Iowa Voters

Iowa is using computerized voting machines that do not comply with the Iowa Code, according to one of the few Iowans who actually understands how the machines work. University of Iowa Professor of Computer Science Doug Jones says the voting machines violate code provision 52.7.

That law calls for the machine to “store each ballot cast separate from the ballot tabulation function, which ballot may be reproduced on paper in the case of a recount, manual audit, or machine malfunction.” In remarks prepared for state legislators March 8, Jones said no machine currently in use meets this requirement. Jones warned that Iowa voting machines therefore could be open to a court challenge.

The problem is that the nasty little computers do not store the ballot information in more than one way. They can tally the votes and they can also reproduce on paper the votes as they are recorded by the machine, but these are not separate records. Both originate from the same recording of the vote. Or as my Dad used to say, “It’s the same difference.”

So don’t be reassured when the local advocate of magic voting machines tells you that all is well—that we can print out the votes one by one and thus verify the total. The printout is merely a reincarnation of the total, not evidence for the total’s accuracy. That is what the computer scientist said.

This law could be accommodated by requiring the machine to print out a paper record of the vote at the time the voter is still present and allowing the voter to inspect it. Then the ballot is indeed stored separately from the tabulation function.

This provision may make it possible for the Secretary of State or his board of examiners of voting machines to require paper trails without getting legislative approval for a bill such as SF 351. If the Secretary orders voter verified paper trails, he is merely following existing code. If he doesn’t order them, how is he complying with the code?

State of Iowa
Board of Examiners
for Voting Machines and Electronic Voting Systems

Date: Monday, April 3, 2006
Time: 10:00 am
Place: Office of the Secretary of State
First Floor, Lucas State Office Building
321 East Twelfth Street, Des Moines 50319

Agenda: Examination of upgrade changes to AccuVote-TSX DRE Touch Screen with Ballot Station firmware (version 4.6.4)

The Ballot Station firmware 4.6.4 is an upgraded firmware version from previously certified version 4.6.3 in the State of Iowa. Along with some other normal fixes, the Ballot Station firmware version 4.6.4 eliminated the random screen freeze of the touch screen unit that may occur after a voter had cast their ballot. The random occurrence of this anomaly was found to occur when a voter would drag their finger from the summary page to the bottom of the page to cast their ballot. No votes would be lost, but the unit would have to be powered down and back up again to resume voting when this anomaly occurred. There are no functional changes between Ballot Station 4.6.3 to 4.6.4, and all the user documentation is the same as that of Ballot Station 4.6.3.

Ballot Station firmware version 4.6.4 with the AccuVote-TSX was tested and qualified under the 2002 FEC Voting System Standards and was issued a NASED System Number of N-1-06-22-22-002.

For Additional Information Contact:
Sandy Steinbach, Director of Elections
Office of the Secretary of State
Lucas State Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319 (515) 281-5823

Though the paper trail bill appears to be dead for this session, one can never be sure. “The dead can rise again,” according to Representative Delores Mertz. “Especially around Easter time,” she added. Dead bills come back as amendments to live bills. Or–get this–if they are reincarnated and sponsored by party leaders, they are exempt from so-called funnel rules.

All the leaders voted for the paper trail at one time or another. So they surely could revive SF 351 as a leadership bill and call it up for a vote. I’m not holding my breath. With the House’s Operation CYA an apparent success, I expect we will have to wait until next session to revive our effort.

Barring an election embarrassment, I am happy to wait. This paper trail debate has been over for two years already (we won), according to Electionline.org. And the debate must be over in Iowa, too, as no one criticized the idea in either house.

Next year we can ask for even more. We will seek a bill that has voter-verified paper ballots, plus open source (or publicly accessible) software for electronic vote counting, plus random audits after statewide elections, and also stricter rules for testing of equipment both before and after the votes are counted.

Pull out the law books and sharpen your pencils. We have legislation to draft. The next session begins in nine months.

In a disgusting, audacious, undemocratic and irresponsible display of irrational law-making, the Iowa House of Representatives has passed a bill mandating both paper trails and photo IDs at Iowa’s polling places.

Despite a 98-0 vote on the paper trail portion of the bill, we may be no closer to getting them. That is because the House also voted 51-48 (along party lines) NOT to pass the paper trail part by itself. Such a vote would have sent it quickly to the Governor’s desk since the Senate passed its bill already, also without dissent.

