Election integrity advocates spoke out against a bill introduced by Secretary of State Paul Pate, but the legislation advanced on Thursday despite their objections.
House Study Bill 628 was called a “technical bill” with positive changes by supporters. The bill eliminates the option of county commissioners of elections to choose whether they use automatic tabulating equipment in certain elections. It also allows county auditors to use an electronic election register or poll book instead of a paper register or poll book.
Michael Ross of the Secretary of State’s office said the bill should be non-partisan and non-controversial. Ross noted Iowa ranks third in election administration by MIT and this bill aims to keep more uniform elections across Iowa.
Democrat Cerro Gordo County Auditor Wedmore said the bill will make some “positive changes” to election law.
Bev Lloyd, a Jasper County resident, said she has worked with a nonpartisan group to increase transparency in Iowa’s elections. This bill undermines that work.
“At a time when trust and integrity of electronic voting machines is at an all-time low, this is not building Iowans’ confidence in the process when it’s being proposed that our local commissioner wouldn’t be able to choose how votes are counted in their county,” Lloyd said. “To help gain back some trust and transparency in our elections, let the counties decide how to run their own elections.”
Eric Rosenthal also testified against the bill. He said transparency and trust are two values that should be encouraged in the voting process.
“Currently, many Iowans are having trouble trusting our election process,” he said. “About one-third have major concerns and another 10 percent have doubts. And many are distrustful of the voting process that appears to be impervious to inspection or validation. So in light of the current environment, why would the members of this legislature seek to deprive local officials of the option to hand count ballots, engendering distrust of said local officials by this legislation while at the same time asking that same level of trust from the public in the non-transparent automatic tabulation of the vote?”
Rosenthal pointed out that the Iowa Caucus, which happened just weeks ago, was counted by hand.
“It was timely performed, transparent and trustworthy,” he said.
Democrat State Rep. Adam Zabner noted he has a great deal of faith in Iowa’s elections but still has questions about the bill, so he wasn’t willing to sign off in support.
Republican State Rep. Brent Siegrist said he has a great deal of faith in Iowa’s election process as well.
“They’re fair and they’re accurate,” he said.
Republican State Rep. Austin Harris, who is managing the bill, said he also has a “great deal of confidence” in Iowa’s elections and vowed to continue work on the bill.
You should have also included in your article the comments section left in regards to this proposed bill. I have cut and pasted the comments below, but you can verify them by going to the state’s website for the bill. I believe all of them are against the bill!!
HSB628
Comment Report
A bill for an act relating to the administration of elections.
Subcommittee Members: Harris-CH, Siegrist, Zabner
Date: 02/01/2024
Time: 02:30 PM
Location: RM 103, Sup. Ct. Chamber
Comment:
Diane Holst
At a time when a wave of the voting population would like to go back to the option
of hand counting ballots, regardless of the population of a county, for this legislation
to do the complete opposite is being unaware of this desire. I will leave it to others to
continue with that concern. I want to draw peoples attention to lines 2434 on page 2
of HSB 628. The state is taking control of what registration and poll book product
that can be used. YET, has not determined the certification standards. These
nonvoting election technology products are not covered by the HAVA mandates that
require the EAC accrediting process that voting systems undertake. This is the space
occupied by companies such as Knowink, Tenex, BPro, VR Systems, etc. that have
recently come under scrutiny for their origins and vulnerabilities. Putting this
legislation forward without having the certification standards defined and the
opportunity for the public and our law makers to be able to review and comment is a
total disregard for our legislative process. And who will be setting these certification
standards? CIS, CISA? I give you but one bullet from the headlines of the House
Judiciary Committees report, In response to mounting public scrutiny, CISA
scrubbed its website of references to its domestic surveillance and censorship
activities. Here is the full report from the committee
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evosubsites/republicansjudiciary.house.gov/files/evo
mediadocument/cisastaffreport62623.pdf. Do not move the study bill forward!
