December 17, 2024 | Source: SMARTelections.us
New York, New York - - As electors in each state are voting for President and Vice President today, SMART Elections, a nonpartisan organization focused on security and public oversight of U.S. elections, is releasing a comprehensive analysis of the 2024 Presidential election phenomenon commonly referred to as “drop-off”. The detailed study includes six swing and eleven non-swing states and confirms what has been widely discussed on social media, Substacks, Reddit forums and among political advocates on both the left and right: in six of the seven swing states, and in all but four of the non-swing states they examined, there are considerably more votes for the Republican presidential candidate than for the next down-ballot race. The study calls this pattern “drop-off” and tracks the percentage of the drop-off and the number of votes involved, county by county, in all 17 states. The analysis for each state is available at SMARTelections.us
Drop-off: Democratic vs. Republican
By contrast, there is no large drop-off between the Democratic presidential candidate and the next down-ballot race. On the SMART Elections Substack, they post, “Instead, on the Democratic side, we find an opposite phenomenon. There are a large number of votes for the Democratic Senate candidate (or major down-ballot race) where there is no vote for the Democratic presidential candidate (Harris).”
Drop-off Leaves Democrats and Republicans Both Asking Questions
In a press conference on December 11th, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called attention to the strange drop-off phenomenon. He opened the press conference by saying, “The elections are over and the American people have spoken. Former President Trump will be the next President of the United States of America.” However, Jeffries ended his press conference on a different note, pointing out the odd contrast that in five of the seven swing states where election results show Donald Trump as the victor, the Senate races and sometimes the majority of down-ballot races were swept by Democrats. “What happened in the other five?” he demanded. (24:24) “In North Carolina,” he continued, “notwithstanding the fact that Donald Trump won at the presidential level, Democrats won the Governor’s race, the Lieutenant Governor’s race, the Attorney General race, the Secretary of State race, and the State Supreme Court, in North Carolina, on that very same day that Donald Trump won the presidential election.”
Republicans have also taken note of the drop-off figures, wondering conversely why the large Republican vote for president is somehow not reflected in their Senate and other down-ballot races.
Number of Votes Involved is Larger Than Margin of Victory
The number of votes contained in these drop-off margins are startling. In five of the six swing states that are included in the analysis, the margin of drop-off votes is greater than the margin of victory.
Methodology of the Study
In order to accomplish the analysis, SMART Elections assembled a team of data scientists to gather and analyze 2024 election results. The team meticulously extracted and cross-checked election data. Each analysis was done independently by two separate data analysts. The results were then compared and confirmed to be identical before publishing. In most states the analysis compares presidential votes to Senate votes in the same party. When there is no Senate race, the Attorney General or Governor’s race was used in the comparison instead.
Different Demographics, Similar Drop-off
The most unusual aspect of the drop-off is its consistency. Statistical oddities are usually explained by specific demographic realities. Certain populations with their idiosyncratic voting behavior patterns create specific data sets that can be unique. However, with regard to the drop-off numbers, states with vastly different demographics are exhibiting the same patterns. Arizona and North Carolina would seem to be quite removed from each other demographically. However, Harris has 6% fewer votes than the next down-ballot race in both states.
Causes of the Drop-off Remain a Mystery
What specifically is causing the drop-off is unclear. Possible explanations include:
Some Explanations Don’t Add Up
The numbers for some of these explanations do not pan out. For example, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s poll numbers in Nevada, according to FiveThirtyEight, had fallen to 5% by late August when he dropped out and endorsed Trump.
The SMART Elections Data Team has calculated the drop-off by political party, but it can easily be calculated for all voters as well. The Republican drop-off was approximately 5% of all presidential voters (1,484,840 votes) in Nevada. Kennedy withdrew from the ballot in Nevada and threw his support to Trump in late August. In theory, the 5% of Nevada drop-off (calculated from the number above of all presidential voters) could be a result of Kennedy voters supporting Trump and then voting Democratic in the down-ballot races. But it is highly implausible that Trump received 100% of Kennedy’s 5% support and that 100% of those voters then voted for a split ticket.
By comparison, a study by Yale, Harvard, Columbia and MIT scholars found split-ticket voting by Democrats in 2020 was 1%.
Furthermore, there was not a single state where Kennedy actually received 5% of the vote. In states where he remained on the ballot, he generally received less than 1% of the vote.
Nationally he received 0.5%.
The number of young people voting in 2024 is also insufficient to solely account for the drop-off. Exit poll data from the National Election Pool found that voters ages 18 to 29 made up just 14% of all ballots in the 2024 election. According to the same exit polls, Trump had 46% support among those young voters. So Trump’s 46% of the 14% of young voters equals a 6.4% conservative voting block nationwide. Using Nevada again as an example, in this case, we’ll compare the percentage of these young conservative Trump voters to the 9.87% Republican drop-off in Nevada. Clearly, a 6.4% voting block cannot create a 9.87% drop-off effect.
If Harris’ negative support in some states is due to young people, angered by her position on Gaza, not voting for president; then why in Michigan, with its high Muslim population and active don’t vote for president campaign, is her drop-off still positive—even normal— (0.87%)? But in Montana, a state with a much smaller pro-Gaza movement (100 - 150 protestors at this rally), Harris’ drop-off rate is negative -19%.
Possibly, some combination of the various explanations have combined to create these drop-off numbers, but the consistency of the drop-off across a vast array of demographic landscapes remains surprising.
Error or Manipulation Cannot Be Ruled Out
The possibility that the drop-off is connected to some type of error or manipulation cannot be ruled out. There is no concrete evidence of foul play, and Vice President Harris chose not to request recounts, but public confidence would benefit from further scrutiny of the election results.
SMART Elections recommends that all states conduct a transparent, public review of voting machine source code, audit logs, ballots, voter sign-in files, and election records, such as poll tapes, to generate confidence in the election results. This type of robust investigation would go a long way to reassure voters, especially if the process was open and inclusive. Co-founder and Executive Director Lulu Friesdat says, “Voters don’t want to wonder if their votes are counted correctly. They want to know.”
There are a number of well-established vulnerabilities to the U.S. voting machines in this election.
Citing a Public Affairs Council study, Friesdat says, “Prior to the 2024 election, only 37% of Americans told researchers they believed the election would be both honest and open. The percentage of voters with complete confidence is likely even less now.”
SMART Elections is an innovative nonpartisan project. We advocate for improved election security and better public oversight. We want the public to have complete confidence in election results.
