The Good Fight

Here is a response to my Oct. 29 column on iVotronic voting machines and the incredible difficulty Frank Heindel had
in getting elections officials in Columbia and Charleston County to respond to his emails about them. It comes from Steve Skardon, Jr., executive director of the Palmetto Project, Inc. I am a little surprised at this letter and the source, but I told Steve he could have his say. So here it is.

Will,

You are my favorite journalist in SC., and you do a great public service with almost every one of your columns.

However, you pissed me off when you implied that the long-planned resignation of Marilyn Bowers, the Executive Director of the Charleston County Election Commission, is somehow linked to vague allegations by an amateur “citizen investigator”.

It was a cheap shot that maligned the stellar reputation of a very good and honest public servant. Mrs. Bowers is one of the most professional, most available public officials in the state. She took over a county election system whose operations were steeped in controversy and partisanship, and restored its competence and credibility.

Today the percentage of county residents who register and routinely vote is the highest it has ever been. That is surely a measure of public confidence in the election system, and a credit to Mrs. Bowers and the members of the election commission. Mrs. Bowers did not take an early retirement, as your column and your investigator suggested. She fully retired in 2008 after 30 years of service, but was brought back to guide the election commission through an important transitional period. She has never made any secret of her plans to resign and go back to the Upstate. As is customary for someone in her position, she met privately with her commissioners to inform them of her plans to leave her job after this election cycle before making it public the next day. If the commissioners had no confidence in her abilities, why would they have had her stay on just for this election? The implications in your column that there was something more to this are completely unfounded.

You apparently place great faith in Mr. Heindal’s skills as a “citizen investigator” of our election system based on his experience as a commodities trader. I am not sure I get the connection, but I can tell you that the inability of the County Election Commission or the State Election Commission to produce the kind of technical information he is asking for within the time frames he has decided are reasonable is hardly a scandal. Both agencies are operating on lower-than-baseline budgets and reduced staffs while they prepare for elections that may well produce record high turnouts. Statewide there are more than 300 elections every year, so contrary to Mr. Heindal’s suggestion that they are avoiding him, they may actually have more important things to do at the moment than the detailed research required by his requests. This stuff is not just sitting on a shelf somewhere waiting for someone to pop it the mail to anyone who writes in.

As far as I can tell, neither Mrs. Bowers nor the SEC is saying they do not plan to provide Mr. Heindal with everything they can legally provide him. In some instances, it appears that he is still asking questions that they have already answered.

I would also point out that many of Mr. Heindal’s claims of machine errors are based on his looking at highly technical readouts of the performance of individual machines. These were intended to be read by experts, and consequently are not particularly layperson friendly. When Mr. Heindal describes “unexplained events” recorded on these tapes … he means that he doesn’t understand them, not that they are not explainable by technicians who are trained to read them.

I am not saying that Mr. Heindal is wrong to pursue his concerns and to expect credible responses within a reasonable period. Just the opposite, more citizens should share his concerns about government accountability. I understand his frustration with having to wait for a full response to his Freedom of Information request, but the assumptions and sinister implications rampant in this story are not warranted.

If you are going to report this story in the way you are doing, you need to present a more balanced perspective. In fairness to everyone, I don’t think it is fair to either agency or your readers not to print out documents they apparently attached to their emails to Mr. Heindal, or summaries of his many phone calls with them.

I’d also encourage you check out more thoroughly the allegations he and anyone else makes about electronic voting before drawing conclusions. There are many different kinds of technologies out there. For example, in Mr. Heindal’s emails are several references to years-old news stories raising alarms about electronic voting machines. Most have nothing to do with the iVotronic machines. In some instances, they are not even referring to the same manufacturer we use in South Carolina. In other instances they are based on theory and conjecture of what might happen if, for example, a voter is left alone with a voting machine for several hours with screwdrivers and magnets. In still other instances, the elections got messed up — not by the voting machines — but by poorly trained precinct workers.

One complaint that I really don’t get is battery failure. Batteries fail. When that happens, you put a new one in. How is that and “unexplainable event.” Every vote is saved in one of the iVotronic machine’s four memory banks so there is no danger of losing any votes, nor is there any threat to the accurate recording of votes cast on it after it restarts.

The reality of life in the 21st century is that we have to depend on computer technology to make our world work. We trust it to manage our money, operate our businesses, teach our children, regulate our medicines, and protect our soldiers in combat, among other things. Every nuclear missile in our arsenal is ready to be aimed and launched … based on instructions dictated by a computer. All of these things involve proprietary source codes and we don’t object to the fact that those who design these systems maintain propriety source codes? Why is it that we think nothing of getting on an airplane whose autopilot security codes are proprietary, but become hysterical about sinister forces controlling our elections because the manufacturer won’t hand over the security codes to “citizen investigators.”?

