The @PAStateDept hired a Colorado lab to do a secret, partial investigation into the many ways that the ExpressVote XL violates the election code. For 7 weeks they stonewalled the public, then suddenly a report appeared. #shamination drive.google.com/file/d/1h42yUi…
@PAStateDept It is disappointing @KathyBoockvar would not choose full transparency. For 40 years, all exams & reexams have been public. This was the 1st top secret exam of a voting system. Public trust in a voting system cannot be restored without public transparency in the review process.
@PAStateDept @KathyBoockvar They disregarded 7 of 10 deficiencies in the petition. Counties can buy this voting machine but it may break the law to use it. The petition explains how and they shrugged. How is that responsible governance?
@PAStateDept @KathyBoockvar What did the lab find for three issues they bothered to investigate? drive.google.com/file/d/1h42yUi…
@PAStateDept @KathyBoockvar Issue 1. They acknowledge that a cast ballot does pass the printer again. It violates the principle of software independence and allows tampering. But because the lab couldn't hack into the XL in 2 days, we shouldn't worry.
Issue 2. They acknowledge that chronological ballots violate ballot secrecy. But they added some procedures (poorly defined & perhaps not followed) to shuffle them, hopefully, eventually. If not, well... your neighbors may know how you voted. So much for "absolute secrecy".
Issue 8. They acknowledge that spoiling a ballot allows a poll worker to violate your secret ballot. But they want poll workers to be trained not to look. Seriously.
They were wrong to certify the ExpressVote XL and they are wrong again now. This was a great opportunity to correct it. They chose to do a shamination instead.