Media Contact:
Lulu Friesdat
Co-founder & Executive Director, SMART Elections
https://apnews.com/press-release/newsfile/new-york-city-bribery-acb4170eb432019622e08db2a0af9d5b
New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - October 29, 2024) - SMART Elections and its Co-founder and Executive Director, Lulu Friesdat, are lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed Thursday, October 17th, against the New York City Board of Elections (NYCBOE). The legal action depicts gross irregularities in the handling of voting equipment and ballots, reports of bribery, a lack of notification to some voters, and rampant illegal electioneering in the June 2024 New York Democratic Primary Election in Assembly District 70. The election included a highly competitive race for an open seat in the New York Assembly, representing Harlem and parts of the Upper West Side. These findings raise serious concerns about the legitimacy of the election and the certified results. The lawsuit calls for a new supervised special election.
Key Findings:
An Untracked Voting Machine and More Ballots Than Voters
The concerns cited in the lawsuit began at PS 175, a busy Early Voting polling place in Central Harlem, responsible for roughly 15% of the district’s ballots. A voting machine broke down on the second day of Early Voting at this location and was replaced with not one, but two voting machines. One of the machines was “off-grid” and untracked, and remained at the location for eight days of early voting. Ms. Friesdat was at the location conducting nonpartisan election observation as part of a SMART Elections program. During the observation, she discovered the extra voting machine, as well as finding more ballots than voters who checked in. An audit later uncovered a mislabeled ballot bag with zero votes for the 2nd place candidate Maria Ordonez, and chain of custody issues that experts categorize as serious. Election security expert Douglas W. Jones, an Emeritus Professor from the University of Iowa, filed an affidavit in the case saying, “If I voted in New York’s Assembly District 70, I would demand a re-vote... and I would demand an investigation.”
Illegal Electioneering and Bribery
The suit includes exhibits with photographs of illegal electioneering by the campaigns of Jordan and Keith Wright, who were both on the ballot. Jordan Wright, the declared winner of the New York Assembly race, is the son of Manhattan Democratic Party Chair Keith Wright, who was also on the ballot, running as a 70th Assembly District Delegate to the Judicial Convention. One exhibit describes a poll worker alleging she took cash “in her back pocket” to influence voters in favor of Jordan Wright. Voters report being directed by poll workers to vote for Jordan and Keith Wright. All of these actions violate New York Election Law.
Missing Seals and a Refusal by the NYCBOE to Produce Logs of Seals
66.6% of the Election Day ballot boxes in the 70th Assembly District that were audited were missing seals. Additionally, the NYCBOE refused to provide chain of custody logs showing that existing seals on the ballot bags were the correct, original seals. Experts say the complete absence of chain of custody documents combined with widespread irregularities means that the 8,871 ballots cast in the election are not reliable. Professor Jones describes the NYCBOE chain of custody as “weak,” asking, “How do you know you’re auditing the ballots that were voted? You don’t.”
Statistical Anomalies
A statistical analysis by Dr. Debra Wetcher-Hendricks of Moravian University identified irregular voting patterns at PS 175. Jordan Wright, the declared winner of the New York Assembly race, received 54% of the early votes but dropped to 39% on Election Day at the same location-a change that Dr. Wetcher-Hendrick’s analysis concludes has a less than.1% chance of occurring randomly. The lawsuit raises the possibility that the large increase in votes for Wright during Early Voting at that location is due to a combination of illegal electioneering and potential ballot substitution from the untracked voting machine that was at the site for most of Early Voting.
Request for Action
Plaintiffs conclude, " The fairest action for voters and candidates alike is to hold a new special election unmarred by illegal electioneering, possible errors, and fraud.” The lawsuit demands that a new election be held under court supervision with improved security measures to ensure the results are accurate and trustworthy. The suit asks that a court-appointed monitor develop, implement and oversee mandatory best practices for the New York City Board of Elections, an organization that has been criticized for incompetence and cronyism for years.
Why This Matters
Jordan Wright’s win consolidates the power base of the Wright family, which also recently assisted in the successful election of a New York City Council Member. As the chair of the Manhattan Democratic Party, Keith Wright is influential in appointing staff at the NYCBOE and even judges to the Supreme Court. The lawsuit challenges the legitimacy of the election results in the 70th Assembly District and raises concerns about the consolidation of power using unfair and undemocratic means.
About SMART Elections
SMART Elections is an innovative, nonpartisan project, improving U.S. elections by ensuring they are secure, accurate, accessible, inclusive, well-administered, and publicly verifiable.
Media Contact:
Lulu Friesdat
Co-founder & Executive Director, SMART Elections
SOURCE: SMART Elections
NY State Supreme Court, County of NY: 159693/2024
Exhibits for the lawsuit on SMART Elections’ website
To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/225675
August 22, 2023
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – Topics: Voting Rights, Election Security, Communities of Color
FROM: SMART Elections & Center for Common Ground | CONTACT: Lulu Friesdat, Co-Founder & Exec. Dir. SMART Elections | SMARTelectionsTeam@gmail.com | View in browser
Voting Machine Approval Widely Panned
New York City – In an Albany Board meeting in early August that looked remarkably like the Board meeting in the hit film “Barbie” and seemed as out of step with the times, the New York State Board of Elections ended the guarantee that voters in New York can vote with pen and paper, something they’ve come to rely on for over ten years.
The Board voted to approve the ExpressVote XL, an ATM-style, touchscreen voting system from ES&S, that Bloomberg News called “expensive” and “glitchy”. Due to New York statutes, the ExpressVote XL would eliminate pen and paper voting wherever it is used in the state.
The ExpressVote XL does not produce traditional ballots, but instead has a skinny plastic case where the voter is shown a summary card similar to a cash-register receipt. Research shows that most voters do not look closely at computer-generated summary cards, so experts say there is no way of knowing if they accurately reflect voters’ choices. Security and auditing experts have concluded that elections held with this type of computer-generated summary card “cannot be confirmed by audits.”
Another concern for both experts and advocates: the machine does not count the text that’s printed on the summary card. Instead, it counts a barcode for each candidate. “The barcode-based setup ‘makes a mockery of the notion that the ballot is ‘voter-verifiable,’’ said Duncan Buell, a computer science professor at the University of South Carolina, because ‘what the voter verifies is not what is tallied.’’’ Colorado has banned encoding votes in barcodes. A lawsuit in Arkansas seeks to do the same and one Arkansas County is already making the switch to pen and paper ballots.
