Election Fraud: The Real and the Potential
An In depth Look at Nevada's Election Processes
by Johnny Gunn

The national Help America Vote Act, enacted in 2002 and often referred to as HAVA, decrees that every polling place in America will have at least one "touch screen" voting machine in place and operating by 2004, meaning in time for the upcoming presidential election, and because of that, voter registrars nation wide are scrambling to purchase machines and make them ready. In Clark County, registrar Larry Lomax is planning on purchasing 540 new touch screen systems. Clark County uses voting systems made by Sequoia Pacific while Washoe County prefers machines made by Diebold.

Seven counties in Nevada continue to use the punch card type of ballot, the same type that caused such an uproar in Florida during the 2000 election. In California, there are many precincts still use the punch card ballot and that almost caused the effort to recall Governor Gray Davis to be postponed. Arguments raised included the fact there have been so many problems with the punch card system that it was feared many would be denied the rights. At the time of the decision, about a half million voters had already cast absentee ballots. (See related article, California Voter Swamp)

A second part of HAVA decrees that each state will have a comprehensive plan in place by January 1, 2004 for statewide voter registration, under the direction of the Secretary of State. (www.sos.state.nv.us) Currently in Nevada, each county has its own voter registrar, in some cases such as Clark and Washoe, the position is a stand alone office, while in most of the rural counties, the county clerk doubles as registrar of voters. Each county maintains its own data base of eligible voters, and it's rare that the information is shared. Thus, someone can be registered to vote in more than one county in Nevada. It's illegal, but, as they say, Murphy's Law decrees that it has happened and probably will happen again.

Of the three major distributors of voting machines, Diebold Election Systems is coming under criticism from computer experts in several universities for what they call a lack of security and encryption of internal programming. (www.blackboxvoting.com)

In Washoe County, votes have been counted using optical scan machines for at least seven years. The ballot is physically marked by the elector, then electronically scanned. The method of counting the votes will be the same whether optical scan or touch screen, and according to registrar of voters Dan Buck, there has never been a case of hacking or any other type of corruption of results, either from an outside source, or from a criminal act from within by local officials. "The arguments are made by computer people, not by professional election officials. They tested the Diebold system in a university study, not using the safeguards that would be found in an election precinct. Worse, in my opinion," he said, "they used an old program that had been placed on the Internet, and is not a current system program."

Buck's criticism of the study is one voiced consistently by election officials across the country. At a recent meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State, held in Portland, Maine, questions of whether standards for the voting systems should be increased were brought to the floor. Although no official stand was taken, the questions remain, and it's expected that the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, will look into those allegations. NIST is the government's standards-setting organization. They are expected to issue a white paper on security standards for the new generation of computer generated voting machines. Whether that will be done in time for any changes to be made prior to the 2004 election is unknown.

The university study was conducted by computer security experts from Johns Hopkins University and Rice University (another study was completed at Stanford University and a report has been issued by Cal Tech/MIT), and was released at the end of July of this year. The primary argument against the touch screen system is a lack of a paper trail, that there is no way, other than through the computer, to determine the vote, and no safeguards against tampering. No paper ballot will exist. (www.news.com. Voting machine fails inspection) Washoe County's Buck however, says that a print out can be done, and would be done in the event of a challenge or recount. He indicated the print out would not look the same as the ballot might.

"Besides that," he says, "before the voter pushes the final button on the screen, a review of the ballot will be shown on the screen. The voter can make changes before the final entry." Buck pointed out that electronic voting procedures have been in use for over 20 years, and that Washoe County has used electronic counting for more than seven years. "Every system has some vulnerability," according to Buck. "When hackers can get into the FBI systems, into Pentagon systems, it proves that point, but with the computerized systems we use, there is no network. There is nothing to break into."

An interesting side note to the university study: Diebold has attempted to block www.blackboxvoting.org from continuing its pursuit of passing on information by way of Internet links. See accompanying box.

A look into the history books indicates why so many election officials and voters approve of the electronic approach. Punch card voting was first used starting in 1904, and based on what happened in Florida during the 2000 election, has been riddled with potential for fraud for a full century. California's punch card system is exactly the same as Florida's, as is the punch card systems used in rural Nevada counties. It is because of so many problems over such a long time that HAVA has come about.

Many sections of the country used lever voting systems which made their debut in the 1930s, and they too have had extensive problems. It was discovered recently that many of the lever type machines failed to count past 999 even if well over 1,000 votes had been cast.
The computer voting system, called touch screen, study conducted by Johns Hopkins University and Rice University centered on systems designed by Diebold, although two other companies also make touch screen systems. Avi Rubin of Johns Hopkins is technical director of the Information Security Institute there and worked with two doctoral candidates. They insist a voter could find it easy to trick the Diebold Election System into accepting more than one ballot.