Linked to the poison pill bill for photo identification, the whole thing is likely to die. The ID portion of the bill was opposed by the Secretary of State, AARP, Governor’s Developmental Disabilities Council, ACLU, ISEA, IFL-CIO and by every House Democrat. Senate Democrats will likely keep the bill from passing there.

So do House Republicans want paper trails and verifiable election equipment, or not? Not one legislator in either House has voted against the paper trail language. But every House Republican agreed to sacrifice the good idea in order to advance a bad idea.

This was irresponsible because there is overwhelming public support for paper ballots.

This was audacious because the Republicans never even tried to make the case for requiring voters to show photo identification. When asked for cases of fraud that could be prevented under this bill, they did not answer.

This was irrational because Iowa law already allows pollwatchers to challenge suspicious voters and also allows election workers to seek identification from unfamiliar voters if they see fit.

This was undemocratic because it will reduce voter turnout. Up to ten percent of the electorate may lack ID cards. Shut-in voters now need their own photocopier at home so they can include a copy of their ID card with their absentee ballot. Since ID cards are not free, requiring one may constitute a poll tax which is prohibitted by the 24th Amendment.

This was disgusting because now all members of the body can say they voted for paper trails and both parties can blame the other for the bill’s ultimate demise.

Disgusting, undemocratic, audacious, irrational and irresponsible. Not a bad day’s work.

The Iowa House of Representatives has scheduled a debate this afternoon on the paper trail issue. But there is a catch.

Deputy Secretary of State John Hedgecoth told a radio audience this morning that the paper trail bill–which is supported by Secretary Culver–will be unwisely linked to a bill requiring voters to present photo identification.

Hedgecoth said the issues are distinct and he urged the legislators to vote separately on the two questions. He pointed out that elderly voters who no longer drive cars may not have a photo ID card. He also said tying the two ideas into a single piece of legislation makes for an uncertain future for the bill. On the other hand the paper trail bill alone could easily be enacted yet this week, he claimed.

The politics here are obvious. There is overwhelming public support for voter verified paper trails in electronic voting. The idea also has research evidence to back it up.

There is much less support for carding voters like young beer buyers and hardly any evidence to buttress the case for it. People in Iowa do not impersonate other voters. When asked for evidence by members of Iowans for Voting Integrity, the Representative advocating ID cards failed to cite any. So proponents of tough ID laws are hoping to hitch a ride from good government activists and computer scientists.

So the legislature should give SF 351 an up-or-down vote as Hedgecoth recommends. Iowa should close this loophole in its election integrity.

Now posted in the links at right under the Best Practices section is a new document for the professional election supervisor. It is a fifty page guide on how to create test ballots for your voting machine to see if it is properly calibrated.

This is the product of software tester, John Washburn of Wisconsin. John describes the difficulty of testing software whose code cannot be inspected, and persuades his readers that a good tester is both thorough and malicious, taking nothing for granted.

For example, John’s test deck requires one ballot to be blacked out completely–except where the voter is directed to make his marks. Those parts are left unmarked. When John’s test ballot goes through the scanner, it should show no votes. This proves the scanner is reading only in the places where voters are expected to make marks.

Washburn’s exacting test procedure is not followed in current practice. “As near as I can tell election departments use no formal or written test procedures anywhere in the country,” Washburn says. Certainly that is true in Iowa, where state law refers to testing 300 ballots or testing 10 ballots. Washburn demonstrates that the number of test ballots depends on the complexity of the particular ballot being tested.

Washburn warns against testing equipment in “test mode.” He also implores election judges to create their own test decks rather than use something provided by the vendor or the programmer of the counting equipment.

The test deck directions apply to both paper ballot scanners and touchscreen devices.

If this manual were being supplied by a voting machine company, I doubt you could get it for free. But it is offered by Mr. Washburn as a public service. You can download it here at no cost.

Happy testing. Here’s hoping Iowa can avoid the counting problems we have already seen in Florida, Texas, and Illinois in the last week.

A recently announced Republican candidate for Iowa Secretary of State is urging the Iowa House of Representatives to pass a paper trail bill. Robert Dopf, a former federal prosecutor, is leaning on his own party to take immediate action, saying

“If you wouldn’t trust your money to a charity that refuses to perform an audit, why would you want to trust your vote to a system that has no independent means of verifying its accuracy?”

