Questions 3 & 4 For Hanusa, Mauro
Iowans for Voting Integrity have questioned the candidates for Secretary of State. The first two questions were in yesterday’s post.
Today we see both candidates being careful not to offend the private corporations that have usurped vote counting in our elections. While Hanusa takes this as a given and merely urges “oversight” of the process by our public officials, Mauro actually wants to increase the public’s authority over elections so that we can hold the corporatcrats to high standards. What a sad state of affairs we are in!
Question #3. With the advent of new electronic voting equipment, auditors and other elections officials have become increasingly reliant on the private sector to supply the machines, the training, the technical support, and often the ballot configuration files. Do you feel this is a satisfactory situation, and if not, what can be done to improve it?
Hanusa:
We have relied on contractors and vendors from private companies for many years. The source of the voting equipment is not so much the issue as is its use. County auditors should be assisted by the Secretary of State’s office to make sure procedures are proper and that there is careful oversight by the local election officials(emphasis added by JD) in the process. Trained and vigilant election workers are key.
Mauro:
Currently there are two vendors that provide equipment and ballots to County Auditors in the State of Iowa. This makes it very difficult for these auditors to maintain control over expectations because the competition is so limited.
During the current election cycle there were roughly 20 counties that did not receive their ballots on time due to delays from the vendors. I plan to require state level contract provisions that would grant the auditors more authority over their own election operations. (emphasis added by JD) These contract requirements would require companies to deliver ballots on time, meet statewide standards and laws, and ensure that there would be uniformity of performance across the state and that county auditors would not be at the mercy of a small number of vendors.
Since elections officials are more reliant on these private sector entities to supply the machines, the training, technical support and in some cases the ballot configuration files, it is imperative that we hold these companies to high statewide accepted standards to ensure that the integrity of our election process in the State of Iowa remains intact.
Next up is the question of election auditing: that is, counting by hand/eye all the ballots in random precincts to see if the scanner or touchscreen tallied the ballots correctly. Hanusa oddly endorses this with a one word answer, despite not mentioning the need for any paper trail at all in question #2. Mauro (perhaps inadvertantly?) fails to answer the question directly, even though he endorses “anything” that helps ensure the integrity of elections
4. Proposed federal legislation (HR 550, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act) would require random audits of two percent of precincts, to validate that votes are being accurately counted electronically. Would you support a similar measure at the state level?
Hanusa:
Yes.
Mauro:
I fully support H.R. 550 because it amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent paper trail. I support anything that helps to ensure the security and integrity of the process. Most importantly, I believe testing needs to occur prior the election, including sign offs and certifications from election personnel managing the election process. All testing certifications should be should be made available to the public for inspection.
But don’t get your hopes up, dear voter/reader. Tomorrow we get to question #5 and see that neither candidate endorses a perfectly good idea that would “ensure the security and integrity of the process.”