In a 27 page response, also available at www.news.com, Diebold says that's nonsense. Diebold blasts the researchers for using an out of date program for their study, a program they say was never used in an election. That comment is challenged in that the program might well have been used in the 2002 elections in several states, but with no problems of any kind, including tampering and fraud. The company suggests that between their own updates and the safeguards in place at polling precincts, it would be virtually impossible to defraud the system. They discuss logic and accuracy testing as did Washoe registrar Buck.

Each unit or CPU is independent of all others and a certification board tests the logic and programming of each unit prior to election day, and again following the count of the votes, according to Buck. "Each unit is sealed following the first inspection and locked in a vault. Even I, the voter registrar, can't get at the machines." Buck said that on election day, results are sent to his office by a land line, that is, by a telephone connection, but those results are considered unofficial. "It's when the machine is brought to the registrar's office and connected to the main frame, that the vote count is considered final." It becomes official following a canvas by the County Commission.

In Maryland, the state has signed a $55.6 million deal with Diebold, and according to the project manager for Maryland, David Heller, they have been using the system for 18 months with great success. Dan Buck in Reno echoed what Heller was quoted as saying in a national news release (www.news.com) that the university testing was done in a closed environment, not in an actual setting.

Buck in Washoe County and Larry Lomax, registrar in Clark County, pointed out that human election workers know the number of votes cast at each terminal and match that against their own figures. Each voter signs a register at the polling place, and the workers then know whether more votes were cast than people who signed the poll register. "The university computer investigators were highly irresponsible with their comments," according to Buck.

Maryland's Heller said, "If there's a failure or a compromise on a unit, we know who voted, not how, but who." The university researchers are calling for independent security researchers to verify the source code that's used on the Diebold machines, and Diebold, protecting its proprietary ownership is refusing to divulge that information, as are most registrars around the country.

Nationwide, more than 50% of all votes in the 2002 election were cast on electronic counting machines, almost 20% of those on a touch screen system, and the touch screen system is the next step up from Washoe County's optical scan system. The most contentious issues during 2002 were not with electronic voting or counting, but rather with punch ballots. Think hanging chads. Think Florida.

Election fraud that's being investigated, not just in Nevada, deals with paper ballots and registration in almost every case. There have been no fraud investigations concerning touch screen voting machines.

One of the arguments put forward in the Johns Hopkins University study is the use of a card issued to each voter in order to implement the touch screen system. Similar in design to an ATM card, the researchers feel that a voter could manipulate the card in such a manner as to be able to vote early and often. They contend many votes could be made on a single card, or the cards could be duplicated and used fraudulently.
"That's just not true," according to Buck. Diebold also refutes those allegations. Buck continues, "These cards are formatted at the precinct and are designed for one time use only. As soon as the voter completes his ballot, the card is erased automatically by the system, and must be returned to the precinct workers where it would be reprogrammed for the next voter." Buck pointed out that even if an elector walked out the door with that ATM type card, it would not be reusable. "There is simply no way an elector could vote more than once with the card. It's erased."

Buck pointed out that just as in previous elections, one must sign in, the signature is compared to one on file with the registrar. "If a machine should tally 200 votes cast and there are only 150 signatures on the polling register, the precinct workers would know something is wrong, I would be notified, and the machine would be taken off line. An investigation would begin immediately." He pointed out that he can't imagine such a thing taking place.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA), came about because of the scandals associated with the national elections of 2000, and $3.9 billion have been allocated to implement the act across the country, $1.5 billion just for this fiscal year which ended at the end of September. Passed in 2002, the states have been mandated to have at least one touch screen system at each polling place by 2006. Many registrars and clerks around the country are scrambling to get operating systems. Buck says the time line is unreasonable but says Washoe County will be on line by the 2004 election. Statewide, Chief Deputy Secretary of State Renee Parker says there is a plan to purchase electronic voting machines sometime during 2005. The state may spend as much as $8 million. Parker has said by the time the state makes its purchases, most questions concerning their reliability will be answered.

Because of changes in budgets, the future of the program is somewhat clouded. Money initially thought to be available for the future may be cut, but for right now, county clerks and state officials are working on what has already been made available.

There is also a deadline of 2004 for states to have a comprehensive voter registration plan on line, one that mandates proof of identification among other rules. Many states, including Nevada, have asked for an extension to 2006.

Currently, there is no Nevada statewide system of voter registration. Each county is responsible for its own rules in this regard. According to Renee Parker, Chief Deputy Secretary of State for Nevada, the last legislative session authorized the implementation of HAVA, and delineated how proof of identification will be handled. A registrant will be asked for a current driver license, if one isn't available, then the last four numbers of the person's social security number, and if that isn't available, the potential registrant will be asked to go to the county clerk in the county of residence, and prove to the clerk his or her identity by way of a notarized claim.