I appreciate your reminding your readers that they have no reason to doubt that their votes are being counted and counted accurately. We have the best available election system currently on the market. Thousands of test votes are run on these machines in SC and around the country every year to insure their accuracy. We have terrific, professional election managers in our 46 counties who have spend years learning about these machines and making certain that they function as they should.

Look, nobody wants an election system that isn’t safe and reliable. When better technology comes on the market, we need to look at getting it. However, when the state purchased this system, not one, but two, independent expert panels evaluated the available technology and independently came to the same conclusion: The iVotronic was the best system on the market at the time and the most likely to produce accurate and security elections in the state for many years. Every county council and county election commission in the state also reviewed the system and each on its own voted to go with it.

The frustrating part of this is that none of the critics of the current system have another option that is better. Reverting to paper-based systems would be more expensive, more error-proned, more corruption-proned, and more likely to produce unreliable results than the iVotronic system we now use. They also don’t provide any more assurance to the voter that his or her vote will be counted.

You might remind your readers that the country will never know who was really elected President in 2000 because of the failures of paper-based voting systems in Florida. Even the human recounting of those ballots proved to be impossible. In that same election, the Palmetto Project’s post-election study revealed that 38,000 SC voters cast ballots for President that were officially counted as “blank”. Harvard University did a similar analysis and said the number was 44,000. In 2008, with the iVotronic machines, that problem went away.

BTW … I realize the curious election of Alvin Greene is going to surface every time there is ever a question about voting machines. By why should it? Is it so hard to imagine that in a race between two unknowns, the guy with the more famous name is won? According to a poll conducted just prior to the June primary, 78% of the Democratic primary voters didn’t know enough about Vic to even have an opinion of him. Among those who knew him, he had higher negatives than positives. I would also point out that Vic is a politician with twenty years of public service who was running in the most aggressively anti-incumbent year that anyone can remember.

Here’s an interesting fact about name recognition. Vic carried four counties … all four include among their citizens prominent families with the name “Rawl”. Three of them have current public figures with the name “Judge Rawl.” I would also mention — since the news media doesn’t — that when Vic’s campaign team questioned the accuracy of the voting machines, the SEC gave him and his technical advisors full access to them so they could test them. They conducted repeated tests on them for accuracy, and in every instance the tests showed the machines to be 100% reliable.

STEPHEN SKARDON JR., Executive Director

Palmetto Project Inc.

1031 Chuck Dawley Blvd. #5

Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464

This post is an addendum to my column of Sept. 29, 2010. It is the culmination of months of FOI requests directed to the S.C. Election Commission and the Charleston County Board of Elections by citizen investigator Frank Heindel, which began after the highly dubious June 8 primary. What you will see here is an email Heindel sent to members of the county election board on Sept. 14, 2010, expressing his concern about the large number of "events" which occurred with the iVotronic voting machines on June 8, as detailed in audit logs from the machines. Heindel had been requesting these logs for two months, only to be met with excuses and foot-dragging from board executive director Marilyn Bowers.

On Wednesday morning, Sept. 15, board members met with Bowers. On Thursday morning, Bowers suddenly announced her retirement as head of the board. This post does not contain her resignation letter, and her letter makes no mention of Heindel, his FOI campaign or the June 8 primary. Bowers' resignation letter can be seen in a subsequent blog post.

These emails are best read from bottom to top to capture their chronological order.

To my MANY array of friends in the “Election World”,

I wanted to personally let ALL of you know that I will be retiring as the Executive Director of the Board of Elections and Voter Registration of Charleston County following the Nov 2nd General Election. There were so many memories revived as I went through this list of recipients for this email. My last date of employment with Charleston County is undetermined at this time but I will be staying long enough to make sure everything is finalized following the election and assist with a smooth transition for whoever is chosen to fill this position.

Thanks to ALL of you for all of the help that you have given me (some of you for MANY years — more than we like to think about) over the years. It is hard to imagine that someone so young as I am (HA!) could have possibly been conducting elections for 30+ years but it is true — guess it gets in your blood.

I have attached the letter that I presented to the Board last night and to my Staff today that will hopefully enlighten you as to why I am retiring at this time. Don’t be strangers just because I will not be practicing as an “Election Official”. I do plan to stay active in SCARE and the election world.

Marilyn Bowers, Executive Director
Board of Elections and Voter Registration
Charleston County



——- Forwarded Message ——-
From: fheindel@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 8:14:32 AM
Subject: Charleston County voting machine performance summary June 8, 2010

September 14, 2010

Charleston County Board of Elections

Dear Charleston County Board of Elections Members,

The audit logs from the Charleston County June 8, 2010 primary include many unexplained events which could indicate serious problems with the voting machines. I am writing to you to request an explanation of these events and also to request you to publish these audit logs online along with the meanings of all the events encountered with our voting machines after each election.

