page 2 of 3
By Bill Poovey, Associated Press, 8/23/04
Shawn Southworth, a voting equipment tester at the laboratory, said in a telephone interview that he wouldn't
publicly discuss the company's work. He referred questions to a spokeswoman at CIBER headquarters in
Greenwood Village, Colo., who never returned telephone messages.
|
The world's most powerful democracy doesn't already have an election system so transparent its citizens know it can be trusted.
|
|
CIBER, founded in 1974, is a public company that promotes itself as an international systems integration
consultant. Its government and private-sector clients include the Air Force, IBM and AT&T. In 2003, government
work generated the largest percentage of the company's total revenue, 26 percent.
|
Also in a sprawl of high-tech businesses that feed off Redstone Arsenal and NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center
in Huntsville is the division of Wyle Laboratories Inc. that tests U.S. elections hardware, including touchscreens made
by market leaders Diebold Inc., Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. and Election Systems & Software Inc.
Wyle spokesman Dan Reeder refused to provide details on how the El Segundo, Calif.-based company, which has been
vetting hardware for the space industry since 1949 in Huntsville, tests the voting equipment.
"Our work on election machines is off-limits," Reeder said. "We just don't discuss it." He did allow, though, that
the testing includes "environmental simulation...shake, rattle and roll."
Carolyn Goggins, a spokeswoman for SysTest Labs, the only other federally approved election software and hardware
tester, refused to discuss the company's work.
More than a decade ago, the Federal Election Commission authorized the National Association of State Election
Directors to choose the independent testers.
On its Web site, the association says the three testing outfits "have neither the staff nor the time to explain
the process to the public, the news media or jurisdictions." It directs inquiries a Houston-based nonprofit organization,
the Election Center, that assists election officials. The center's executive director, Doug Lewis, did not return telephone messages seeking comment.
The election directors' voting systems board chairman, former New York State elections director Thomas Wilkey, said
the testers' secrecy stems from the FEC's refusal to take the lead in choosing them and the government's unwillingness to
pay for it.
He said that left election officials no choice but to find technology companies willing to pay.
"When we first started this program it took us over a year to find a company that was interested, then along
came Wyle, then CIBER and then SysTest," Wilkey said of he standards developed over five years and adopted in 1990.
"Companies that do testing in this country have not flocked to the prospect of testing voting machines," said U.S. Election
Assistance Commission chairman DeForest Soaries Jr., now the top federal overseer of voting technology.
A 2002 law, the Help America Vote Act, created the four-member, bipartisan headed by Soaries to oversee a change
to easier and more secure voting.
Soaries said there should be more testers but the three firms are "doing a fine job with what they have to work with."
Wilkey, meanwhile, predicted "big changes" in the testing process after the November election.
But critics led by Stanford University computer science professor David Dill say it's an outrage that the world's
most powerful democracy doesn't already have an election system so transparent its citizens know it can be trusted.
"Suppose you had a situation where ballots were handed to a private company that counted them behind a closed door
and burned the results," said Dill, founder of VerifiedVoting.org
"Nobody but an idiot would accept a system like that. We've got something that is almost as bad with electronic voting."
Associated Press writers Erica Werner in Washington; Rachel Konrad in San Jose, Calif.; and Jay Reeves in Birmingham
contributed to this report.
© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
page 1 | 2 | 3 
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Time Out For
Unity has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this story nor is Time Out For Unity endorsed or sponsored
by the originator.
Stories | Making Sense | Taking Action | Passing It On
|