The bill supported by Dopf has already passed the state senate 48-0. It is being held hostage by Republicans in the House who could bring it out of committee at any time. If they don’t do so by Friday, the bill apparently falls victum to the “funnel” rules of the state legislature and will be dead for this session.

Here’s more of today’s press release from Dopf:

“If we are to maintain public confidence in the integrity and security of our voting processes it is imperative that we require that newly acquired electronic voting machines (DRE) have the ability to create a voter verified paper record for audit purposes,” Dopf said. “DRE machines currently being installed in 18 Iowa counties do not have this capability. Adoption of this security feature will help us avoid unwarranted challenges to the integrity of the voting process.”

The move to require a paper audit trail has been fueled in recent months by mounting evidence documenting the vulnerability of the DRE machines to malicious manipulations potentially altering the vote count.

“This is not a partisan issue. Every Iowan – Republican, Democrat or Independent – has a stake in ensuring we maintain a voting process in which we can have confidence,” Dopf. “And, we need a Secretary of State who is going to be focused on that issue every single day and capable of getting it done.”

That last sentence puts real pressure on the House Republicans. Dopf has reminded us that outgoing Secretary of State Chet Culver has been backing SF 351 but has not gotten it passed. Democrat Culver can claim to be the victum of the House Republicans, but Dopf is hinting he can get them to act. Let’s see if they snub him or make him look effective.

You can hear University of Iowa computer science professor Doug Jones on the radio Wednesday morning. Jones is a nationally recognized expert on voting machines. He advocates the use of voter verified paper ballots when computers are used as voting equipment.

Prof. Jones will be on at 10 a. m. on the program Talk of Iowa (Hour 2). It is on Iowa State’s radio station WOI AM 640 and on its sister stations in Fort Dodge, Carroll, and Lamoni which are all FM stations. The program will originate from WSUI in Iowa City which broadcasts at AM 910.

WOI can be heard on the internet if you live outside the reach of ordinary radio signals.

The election was a simple yes or no vote on a bond issue. At the close of the day there had been 369 voters at the Grafton, New Hampshire polling place. The final tally was a close 198 no votes to 193 yes votes.

“At that point nobody does the math — you’re so tired, you’re just trying to put the place back together and get out of there,” Joyce said of the post-election process at the fire house.

The election officials packed up and went home to bed.

ZZZZZZZZZ.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

ZZZZZZZZZZ198+193=369ZZZZZZZ?ZZZZZZZZZ198+193=369ZZ ZZZZ?ZZZZZZZZ?ZZZZZZZZZZZZ198+193=369?ZZZZZZ?ZZZZZZZ
???ZZZ369?ZZ?ZZ?ZZ198+193=369???ZZZZZZ??????198+193=???

Joyce woke Town Clerk Mary McDow with a phone call at 6:45 a.m. McDow decided the best thing to do was nothing, until the Attorney General’s Office was contacted.

The Attorney General agreed that 369 voters should not have cast 391 votes, and he hauled the machine in for questioning.

The good news is that the machine had counted paper ballots incorrectly, so a recount is possible. In fact, one poll worker even called it “not such a bad idea, just to test the accuracy of the machine.”

The bad news is that these were Diebold Accu-Vote OS scanners, which may be counting your paper ballot next time you vote. You can see a photo of one here, and a table of who has them here.

Candidate for Secretary of State Robert Dopf wants to address two aspects of elections that he sees as potential points of abuse. The first problem is absentee ballots. He sees them “spiraling out of control” as both parties use them to roll up their votes before election day. He fears fraud will eventually occur and he says this is the top election-related concern of federal prosecutors across the nation.

Dopf wants to return to the days when absentee ballots were for, um, absent voters–people on trips or unable to go to the polls for legitimate reasons. Currently Iowa has no restrictions on my ability to get an absentee ballot. He did not explain how he would enforce this if he got the law changed. What if my imaginery business trip is cancelled after I send back my completed absentee ballot? Who is to say whether my health keeps me from voting at the polls? Can we predict those November ice storms in time to decide if it is safe to walk into the polls? I agree with Dopf, but I wonder if we can really put this cat back into the bag. I hope he elaborates on this.

