Verified Voting Logo
Edit Your PreferencesContact VerifiedVoting.orgAbout VerifiedVoting.org
Verified Voting HomeJoin - Help us do this work!Donate - Help us do this work!Take Action Today!Endorse the resolution!
Printer Friendly Version

See information for:

The Verified Voting Foundation engages in educational activities permitted by IRC Section 501(c)(3). Please visit VerifiedVoting.org for info about 501(c)(4) lobbying activities. You can also visit Vote Trust USA, a project of the Verified Voting Foundation. Also, check out our blog and twitter feed.

E-Mail This Page

Home   »  Voting results in New Jersey ...


Voting results in New Jersey should not be mysterious

by Penny M. VenetisVerified Voting Blog (via New Jersey Star-Ledger)
June 17th, 2010

Last week in South Carolina, an unknown, unemployed veteran (recently indicted on felony obscenity charges) who did not even campaign, beat a well-financed political veteran in the Democratic Senate primary election. Even the White House called the results “mysterious.”

Allegations have been made that South Carolina’s touch-screen computerized voting machines were hacked. It’s a possibility. Study after study has shown that computerized voting systems, like all computers, can be programmed to do what you want them to do — including steal votes.

The hacking allegation is speculative. The truth is that we don’t know whether anyone tampered with the voting machines in South Carolina. And that is the problem.
Why is this relevant to New Jersey voters? The answer is simple: It can happen here, too.

We know that the 11,000 Sequoia Advantage DRE computerized voting machines used in all but three counties in New Jersey can be hacked. Princeton University computer science department chairman Andrew Appel and an international team of computer security experts spent the summer of 2008 examining the Sequoia DREs. They produced a comprehensive report documenting the many ways in which they are vulnerable.

All that is needed to hack into them is a bachelor’s degree in computer science (or the equivalent), a $3 computer chip, a few months time and access. The lock on the voting machines can be picked in under 10 seconds with a paper clip, giving hackers access to the chip that controls the voting computer.

That chip can be copied in a few seconds and its programming easily manipulated with as little as 122 lines of new code. The new vote-stealing program can be installed on a $3 computer chip and inserted into the DRE. The new chip cannot be detected. Professor Appel’s hack was so complete that it was able to re-write legitimate election results in all four areas of the DRE where the results are stored.

It is easy to steal the legitimate chips and replace them with fraudulent chips. Voting machines are left unattended in polling places for up to two weeks before and two weeks after each election. Princeton computer science professor Ed Felten is so alarmed by the accessibility of our state’s voting machines to hackers that every election day he photographs unattended machines in polling places to document the state’s failure to secure them.

The New Jersey Legislature recognizes the vulnerability of our voting computers and passed legislation in 2005 and 2007 to protect the vote. A 2005 law requires that all voting machines produce a printed paper record to be inspected by each voter before casting his or her vote. The printed record also would serve as the official ballot in the event of a contested election or recount. A 2007 law requires that a certain percentage of paper ballots (randomly selected) be hand-counted each election to audit the voting computers.

Those two statutes were considered the “gold standard” when they were passed. Sadly, the statutes have never been implemented, leaving every vote vulnerable to attack.

South Carolina’s bizarre election results should serve as a wake up call to New Jersey voters and candidates alike. The only way we can trust our election results is if our voting computers have integrity. We can determine their integrity only if we vigilantly check election results by auditing voter verified paper ballots. Such audits are in place in most of the country. And scientists agree that the best auditable voting system is the precinct-based optical scanner.

Undoubtedly, these are tough economic times. But it is in these trying times that the cornerstone of our democracy — the right to vote — needs the most protection. Gov. Chris Christie should make it his top priority to implement the voter-verified paper ballot and auditing laws that the public demanded and the Legislature enacted in 2005 and 2007.

Most states have made this transition successfully in only a few months. New Jersey should seek the company of those states, so that it will not be the next South Carolina.

Announcements

August 26, 2010
On India’s Electronic Voting Controversy
August 25, 2010
Pac-Man for president: Hack highlights e-voting flaws
August 6, 2010
Voting Technology Research Gets In-Depth
July 27, 2010
State Election Officials: Recountable Process A Must for Overseas Voters
July 20, 2010
Online Voting: All That Glitters Is Not Gold (Unless You're a Vendor)
June 21, 2010
Voting Without A Net In South Carolina
June 17, 2010
Voting results in New Jersey should not be mysterious
June 16, 2010
Verified Voting Calls for Recountable, Auditable Voting Systems Following South Carolina Primary
June 16, 2010
Voting integrity groups call for investigation of South Carolina voting systems in wake of unexpected primary results in Democratic US Senate race
June 15, 2010
On the South Carolina Primary
May 23, 2010
Benefits, risks of e-mail ballots weighed
May 4, 2010
PA - Team 4: Security Concerns About Voting Machines Remain
April 26, 2010
California Assembly committee endorses UC Berkeley statistician's election auditing method
March 8, 2010
Feds Move to Break Voting-Machine Monopoly
March 2, 2010
Is the Internet the Right Place for Our Ballots? Election Administration and Voting Rights Thought Leaders Weigh in on the Future of Overseas Voting at Summit 2010
February 25, 2010
Minnesota Civic Groups Refute Recount Claims
February 17, 2010
Groups and Election Officials Warn Department of Justice that Voting Machine Vendor Merger will Inflate Costs to Taxpayers, Threaten Election Accuracy and National Security
February 11, 2010
Fla. justices uphold local election law
February 3, 2010
NJ Judge Issues Mixed Order on Use of E-voting Machines
February 1, 2010
Ruling Issued in Rutgers–Newark Law School’s Constitutional Litigation Clinic Challenge to NJ's Electronic Voting Machines

Get E-Mail Alerts




Important Links

  • VVBlog: Check out the latest news and commentary at our blog.
  • Election Day Problems?
    Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE
  • Find Your Polling Place: Vote411.org
  • Questions? Contact Us
  • Vote Trust USA - national resource for state-based organizations supporting verifiable elections, a Verified Voting Foundation project


  • "The core of our American democracy is the right to vote. Implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. And I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all of that is being called into question." (more here)

    Kevin Shelley, former
    California Sec. of State





    Verified Voting Foundation, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.

    © Copyright 2008, Verified Voting Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved, although reprint permission granted for nonprofit purposes with attribution to Verified Voting Foundation, Inc.


    Privacy    Site Map