Princeton computer science professor Andrew Appel, who has testified before Congress and been featured in Politico magazine for his election security research, has demonstrated a design flaw in the ExpressVote XL, and other all-in-one voting machines. He says, if hacked, the machines could print “additional votes … on to the ballot that the voter did not approve.” In previous research he called it “a bad voting machine”. In a 2021 letter to the New York legislature he wrote, “Not only are these machines dangerous—they don’t fill any real need. Other vendors are offering better voting machines..." Two new voting machine vendors that do not have these issues, HART Intercivic and Clear Ballot, were also recently approved for use in New York.
Close to 60 good government organizations, civil rights groups and elections experts signed a letter opposing the machine. Among their top concerns: longer wait times for the XL could lead to voter suppression. “Voters require triple the time on average to navigate ES&S ballot-marking machines compared to filling out hand-marked ballots,” according to Pennsylvania state certification documents. Due to the hefty price tag of $10,000 per machine, experts say counties will be inclined to underestimate how many machines they need, and this will exacerbate long lines. States that use all-touchscreen voting have had lines as long as seven to ten hours to vote. Counties could also experience sticker shock from the number of machines that are needed. One estimate is that it takes over five times as many machines, if all voters are using a touchscreen device.
New York elections are expected to factor heavily in the battle for control of Congress in 2024. Redistricting put a number of New York Congressional seats into play and six districts swung from Democrat to Republican in the 2022 Midterms. How New York voters cast those ballots could be critical in whether all eligible voters get to vote and whether the results inspire national confidence.
ExpressVote XL: The barcode is counted, not the text
The ExpressVote XL has a troubled track record in the field. In one Pennsylvania county it arrived 30% out of calibration, miscounted tens of thousands of votes and declared the wrong candidate the winner. The Northampton County Board of Elections gave it a 100% vote of no confidence, saying “We believe the problems the machines exhibited this year will make it virtually impossible to restore voters’ confidence.” The New Jersey attorney general requested an investigation into an election in Monmouth County, New Jersey, where the ExpressVote XL also counted at least one race incorrectly, and the results had to be reversed. A lawsuit in Pennsylvania is seeking to decertify the machine. Dr. Stephanie Singer, former Chair of the Philadelphia County Board of Elections, advises New York election officials, “not to waste taxpayers’ money on an overpriced system with a track record of miscounting votes."
Around five thousand emails and many letters opposing the ExpressVote XL were sent to New York State election officials. A flurry of media coverage just prior to the vote did not sway the commissioners. Both City & State New York and Gothamist called the ExpressVote XL “controversial.” A New York Daily News editorial warned, “The New York State Board of Elections Must Reject the ES&S ExpressVote XL Machine.” An Albany Times Union editorial called the decision, “mind boggling.”
Read responses from experts and good government groups below.
Center for Common Ground was founded to educate and empower under-represented voters in voter suppression states to engage in elections and advocate for their right to vote.
SMART Elections is a nonpartisan 501(c)3. Our goal is for U.S. elections to be secure, fair, accurate, accessible, well-administered and publicly verifiable.
FAQ on all-in-one, hybrid, and universal-use voting machines.
RESPONSE FROM EXPERTS & ELECTION OFFICIALS
All of the quotes in this document represent the individual’s opinion.
Affiliations are listed for identification only
“50 years ago, supermarkets invented the UPC barcode and I still can't read them. Why would New York use similar barcodes to verify our votes?”
- David Bader, Distinguished Professor, New Jersey Institute of Technology
"I am very disappointed that the Board of Elections of New York saw fit to make elections less transparent and more corruptible."
- Chris Bystroff, Professor of Biology and Computer Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
"In a time of unprecedented suspicion about the integrity of U.S. elections, it's more important than ever that we avoid voting systems that reduce transparency. Bar codes are not transparent."
- David L. Dill, Professor, Emeritus, in the School of Engineering, Stanford University
“…these all-in-one devices pose extraordinary risks for the voters of New York and I urge you to reject their use in favor of the secure hand-marked ballot systems currently used throughout the state.”
- Richard DeMillo, Professor, Charlotte B. and Roger C. Warren Chair of Computing, College of Computing, Georgia Tech (letter to the New York State Board of Elections)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-YSa4JpWTTOY08j5B6bfu1PQEMzJl8ivuoYx9Jx60aY/edit?usp=sharing
“It makes no sense to spend ten thousand dollars on computerized ballot marking devices that do the work of 99-cent pens. In fact pens are better than BMDs for most voters because they can’t record votes that voters don‘t intend.”
- David Jefferson, Computer Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired)
Even with the aid of a computer and the Internet, nothing on that ballot lets me (or the vast majority of New York voters) verify that the bar codes reflect my intended vote. This is worse than the old Voteomatic punch-card voting machine made famous by election 2000 in Florida.
- Douglas W. Jones, Emeritus Associate Professor of Computer Science, University of Iowa
“Voters have the right to see their votes recorded accurately on their ballot. NY should not be asking voters to trust that the vendor’s barcode software has accurately translated and represented their votes. Neither NY State nor the voters can discern if the votes are accurately recorded and tabulated, which is unacceptable.”
- Candice Hoke, Founding Director, Center for Cybersecurity & Privacy Protection, Cleveland State University
“The safest, most secure and accurate system for recording votes is inserting hand-marked paper ballots into ballot scanners.”
- Douglas A. Kellner, Co-Chair, New York State Board of Elections
Counties should deploy anything other than this expensive, vulnerable ES&S system, which in NY requires several times as many machines per voter, and which thus requires far more effort to deploy, test before each election, deliver to polling places, and upgrade for the inevitable security fixes.
- Neal McBurnett, Independent Security and Election Auditing Consultant
“As an intelligence specialist with four decades of experience, including 29 as an Army intelligence officer, I find myself in agreement with noted election security experts: Professors Appel, Halderman, Stark, and Jones when they say elections are most secure on hand-marked paper ballots. In my opinion, the use of barcodes in the tabulation process is an extreme vulnerability and the ballot marking devices cannot ensure the will of the voter. That’s why I condemn the NY governing body’s decision to force voters to use touchscreens over hand-marked paper ballots.”
- Colonel Conrad Reynolds (US Army RET.)