Dopf’s second issue is paperless voting machines. He said paperless voting machines have sneaked into our polls the way slot machines sneaked into our convenience stores. He quoted Iowa City’s Prof Jones regarding the need for voter verified paper ballots, and said he wanted SF 351 to be passed by the legislature. He also wants to see the source code for electronic voting machines and (I think) he endorsed federal legislation that would accomplish that goal. Dopf is looking at possible fraud here, too, as with absentee ballots. (He is not merely concerned with poor quality machines that sometimes lose votes and sometimes show more votes than voters. He hardly mentioned machine error rates, which are astonishingly high.)

Thirdly, Dopf criticized the way Governor Vilsack restored the right to vote for all Iowa felons last summer, saying it should have gone through the legislature. He said our previous system was working well enough, but did not say he would have opposed Vilsack if the Governor had gone through the legislature. In general Dopf apparently believes in restoring the voting rights of felons.

To see the whole WHO radio interview by Jan Mickelson, read the post below this one.

Since I don’t own a laptop, I won’t get many chances to “live blog” from meetings or polling places, so I will do it for this radio interview. Retired US Attorney Robert Dopf is about to go on WHO radio 1040 AM to discuss his candidacy for Secretary of State.

Dopf jumped into the Republican primary last week. Chuck Allison of Des Moines is already in the race, as is Democrat candidate Mike Mauro. Mauro is currently Polk County Auditor. Allison is a podiatrist.

I will post at each commercial break, putting each update below the previous one. Host Jan Mickelson will be “jm” and guest Robert Dopf will be “rd”. You can call the show. Here goes:

9:08 am:
Rd –I took early retirement last month from the US attorney’s office

jm– Don’t you miss prosecuting people? Give us some highlights from your job as US attorney

rd–I dealt with federal law. Many drug cases are interstate traffic and go to federal court. I did murder cases, economic crime, as well. I was in the Ottumwa case of Cathy Allen.

Jm–do we need the death penalty in Iowa?

Rd –not part of SoS job, but personal view is that “I do support the death penalty in certain narrow cases.”

Jm–tells Dopf he is a “disappointment” (and laughs) because Dopf wants to avoid trash talking about Democrats

Rd–Iowa has a long proud tradition of fair and honest election. I was federal prosecutor of election laws for Iowa. Elections with federal candidates on the ballot are federal concerns. The single greatest potential for fraud is absentee ballots, and they are spiraling upward.

Jm—parties are pushing absentee ballots, right?

Rd–yes it is like a nuclear arms race. Neither party wants to be left behind. Fraud is inevitable if this continues. SoS can help reign this in, and should take the lead at the legislature.

Jm—what changes do you want?

Rd—absentee ballots should be for people who will be out of town or cannot go to the polls But they are being used to try to get partisan advantage. Let’s take the process back to what it was originally intended and away from the ‘no excuse” ability to get an absentee ballot.

9: 20
Jm—Vilsack restored voting rights to former felons –what do you think about that?

Rd—this was a factor I weighed before getting in this race. I don’t oppose restoring right, I was surprised and shocked to see the action last year. It was shameful the way it was done—should have been done by the legislature.

Jm—-some legal beagles say it was outside the law to do this–you are an attorney–

rd —-I heard some valid points like that. Not so sure.

Jm —can another Governor revoke this order?

Rd—I believe succeeding Gov can reverse it but not retroactively. Old system was “functioning in an appropriate manner”.

Jan switches topic to voting machines abrubtly:

Jm—voting machines made error —mistake made by the machine–do you trust voting machine industry?

Rd–I’m glad you raised this issue. After absentee ballots this is my second issue. Computer scientists are documenting that these machines are vulnerable to manipulating.

jm –are you skeptical about paperless voting machines?

rd–should be a paper trail so there can be an audit

jm–why would we select machines that don’t have the attributes to produce . . . .

Rd—that is the question . . . .

Jm—well touchscreens have no dangling chads, so they were supposed to make the process idiot proof, but they haven’t . . .

Rd–experts need access to the source code , but mfg claim a proprietary interest in the source code. If 50% of the vote in 2008 goes on these machines …. Need federal legislation to get to source codes.

jm–why not go back to hand counted ballots? What is the worst that can happen?

Rd–I like seeing ballot scanners retained, but some handicap issues arose

jm–this is the tail wagging the dog. Stupid..

jm–you raised a stinging indictment of the machines a minute ago, Bob. Can you stay a little longer [to keep talking]?

