suppression, Voting