Sharon Santema
If this bill passes, the use of electronic voting systems would be REQUIRED
statewide, with no exceptions. HSB 628, (Sections 3, 4 and 15), removes the one
option our auditors have to hand count ballots for cities and districts with population
of less than 3,500.Our elected officials who are concerned about having transparent,
accurate and accountable elections, would be introducing legislation requiring Iowa
to use handcounted serialized paper ballots, election day a holiday, same day results
in all elections statewide. The Republican National Committee’s resolution “Return
to Excellence,” passed 1680, promotes this simple, local, honest way of conducting
elections. The Cast Vote Records (“replay” the election without identifying voters)
from 1/3 of the counties of the U.S. and across multiple vendors prove that voting
systems across the country are online and manipulated, ensuring that a
predetermined candidate “wins” the election. See magaraccoon.com. In Iowa, these
Cast Vote Records were not allowed to be released to the public, except in one
county. Iowa’s election system vendors, Dominion, ES&S and Unisyn do not allow
anyone to see inside the voting machines to examine the hardware nor
software.Wireless monitoring devices will be in the hands of many election officials
as well as the public for the November 2024 election. These handheld devices will
indicate whether an election machine is online in real time.Section 5 of this bill is
also very dangerous. It addresses the “certification” and State approval of electronic
pollbooks. Our voting systems are supposed to be “certified” and approved by the
State also, but have proven to be extremely vulnerable to hacking. We need to go
back to the old fashioned way of using computerized, offline paper poll books.Please
do not advance HSB 628 out of Subcommittee, unless it is ammended with these
recommendations.
Randy Hefel
Comment:
In the Iowa Constitution, Article One. Bill of Rights. Political Power. SEC. 2. It
states, All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the
protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right, at all times, to
alter or reform the same, whenever the public may require it.The people want the
first option to be hand counted paper ballots because it is the safest and most secure.
All electronic voting systems are hackable (including Electronic Poll Books) and
therefore unreliable regardless of what the SOS may otherwise be telling us.A high
percentage of Iowa voters do not trust our election system. This can be seen by a
recent poll asking if the GOP people of Iowa believe if Trump won the 2020 election:
CAUCUS IOWA POLLS: By Galen Bacharier, Des Moines Register:A majority of
Iowa’s likely GOP caucus goers believe Trump won in 2020, Iowa Poll finds:Slightly
more than half of likely Republican caucus goers believe Trump’s claims he won the
2020 election, 41% do not and 8% aren’t sure according to a Des Moines
Register/NBC News/Mediacom Iowa Poll.We do not want you legislating away our
right(s) to hand count paper ballots for 3500 or less. We do not want Electronic Poll
Books or any electronic voting device. We do not want our state commissioner
certifying standards including operational and security standards for electronic poll
books when these poll book standards are suppose to be covered by Help America
Vote Act (HAVA). Please vote this bill down so it does not move forward.
Mary Krueger
Taking away the right of cities to manage elections by requiring electronic processing
is over reach. Let the cities decide for themselves.
Cheryl Tillman
The Iowa volunteer citizens disagree with portions of HSB 628 in that:1) this bill
removes the choice of a county commissioner of elections to choose whether to use
automatic tabulating equipment in smaller elections. We believe that the decision of
whether or not to use automatic tabulating equipment should be made in ALL
ELECTIONS at the local level, which is with the COUNTY commissioner of
elections. This local input is where Public Trust in the elections start. 2) Electronic
poll books or any electronic voting machines that are connected to the internet are
vulnerable and evidence has shown them to have been hacked. 3) The current
process of postelection audits needs thirdparty cyber review and recommendations
for transparency for ROBUST postelection audits of the election processes and
procedures. All the public concerns must be addressed in this bill before going
forward.
Philip Tillman
Regarding HSB 628: I object to the proposed changes in this bill to remove the
option to hand count. To move toward total dependence on voting machines is a bad
decision given the overwhelming evidence of fraud in using them. We the people
want more transparency in elections and we want our votes to count, not be washed
away by these unreliable voting machines.
Leah Nordman
Please get rid of the electronic voting equipment. I, as a proud Iowan, implore you to
NOT allow this bill to go any further.I absolutely DO NOT trust the voting
equipment due to evident vulnerabilities from outside influences and bad actors as
proven over and over again in the past two decades.I am tired of this continuous
push toward this vulnerable technology instead of relying on humans to perform the
honest, reliable, respected, accountable work of hand counting when it involves our
vital, precious individual right to make our choices as to who we want representing
us.There is not a machine or any technology that could EVER be trusted to operate
in any way, shape or form, with the honesty, integrity, and sense of duty and pride
that an election requires. Our trust as voters depends on these characteristics and
these characteristics are human, NOT technological.I want someone in my
community to count my vote as I submitted it, not some source from another state or
country determining through a machine if I really meant to vote the way I did!Stop
pursuing the use electronic voting technology and give the privilege back to the
humans!!
Comment:
Thomas McInerney
I oppose the proposed elimination of the option, regardless of cost, for the local
commissioner of elections to hand count ballots in elections with small turnout. The
deference to accepting voting machines as the only means in conducting elections is
tone deaf to the public concerns of the reliability and cost of their use.