“Given the current political setting, what they have done is not only of questionable legality, it is contrary to the role they should be playing - building voter confidence in the integrity of the system.”
- Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq., Principal Attorney Advocates for Justice Chartered Attorneys, Political Director- New York Progressive Action Network
“Having written the election recount section of Goldfeder’s Modern Election Law, I cannot imagine having to recount an election where you don't actually see the piece of paper touched by the voter.“
- Steven R. Schlesinger, Esq.
“[A] Ballot-marking device printout is a record of what the machines did, not what the voters did”
- Philip Stark, Distinguished Professor, University of California, Berkeley
RESPONSE FROM CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS
"Who do these voting machines benefit? Not people of color. Not the elderly waiting in line. Not the many individuals who struggle with this new technology. They will be disenfranchised yet again. We are moving forward, but when we move forward we cannot leave our beloved communities behind. That is not Justice. That is not Democracy."
- Reverend Dr. Cardes Brown, President, Justice Coalition USA
"We are deeply saddened and furious with the approval of the ExpressVote XL. From our perspective, the ExpressVote XL does not benefit voters and actually kills New York Elections. Our fight right now is to eradicate voter suppression by making voting and elections more inclusive. Research shows the ExpressVote XL does exactly the opposite of that. For far too long, Black communities and communities of color have had their voices rejected and neglected. This is our mantra, and we invite others to say it with us in solidarity: ‘The ExpressVote XL must not ever see the light of day! We must think about the generations of Black communities before us that have had numerous intimidation tactics used against them to stop their voices from being heard and this is no different.’ Shame on New York Election Officials for the approval of the ExpressVote XL!"
- Victoria Elias, Common Power
“We seem to have learned nothing from the 2020 election. We must protect the vote. Not having a pen and paper backup to voting machines makes no sense. Shame on the NYSBOE. Voters of color beware!”
- Bertha Lewis, Founder & President, The Black Institute
"I am disappointed that the New York State Board of Election voted to move New York towards becoming a voter suppression state by approving ExpressVote XL." - Andrea Miller, Founding Board Member & Executive Director, Center for Common Ground
RESPONSE FROM DISABILITY ADVOCATES
"We as disabled individuals STILL reserve the right to vote and SHOULD NOT be left out PLAIN AND SIMPLE! We are still people whose votes must count."
- Mark M. Shaw, Psychotherapist; Niagara Falls Human Rights Commission
“I'm concerned that people won't be able to vote with a pen and paper. This will be overwhelming to a lot of people. Especially those with disabilities. Also, I don't know anyone that can read barcode. How can we verify that our ballot is what we want it to be?”
- Michael Ring
RESPONSE FROM GOOD GOVERNMENT & COMMUNITY GROUPS
New York
“I was an election inspector in Westchester for 20 years. Voting procedures and tools should be clear and simple, and give the voter confidence that their vote will be counted as they intended. ExpressVote XL does not meet this standard.”
- Frank Brodhead, Concerned Families of Westchester
"It’s a sad day in the future of NY elections … It’s amazing that two Republican commissioners approved a flawed voting machine that in our opinion can negatively influence the chances of Republican candidates from winning future elections while, further eroding public trust"
- Edwin De La Cruz, Northern Manhattan Republicans
"If the New York Board of Elections is so confident the ExpressVote XL can't be hacked, will they donate one to DEFCON for independent security researchers to test?"
- Laura Forman, Dutchess County Progressive Action Alliance
“I’m furious! When there are already so many other pressing issues, now we've got to organize and insist our local Boards of Elections don't purchase these machines.”
- Cari Gardner, Vice Chair NYPAN (New York Progressive Action Network)
"The XL fails the essential element for New York elections: a verifiable paper ballot that serves as the backup for recounts."
- Jonathan Geballe, President, Village Independent Democrats
"The BOE must reverse this terrible decision so that the voting public can be sure our elections are fair, secure, and protected from malicious actors foreign and domestic. No democracy, no planet!"
- Green Sanctuary Team, First Unitarian Universalist Society of Albany NY
"Free and honest elections are the very foundation of our republican form of government. Hence any attempt to defile the sanctity of the ballot cannot be viewed with equanimity." United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941)
- Marly Hornik, Executive Director, NY Citizens Audit
"Pay more, wait longer, and be more worried about whether your vote will count!" (New slogan from the NY State Board of Elections.)
- Nada Khader, Executive Director, WESPAC Foundation, Inc.
“In the current environment surrounding elections … it is beyond comprehension that the NYS Board of Elections would approve a voting system that provides no assurance to New Yorkers that election results reflect the actual votes cast by voters. Voters have no ability to confirm that the ExpressVote XL’s barcode software has accurately recorded their votes. This is a fundamental flaw that should have disqualified these machines.”
-Alex Margolis, East End Action Network
"It's a shame that New York is downgrading to a very expensive machine that doesn't use hand-marked paper ballots. For over ten years, we’ve had hand-marked paper ballots because they are the gold standard. We will pay the gold price, but won't get the gold standard."
- Deborah Porder, Co-Chair, New York Democratic Lawyers Council Legislative Affairs Committee
"The public cannot read bar codes such as those the ExpressVote XL uses to count votes. They are not transparent and, if used, expose our elections to questions. NY must do better."
- Jim Soper, Co-Chair, National Voting Rights Task Force
“Now it's up to the county boards of elections to get well educated on the deficiencies of hybrid voting machines and choose other safer, less expensive and more efficient systems.
- Mary Thorpe, Director, NYPAN (New York Progressive Action Network) of the Southern Finger Lakes
RESPONSE FROM GOOD GOVERNMENT & COMMUNITY GROUPS
National
"We cannot find one good reason for New York to adopt the ExpressVoteXL device rather than use trusted, tested voting devices. We have to conclude that the people who approved this change either haven't taken the time to fully investigate the decision, or arrogantly believe that New York's systems are somehow not subject to the same serious pitfalls that others have experienced. We fear they are in for a rude awakening."
- Jan BenDor, Statewide Coordinator, Michigan Election Reform Alliance
“Listen to the experts -- not the vendors.”
- Stephanie Chaplin, Secure Elections Network
“We are profoundly disappointed that the New York State Board of Elections is choosing to ignore the laws of New York State, which require that voters have the opportunity to ‘verify votes selected.’ How can they verify a barcode?”