I have requested Charleston County election employees to explain what causes these events and the meaning of the messages, but have been unable to obtain an adequate explanation. My immediate reaction to these events is that all did not go well in this election. A thorough analysis is needed, including the reason each message is issued, the complete meaning of the message, and a description of any action taken by the Ivotronic voting machine in response to the event.

As an example of the problems encountered, consider iVotronic #5137929. One hundred forty-six Charleston County voters cast their votes on this machine, which had 324 unexplained events between the time the first vote was cast at 7:10 a.m. and the last vote was cast at 6:50 p.m. These included 202 events of "PEB access failed", 58 events of "Failed to retrieve EQC from PEB", 58 events of "Terminal shutdown - IPS exit", and 6 events of "Terminal shutdown". Contrast this performance with that of Ivotronic # 5138665 , where 179 voters cast their votes without a single suspicious event. If one machine can perform with no suspicious events, then cannot a high percentage of the machines be expected to perform at that level?

According to the head tech in Charleston County, the "Terminal shutdown - IPS exit" event is most likely caused by dead batteries. IPS stands for Internal Power Supply. Charleston County had 822 "Terminal shutdown -IPS exit" events involving 199 voting machines. This means that 49% of our voting machines apparently shut down at least once on Election Day due to a problem that is being blamed on dead batteries. Since the ES&S User Manual undoubtedly calls for recharging batteries on all Ivotronics in a short time period before each election, does the ES&S system provide a way to detect underperforming batteries before the election?

Inadequate voting machine performance may also cause longer lines on Election Day. For example, 32 machines were not open and ready for voters at 7:00 a.m. There were 19 machines that had to have their date and or time changed after 7:00 a.m. indicating that no one had properly checked the machines prior to Election Day. Sixteen voting machines had their zero tapes printed after votes were cast, which is surely a serious violation of approved election procedures. What is Charleston County's policy regarding the testing of voting machines prior to Election Day? Were all 391 of these voting machines checked and tested prior to Election Day?

Another concern I have is with the lack of proper security measures regarding our voting system. Charleston County has been hiring part time rovers to fix our voting machines on Election Day. These rovers have access to the passwords, yet they have not been filling out any incident reports or logs detailing what machines they were fixing, what the problems were, and what the solutions were to the problems. Also, the passwords the rovers are using have not been changed in years. These serious security lapses are simply unacceptable and need to be corrected prior to the next election.

I have summarized the Charleston County voting machine performance for the 391 voting machines used on June 8, 2010 below.

Please explain the meaning of these messages, the cause of each event, and the action that the voting machine takes in response to each event. The people of South Carolina need to be able to trust that our voting machines are functioning properly and these events certainly do not inspire confidence.

Sincerely,

Frank Heindel
Mt. Pleasant, SC

Vote cancelled -terminal problem -33 events on 20 machines
PEB access failed- 2351 events on 211 machines
Terminal shutdown- IPS exit- 822 events on 199 machines
Election ID data mismatch -PEB vs. CF 88 events
Failed to retrieve EQC from PEB- 816 events
Failed to get PEB ballot header block- 10 events on 10 machines
Failed to get PEB EQC block- 16 events on 13 machines
Failed to get PEB revision- 4 events on 4 machines
Failed to get PEB type - 228 events
Failed to get PEB vote header block - 43 events
Invalid PEB for procedure- 7 events
Set terminal date and/or time- 19 machines reset after 7:00 a.m.
Zero tapes printed after votes have been cast- 16 machines
Terminal shutdown (after 7:30 a.m. and prior to 6:30 p.m.) - 800 events on 255 machines
Select calibrate screen -33 events on 18 machines
Terminal touchscreen recalibrated -21 events on 14 machines
PEB block CRC error- 73 events
PEB not prepared for polls- 4 events
Terminal shutdown -DIE exit - 7 events on 7 machines
PEB pulled during PEB block read - 30 events on 26 machines
Close terminal early - 7 events on 7 machines
Warning - I/O flag set - 20 events on 4 machines
Warning- can not read terminal screen- 1 event
Terminal -opening state - 32 machines had this event after 7:00 a.m. indicating machines not ready for voters

Addendum to my Sept. 29 City Paper column on problems with Charleston County voting machines:

Here is a lengthy email exchange between citizen investigator Frank Heindel and director of Charleston County Board of Elections Marilyn Bowers and Chris Whitmire of the State Election Commission. It concludes with Bowers' rather cavalierly telling Heindel that one of her employees will drop into the mail the disk Heindel has been seeking through FOI requests for more than two months.

In reading these emails, be sure to check the Ohio EVEREST study of voting machines and the Federal Election Assistance Commission security plan for voting machines, which Heindel cites in his August 9 email.

Start reading from the bottom and it all makes sense — scary sense.