Rafaela Cadena
I strongly oppose this bill. We need to keep the power with the commissioners and
be able to hand count for precincts 3500 or less. Nothing should be removed or
changed.
Sharon Schiefen
The elected officials need to be listening to the people who have put them into office.
Citizens have been very concerned with election integrity for the last few years and
one of the solutions that has been pushed forward is to go back to hand counting. For
the SOS to be trying to change laws that would go directly against this makes me
question who this will be benefiting. If anything, this law should be changed to allow
any county, any size to decide if they would like to go back to hand counting. I would
also object to the State officials from removing the authority previously held by the
Local counties by removing their control of choosing the electronic registers and poll
books. We now know that having the State level determine that we should be on
ERIC system, was a bad idea, let’s keep our elections at a local level.
Terese Jurgensen
I would like to echo comments that have already been submitted. Our county has
been divided, and I believe it is evident that our election integrity is in shambles. We
need and demand hand counted ballots. I oppose this bill. Terese Jurgensen
Michael Bayer
I strongly oppose sections 3,4, and 15 of this bill. There is no justification to remove
an option the county commissioner has to hand count ballots if that makes sense for
them. The SOS always says that in Iowa it is easy to vote and hard to cheat. These
sections of this bill does neither.My experience with the SOS office and the
experience of my associates is that the SOS is not at all transparent when it comes to
their processes and motivations. We should treat any bill from the SOS with
suspicion. What is the motivation for including moving to eliminate any possibility of
hand counting ballots from Iowa law? Automatic tabulating machines are vulnerable
to hackers as recently demonstrated by Professor Halderson in a Georgia courtroom.
We need to allow hand counting and ultimately consider removing vulnerable
tabulators!
Amanda Borchers
It is a terrible idea to use electronic voting machines. I oppose this!!
Laura Carlson
This is not a good plan. We must be able to verify ballots. Period. Handcounting
ballots is important for election integrity. Electronic ballots are not transparent to
general public. I can go count ballots with my fellow citizens and verify counts. We
need to return to paper ballots.
Michael Bayer
Comment:
Section 6 of this bill takes away control of training by the county commissioner. Why
would election officials need to go to training for 2 elections that are held closely
together such as an election and a subsequent runoff election. This is a waste of
money and time. Let the local officials decide when training is needed!
Margaret Stoldorf
Please stop giving elections more political meaning. Towns 3500 population may not
have the means to use any means other than hand counting.With distrust for elections
at an extreme its time to reinforce and return trust in elections not use the heavy hand
of politics to remove whatever trust remains.Please do not move this bill forward!!
Tammy Kobza
I strongly oppose this bill. Just as the federal government is succeeding in their
disastrous overreach because states won’t push back, now you as state legislators
intend on taking away county control regarding our elections? No. We will not
tolerate such a grab and just as those of you who are already ignoring landowners’
private property rights are facing primariesthe same ones attempting to take away
our vote will face the same fate. Iowans are waking up. So do the right thing. Kill
this bill.
Robert Nazario
We must reestablish voter integrity at the polls and in our election processes. In order
to accomplish this, our voter rolls MUST be purged annually and a return to paper
ballots and hand counting is mandatory. Absentee ballots are accepted only by those
in military or jobs living abroad and have to be returned no later than Election Day.
Votes must be hand counted by trained individuals across the entire state regardless
of population. We must not facilitate voter fraud by keeping these machines in play.
If France can hand count ballots in their elections in one day; it can and should
happen here! We must also have forensic audits on the books and codified.
Lois Colleen Lawler
Comment:
Recent polling shows 43% of Americans have serious doubts about the honesty,
openness or both concerning the 2024 election (2023 Public Affairs Pulse Survey,
conducted Sept. 13 by Morning Consult). During such times, legislators should do
their utmost to keep the election process transparent and honest. There has been a
surge in public demand for paper ballots and hand counted results. HSB 268 would
remove the option for elections of less than 3,500 to be counted by hand. Prior to
widespread computer scanning tabulation machines in the 1960s, Iowa counted
1,273,810 votes in the NixonKennedy election. In 2020, Iowa tabulated 1,700,130
votes in the BidenTrump election. How is this such a change in ballot numbers that
the use of handcounts should no longer be an option? California recently attempted to
ban hand counting ballots, but even the bill Governor Newsome signed allows hand
counting ballots in small districts (AB969). Iowans should have local control over
the decision to handcount ballots.Concerning Sec.5.NEWSECTION.49.29
Electronic election register and poll book. On October 25, 2023, the U.S. Election
Assistance Commissions Election Supporting Technology Evaluation Program
(ESTEP) released findings from the Electronic Poll Book Pilot Program. This
technology appears to be in need of lots of work from the basic findings:
Background. Under the authority of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the EAC
developed ESTEP, which was formally established by hiring its first director in 2022.
