- Study of public records provided by Maricopa County under Arizona's
FOIA-equivalent laws.
- On-site observations before, during and after the election.
- A review of the legalities surrounding the Federal voting system
certification process and how it interacts with Arizona law affected
(Appendix A2.)
Assembling and viewing this material in total, a disturbing picture
emerges of a department that is fighting transparency and observation
at every level any by any means possible (legal or otherwise), a
voting system vendor that is visibly cheating on their legal
requirements (and security model) and a series of interlocking
bureaucracies at the county, state and federal levels that together
are supporting the unsupportable.
The report contains concrete examples of these problems and where
possible suggests mitigations. By showing the interweaving issues
between the levels of government, it forms a work that is valuable to
anyone in America interested in fair, honest and transparent
elections. We have run into a situation in this one (large) county
that forms a microcosm of what's wrong with America's democratic
process.
This isn't the report the authors set out to write. At first we
thought we would be producing something specific to the Maricopa or at
least Arizona electoral situation. That core purpose is still present
and still useful. But readers are urged to look past the local,
specific issues and pay attention to the broad strokes.
We're all in trouble. We write this as a plea for help, as an effort
to expose something tragically wrong.
NOTE: Appendix A covering Sequoia's legal situation is of national
interest and sheds light on flaws not just on Sequoia's product line,
but the entire electronic voting infrastructure via the
federally-approved testing labs and Sequoia's apparent subversion of
that process
Appendix A
The Sequoia Voting System Installation in Maricopa:
A Legal And Practical Analysis
Maricopa County is the largest client county Sequoia has, and is a
fairly recent installation (mid-2006).
There are a number of intersecting concerns related to the security
and legality of this system. Public records access in the course of
producing this report has left the authors in the best possible
situation to comment. We will draw heavily from the security analysis
published last year pursuant to the California Secretary of State's
"top to bottom review" and legal analysis performed by Dr. Tom Ryan in
Arizona.
We will however be able to go past where these and other pioneers have
left us.
Legal Background
Voting systems in Arizona are certified by the Arizona Secretary of
State's office, with a limitation placed on her powers:
FOIA-equivalent laws.
- On-site observations before, during and after the election.
- A review of the legalities surrounding the Federal voting system
certification process and how it interacts with Arizona law affected
(Appendix A2.)
Assembling and viewing this material in total, a disturbing picture
emerges of a department that is fighting transparency and observation
at every level any by any means possible (legal or otherwise), a
voting system vendor that is visibly cheating on their legal
requirements (and security model) and a series of interlocking
bureaucracies at the county, state and federal levels that together
are supporting the unsupportable.
possible suggests mitigations. By showing the interweaving issues
between the levels of government, it forms a work that is valuable to
anyone in America interested in fair, honest and transparent
elections. We have run into a situation in this one (large) county
that forms a microcosm of what's wrong with America's democratic
process.
This isn't the report the authors set out to write. At first we
thought we would be producing something specific to the Maricopa or at
least Arizona electoral situation. That core purpose is still present
and still useful. But readers are urged to look past the local,
specific issues and pay attention to the broad strokes.
We're all in trouble. We write this as a plea for help, as an effort
to expose something tragically wrong.
NOTE: Appendix A covering Sequoia's legal situation is of national
interest and sheds light on flaws not just on Sequoia's product line,
but the entire electronic voting infrastructure via the
federally-approved testing labs and Sequoia's apparent subversion of
that process
Appendix A
The Sequoia Voting System Installation in Maricopa:
A Legal And Practical Analysis
Maricopa County is the largest client county Sequoia has, and is a
fairly recent installation (mid-2006).
There are a number of intersecting concerns related to the security
and legality of this system. Public records access in the course of
producing this report has left the authors in the best possible
situation to comment. We will draw heavily from the security analysis
published last year pursuant to the California Secretary of State's
"top to bottom review" and legal analysis performed by Dr. Tom Ryan in
Arizona.
We will however be able to go past where these and other pioneers have
left us.
Legal Background
Voting systems in Arizona are certified by the Arizona Secretary of
State's office, with a limitation placed on her powers:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