It sounds far more complicated than it will actually be since most people either carry a driver license or a legal ID issued by various police and DMV agencies. It's the time line that Parker is concerned about. "We are going to ask for bids from vendors who already work with voter registration, to build a state wide date base. We would very much like to award the vendor contract by November, and then be able to prove the system by April of 2004." That of course is four months past the 1-1-04 deadline mandated by HAVA.

Clark County Registrar of voters, Larry Lomax says there are different problems in the southern county than found in northern Nevada. "Our ballots are bilingual," he says, "and so we have embraced the touch screen systems." Clark County uses machines designed by Sequoia Pacific and currently has fifty machines on line. According to Lomax, he will be purchasing another 540 touch screen election systems in the near future.
"With the touch screen system, bilingual voting is easily accomplished," Lomax told us.

On a national scale, it didn't take long for the debate over both HAVA and the use of the touch screen systems to become political. In Washington state, the Democratic state chair, Paul Berendt, is saying implementation in his state is designed to favor the Republican Party. The Washington Secretary of State is Republican and he denies any such thing. In the third most populated county, Snohomish, the County Auditor doubles as voter registrar. Auditor Bob Terwilliger is a Democrat, and he's all in favor of the touch screen system. "Once a voter uses the equipment," he says, "there is widespread acceptance." (www.blackboxvoting.com)

The primary argument used by the university researchers is lack of security, but many registrars insist that isn't the case. Independent laboratories that are licensed by the federal government test the machines, local protocol in place is also a strong security measure, and the basic source codes are proprietary. It was an unauthorized release of earlier Diebold codes on the Internet that led to the study.

In Washington state, the democratic party has gone on record with a demand for paper ballots. The republicans haven't gone that far, but have adopted an official position that "...(W)e trust (Secretary of State) Sam Reed." Washington used punch card ballots prior to the touch screens, but problems with those have never been as severe in Washington as the problems faced by Florida.

California's recall laws are far more lenient than Nevada's. There is a movement right now to get enough signatures on a petition to recall Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn, www.recallguinn.com or for the governor's side of things, www.gov.state.nv.us.

In most of Nevada, registration to vote must be done at least 30 days prior to the election. "One thing we've done is make the registration process a little easier in Washoe County." Registrar Buck continues, "For those who vote by mail and register by mail, the deadline to register will remain 30 days prior to the election, but for personal registration, prospective voters will be able to register up to 20 days prior." There has been some criticism of the registration process in Nevada, particularly in southern Nevada, and the statewide system being developed by the secretary of state could alleviate many of those problems.

A grand jury investigation in Clark County, regarding fraudulent voter registration in Assembly District 37, has concluded with a 62 count indictment against Gary Horrocks alleging election fraud, forgery, burglary, and conspiracy to commit forgery and burglary, among the charges. Horrocks, owner of Horrocks' Clubhouse Tavern on Las Vegas Blvd., North, conducted voter registration promotions at his bar, but a check of records by Clark County registrar Larry Lomax, has shown many were fraudulent. Unknown people, vacant property listed as home addresses, and several dozen registrants listed with a post office box owned by Horrocks. (A Las Vegas Review Journal columnist, John L. Smith has written several columns on the problem. www.reviewjournal.com or www.lvrj.com)

Clark County District Attorney David Roger called for a grand jury investigation after Horrocks supposedly bragged of delivering dozens of votes in an effort to defeat republican candidate Francis Allen. She lost the general election by just 134 votes. Horrocks, in addition to his saloon business is a lobbyist for the Nevada Association of Concerned Motorcyclists. Horrocks placed third in the republican primary which Allen won. He denies any wrongdoing.

According to Clark County D. A. Roger's office, trial has been set for February 9, 2004 in District Court 6. It's expected that District Judge Bonaventure will preside.

In the meantime there have been indications of possible fraud in the Las Vegas City Council Ward 5 race. Registrar Lomax says about 35 completed registration forms, which need the signature of the person soliciting the registrant, have been signed by the same person. Lomax says that alone is not unusual when registration drives take place. The person doing the registering is required to sign each page.

What Lomax is questioning are the signatures themselves. He says they are dramatically different, despite allegedly being from the same person. Calls from Lomax's office to some of those registered also brought forth allegations from them that they had not registered, nor re-registered.
Lomax again brought the problem to the attention of the D. A.. In Clark County, as in many other locations, it isn't necessary to present an identification card to register. Part of the HAVA legislation will require proof of identification at the time of registering, and a statewide registration data base is to be maintained by the Secretary of State. How that will be worked out at the local county level will be determined. Chief Deputy Parker indicates that many of the vendors expected to bid for the right to develop a registration program for the state are already providing such services to other election officials.