——- Forwarded Message ——-
From: "Marilyn Bowers"
To: fheindel@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Marilyn Bowers"
Cc: "Solicitor" , xxxxxxxx@postandcourier.com, "Chris Whitmire" , "Pamela H. McArthur" , "Sam Howell" , "DanMartin"
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:12:54 PM
Subject: RE: Charleston County Election Commission FOIA violations- tech rover incident reports

Phyllis will put in the mail today. I am in Orlando for the Election Center Conference this week but you can reach me via email if needed.

Sent from my Windows Mobile phone

——-Original Message——-
From: fheindel@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 12:32 PM
To: Marilyn Bowers
Cc: Solicitor ; xxxxxxxx@postandcourier.com xxxxxxxx@postandcourier.com>; Chris Whitmire ; Pamela H. McArthur ; Sam Howell ; DanMartin
Subject: Re: Charleston County Election Commission FOIA violations- tech rover incident reports

August 18, 2010

Dear Marilyn Bowers,

I have not received the CD in the mail . Has it been mailed? If not, would you please tell me when you plan on mailing it?

Sincerely,

Frank Heindel
Mt. Pleasant, SC

——- Original Message ——-
From: "Marilyn Bowers"
To: fheindel@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Solicitor" , xxxxxxxx@postandcourier.com, "Chris Whitmire" , "Pamela H. McArthur" , "Sam Howell" , "DanMartin"
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:13:31 PM
Subject: RE: Charleston County Election Commission FOIA violations- tech rover incident reports

Mr. Heindel,

Rovers - I will have Pam prepare the list of Rovers that served during the June Primaries. However, unless instructed otherwise by our attorney, we will protect the home addresses as we did those of the poll managers.

Information requested on CD - Please correct if I am wrong but I am assuming that you are referring to the ballot images and event log that are described as a paper trail on the iVotronic Voting System. Is this correct?

Access to voting machines — No one has access to our voting machines except our staff that prepares them for the election, delivers them to each polling location, and then picks them up following the election from each location. The machines are sealed as each one is prepared for delivery. The iVotronic Voting machine is not precinct specific when it is delivered to the polling location. The Communication Pack which holds the PEB’s and printer are picked up by the Clerk for each location at our office (usually Friday, Saturday, & Monday before election). They keep this sealed case with them until election morning. On election morning the seal is broken and the Master PEB is inserted in each iVotronic to activate and prepare for voting. It is at this time that the iVotronic becomes precinct specific and knows that it is designated to a particular precinct/polling location. The Zero tape is generated after each iVo is activated to show that there are “0” votes in each iVo for the election.

Our building is secured with a burglar alarm that is activated as we leave the building each day. We then have 24/7 security beginning on election morning through the certification hearing on Thursday.

Marilyn Bowers, Executive Director

Board of Elections and Voter Registration

Charleston County

4367 Headquarters Rd

North Charleston SC 29405

843-745-2277 or 843-906-7062

mbowers@charlestoncounty.org

From: fheindel@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:36 AM
To: Marilyn Bowers
Cc: Solicitor; xxxxxxxx@postandcourier.com; Chris Whitmire
Subject: Re: Charleston County Election Commission FOIA violations- tech rover incident reports

August 10, 2010

Charleston County Election Commission

Dear Marilyn Bowers,

Thank you for your quick response.

I am still waiting on the rover names and addresses and the CD of voting information per my original FOIA request and July 2nd, 2010 payment. I emailed Chris Whitmire and he said you can go ahead and send out the CD today. No one gave me any legal explanation as to the delay regarding this CD. Also today please email me the complete rover list of names and addresses as per the same Freedom of Information Act Request. There is no reason why this readily available public information is taking so long to receive. I should have had all this information 30 days ago.

Is the Charleston County Election Commission documenting who has had access to our voting machines and for what purpose? If logs like this exist, then I am entitled to be able to review them under the Freedom of Information Act. Please let me know if logs or reports exist detailing who has accessed our voting machines and for what purpose.

Sincerely,

Frank Heindel
Mt. Pleasant, SC

——- Original Message ——-
From: "Marilyn Bowers"
To: fheindel@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Solicitor" , xxxxxxxx@postandcourier.com, "Chris Whitmire"
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:25:47 AM
Subject: RE: Charleston County Election Commission FOIA violations- tech rover incident reports

Mr. Heindel — The State Election Commission has secured an Attorney General’s Opinion that states that the Security Plan is not subject to FOIA request. This is a State Plan that is followed by all 46 counties in SC so please direct further questions about this to Chris Whitmire at the State Election Commission.