ESTEP is responsible for the creation of draft standards and administration of pilot
programs for technologies not covered under the Voluntary Voting System
Guidelines (VVSG). In response to the increasing demands from the public and
various stakeholders, ESTEP piloted the nations first voluntary program for testing of
EPBs on the federal level, to determine if federal certification is a viable solution in
the foreseeable future of EPB usage during elections in the United States. Purpose.
This Pilot Program was designed to create testable guidelines and materials for
standardizing the security, accessibility, and usability of electronic poll books (EPBs)
in the United States. Ultimately, the main objective of this pilot program is to create
crossjurisdictional standards that ensure EPBs provide a positive user experience,
can defend against networkrelated security threats, minimize human errors, and
make the voting process accessible and efficient for all eligible voters.
https://www.eac.gov/estepprogram/electronicpollbooksFrom Ap News: Despite their
importance and potential vulnerabilities, national standards for the security and
reliability of electronic pollbooks do not exist and efforts underway to develop them
may not be ready or widely adopted in time for the 2024 presidential election. We
have a trust issue in elections. The more we can say there are standards that
equipment must be tested to, the better, said Larry Norden, an election security
expert with the Brennan Center for Justice. Its like a seal of approval that really
doesnt exist right
now.https://apnews.com/article/arizonaunitedstatesgovernment2022midtermelections
donaldtrumplosangeles651d0e923973daf28ff3b9d6105b4d74?
utmsource=copy&utmmedium=shareAdopting an electronic system which is neither
proven nor readily accessible to the public does nothing to assuage voter
apprehensions. Please stop these proposed changes to the voting code in
subcommittee and leave the current code as it stands. Thankyou for your
consideration.
Recent polling shows 43% of Americans have serious doubts about the honesty, openness or both
concerning the 2024 election (2023 Public Affairs Pulse Survey, conducted Sept. 1-3 by Morning Consult).
During such times, legislators should do their utmost to keep the election process transparent and
honest. There has been a surge in public demand for paper ballots and hand counted results. HSB 268
would remove the option for elections of less than 3,500 to be counted by hand. Prior to widespread
computer scanning tabulation machines in the 1960’s, Iowa counted 1,273,810 votes in the Nixon
Kennedy election. In 2020, Iowa tabulated 1,700,130 votes in the Biden-Trump election. How is this such
a change in ballot numbers that the use of hand-counts should no longer be an option? California
recently attempted to ban hand counting ballots, but even the bill Governor Newsome signed allows
hand counting ballots in small districts (AB969). Iowans should have local control over the decision to
hand-count ballots.
Concerning Sec.5.NEWSECTION.49.29 Electronic election register and poll book.
“On October 25, 2023, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s Election Supporting Technology
Evaluation Program (ESTEP) released findings from the Electronic Poll Book Pilot Program.” This
technology appears to be in need of lots of work from the basic findings:
“Background. Under the authority of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the EAC developed ESTEP,
which was formally established by hiring its first director in 2022. ESTEP is responsible for the creation of
draft standards and administration of pilot programs for technologies not covered under the Voluntary
Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). In response to the increasing demands from the public and various
stakeholders, ESTEP piloted the nation’s first voluntary program for testing of EPBs on the federal level,
to determine if federal certification is a viable solution in the foreseeable future of EPB usage during
elections in the United States.
Purpose. This Pilot Program was designed to create testable guidelines and materials for standardizing
the security, accessibility, and usability of electronic poll books (EPBs) in the United States. Ultimately,
the main objective of this pilot program is to create cross-jurisdictional standards that ensure EPBs
provide a positive user experience, can defend against network-related security threats, minimize human
errors, and make the voting process accessible and efficient for all eligible voters.”
https://www.eac.gov/estep-program/electronic-poll-books
From Ap News: “Despite their importance and potential vulnerabilities, national standards for the
security and reliability of electronic pollbooks do not exist and efforts underway to develop them may
not be ready or widely adopted in time for the 2024 presidential election.” ““We have a trust issue in
elections. The more we can say there are standards that equipment must be tested to, the better,” said
Larry Norden, an election security expert with the Brennan Center for Justice. “It’s like a seal of approval
that really doesn’t exist right now.””
https://apnews.com/article/arizona-united-states-government-2022-midterm-elections-donald-trump
los-angeles-651d0e923973daf28ff3b9d6105b4d74?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share
Adopting an electronic system which is neither proven nor readily accessible to the public does nothing
to assuage voter apprehensions.