- Lulu Friesdat, Co-Founder & Executive Director, SMART Elections
“It is our belief that the Expressvote XL will further destroy confidence in election systems because of its security vulnerabilities, the loss of the ability to meaningfully audit, and the fact that the vote is encoded in a barcode and the voter cannot verify what is being counted. We join in opposing the adoption of the Expressvote XL.”
- Lori Gallagher, Executive Director, TallyTexas
“In Philadelphia we could have had a far more trustworthy voting system for $15 million less. We hope counties in New York don't make the same mistake.”
- Rich Garella, Co-founder, Protect Our Vote Philly
"With this decision, the NY State BOE has utterly failed in its responsibility to protect the public interest."
- Emily Levy, Executive Director, Scrutineers
"These combo machines pose special hacking hazards, make verification by voters difficult, and make it impossible to know if voters were shown all the candidates on the ballot in their private session. All these issues do not exist with hand-marked paper ballots."
-Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight, Developer of AuditEngine
“Any New York county considering adopting these machines should first study Georgia’s 2019 disastrously expensive and roundly criticized move to touchscreen BMDs. This is simply the wrong direction for security and fiscal reasons.”
- Marilyn Marks, Executive Director, Coalition for Good Governance
“Introducing a voting system that neither experts nor voters can trust sends the message that voters don't matter. Voters do matter. Their trust in you matters. Now is the time to earn that trust again. We hope to see counties rejecting the ExpressVote XL.”
- Jed Pauker for LACVAC LA County Voters Action Coalition
“The ES&S ExpressVote XL discriminates against and excludes voters with cognitive disabilities and many other voters who find it difficult or impossible to use a computer, or have never used a computer. This issue is very personal to me because I have a brother who has a cognitive disability. He can easily mark the ovals on a hand-marked paper ballot but he does not own or want a computer and there is no way he could ever use the ExpressVote XL. There is no justification for approving an in-person voting system that many voters cannot use. This is yet another reason why the ExpressVote XL should never be used in New York (or anywhere else).”
- Susan Pynchon, Director, Florida Fair Elections Coalition
“The ExpressVote XL is estimated to cost $10,000 per machine. That is more than twice the cost of one of the competing ballot-markers. It's a repulsive waste of taxpayer money.”
- Michele Sutter, Co-Founder & Director, MOVI (Money Out Voters In)
“Democracy all over America is hanging on a precipice and these dereliction-of-duty actions could help push it over the edge. Shame on the New York State Board of Elections!”
- Jennifer Tanner, Director, Validate the Vote USA
A version of this press release with footnotes is available here.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 7, 2021
CONTACT: Lulu Friesdat, Executive Director
PRESS RELEASE
Top Election Security Experts and Good Government Groups Ask NYS Legislature to Urgently Ban "Bad" Voting Machine
Areas of interest: Election Protection, Election Security, Voting Technology
New York City - June 7, 2021 -- The clock is ticking down on the New York legislative session, which ends Thursday, June 10th. Andrew Appel, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Computer Science at Princeton University, has written a letter urgently asking the legislature to make sure that they protect New York voters from “bad” voting machines before they close shop. Thirty-five other top election security, auditing and technology experts, as well as national and local good government groups, have joined the request for critical passage of a piece of model election-security legislation, known as the hybrid-ban bill (A1115A/S309A).
At issue is whether voting machines in New York will be allowed to combine a ballot-marking device and a scanner/tabulator in the same piece of equipment. That design, commonly referred to as a “hybrid” voting machine, has raised serious security concerns. Election security experts say that many hybrid voting machines allow the ballot, or the summary card with the votes, to pass under the printhead after it is cast by the voter. If hacked, the voting machine “can add, delete, or change votes on individual ballots,” says Appel. In an investigative series produced by SMART Elections, he called the hybrid design “a disaster.”
Professor Appel has written extensively about voting technology. He has testified before Congress and been featured on the cover of Politico magazine. He says in his letter, “Not only are these machines dangerous—they don’t fill any real need. Other vendors are offering better voting machines.”
The bill was introduced in the New York Assembly by Amy Paulin, and in the Senate by Zellnor Myrie. "At a moment when false claims and misinformation about election security are being spread by those in positions of power around the country, New York has an opportunity to set a high standard for the integrity of our votes,” said Senator Myrie. Assembly Member Paulin pointed to high profile incidents, like the Solar Winds and Colonial Pipeline hacks adding, “Although some claims have not been based on evidence, our elections are facing increased risks. It’s critical that we use voting machines which will safeguard our votes and stand up to every level of scrutiny if need be.”
Even vendors who sell hybrid voting machines have other options. Hybrids are among the most expensive voting machines on the market, and critics say that vendors are pushing counties to buy them in order to increase their profits. In Philadelphia, following the certification of one hybrid, an investigation revealed that the vendor, ES&S, did not disclose lobbying and lobbyist campaign contributions, including to the two city commissioners who selected the system. ES&S was fined 2.9 million dollars, but the city is still currently using the machine, called the ExpressVote XL.
Advocates say the bill’s passage in New York is their top priority because hybrid voting machines, including the ExpressVote XL, could be certified before the legislature meets again. “ES&S has communicated that intent to the State Board of Elections, and to me directly,” says SMART Elections Executive Director Lulu Friesdat.
The issue has also been covered by the Washington Post, who called the voting machine industry “a tech backwater,” and said that “voting machines were a cesspool of low reliability and low security, not to mention profiteering.”
Disability rights advocates are part of the coalition fighting hybrid voting machines. Voters with disabilities often use ballot-marking devices, and they are concerned that hybrid voting machines put their votes at risk and violate their privacy. Seven disability-rights groups, led by Downstate New York Adapt, listed privacy concerns as a reason for their opposition to a hybrid voting machine in January. They noted that the machine’s “skinny ballots” are a different size, and so might reveal voters’ choices.
One example of just how wrong an election on hybrid voting machines can go is a 2019 Northampton, Pennsylvania, election where the ExpressVote XL miscounted tens of thousands of votes. Subsequently, the Northampton County Election Commissioners announced a unanimous “vote of no confidence” in the ExpressVote XL.
In a letter to the New York State Board of Elections, Professor Rich DeMillo, Chair of the School of Cybersecurity and Privacy at Georgia Tech, said, “These all-in-one devices pose extraordinary risks for the voters of New York and I urge you to reject their use in favor of the secure hand-marked ballot systems currently used throughout the state.” DeMillo, along with other nationally recognized election and security experts co-signed professor Appel’s request for the legislature to pass A1115A/S309A.