Marilyn Bowers, Executive Director

Board of Elections and Voter Registration

Charleston County

4367 Headquarters Rd

North Charleston SC 29405

843-745-2277 or 843-906-7062

mbowers@charlestoncounty.org

From: fheindel@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 8:07 AM
To: Marilyn Bowers
Cc: Solicitor; xxxxxxxx@postandcourier.com; Marilyn Bowers
Subject: Re: Charleston County Election Commission FOIA violations- tech rover incident reports

August 9, 2010

Dear Marilyn Bowers,

The voting public must not be excluded from viewing the security policies of the Charleston County Election Commission.We are not outsiders since we have paid for the voting system and personnel to run the elections. Here is an example outlining why the public needs to see incident reports and the security plan.

A June 10, 2010 email excerpt from Mike Wells, Charleston County poll manager, to your staff member, Pamela McArthur, regarding the June 8, 2010 election.
Voting Machines — We had three voting machines that failed to start up and prevented us from printing the zero tape. Two of the machines were eventually repaired by Jeremy Lemerande. The ADA machine was one of the three and never came on line. It totally stumped Jeremy. The ADA machine actually opened and we never new it and never used the machine. We found out when we went to print the tally tape that it never closed and we had to be talked through an override. We also discovered the last machine had the wrong time and we had to be talked through an override for that also. When we went to print the tally tapes, we discovered the paper was installed by Jeremy earlier in the day upside down. Fortunately, Jeremy was on the scene by then and fixed that. All this flailing around with machines delayed us an hour in getting out of there. The machines were generally acting odd. I remember last time we could just touch the screen and see what the count was for the machine and check the time. Only a few machines would do that this time. I am going to check each machine next time earlier in the day and if they show the same symptoms, I am calling Jeremy.

I am surprised voting machines failing to start up on Election Day does not meet the criteria to be included in an incident report. I assume Jeremy is a part time poll worker and probably works as a rover. His name does not show up on the paid poll worker list I requested and paid for via the Freedom of Information Act. Would you please make sure I have the names and addresses of all rovers, like Jeremy, added to the list and sent to me as per my original FOIA request?

Berkeley County has "Election Day rover sheets" that document their rovers writing down a description of the machine's problems and the solution to the problems. Charleston County appears to be giving password access to part time workers on Election Day. Somewhere in this process there needs to be an incident report or log maintained documenting why the rovers are accessing the machines. If there is no log or incident report being maintained detailing what the part time worker is doing to the voting machines, that is a major breach of security. A bank would not allow a part time employee access to the passwords to their vault. Anyone accessing the vault is required to sign in with their name, date, and reason for their visit. These common sense banking requirements are very similar to the online Federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) security plan for electronic voting systems.

The EAC states the effective use of passwords is essential to the overall security of a voting system. I have a few questions regarding the password security of our Charleston County voting system.

1. Prior to the June 8, 2010 election, when was the last time Charleston County changed its voting system passwords?
2. Who has access to the passwords? Do all part time rovers have password access in addition to the full time staff?
Do the ES&S /PrintElect personnel have access to the passwords?
3. Is Charleston County keeping detailed logs documenting who has accessed our voting machines and for what purpose?

The Ohio Everest study analyzed the password security flaws with the Ivotronic machines. The report stated the Ivotronics can be easily accessed by default common and identical usernames and passwords and strongly encourages passwords to be changed regularly and restricted to certain personnel. The EAC recommends having strong passwords changed at least every election cycle with a detailed log filled out with very specific information regarding anyone accessing the voting system.

I look forward to receiving information from you showing how you and your staff are ensuring protection of the iVotronic machines and handling password security.

Sincerely,

Frank Heindel

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/everest/00-SecretarysEVERESTExecutiveReport.pdf Ohio Everest Report page 57

http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/259.PDF The Federal Election Assistance Commission security plan for an electronic voting system.
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/everest/00-SecretarysEVERESTExecutiveReport.pdf page 38

The Academic researchers concluded that the central server and software and the precinct-based components, both DRE and optical scan voting machines (i.e., the ES&S Unity Election Management System (EMS), iVotronic DRE and M100 optical scan systems) “lack the fundamental technical controls necessary to guarantee a trustworthy election under operational conditions.” (Id. at 29.) The researchers discovered
“exploitable vulnerabilities” that allowed even persons with limited access — such as voters or poll workers — to compromise voting machines and election results, or to inject and spread software viruses into the central election management system. (Id.) Academic researchers concluded that these vulnerabilities arise from the following “pervasive, critical failures”:
• Failure to protect election data and software
• Failure to effectively control access to election operations
• Failure to correctly implement security mechanisms
• Failure to follow standard software and security engineering practices
——- Original Message ——-
From: "Marilyn Bowers"
To: fheindel@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Marilyn Bowers"
Cc: solicitor@scsolicitor9.org, xxxxxxxxx@postandcourier.com, MBowers@charlestoncounty.org
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2010 4:10:58 PM
Subject: RE: Charleston County Election Commission FOIA violations- tech rover incident reports

Mr Heindel,
I have checked with staff
and there are no incident log sheets. We only write down incidents that require follow-up after the election. There were a very few battery issues and flashcards that had to be replaced but we equip the Rovers with those things because any equipment that uses manmade materials eventually wil need them replaced. We have never lost a vote due to any machines failures in the six years that I have had the privilege of using them.