Please stop these proposed changes to the voting code in subcommittee and leave the current code as it
stands. Thank-you for your consideration.
Nicholas Thompson
Comment:
I vehemently oppose this as this bill removes powerfrom our local representatives to
hold elections intheir own way. Trust in our elections and morespecifically the
machines that tabulate them is at anall time low.. this would only worsen it. We
should bemoving the other way.
“Fingerprints of Fraud” 2020 Election Cast Vote Record Report, Volume 1
Summary of Findings
by Jeffrey O’Donnell ([email protected])
The information presented here is a top-level summary of the “Fingerprints of Fraud, Volume 1” report. Much additional
supporting information can be found in the complete report, available at https://FingerprintsOfFraud.com.
The findings are taken from the 2020 General Election Cast Vote Records (CVR) of 202 counties from nine states, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, West Virginia. A CVR is a record produced by the election
computer which shows each ballot processed and the votes which were counted on it, in most cases, in the order of
processing. (If the order of the CVR was changed or sorted, this analysis cannot be performed.) They can also include the
precinct, tabulator, batch, ballot style, and voting method. No voter-specific information is included.
Because mail-in ballots can be expected to be received and processed by the county in a random order, only mail-in
ballots are used in the analysis. Since they show a random receipt pattern (based on metrics such as precinct
distribution of the ballots), the votes upon them should generally follow the Law of Large Numbers, which dictates that
the more samples you have of a random population, the closer their cumulative average should be to the final average.
(Think of a series of coin flips or dice rolls).
1. 168 of the 202 counties, or 80%, fall into a similar pattern where there is an initial high advantage for the
Democrat candidate, and at some time before the midway point that average gradually turns toward the
Republican candidate. Following is a sample that shows this pattern in Mesa County, Colorado.
The red lines on the left-hand chart, which shows the percent of mail-in votes for Donald Trump during the
counting (shown in blue), indicate the range which would be expected from the Law of Large Numbers. Instead
of expressing the expected pattern, there is a large initial series of votes favorable to Biden, followed by the
general gradual increase to the final average. The right-hand chart shows the Trump percentage for each
consecutive 100-ballot batch, and the gradual upward pattern is apparent. As I first noticed this phenomenon in
this county, I refer to this as the “Mesa Pattern”.
2. The 168 counties referenced above also share a “predictive” aspect. Namely, the percentage which Donald
Trump had at the end of the counting is 1.1 to 1.3x the percentage he had at the midpoint (with most hovering
closely around 1.2).
3. Nearly all the remaining counties which did not show the Mesa Pattern were either very small (under 4,000 total
ballots) or showed signs that the CVR was sorted by precinct or other index.
4. Statistically speaking, the chances of 168 counties in 9 states spread across the country demonstrating this same
unnatural pattern are too low to be calculated.
5. The 168 counties showing the Mesa Pattern spanned five different election vendors: Dominion Voting Systems,
ES&S, Hart Intercivic, Clear Ballot, and Smartmatic.
6. Numerous counties in other states also demonstrate this pattern and will be detailed in future volumes of the
report.
These findings demonstrate proof that the mail-in votes in the 2020 General elections in those states were altered via a
software algorithm. Please see the entire report (URL above) to view the complete details of each county analyzed.
You should have also included in your article the comments section left in regards to this proposed bill. I have cut and pasted the comments below, but you can verify them by going to the state’s website for the bill. I believe all of them are against the bill!!
HSB628
Comment Report
A bill for an act relating to the administration of elections.