New York’s hybrid-ban bill will address these issues vigorously, ensuring that New York’s election systems do not have the ability to print votes onto the ballot, including as a result of unauthorized, malicious or faulty software. Systems that have already been purchased can continue to be used, but advocates say they will work with counties to develop safer protocols, including using the voting machines as ballot-marking devices, or scanners, but not both.
The bill has additional security protections for voters. It prohibits votes from being counted with barcodes or QR codes, a safety measure already adopted by Colorado. It prohibits ballots from being printed on thermal paper, a practice experts say is risky and can allow data to fade. It bans voting machines called Direct Record Electronic or “DREs,” by requiring the “the use of an individual, durable, voter-verifiable paper ballot” in the polling place.
Counting votes with barcodes was a concern that was raised in January by thirty-three members of the New York Assembly, who sent a letter to the State Election Commissioners opposing certification of the ExpressVote XL, because, “The barcode printed on the summary card is not independently verifiable by the voter.”
The bill has over 65 co-sponsors between the two chambers. If passed, it would establish New York as one of the states leading the way in improved election security. That issue has been a partisan flashpoint following concerns in the 2020 election. But the New York hybrid-ban bill has trans-partisan support, with Democrats, Republicans and one Independent co-sponsoring.
Senator Myrie emphasized, “Our legislation would ensure the equipment purchased by county boards of election are capable of correctly tabulating our votes and limiting the possibility of error or malfeasance. I urge my legislative colleagues to pass this critical bill."
SMART Elections is part of a broad nationwide coalition of partners working to bring better voting machines to New York and other states. Coalition partners sent over 500 letters to the New York State Board of Elections and over 800 letters to New York legislators, as well as making calls to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
About SMART Elections
SMART Elections is a nonpartisan project dedicated to elevating the issue of election reform to an urgent national priority. We are collaborating to make U.S. elections more secure, accessible, accurate, and fair. To learn more, visit https://smartelections.us.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, (H.R. 1). The bill is a visionary, once-in-a-generation effort to improve the functionality, fairness, and security of U.S. elections. It will address multiple, systemic, ongoing problems in our elections. We fully support its passage. It will now move on to the U.S. Senate for consideration.
CONTACT: Lulu Friesdat, Executive Director
PRESS RELEASE
H.R. 1 Passes the House - A Big Step Forward for Election Security
Areas of interest: Election Security, Voting Technology, Disability Rights
New York City - March 4, 2021 -- Yesterday, the United State House of Representatives passed The For the People Act, (H.R. 1). The bill is a visionary, once-in-a-generation effort to improve the functionality, fairness, and security of U.S. elections. It will address multiple, systemic, ongoing problems in our elections. We fully support its passage. It will now move on to the U.S. Senate for consIderation.
"Beyond the big ticket items that have received the most attention, less well-known parts of the bill have the ability to vastly improve our election security, especially if they are slightly improved." says Lulu Friesdat, Executive Director of SMART Elections. She adds, "It's critically important to remember that what brought on the January 6th insurrection was the belief that the results were wrong. For that reason, it is as important that voters and candidates have confidence in our election results - as it is that the results be accurate. Some key provisions in H.R. 1 can help accomplish that."
The focus of the bill has been primarily on its important reforms to protect voting rights, end gerrymandering, get dark money out of politics, and increase transparency and accountability in our government.
But here are some provisions that are notable and necessary to improve election security.
Expansions in the rights of voters with disabilities.
SMART Elections has prepared a position paper on how these provisions can be strengthened even further. We believe that some of the suggested changes are urgent.
Inclusion and equal access to power are major issues addressed by H.R.1. And they are concerns that SMART Elections cares deeply about. We will be conducting a forum on Tuesday March 9th at 7pm EST on how racial inequity in our elections can be addressed by H.R. 1. Our guest will be Demos Senior Policy Analyst Shruti Banerjee.
As a non-partisan project SMART Elections understands that there are painful battles being fought right now on the rules that govern our elections. A quote from Abolitionist Minister Theodore Parker may help us through. “I do not pretend to understand the moral universe. The arc is a long one. My eye reaches but little ways ... And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice.” (Later summarized eloquently by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.).
We applaud every step forward in our long journey toward inclusion and fairness in our democracy. This is a big one.
About SMART Elections
SMART Elections is a nonpartisan project dedicated to elevating the issue of election reform to an urgent national priority. We are collaborating to make U.S. elections more secure, accessible, accurate, and fair. To learn more, visit https://smartelections.us.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Lulu Friesdat, Executive Director
PRESS RELEASE
“Bad” Voting Machine Rejected by New York
Areas of interest: Election Security, Voting Technology, Disability Rights
New York City - February 2, 2021 -- The New York State Board of Elections unanimously rejected certification of a voting machine called the ExpressVote XL at a special late January meeting. The machine, made by ES&S, is referred to as a “hybrid” or “all-in-one” voting machine because it combines voting and tabulation in a single device. Rather than tabulating hand-marked paper ballots, the practice recommended by security experts, the ExpressVote XL generates a computer-printed summary card for each voter. The summary cards contain barcodes representing candidates’ names, and the machine tabulates votes from the barcodes. Security experts warn that the system “could change a vote for one candidate to be a vote for another candidate,” if it were hacked. Colorado, a leader in election security, has banned barcodes in voting, due to the high risk.
Professor Rich DeMillo, Chair of the School of Cybersecurity and Privacy at Georgia Tech, said, “It is encouraging that the commissioners refused to certify the ExpressVoteXL, an all-in-one ballot marking device that poses extraordinary risks for the voters of New York.” DeMillo is one of over 50 experts, good government groups and disability advocates who signed a letter opposing certification of the voting machine. Seven disability rights groups, led by Downstate New York Adapt, listed privacy concerns as a reason for their opposition. They noted the machine’s “skinny ballots” are a different size, and so might reveal voters’ choices.
New York elected officials also weighed in against the voting system. Thirty-three Assembly members sent a letter to the State Election Commissioners opposing certification, because, “The barcode printed on the summary card is not independently verifiable by the voter.”
New York law requires that voters have an opportunity both to vote privately, and to verify their votes. Arthur Schwartz, attorney for SMART Elections, says of the decision, ”I was thrilled after tangling with the Board last year over the Presidential Primary, to have the Board follow the law, not certify the ExpressVote XL, and protect rather than limit our right to vote.”