The Security Plan is not available for public review. I am sure that you can understand that protecting the integrity of the election process means not allowing outsiders access to certain items. We conduct very transparent elections but as in any other business (banking, etc) there are some things you don't want everyone to be able to access and tamper with.

With respect, I would ask that you honor our responsibility to protect the integrity of every election we conduct - just like we appreciate the bank protecting our account numbers and access to our banking materials.

Marilyn

Sent from my Windows Mobile phone

——-Original Message——-
From: fheindel@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:35 PM
To: Marilyn Bowers
Cc: solicitor@scsolicitor9.org ; xxxxxxxx@postandcourier.com; xxxxxxxx@postandcourier.com>; MBowers@charlestoncounty.org
Subject: Re: Charleston County Election Commission FOIA violations- tech rover incident reports

August 2, 2010

Charleston County Election Commission

Dear Marilyn Bowers,

I have received the emails from you from my earlier FOIA so that item is cleared and off the list . On July 20, 2010, I received an excel file with names and precincts but no addresses.

When will I have the incident reports ? I would think this is a simple item to copy and send along. Why is this item taking so long?

Regarding waiting on guidance from the State Election Commission as to what you can release, I had some difficulty last week getting public information from the State Election Commission. I ended up having to get the Governor's office involved.

I have pasted in the Governor's attorney comments to the SEC regarding my FOIA below as it probably pertains to your question as well.

If you have a copy of the "Security Plan", please forward it along also.

Sincerely,

Frank Heindel
Mt. Pleasant, SC

Chris,

Mr. Frank Heindel has raised issues regarding the State Election Commission's response to his FOIA request. Based on the correspondence provided below, it is my understanding that the SEC has complied with his request except for disclosing the SysTest 2007 certification report. According to Mr. Heindel's response, it appears that the SEC failed to disclose this report because it contains proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure under S.C. Code Ann. s. 30-4-40(a)(1), which exempts trade secrets from disclosure under FOIA.

While we recognize the need and importance of protecting trade secrets, we also value and support the purposes of FOIA, which is to ensure that the public can be fully informed about the actions of their government and public officials. To balance these sometimes competing interests of protecting proprietary information and an informed public, S.C. Code Ann. s. 30-4-40(b) of FOIA provides that if "any public record contains material that is not exempt under subsection (a) of this section, the public body shall separate the exempt and nonexempt material and make the nonexempt material available in accordance with" FOIA. Accordingly, we are requesting that you redact those portions of the report that contain exempt trade secrets and other exempt material and disclose the remainder of the report to Mr. Heindel.

Thanks for your attention to this matter, and please let me know if you have any questions regarding this request.

E. Brandon Gaskins
Deputy Chief Counsel
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12267
Columbia, SC 29211
(803) 734-5252 (office)
(803) 734-5167 (fax)
——- Original Message ——-
From: "Marilyn Bowers"
To: fheindel@xxxxxxxxxx, MBowers@charlestoncounty.org
Cc: solicitor@scsolicitor9.org, xxxxxxxx@postandcourier.com
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2010 12:15:54 PM
Subject: RE: Charleston County Election Commission FOIA violations- tech rover incident reports

Mr Heindel,
Did you receive the poll manager listing and emails that I sent to you? I am waiting on guidance from the State Election Commission on exactly which files can be released from the Unity Voting System - will provide that as soon as I get this information.

I am verry sorry for the delay but I must adhere to the Security Plan for the voting sysytem to protect the integrity and this and future elections.

Sent from my Windows Mobile phone

——-Original Message——-
From: fheindel@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 7:28 AM
To: MBowers@charlestoncounty.org
Cc: solicitor@scsolicitor9.org ; xxxxxxxxx@postandcourier.com, xxxxxxxx@postandcourier.com>
Subject: Charleston County Election Commission FOIA violations- tech rover incident reports

August 2, 2010

Charleston County Election Commission

Executive Director

Dear Marilyn Bowers,

It has been 19 business days since my July 6, 2010 FOIA request and I have received no response. I still do not have all the information from my earlier June 16,2010 FOIA request, specifically my request for all names and addresses of the people employed by Charleston County during our June 8, 2010 elections and the "paper trail' CD. You received my check for the June 16, 2010 FOIA information on July 2, 2010. Last week, you said you were getting closer to having the CD ready to mail, but I have not received it .

For the record, Dorchester County responded with the poll worker names and addresses within just a few business days and provided the list to me for free. I have attached the list to point out I am asking for public information that should be readily available. As per the FOIA, please do not use this list for commercial purposes, it is simply my intent to show you the type of easily accessible public information I have requested and you have refused to provide. Also I have pasted in below the response from Berkeley county regarding their technical rover incident reports. They responded in a timely manner and charged me $5.25 for copying. Other neighboring counties are responding and abiding by the Freedom of Information Act, why isn't Charleston County?