Subcommittee Members: Harris-CH, Siegrist, Zabner
Date: 02/01/2024
Time: 02:30 PM
Location: RM 103, Sup. Ct. Chamber
Comment:
Diane Holst
At a time when a wave of the voting population would like to go back to the option
of hand counting ballots, regardless of the population of a county, for this legislation
to do the complete opposite is being unaware of this desire. I will leave it to others to
continue with that concern. I want to draw peoples attention to lines 2434 on page 2
of HSB 628. The state is taking control of what registration and poll book product
that can be used. YET, has not determined the certification standards. These
nonvoting election technology products are not covered by the HAVA mandates that
require the EAC accrediting process that voting systems undertake. This is the space
occupied by companies such as Knowink, Tenex, BPro, VR Systems, etc. that have
recently come under scrutiny for their origins and vulnerabilities. Putting this
legislation forward without having the certification standards defined and the
opportunity for the public and our law makers to be able to review and comment is a
total disregard for our legislative process. And who will be setting these certification
standards? CIS, CISA? I give you but one bullet from the headlines of the House
Judiciary Committees report, In response to mounting public scrutiny, CISA
scrubbed its website of references to its domestic surveillance and censorship
activities. Here is the full report from the committee
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evosubsites/republicansjudiciary.house.gov/files/evo
mediadocument/cisastaffreport62623.pdf. Do not move the study bill forward!
Sharon Santema
If this bill passes, the use of electronic voting systems would be REQUIRED
statewide, with no exceptions. HSB 628, (Sections 3, 4 and 15), removes the one
option our auditors have to hand count ballots for cities and districts with population
of less than 3,500.Our elected officials who are concerned about having transparent,
accurate and accountable elections, would be introducing legislation requiring Iowa
to use handcounted serialized paper ballots, election day a holiday, same day results
in all elections statewide. The Republican National Committee’s resolution “Return
to Excellence,” passed 1680, promotes this simple, local, honest way of conducting
elections. The Cast Vote Records (“replay” the election without identifying voters)
from 1/3 of the counties of the U.S. and across multiple vendors prove that voting
systems across the country are online and manipulated, ensuring that a
predetermined candidate “wins” the election. See magaraccoon.com. In Iowa, these
Cast Vote Records were not allowed to be released to the public, except in one
county. Iowa’s election system vendors, Dominion, ES&S and Unisyn do not allow
anyone to see inside the voting machines to examine the hardware nor
software.Wireless monitoring devices will be in the hands of many election officials
as well as the public for the November 2024 election. These handheld devices will
indicate whether an election machine is online in real time.Section 5 of this bill is
also very dangerous. It addresses the “certification” and State approval of electronic
pollbooks. Our voting systems are supposed to be “certified” and approved by the
State also, but have proven to be extremely vulnerable to hacking. We need to go
back to the old fashioned way of using computerized, offline paper poll books.Please
do not advance HSB 628 out of Subcommittee, unless it is ammended with these
recommendations.
Randy Hefel
Comment:
In the Iowa Constitution, Article One. Bill of Rights. Political Power. SEC. 2. It
states, All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the
protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right, at all times, to
alter or reform the same, whenever the public may require it.The people want the
first option to be hand counted paper ballots because it is the safest and most secure.
All electronic voting systems are hackable (including Electronic Poll Books) and
therefore unreliable regardless of what the SOS may otherwise be telling us.A high
percentage of Iowa voters do not trust our election system. This can be seen by a
recent poll asking if the GOP people of Iowa believe if Trump won the 2020 election:
CAUCUS IOWA POLLS: By Galen Bacharier, Des Moines Register:A majority of
Iowa’s likely GOP caucus goers believe Trump won in 2020, Iowa Poll finds:Slightly
more than half of likely Republican caucus goers believe Trump’s claims he won the
2020 election, 41% do not and 8% aren’t sure according to a Des Moines
Register/NBC News/Mediacom Iowa Poll.We do not want you legislating away our
right(s) to hand count paper ballots for 3500 or less. We do not want Electronic Poll
Books or any electronic voting device. We do not want our state commissioner
certifying standards including operational and security standards for electronic poll
books when these poll book standards are suppose to be covered by Help America
Vote Act (HAVA). Please vote this bill down so it does not move forward.
Mary Krueger
Taking away the right of cities to manage elections by requiring electronic processing
is over reach. Let the cities decide for themselves.
Cheryl Tillman
The Iowa volunteer citizens disagree with portions of HSB 628 in that:1) this bill
removes the choice of a county commissioner of elections to choose whether to use
automatic tabulating equipment in smaller elections. We believe that the decision of
whether or not to use automatic tabulating equipment should be made in ALL
ELECTIONS at the local level, which is with the COUNTY commissioner of
elections. This local input is where Public Trust in the elections start. 2) Electronic
poll books or any electronic voting machines that are connected to the internet are
vulnerable and evidence has shown them to have been hacked. 3) The current
process of postelection audits needs thirdparty cyber review and recommendations
for transparency for ROBUST postelection audits of the election processes and
procedures. All the public concerns must be addressed in this bill before going
forward.
