17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS / Electronic Voting Session 4: Optical Scan Systems Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Institute for Software Research International Carnegie Mellon University

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Outline What’s new? Finish punch cards Optical scan systems

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS What’s New in the Past Week? John Marshall Law School; “Is eVoting Ready for Prime Time?” Oct. 1, 2004 Revival of Wexler v. Lepore by 11 th Circuit Diebold copyright abuse decision

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Wexler v. Lepore Robert Wexler is a Democratic congressman from Florida’s 19 th District (parts of Palm Beach and Broward counties) 52 of Florida’s 67 counties use systems that permit manual recount (punch card, optical) 15 Florida counties use DRE machines, which Wexler alleges do not permit manual recount Claim: this is a “non-uniform, differential standard” that violates the Constitution Brought action in state court, eventually dismissed Also brought action in Federal Court to require manual recount capability

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Wexler v. Lepore Lower Federal court declined to rule, citing a complex principle called the Younger doctrine, under which Federal courts abstain from issuing injunctions that would interfere with ongoing state cases Appeal to 11 th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruled Sept. 27 that the lower court should have heard the case, which will now proceed Issue: does every voter in the state have to use the same system? Issue: doesn’t a DRE produce a recountable paper trail?

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Online Policy Group v. Diebold OPG is an Internet service provider One of its customers posted internal Diebold memos describing problems with its voting machines The memos were embarrassing to Diebold Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Diebold demanded that the ISP “take down” the postings under threat of copyright infringement This would cause OPG to violate its contract with its customer OPG sued to have a Federal court decide whether it had to take down the material

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Online Policy Group v. Diebold Court held: Posting of material was for criticism and comment, not commercial, therefore “fair use” “The archive was posted or hyperlinked to for the purpose of informing the public about the problems associated with Diebold’s electronic voting machines. It is hard to imagine a subject the discussion of which could be more in the public interest. If Diebold’s machines in fact do tabulate voters’ preferences incorrectly, the very legitimacy of elections would be suspect.” Opinion.Opinion

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Online Policy Group v. Diebold “(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents … that material or activity is infringing … shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred … by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.” 17 U.S.C. §512(f)17 U.S.C. §512(f) Court awarded costs and attorneys’ fees against Diebold

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Help America Vote Act of 2002 Payments to states to replace paper and level machines: $3 billion Establishes Election Assistance CommissionElection Assistance Commission Reforms the standards process (National Institute of Standards and Technology)National Institute of Standards and Technology Uniform statewide definition of “what constitutes a vote” Provisional voting Statewide registration systems Complaint procedure

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Punch Card Recounts When a ballot is handled, it can be changed The voter’s intent must be determined Suppose only one of four corners is detached. It is a vote? Dimpled chad, pregnant chad: how to count?

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS What Constitutes a Vote? “Each State shall adopt uniform and nondiscriminatory standards that define what constitutes a vote and what will be counted as a vote for each category of voting system used in the State.” HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15481(a)(6)42 U.S.C. § 15481(a)(6) TABLE PENNSYLVANIA

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Punched-Card Problems Can’t see whom you’re voting for Registration of card in ballot frame Must use stylus: no positive feedback on punch Hanging chad: chad that is partially attached to the card –How may corners? –Hanging chad causes count to differ every time Dimple: chad that is completely attached but shows evidence of an attempt to punch –Dimple can turn into a vote on multiple readings

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Optical Scan A voting system must: –Present the voter with choices –Capture the choices –Tabulate the choices In optical scan (mark sense), choices are on a piece of paper (the ballot) Voter marks the ballot A machine (optical scanner) tries to read the ballot

SOURCE: SANTA BARBARA COUNTY AN OPTICAL SCAN BALLOT

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS SOURCE:

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Optical Scan Vote Capture Correct pencils Voter instructions Form of marks Overvoting Write-ins Ballot correction

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Optical Scan Write-In SOURCE: LAKE COUNTY, ILLAKE COUNTY, IL

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Precinct Count v. Central Count Precinct count –Voter marks ballot, inserts into machine –Machine rejects overvoted (and maybe undervoted) ballots Central count –Marked ballots are transported to a central location for counting –No opportunity for correction of overvotes/undervotes

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Optical Scan Vote Reading Is it reliable? Is voter intent captured? Can it be manipulated? Infrared v. visible light –Problem: machine “sees” marks differently from voter What is a valid vote?valid vote

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Optical Scan Ballot SOURCE: DOUG JONES

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Optical Scan Ballot SOURCE: DOUG JONES

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Effect of Humidity SOURCE: DOUG JONES

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS ES&S Model 110 Precinct Tabulator SOURCE: ES&SES&S Voter inserts ballot, receives immediate overvote/undervote notification

ES&S Model 650 Central Tabulator SOURCE: ES&SES&S Ballots counted centrally, away from voter. No overvote/undervote notification

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Fax-Bar Mark Scanning SOURCE: DOUG JONES

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS SOURCE: HAWAII ADMIN. REGS. § What Constitutes a Vote? (Paper ballots)

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS SOURCE: HAWAII ADMIN. REGS. § What Constitutes a Vote?

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Optical Scan Machines SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF MDUNIVERSITY OF MD

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Inkavote SOURCE: LOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Sequoia Pacific Eagle Precinct Optical Scan SOURCE: SEQUOIASEQUOIA

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Sequoia Pacific 400c Central Optical Scan SOURCE: SEQUOIASEQUOIA

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Vogue Voter Assist SOURCE: VOGUEVOGUE Assist the disabled by marking opscan ballots

17-803/ ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Q A &

Optical Scan Ballot