9:40
Jm–now is the time to address security issues in voting. Bob gave us serious stuff about potential for abuse. 60 Minutes did a show once on Cincinnati voting scandal.

Rd–Iowa has a bill now SF 351 that would require a hard copy. It is imperative that we have that. I have been informed that bill is stuck in committee.

Jm–this doesn’t need to be debated –just passed. Debate should last 20 seconds. Now who will pay for this?

Rd–feds gave out $4 billion for voting machines.

Jm–has it been spent wisely?

Rd–haven’t followed that.

Jm–Iowa should pay for this.

Jm–how did this happen?

Rd–how did I wake up one morning and find slot machines at my local store??

Jm–we need to fix this.

Rd–quotes Prof Jones that current oversight is not adequate without voter verified paper copy.

Jm–switches topic to legal residents and valid voters: Does Ia have all the checks and balances we need?

Rd–no. We need to obtain an examination of all the facts. It is a legitimate question to ask.

9:52

Jm–thank you for your forthright stand on voting machines. You are the highest ranking person I have heard on this. You are not just some guy off the street. You are an attorney. You have given us a lot to think about.

Caller— says he knows Bob, wants listeners to know Bob has “highest integrity”. Will give Iowa honest elections.

Caller “Christian”:–immigrants can’t even register to vote so they are being checked already.

Jm–what is next in your campaign?

Rd–I didn’t decide to enter the race until the chance for early retirement from the US attorney’s office came along, so I am starting from scratch. I look forward to meeting Iowans.

Newly announced Republican candidate for Secretary of State Robert Dopf will be on WHO radio Thursday March 9 at 9:00 a. m. He may get to discuss his support for SF 351, the paper trail bill.

WHO broadcasts at 1040 on the AM band. Dopf will be a guest on the Jan Michelson show. Here is what he told one Iowan in an email today:

I will firmly address the DRE issue. I did call for passage of the Senate bill during last Friday’s announcement of my candidacy but the press didn’t report on it.

Additionally I will communicate my belief that this measure is
essential to maintaining the integrity of the voting process to Elgin and Jacobs as well as Speaker Rants.

He is referring to Cedar Rapids Representative Jeff Elgin and to West Des Moines Representative Libby Jacobs. Elgin chairs the House state government committee and Jacobs chairs one of its subcommittees. Together they control the fate of SF 351.

I’ll be listening to Dopf, so come back here to see what he says if you can’t listen.

Today at 4:20 pm the Iowa Board of Examiners of Voting Machines will meet in Des Moines at the Lucas State Office Building to consider this agenda:

Discussion and action regarding level of examination needed for upgrade to Diebold AccuVote-TSX DRE Touch Screen

I do not know the significance of this meeting, what is being upgraded or when it would occur. These touchscreen voting machines will be used in most Iowa counties in less than 90 days at the June 6 primary.

Ballot box guardians often allege that nonexistent people are signing up to vote and may be stealing elections. They cite cases of voter drives that register Ronald McDonald, Donald Duck, Donald Trump, and maybe a pet or two. They are correct that this actually happens. However, they get the analysis wrong.

These shenanigans could be curtailed by same day registration, but that is a post for another season. Let’s just consider whether we must card every voter in order to catch phony registrations.

To register in Iowa you must reveal your driver’s license number or the last four digits of your social security number. That is enough to prevent duplicate attempts to register and enough to establish your identity. So the cartoon characters and the pets and the con artists would all get weeded out at the registration desk. No phantoms will even advance to the polls.

There is a subset of phantoms that arose after the 1993 Motor Voter Act. That law halted the practice of purging the registration rolls. Prior to 1993 many states demanded voters actually vote every once in a while or be removed from the roles. Unfortunately they never notified people that they were being dropped.

Now they can’t be dropped–even if they move away. So some election guardians fear the imposters will show up pretending to be these long departed folks and will cast ballots for them. These imposters will be foiled.

While few people tell the auditor that they are moving, nearly everyone tells the Postmaster. Iowa voters who leave a forwarding address cannot be dropped from the voting rolls, but they get put on a list of inactive voters. If they (or their imposters) show up at the polls, Iowa law requires them to produce an ID.