Philip Tillman
Regarding HSB 628: I object to the proposed changes in this bill to remove the
option to hand count. To move toward total dependence on voting machines is a bad
decision given the overwhelming evidence of fraud in using them. We the people
want more transparency in elections and we want our votes to count, not be washed
away by these unreliable voting machines.
Leah Nordman
Please get rid of the electronic voting equipment. I, as a proud Iowan, implore you to
NOT allow this bill to go any further.I absolutely DO NOT trust the voting
equipment due to evident vulnerabilities from outside influences and bad actors as
proven over and over again in the past two decades.I am tired of this continuous
push toward this vulnerable technology instead of relying on humans to perform the
honest, reliable, respected, accountable work of hand counting when it involves our
vital, precious individual right to make our choices as to who we want representing
us.There is not a machine or any technology that could EVER be trusted to operate
in any way, shape or form, with the honesty, integrity, and sense of duty and pride
that an election requires. Our trust as voters depends on these characteristics and
these characteristics are human, NOT technological.I want someone in my
community to count my vote as I submitted it, not some source from another state or
country determining through a machine if I really meant to vote the way I did!Stop
pursuing the use electronic voting technology and give the privilege back to the
humans!!
Comment:
Thomas McInerney
I oppose the proposed elimination of the option, regardless of cost, for the local
commissioner of elections to hand count ballots in elections with small turnout. The
deference to accepting voting machines as the only means in conducting elections is
tone deaf to the public concerns of the reliability and cost of their use.
Rafaela Cadena
I strongly oppose this bill. We need to keep the power with the commissioners and
be able to hand count for precincts 3500 or less. Nothing should be removed or
changed.
Sharon Schiefen
The elected officials need to be listening to the people who have put them into office.
Citizens have been very concerned with election integrity for the last few years and
one of the solutions that has been pushed forward is to go back to hand counting. For
the SOS to be trying to change laws that would go directly against this makes me
question who this will be benefiting. If anything, this law should be changed to allow
any county, any size to decide if they would like to go back to hand counting. I would
also object to the State officials from removing the authority previously held by the
Local counties by removing their control of choosing the electronic registers and poll
books. We now know that having the State level determine that we should be on
ERIC system, was a bad idea, let’s keep our elections at a local level.
Terese Jurgensen
I would like to echo comments that have already been submitted. Our county has
been divided, and I believe it is evident that our election integrity is in shambles. We
need and demand hand counted ballots. I oppose this bill. Terese Jurgensen
Michael Bayer
I strongly oppose sections 3,4, and 15 of this bill. There is no justification to remove
an option the county commissioner has to hand count ballots if that makes sense for
them. The SOS always says that in Iowa it is easy to vote and hard to cheat. These
sections of this bill does neither.My experience with the SOS office and the
experience of my associates is that the SOS is not at all transparent when it comes to
their processes and motivations. We should treat any bill from the SOS with
suspicion. What is the motivation for including moving to eliminate any possibility of
hand counting ballots from Iowa law? Automatic tabulating machines are vulnerable
to hackers as recently demonstrated by Professor Halderson in a Georgia courtroom.
We need to allow hand counting and ultimately consider removing vulnerable
tabulators!
Amanda Borchers
It is a terrible idea to use electronic voting machines. I oppose this!!
Laura Carlson
This is not a good plan. We must be able to verify ballots. Period. Handcounting
ballots is important for election integrity. Electronic ballots are not transparent to
general public. I can go count ballots with my fellow citizens and verify counts. We
need to return to paper ballots.
Michael Bayer
Comment:
Section 6 of this bill takes away control of training by the county commissioner. Why
would election officials need to go to training for 2 elections that are held closely
together such as an election and a subsequent runoff election. This is a waste of
money and time. Let the local officials decide when training is needed!
Margaret Stoldorf
Please stop giving elections more political meaning. Towns 3500 population may not
have the means to use any means other than hand counting.With distrust for elections
at an extreme its time to reinforce and return trust in elections not use the heavy hand
of politics to remove whatever trust remains.Please do not move this bill forward!!
Tammy Kobza
I strongly oppose this bill. Just as the federal government is succeeding in their
disastrous overreach because states won’t push back, now you as state legislators
intend on taking away county control regarding our elections? No. We will not
tolerate such a grab and just as those of you who are already ignoring landowners’
private property rights are facing primariesthe same ones attempting to take away
our vote will face the same fate. Iowans are waking up. So do the right thing. Kill
this bill.