Section 30-1-140 provides that any public official or custodian of public records who refuses or willfully neglects to perform any duty required of him by Sections 30-1-10 through 140 is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, must be fined not less than two hundred dollars nor more than five thousand dollars.

Please provide me all with the public information I have requested as per the Freedom of Information Act..

Sincerely,

Frank Heindel
Mt. Pleasant, SC

Your Freedom of Information Act Request for records related to the June 8, 2010 Primary and the June 22, 2010 Republican Runoff elections were received by this office on July 8, 2010. The requested records are being gathered.
1. Inspection/testing documentation.
2. Incident log/staff/rovers
Prepayment is required to produce these records requested in the above mentioned FOIA. Please submit a payment of $5.25 for fees associated with these documents. Payment should be in the form of a check or money order and should be payable to:

Berkeley County Elections
PO Box 6122
Moncks Corner, SC 29461

Sincerely,
Wanda Farley, Director
Berkeley County Elections & Registration

2. A copy of the names and addresses of any and all paid poll workers who worked for the election that took place in Charleston County on June 8, 2010. Can provide names of poll workers for the June 8 th Primaries in electronic format. However, our Attorney has advised that their home addresses are private and confidential. $20.00 (1 hr staff time) — format will be Microsoft Access

3. Copies of any and all written correspondence, including emails, the Charleston County election commission had with any ES&S Ivotronic personnel from June 1, 2010 through June 16, 2010.

See #1 for estimate

Page 2

FOIA Request — Heindel

4. A copy of the "paper trail" for the Charleston County results that is mentioned in the news story as follows, "Charleston Board of Elections Director Marilyn Bowers says every single vote made on these electronic voting machines is recorded and leaves behind a paper trail. " http://www.live5news.com/Global/story.asp?S=12654153 Please clarify —

•

Are you referring to the Summary Tapes produced at each polling location after the polls close? If so, this will be approximately $242.00 (.50 per copy x 484) + $20.00/hr x 8 = $160.00
•

Total = $402.00
•

The Electronic/Paper audit trail (30,865 records)? -
•

Hard copy = There would be approximately 10 records per page @ 50 cents per page = 3,087 pages x .50 cents = $1,543.50
•

Electronic = Would probably be too large to email (per county guidelines)
•

Cost of CD
•

1 hr Staff time to generate/burn = $20.00

——- Forwarded Message ——-
From: fheindel@xxxxxxxxx
To: MBowers@charlestoncounty.org, samhowell@bond-law.com
Cc: xxxxxxxxxx@ap.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2010 7:03:34 AM
Subject: FOIA:Tech worker & rover incident log reports

July 6, 2010

Charleston County Election Commission

Executive Director
Dear Marilyn Bowers,

Pursuant to the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, I request the following documents:

1. Copies of all tech worker and rover incident log reports, including reports by full time tech staff as well as part time tech workers, for the June 8, 2010 and June 22,2010 elections in Charleston County. These written reports should include, but not be limited to, information gathered at different polling places as to specific voting machine problems, their locations, and the solution used for the problem or issue.

I will pay up to $50 dollars for the copying and collecting of these documents . I would also request that in the future these incident log reports be put online for all voters to view after each election to increase transparency in our election process .

I would also respectfully request that you lower your charges on my previous $300 dollar FOIA , specifically the charge of 260 dollars for searching emails.I did agree to pay the $300 dollars and sent the check in . However, I just received a FOIA request from the South Carolina Election Commission and they only charged me $60 dollars for searching their email records for a very similar request.(See below).

I do not think a voter should be made to feel gigged, or priced out of the market, by having Charleston County charging 400 per cent higher rates than a state agency to collect the very same kind of easily obtainable information . Overcharging voters for public information regarding how our voting machines are functioning will only serve to undermine voter confidence in the future.

Sincerely,

Frank Heindel
Mt. Pleasant, SC

——- Original Message ——-
From: "Chris Whitmire" < cwhitmi@elections.sc.gov >
To: " fheindel@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 3:33:48 PM
Subject: RE: FOIA request

Dear Mr. Heindel,

I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information Act request dated June 14, 2010, in which you requested records matching three descriptions as detailed in the copy of your request below.

1. Satisfaction of this item requires 1.5 hours of research by SEC staff. The agency research fee is $20.00 per hour. Total charge to provide this information is $30.00.

2. Satisfaction of this item requires 1.5 hours of research by SEC staff. The total charge to provide this information is $30.00.

3. The SEC has no “FOIA log” document. However, a search of Agency FOIA records shows the Agency received no FOIA requests during the specified timeframe.