Election security experts say the machine’s most serious defect is a design flaw that combines a printer and scanner in one system with a shared paper path. This allows the summary card with the votes to pass under the printhead after it is cast by the voter. If hacked, the voting machine, “can add, delete, or change votes on individual ballots,” says Princeton Computer Science professor Andrew Appel. In an investigative series produced by SMART Elections, he called the hybrid design “a disaster", and in a blog post he said "indeed it is a bad voting machine."
During the certification process, a number of other issues were revealed about the ExpressVote XL. In public testimony, Kevin Skoglund, a cybersecurity and voting systems expert said that the system being submitted in New York “uses extremely outdated software. It runs on Windows 7, which became end-of-life a year ago.” (1:27:20)
In an example of just how wrong an election can go, the ExpressVote XL miscounted tens of thousands of votes in a 2019 Northampton, Pennsylvania election. In a post-election statement, ES&S spokesperson Adam Carbiullido noted, “The ballot showed correctly on the screen, and printed correctly on the paper ballots, but the votes were not attributed to the proper candidates on the USBs (memory sticks).” Subsequently, the “Northampton County Election Commission Board announced a unanimous … vote of no confidence in the ExpressVote XL.”
Despite these issues, the ExpressVote XL “is the most expensive voting machine on the market at $8,250 per machine,” according to Protect Our Vote Philly, a coalition of good government groups that fought the use of the ExpressVote XL in Philadelphia. Following the Philadelphia certification, an investigation revealed that ES&S did not disclose lobbying and lobbyist campaign contributions, including to the two city commissioners who selected the system. ES&S was fined 2.9 million dollars, but the city is still currently using the machine.
Conflicts of interest could be raised in connection with the ExpressVote XL in New York as well. In 2018, NY1 reported that ES&S had paid for travel, hotels and dining for New York City Board of Elections Executive Director Michael Ryan. Ryan subsequently signed a letter to the New York State Board of Elections asking to use the pricey ExpressVote XL.
In addition to Pennsylvania, the ExpressVote XL is in use in Delaware and New Jersey and certified for use in California and Texas. Dr. David Bader, another security expert who signed the coalition letter said, “New York election officials made a good call, but the fact that a voting machine with this many security issues is being marketed and sold across the country is a clear indicator that we need to carefully examine our national certification process.” Following the decision, SMART Elections Executive Director Lulu Friesdat said, "If the legislature will now pass the “hybrid-ban bill”, we can make this protection permanent. The bill has been introduced in the New York Assembly by Amy Paulin, and in the Senate by Zellnor Myrie.
SMART Elections is part of a broad nationwide coalition of partners working to bring better voting machines to New York and other states. Coalition partners sent over 500 letters to the New York State Board of Elections and over 700 letters to New York legislators, as well as making calls to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Media Notes: To schedule an interview with Lulu Friesdat, or Arthur Schwartz or to request additional information on this issue, please contact Lulu Friesdat at Lulu@SMARTelections.us. Andrew Appel and Rich DeMilllo, may be reached via their websites.
About SMART Elections
SMART Elections is a nonpartisan project dedicated to elevating the issue of election reform to an urgent national priority. We are collaborating to make U.S. elections more secure, accessible, accurate, and fair. To learn more, visit https://smartelections.us.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Lulu Friesdat, Executive Director
Lulu@SMARTelections.us
January 5, 2021
Non-partisan Project Releases Trove of Data From Presidential Election: Recommends Full Public Hand-Count Audit of Georgia Senate Race
Areas of interest: Georgia Senate Run-off, Election Protection
New York City - Jan 5, 2021 -- SMART Elections, a non-partisan election reform organization is announcing the release of data and analysis from the Presidential election in Georgia. The report, available at the project’s website CountTheVote.Info provides insight into concerns about today’s high stakes Senate run-off. The data reveals a chaotic audit and recount process that marred the Georgia presidential election.
For example, one document shows that even when running the same ballots through the same voting machines during the recount, ballot counts swung wildly by thousands of votes. Ballots were often categorized randomly, sometimes as “Election Day” votes, sometimes as “Early”. Four counties did not retain all votes accurately, and close to 6,000 additional votes were discovered that had not been counted in the original certified count. In a deep dive into the intricacies of local elections, the SMART Elections’ data team has tracked the complex path these lost votes took. The stories include forgotten memory cards, batches of half-scanned ballots and volunteer election officials tasked with too much responsibility when senior counterparts were out sick with COVID.
“The #CountTheVote data snapshot shows that election offices in Georgia did not always obey statutes or follow best practices in the presidential election,” notes Lulu Friesdat, executive director of SMART Elections. “When best practices, like reconciling the number of voters with the number of ballots are not followed, vote totals can be called into question, and confidence plummets. We must ensure an accurate count in the Senate run-off, given that control of the Senate hangs in the balance.”
SMART Elections is joining other election protection groups, in asking the Secretary of State to conduct a full, public, statewide, hand-count audit of the Senate race. Election officials have statutory discretion to ask for this. Election officials must follow best practices which include accurate ballot accounting and reconciliation, posting election night poll tapes at all precinct locations, a full hand-count audit, or a risk-limiting audit with ballots tracked correctly, and the use of standard formats like spreadsheets - not obscure software. Having totals publicly available throughout the count and providing complete public transparency creates an environment of competence that candidates and members of the public will respond to. Failure to do this will result in a continued crisis of confidence, with contention and litigation about the end result.
#CountTheVote’s first core initiative directly addresses this type of ballot tracking problem with their poll tape project. Many of the documents in the current report are part of that mission. The #CountTheVote project used a variety of new technologies in the process, and is releasing their first major report about their work today. The effort is a partnership with election protection groups across the country.
Georgia statutes require that election officials post poll tapes (also known as election night results tapes) outside each polling location. Comparing those local election night totals to results published later, ensures that results do not change, or get lost as happened in the Georgia presidential race. When counties post poll tapes, and they are photographed by the public, and monitored for accuracy - lost votes are found more easily. An incident in Cobb County during this year’s Presidential election in which lost votes were found this way, is documented in the report.
If the poll tapes and the published results match, voters and candidates can have more confidence in the results. If they don’t - it is easier to pinpoint where issues may be occurring. Many Georgia counties did follow these procedures and the SMART Elections’ comparisons demonstrate when that part of the process is completed correctly. However the project also brings to light problem areas where counties either seemed not to post poll tapes, or the available tapes did not match the results. Each county was called personally and given a chance to engage in dialogue about the discrepancies.
