Call to Order and Roll Call
The 2nd meeting of the Military and Overseas Voting Assistance Task Force was held on Tuesday, November 12, 2013, at 9:30 AM, in Louisville, at the Seelbach Hilton, Medallion Ballroom. Senator Joe Bowen, Chair, called the meeting to order, and the secretary called the roll.
Present were: Senator Higdon, Representative Pullin, Keith Cain, James Fowler, Bobbie Holsclaw, Lindsay Thurston, Senator Bowen, and Representative Owens.
Members: Senator Joe Bowen, Co-Chair; Representative Darryl T. Owens, Co-Chair; Senator Jimmy Higdon, Representative Tanya Pullin; Keith Cain, James Fowler, Bobbie Holsclaw, Charles T. Jones, and Lindsay Thurston.
Guests: Julie Barr, Oldham County Clerk and President, Kentucky Clerk’s Association; James Lewis, Leslie County Clerk and Elections Chair, Kentucky County Clerk’s Association; Susannah Goodman, Director, Voting Integrity Program, Common Cause; Pamela Smith, President, Verified Voting; Jeremy Epstein, Senior Computer Scientist, SRI International; and Representative Riner.
LRC Staff: Greg Woosley, Kristopher Shera, and Ashlee McDonald.
The minutes of the October 8, 2013 meeting were approved. Motion made my Representative Owens and seconded by Mr. Fowler.
County Clerk’s Perspectives on Absentee Ballots, Senate Bill 1, and Military and Overseas Voting Procedures
James Lewis, Leslie County Clerk and Elections Chair, Kentucky County Clerks Association, stated that Kentucky County Clerks are proud to support the military and veterans. Kentucky county clerks support veterans and military through a private organization known as H.A.V.E. (Help A Veteran Everyday). They raised over $175,000 over the last 2 years to be donated to three different veteran’s centers.
County clerks’ opposition to the return of ballots electronically is because of legitimate concerns regarding the security of the ballot and voter information. Until there is certified security regarding internet ballots, this does not comply with Section 147 of the Kentucky Constitution, which requires secret ballots for all elections by the people.
Mr. Lewis stated that there are still security issues with information being stolen and manipulated regarding E-commerce. Usually a mistake can be found rather quickly with banking or shopping online. However, a lost or compromised vote may not be noticed until it is too late to repair. The county clerks are concerned with the secrecy and the accurate casting of ballots for military personnel and veterans. The risks are far too great for the county clerks to endorse electronic voting.
Julie Barr, Oldham County Clerk, and President, Kentucky County Clerk’s Association, explained that she had spoken to Oldham County residents regarding their thoughts about an electronic ballot return system and found that the overwhelming response was in opposition. Citizens are concerned for the secrecy of their ballots and want their votes counted. Ms. Barr said the Obama-Care website as an example of why citizens have no faith in using technology for personal issues. There are no assurances of security.
In response to a question from Representative Pullin, Mr. Lewis said that civilians living overseas could request an absentee ballot online, but it must be returned by mail. Ms. Barr said that, the earlier that a ballot is requested for mailing, the easier its return will be.
Representative Owens stated that there are 32 states that cast electronic ballots. Mr. Lewis explained that the problem is that it could take years before someone realizes that a voting ballot has been compromised.
In response to a question from Representative Owens regarding an electronic transmission voting system, Mr. Lewis explained that he believes anything electronic is open to hacking. If someone cannot match the voter to the ballot, the secrecy of the ballot is undetermined.
In response to Senator Higdon regarding Senate Bill 1, Mr. Lewis stated that there are no major concerns with the enacted version of Senate Bill 1. However, it would take a constitutional amendment to change the way votes are cast.
Responding to Mr. Cain’s question regarding the integrity and secrecy of voter identity and whether there is a compromise, Ms. Barr said that the unsecure offices and other situations that may cause security concerns are just some of the factors causing non-support of electronic voting.
In response to Representative Pullin’s question regarding how and if the clerk’s are working towards finding a better way for the military to vote, Mr. Lewis explained that the clerks are always looking for new ways to improve voting for all citizens. Mr. Lewis said he thought it would be detrimental to the voting process if electronic casting of ballots were allowed.
