title
Motion expressing the sense of Council of Allegheny County and urging the Board of Elections not to consider electronic voting systems manufactured by Diebold, Inc. as viable alternatives for Allegheny County's move to a HAVA-compliant voting system.
body
WHEREAS, the Help America Vote act requires the replacement of Allegheny County's lever voting machines in time for the May 2006 Primary Election; and
WHEREAS, Allegheny County has been advised by the Department of Administrative Services to acquire approximately 5,600 Diebold TSX voting machines, and the Board of Elections, which is vested with authority over purchasing new voting machines under the Pennsylvania Election Code at 25 P.S. §2642(c), is currently considering this purchase; and
WHEREAS, the voters of Allegheny County who have commented upon the acquisition of Diebold machines have overwhelmingly voiced their distrust of both the manufacturer and its product; and
WHEREAS, comments made by the voters have highlighted a promise made by the then Chief Executive Officer of Diebold, Walden O'Dell, that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to" one party's candidate in the 2004 general election, as evidence of Diebold's partiality; and
WHEREAS, these comments have also highlighted Mr. O'Dell's federally designated status as a fundraising Pioneer, a designation that is only made when an individual has raised at least $100,000 for the campaign activities of a specific party, as indicative of Diebold's established and longstanding partisan political activities; and
WHEREAS, comments have also centered upon the decertification of Diebold's TSX machines in California in 2004, which was occasioned in part by allegations that Diebold installed uncertified software on its machines on the eve of California's March 2004 primary, an action which could constitute a violation of both federal and California election law; and
WHEREAS, in the course of the California decertification hearings, Marc Carrel, the then Assistant Secretary of State for Policy and Planning, stated that he was "disgusted by the actions of this company, and I think we should forward our recommendations to the Attorney General, because I can't believe that a lot of the statements made...were accurate;" and
WHEREAS, Mark Kyle, the chair of the panel conducting the California decertification hearings, characterized Diebold's testimony before the panel as "ludicrous and offensive," and noted that "[t]here's contradictory testimony here, folks, and it sounds like someone's not being truthful. Quite frankly, the panel is sick of it;" and
WHEREAS, the State of California ultimately filed suit against Diebold, with the company finally agreeing to pay a $2.6 million settlement; and
WHEREAS, Rob Behler, an engineer hired to prepare Diebold's electronic voting machines for the 2002 gubernatorial election in Georgia, has also alleged that Diebold installed uncertified software on its machines in violation of federal and Georgia election law; and
WHEREAS, in 2005, Diebold refused to sell its voting machines in North Carolina, because state officials insisted upon being given detailed information about all software used in electronic voting machines, a step which Diebold is unwilling or unable to take, even though this decision is directly contrary to the concept of free access to source code that computer scientists have uniformly insisted in their comments to the Board of Elections is essential to verifiable elections;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS MOVED, AND IT IS THE SENSE OF THE COUNCIL OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, that the legitimacy and validity of any election are only as strong as the voters' confidence that their ballots were correctly and impartially tabulated, and that any erosion of this confidence, whether due to real or perceived factors, runs directly contrary to the core values of equal and unfettered exercise of the fundamental right to vote. Because of the number of comments that have been expressed both to the Board of Elections and to Council by the voters of Allegheny County against acquiring Diebold voting systems, because of the significance of the voters' allegations of Diebold's partiality, untruthfulness, and willingness to circumvent both state and federal election laws, and because of Diebold's refusal to permit free access to its source code, Council finds that it is impossible to conclude that the voters of Allegheny County currently have or will ever have the necessary confidence in any election conducted using a Diebold voting system. Council accordingly urges the Board of Elections to follow the clearly and consistently expressed will of the voters of Allegheny County and not consider the purchase of any voting system manufactured by Diebold.