Parker anticipates that DMV and vital statistic offices will be involved with the identification process. "A valid driver license if going to be asked for first and foremost," she told the Observer, "and that can be correlated with DMV." Fraud at the registration level is most prevalent, and statewide identification and a statewide data base of registrants should end the process of people voting in more than one county, or from dead people continuing their community service.

Parker feels that one of the systems currently in use in Nevada, either the vendor used by Washoe's Buck, or that preferred by Clark's Lomax, could be the final choice, but that other vendors do exist, and the bidding process is open to all.

Washoe County registrar Buck says that in Washoe County, prospective registrants are not currently required to prove their identity, but he says, "First time voters must show an I.D. at the precinct That way we know the registration is correct. After a person has voted in their first election cycle, the precinct workers then verify simply by comparing the signature that is on file with our office to what the elector signs at the poll.
"If for some reason," he goes on, "a precinct worker feels something is wrong, the voter might be asked for picture identification or something similar." Regarding the possibility of fraud being attempted at what he calls field registration, his office does its best to train volunteers. (For statewide election laws and rules, go to Secretary of State Dean Heller's link at www.sos.state.nv.us)

"Of course, in their desire to get as many people registered as possible, there can be problems. That's why our identification checks for first time voters are so important." It's alleged that in Clark County, Horrocks and others connected to him, simply filled out registration forms, sometimes with legitimate names, sometimes not. False addresses were used as well, and under the current system of voter registration, what gave the process away was the differences in handwriting by a supposed field registrar.

As part of HAVA, a numbered form for voter registration and identification is called for. Lomax feels not having an identification process as part of registration has led to abuses. The Ward 5 races pitted incumbent Lawrence Weekly against Gene Collins and Jefferson Lee. Neither Lomax nor DA Roger has indicated any of the three have connections to the abuse.

The federal legislation calls for a statewide system of registration, and leaves it up to individual states to accomplish. In Nevada, that process is under way.

There have been other cases of alleged voter fraud in Nevada recently. In November of 2002 the FBI seized the ballots in Eureka County following allegations of fraud and impropriety in the primary and general elections. The FBI has not made any statements other than the fact an investigation is underway. According to deputy Eureka County Clerk Kim Todd, no indictments have been handed down. She said the Clerk's office has been contacted by the FBI regularly, but as far as she knows the investigation is still ongoing. The current Eureka County Clerk is Francis Gale who was not the clerk of record during the election under investigation.

In the 2002 Eureka County election, 680 votes were cast in the general election, and 100 less during the primary. There have been allegations that some electors had moved from the county, but voted there anyway. The FBI has said that to open an investigation such as this, there must be more to it that simple allegations of wrong doing. It requires Justice Department approval firstly, and not just words from a disgruntled candidate or voter.

Nye County voter registration records and the absentee ballots from the November election were also seized by the FBI. Registration records in Nye County allegedly reflected the right of several dead people to vote. And it's possible, say investigators, that those dead people did vote. (www.co.nye.nv.us)

There were 18,667 registered voters in the 2002 election and a district court judge in Pahrump, southern most city in Nevada's largest county, removed almost five percent of the names from the registration list indicating that many were either dead or no longer living in Nye jurisdiction. The FBI goes no further than to say that an investigation is underway.

Nye County Clerk Sandra Merlino, who also was the clerk during the 2002 election cycle, says she does not know what if anything the investigation might be turning up. "We haven't been contacted," she says, and doesn't know how long the investigation will continue.

It is obvious that a potential for voter fraud exists in the Silver State, but it's also obvious that in the two largest voter districts, Clark and Washoe Counties, the voter registrars are aware of potential problems. The potential for fraud is not limited to Nevada, or just to the west. The scandals in Florida testify to that. Electronic voting is going to be with us for a long time, and vigilance on the part of election officials and law enforcement are to be commended. There should also be vigilance on the part of the voting citizenry. There are calls nation wide for Internet voting, and Internet registration, and if someone thinks the potential for fraud exists from optical scan or touch screen systems is large, just wait until the youngsters who have so much fun hacking and laughing get into the picture.

Those calling for a paper trail, something verifiable are not wrong to do so, but for most election officials the Observer talked with, demanding that Diebold and the other manufacturers of touch screen systems, divulge their proprietary software and system programs, is out of line. It might take another session of congress to iron out the problems, and several parts of HAVA are scheduled to be implemented no later than the 2004 national elections. That certainly doesn't leave a lot of time to bring everything to the table.

At least one congressman, Rush Hold (D-NJ) has introduced legislation to amend the Help Americans Vote Act. H.R. 2239 was brought to committee in May with 26 sponsors, but some say it's unlikely to get out of committee. Holt is calling for a paper trail from the touch screen systems. "These new machines," Holt said in a prepared statement at the time he introduced his amendments, "are vulnerable to massive fraud."