So this is already covered, hopefully to Jacobs’s satisfaction. There is no need to require ID cards from everyone on the pretext of defending election integrity. Meanwhile there is a serious need to require paper ballots from every voting system. And a few other things, too, like open source software and random audits of the process.

If you know a way to impersonate a voter, tell me about it in the comment section.

Professor Jones said lots of provocative things about voting machines when he spoke to legislators March 8. He surely made a case for modernizing Iowa’s voting machine processes. But it was not the big news of the day.

As I indicated Friday, the paper trail bill is held up for other reasons. The key road blocker wants to add an irrelevant rider to the bill. This is so maddening and so clearly unneeded that I intend to dwell on it a bit. It will take some time and some space, but what is space on the internet?

Representative Jacobs of Des Moines wants to require that all voters take their government issued id card to the polls. No card–no vote. She says that this protects the integrity of elections. I ask, “Protect elections from what?”

There are four possible answers. She will protect us from scoundrels who might impersonate dead voters. She will protect us from aliens who vote, from felons who vote or from phantom voters. Today we consider the threat from beyond the grave.

Suppose Schemer the Scoundrel wants to vote in this fateful election. He fears some bond issue will pass and that will mean higher property taxes. But he knows what to do! Schemer will vote as himself and as two other people.

Schemer has calculated that only about 200 votes will be cast in this race and it could be a close race. So by committing this crime two times in one day, he can add two more votes (1%) to the vote total and MAYBE tip the balance. It is worth the risk, he thinks. His property taxes are damn high already.

Schemer has been reading the newspaper and has kept his ear to the ground. He knows about Civic Virtue who was killed in a car wreck Sunday morning while traveling out of state. And he knows about Senior Citizen who died Sunday evening. He will vote for both of them. He is lucky that the recently dead voters lived in two precincts different from his own, because his own voting place has been run by the same poll workers for years and they know Schemer on sight.

Schemer is a true politico. He cares deeply about all elections and always votes. He always thought it was unfair that his vote was cancelled by people who could barely recite the Bill of Rights. Only someone this passionate about elections is likely to risk arrest to make sure he gets the result he wants.

What are the risks for our Schemer? Both the dead voters were about the same age as Schemer, so that risk is small. But, still . . .

What if the a poll worker personally knew the dead voters? When the first poll worker calls out “Civic Virtue is here to vote,” maybe the others will know he is not really Civic Virtue. Or maybe someone who is poll watching will know. Nah. There aren’t poll watchers in these local elections. But what about the other people in line to vote? Nah. There won’t be lines.

Of course that is another risk. If the polls are quiet, Schemer will be the focus of attention. So either way–busy polls or empty polls– the risk of being recognized as an imposter is still present.

There is a second risk. Schemer must sign in. Can he make his signature look like the signature of someone else? How can he get access to one of Civic Virtue’s signatures so he can practice forging it?

There is a third risk. What if the dead traveler voted absentee before he left on his trip? What if Senior Citizen has voted absentee for years and years? Perhaps Schemer can just pretend to be forgetful and say “Oh yeah, I guess I did already vote. Sorry to bother you.” He may be able to escape without being identified later. Come to think of it, Schemer had better wear sunglasses. Maybe a distracting hat would help, too.

But not too distracting. That might trigger the fourth risk. The election worker might ask to see identification! Iowa Code 49.77 (3) states:

“A precinct election official may require of the voter unknown to the official, identification upon which the voter’s signature or mark appears.”

Oh oh. Now our scoundrel is in over his head. No–think faster—he can say he “forgot” his id at home and RUN out the door to go get it. Whew! That was a close one.

You see Iowa law does not require voters to present identification, but election workers can request it if they deem it wise.

So how likely is it that our scoundrel will actually vote in place of dead voters? He must know who to impersonate and be about the same age as they were. He must forge their signatures. He must not be recognized by anyone or accidentally arouse suspicion by voting for someone who has already voted an absentee ballot. He must have a persuasive but fake id card or hope he is not asked for his card.

This scheme is preposterous. Those old familiar stories about dead Chicagoans casting votes required corrupt election workers in addition to scheming impersonators. ID cards won’t protect against corrupt election officials. Besides, we don’t have any of them in Iowa. Jacobs is insulting our poll workers if she thinks dead people are voting in this state.

We should not allow this nonsense to stop good legislation like the paper trail bill.