Senator Higdon said that it was his opinion to allow Senate Bill 1 to work in 2014 elections before making any commitments.
Representative Owens commented that, at the last task force meeting, it was stated that there were 4,600 overseas ballots issued and 3,665 were returned. There were 300 ballots in Kentucky that could not be counted. He said that military personnel overseas are provided with Overseas Voting Assistance Officers to assist in electronic voting.
Security Concerns with Expanded Technology in Elections
Jeremy Epstein, Senior Computer Scientist, SRI International, stated that a common question presented regarding internet security is why someone cannot vote online if that person can shop and bank online. There are several reasons why this is not the same:
· Bank transactions must be connected to the individual, while a ballot does not have to be.
· Banks can reverse transactions if they detect fraud, while votes cannot be reversed.
· Banks maintain fraud insurance that they can pass on to the consumer.
· Banks have greater resources available to them than state and local election officials to secure their systems, and yet banks still have billions of dollars in losses every year.
Under the Help America Vote Act, the election assistance commission is responsible for setting election system standards with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). After several years of studying, NIST concluded that secure internet voting is not feasible with today’s technology. Internet voting is not realistic because of the lack of encryption. It was recently concluded that it takes, on average, 9 months before a hack is detected. If this happens in an election, the results would be finalized before a mistake is known. There is a lot of experimentation with voting security. States that are experimenting with online voting are doing so with no solid foundation or recovery method if something went wrong. Without standards or federal funding, Kentucky would be on its own for internet voting.
Susannah Goodman, Director, Voting Integrity Program, Common Cause, explained that there are two major reasons why it is not advisable to cast online ballots. The first reason is that the Department of Defense’s own agency, the Federal Voting Assistance Program, does not endorse internet voting because of security concerns and does not fund it. The second reason is that there are no commercially available internet voting systems on the market that can prevent ballots from interception.
The Department of Defense Federal Voting Assistance Program does not endorse internet voting as a way to return ballots because of security. States that allowing internet voting did so before it was understood how easy it was for ballots to be jeopardized.
Ms. Goodman said the 2012 Florida election is an example of how easily ballots can be compromised. In this election, cyber attackers obtained voters’ identifying information and requested and obtained absentee ballots by email. Two thousand five hundred fraudulent ballots were sent to 2,500 email addresses, and although the FBI is investigating, the cyber criminals have not been caught. Since then, the Department of Defense FVAP stated that there would be no federal funding to states to create a program that puts soldiers’ ballots at risk.
The shortfalls of encryption are well known in the technology field. Private companies offering military-grade protection have no clinical trials or public reviews. The misuse of those words gives the public a false sense of security. Internet voting system vendors should have to demonstrate that their software is secure in a very public way. Internet voting system vendors should have public substantiation of their claims.
Pamela Smith, President, Verified Voting, stated that Verified Voting is working with a number of networks and task forces of elected officials to find ways to safeguard elections in the digital age. Verified Voting supports technology in elections where it can facilitate improvement without introducing unnecessary risks. Verified Voting is part of an alliance for military and overseas voting rights. The Federal Voting Assistance Program stated that online voting is too risky, and postal mail is more secure for the return of voted ballots.
Ms. Smith reiterated the statement made earlier by Ms. Barr regarding voter responsibility. Successful voting is based on information, not technology. A voter should know when election day occurs, request the absentee ballot early, and return it early. There are alternatives to make the voting process easier. Electronically sending blank ballots to voters, allowing voters to download and fill in a ballot before printing, and communicating electronically are all options that use technology for voting purposes.
In response to a question from Ms. Thurston, Mr. Epstein stated that his company uses security by obscurity, meaning that the 45-day voting process for military members may slow hackers but cannot eliminate them.
Responding to Representative Riner, Ms. Goodman explained that online voting is an expensive learning curve. There are particular steps that need to be taken to ensure there are safeguards and secrecy for military voters.
Ms. Smith said that California allows a 3-day grace period on standard mail voting, even if a ballot is received after Election Day. This allowed 75 percent more votes to be counted.
With no further business to come before the meeting, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.