Prepayment is required to produce the records requested in Items 1 and 2. The total for both items is $60.00. Payment should be in the form of check or money order and can be sent to:

S.C. State Election Commission

Attn: Chris Whitmire

P.O. Box 5987

Columbia, SC 29250

Upon receipt of payment, the requested records will be provided via email within ten days.

Sincerely,

Chris Whitmire
Public Information Officer

South Carolina State Election Commission
Post Office Box 5987
Columbia, S.C. 29250
Tel: 803.734.9070
Fax: 803.734.9366

Every Vote Matters_LogoXSmall
This message originates from the South Carolina State Election Commission. If you have received this message in error, we would appreciate it if you would immediately notify the South Carolina State Election Commission by sending a reply e-mail to the sender of this message. Thank you.

From: fheindel@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 10:50 AM
To: Whitmire, Chris
Subject: FOIA request

June 14, 2010

South Carolina Election Commission
Attn: Chris Whitmire

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, I request the following information:

1. A copy of any and all inbound and outbound email correspondence by the South Carolina Election Commission regarding any problems or issues with any and all South Carolina voting machines from 8 a.m. Monday June 7 , 2010 to Friday June 11, 2010 at 5 p.m.

2. A copy of any and all email correspondence between Ivotronic employees and any and all South Carolina election commission employees from June 1, 2010 through June 11, 2010.

3. Copies of the South Carolina election commission FOIA log listing the number of FOIA requests , the party sending the FOIA request, and the information being sought by each request , received by your office between June 1, 2010 and June 11, 2010 .

I will pay up to $50 dollars for the information requested.

I respectfully request all this information be sent electronically to me via email. Since our state has determined that voting can be done electronically without the use of any paper trail, there is no reason why this FOIA request can not be handled cheaply and quickly via electronic email without the unnecessary cost of copying paper.

Please email me with any questions regarding this request.

Sincerely,

Frank Heindel
Mt. Pleasant, SC

Here are the dollars charged by the Charleston County Election Commission -500% higher than the State Election Commission!!

1.Copies of any and all email or written complaints received by your office from June 7, 2010 to June 16, 2010 regarding any and all voting machine problems or malfunctions. #1 & #3 - Estimated cost of $130 - $260 dollars for time required by the IT Department to research and provide the emails requested.
3. Copies of any and all written correspondence, including emails, the Charleston County election commission had with any ES&S Ivotronic personnel from June 1, 2010 through June 16, 2010.

See #1 for estimate

*** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content ***
*** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***

While more than 70 percent of District One Republicans voted for Tim Scott, making him very likely to become the only black GOPer in Congress next year, some white folks were clearly angry. Below is a comment that appeared in the online Post and Courier at the end of a story announcing Scott's victory. These are the words of an unreconstructed bigot who is incredulous that his beloved Republican Party has broken the color line.

User Image
nomoregop wrote:
NOW YOU HAVE IT...

2 bro's, one from the hood; you know, right down the street here in Charleston by the crackhouse. The other one, from the streets of Maryland; each as cowardly yellow in their refusal of military service, as their skin is black....

They want to represent this district, you're district and it's hard working families and children; the sanctity of our military services, and our fallen in foreign lands. Each one of these people, 1 a Democrat & 1 a Republican know the welfare line, and chitlin's better than they know dedicated service to country.

Do you feel sold out yet?

South Carolina's reform movement suffered another blow Wednesday when Kelly Payne, a candidate for the Republican nomination for state superintendent of education, verified a series of leaked love e-mails to her came from Republican S.C. Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom.

Eckstrom is married. But he has been separated and living apart from his wife for two years, according to his re-election campaign. Payne, who is divorced, is a Dutch Fork High School teacher.

Eckstrom, 61, the state's top accountant, is one of the most influential members of the reform movement, which has pushed for smaller government, lower taxes and more accountability and transparency in state government. He holds one of the five seats on the State Budget and Control Board.

Eckstrom is the third high-ranking, statewide-elected Republican on that powerful board to become embroiled in a scandal:

- Republican state Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, a Charleston Republican, resigned from office, losing his seat on the budget board, after he was charged with possessing cocaine in 2007.

- Republican Gov. Mark Sanford of Sullivan's Island escaped demands that he resign and a move to impeach and remove him from office after he disappeared last summer for five days, only to return and acknowledge an affair with an Argentine woman.

Sanford, subsequently, repaid the state more than $3,000 for part of the state-paid costs of a trip to South America on which he saw his lover. Sanford still faces ethics charges and could face criminal charges.

The above story from The State newspaper (www.thestate.com/2010/02/18/1161993/candidate-says-her-e-mails-were.html) is just the latest state GOP scandal involving sex, drugs and other misconduct. See the whole Republican scandal sheet at www.scgopscandal.com And start a pool with your friends to guess who will be the next GOPer to be featured on the Daily Show.