“Citizen oversight of elections is the hallmark of a modern democratic society. Documenting results as they are tabulated and released at the first possible moment has a long tradition in the U.S. because it is so effective.” said Marilyn Marks, Executive Director of Coalition for Good Governance.
Says Rich DeMillo, Distinguished Professor of Computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology, “The idea of crowdsourcing is to bring the wisdom of crowds to problems that seem too large for individuals. Election transparency is one of those problems. #CountTheVote should be an example to everyone of how a connected community can build confidence in the accuracy of election outcomes.”
The project is working with election officials to better understand the issues and improve transparency through crowd-sourced data. Volunteers will be photographing poll tapes in the Georgia Senate Run-Off and many election protection organizations are helping to support them.
SMART Elections is part of a broad coalition of partners working to ensure a fair election, including AUDIT USA, CCoHOPE, Center for Common Ground, Citizens' Audit Broward, Citizens for Voting Integrity New York, Democracy Counts, Florida Fair Elections Coalition, Michigan Election Reform Alliance, National Voting Rights Task Force, People Demanding Action, Protect Our Vote Philly, Reclaim Our Vote, SeeSay2020, and Transparent Elections North Carolina.
Media Notes: To schedule an interview with Lulu Friesdat or Rich DeMilllo, or to request additional information on this initiative, please contact Lulu Friesdat at Lulu@SMARTelections.us.
About SMART Elections and #CountTheVote
SMART Elections is a nonpartisan project dedicated to elevating the issue of election reform to an urgent national priority. We are collaborating to make U.S. elections more secure, accessible, accurate, fair, inclusive, transparent and verifiable. #CountTheVote is a groundbreaking initiative using crowdsourcing technologies to protect and verify the results of the 2020 election. To learn more, visit us at https://smartelections.us or http://countthevote.info.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 2, 2020
PRESS RELEASE
Groundbreaking Election Protection Initiative Uses Crowdsourcing and New Technologies to Document Poll Tape Election Results
Areas of interest: New Technology, Voting Rights, Election Protection
Washington, DC - Oct. 30, 2020 -- SMART Elections, a nonpartisan organization, today announced CountTheVote.info, a central hub for their #CountTheVote initiative. The project uses crowdsourcing and new technologies to document and track the exact number of votes cast at a polling location. The collaborative effort, a partnership with election protection groups across the country, encourages volunteers to take photos and video of election night poll tapes to improve the accuracy and security of the 2020 vote.
“With a contentious race looming, the goal of #CountTheVote is to gather evidence that can locate lost votes, expose hacking, or combat false allegations of fraud,” noted Lulu Friesdat, project leader and executive director of SMART Elections. "Once the polls close, election protection advocates are in a race against time to capture these images, in case they can help verify the correct outcome of the race."
In many states, at the close of voting, poll workers are required to print out a poll tape, similar to a cash register receipt, from each electronic voting machine or scanner. One copy of the poll tape is customarily posted for public view. A copy of the poll tape may be posted outside the polling place or might need to be requested from poll workers. The second copy is signed by poll workers, sealed in an envelope and sent to election headquarters. Images of poll tapes allow for a direct comparison of Election Night results to those posted later on official county and state websites. Members of the public are asked to take a photo or video of the publicly posted poll tapes and upload them so that data teams can make the comparison.
What's new this election are two technology platforms that allow the public to quickly and easily capture images of poll tapes and upload them to a central location. Democracy Counts, a coalition partner, has produced an app called “Actual Vote” that takes video of the poll tapes. Those who prefer not to use an app can use a website developed by Silicon Valley veteran Deepak Puri, another coalition partner.
The website, SeeSay2020.com allows poll tape photos to be manually uploaded and displayed on a map. Both platforms are sharing data, which will be available at CountTheVote.info.
Errors and anomalies in past election results have been discovered through poll tapes in Tennessee and Georgia. Marilyn Marks, is the executive director of Coalition for Good Governance, a #CountTheVote partner organization. She referenced their work in the Georgia midterms saying, "In 2018, as we investigated the loss of 130,000 plus votes in the Lt. Governor's race, poll tape photos helped locate the precincts where the lost votes were concentrated."
In 2015, a computer programmer named Bennie Smith took a photograph of a poll tape in Shelby County Tennessee. The poll tape showed that 548 votes had been cast at that location, a predominantly black precinct. But when the results were certified, they showed only 330 votes at that location. An investigation found at least 3 other predominantly black precincts where votes had gone missing, creating a gap of 1000 votes.
State laws on posting poll tapes and whether or not they can be photographed vary. A list of state laws on public access to poll tapes is available here.
According to a C-SPAN/Ipsos poll in the fall of 2019, "only half of Americans say they believe the vote will be conducted openly and fairly." The Hill reports this "reveals a growing mistrust in the U.S. electoral system." The goal of #CountTheVote is to increase Americans’ confidence in the voting process.
SMART Elections is part of a broad coalition of partners working to ensure a fair election, including AUDIT USA, CCoHOPE, Center for Common Ground, Citizens' Audit Broward, Citizens for Voting Integrity New York, Coalition for Good Governance, Democracy Counts, Florida Fair Elections Coalition, Michigan Election Reform Alliance, National Voting Rights Task Force, People Demanding Action, Protect Our Vote Philly, Reclaim Our Vote, SeeSay2020, and Transparent Elections North Carolina.
SMART Elections will host a virtual forum on Monday, November 2, the eve of the election, for members of the public and the press who want to know more about the #CountTheVote project. The forum will be broadcast live on YouTube and viewers can access their YouTube channel to watch previous episodes.
Media Notes: To schedule an interview with Lulu Friesdat, or coalition partners Daniel Wolf, or Deepak Puri - or to request additional information on this initiative, please contact Lulu@SMARTelections.us. Access footage, photos and more information about poll tapes here.
About SMART Elections and #CountTheVote
SMART Elections is a nonpartisan project dedicated to elevating the issue of election reform to an urgent national priority. We are collaborating to make U.S. elections more secure, accessible, accurate, fair, inclusive, transparent and verifiable. #CountTheVote is a groundbreaking initiative using crowdsourcing technologies to protect and verify the results of the 2020 election. To learn more, visit us at https://smartelections.us or http://countthevote.info.
Copyright © 2024 SMART Elections - All Rights Reserved.