Robert Nazario
We must reestablish voter integrity at the polls and in our election processes. In order
to accomplish this, our voter rolls MUST be purged annually and a return to paper
ballots and hand counting is mandatory. Absentee ballots are accepted only by those
in military or jobs living abroad and have to be returned no later than Election Day.
Votes must be hand counted by trained individuals across the entire state regardless
of population. We must not facilitate voter fraud by keeping these machines in play.
If France can hand count ballots in their elections in one day; it can and should
happen here! We must also have forensic audits on the books and codified.
Lois Colleen Lawler
Comment:
Recent polling shows 43% of Americans have serious doubts about the honesty,
openness or both concerning the 2024 election (2023 Public Affairs Pulse Survey,
conducted Sept. 13 by Morning Consult). During such times, legislators should do
their utmost to keep the election process transparent and honest. There has been a
surge in public demand for paper ballots and hand counted results. HSB 268 would
remove the option for elections of less than 3,500 to be counted by hand. Prior to
widespread computer scanning tabulation machines in the 1960s, Iowa counted
1,273,810 votes in the NixonKennedy election. In 2020, Iowa tabulated 1,700,130
votes in the BidenTrump election. How is this such a change in ballot numbers that
the use of handcounts should no longer be an option? California recently attempted to
ban hand counting ballots, but even the bill Governor Newsome signed allows hand
counting ballots in small districts (AB969). Iowans should have local control over
the decision to handcount ballots.Concerning Sec.5.NEWSECTION.49.29
Electronic election register and poll book. On October 25, 2023, the U.S. Election
Assistance Commissions Election Supporting Technology Evaluation Program
(ESTEP) released findings from the Electronic Poll Book Pilot Program. This
technology appears to be in need of lots of work from the basic findings:
Background. Under the authority of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the EAC
developed ESTEP, which was formally established by hiring its first director in 2022.
ESTEP is responsible for the creation of draft standards and administration of pilot
programs for technologies not covered under the Voluntary Voting System
Guidelines (VVSG). In response to the increasing demands from the public and
various stakeholders, ESTEP piloted the nations first voluntary program for testing of
EPBs on the federal level, to determine if federal certification is a viable solution in
the foreseeable future of EPB usage during elections in the United States. Purpose.
This Pilot Program was designed to create testable guidelines and materials for
standardizing the security, accessibility, and usability of electronic poll books (EPBs)
in the United States. Ultimately, the main objective of this pilot program is to create
crossjurisdictional standards that ensure EPBs provide a positive user experience,
can defend against networkrelated security threats, minimize human errors, and
make the voting process accessible and efficient for all eligible voters.
https://www.eac.gov/estepprogram/electronicpollbooksFrom Ap News: Despite their
importance and potential vulnerabilities, national standards for the security and
reliability of electronic pollbooks do not exist and efforts underway to develop them
may not be ready or widely adopted in time for the 2024 presidential election. We
have a trust issue in elections. The more we can say there are standards that
equipment must be tested to, the better, said Larry Norden, an election security
expert with the Brennan Center for Justice. Its like a seal of approval that really
doesnt exist right
now.https://apnews.com/article/arizonaunitedstatesgovernment2022midtermelections
donaldtrumplosangeles651d0e923973daf28ff3b9d6105b4d74?
utmsource=copy&utmmedium=shareAdopting an electronic system which is neither
proven nor readily accessible to the public does nothing to assuage voter
apprehensions. Please stop these proposed changes to the voting code in
subcommittee and leave the current code as it stands. Thankyou for your
consideration.
Recent polling shows 43% of Americans have serious doubts about the honesty, openness or both
concerning the 2024 election (2023 Public Affairs Pulse Survey, conducted Sept. 1-3 by Morning Consult).
During such times, legislators should do their utmost to keep the election process transparent and
honest. There has been a surge in public demand for paper ballots and hand counted results. HSB 268
would remove the option for elections of less than 3,500 to be counted by hand. Prior to widespread
computer scanning tabulation machines in the 1960’s, Iowa counted 1,273,810 votes in the Nixon
Kennedy election. In 2020, Iowa tabulated 1,700,130 votes in the Biden-Trump election. How is this such
a change in ballot numbers that the use of hand-counts should no longer be an option? California
recently attempted to ban hand counting ballots, but even the bill Governor Newsome signed allows
hand counting ballots in small districts (AB969). Iowans should have local control over the decision to
hand-count ballots.
Concerning Sec.5.NEWSECTION.49.29 Electronic election register and poll book.
“On October 25, 2023, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s Election Supporting Technology
Evaluation Program (ESTEP) released findings from the Electronic Poll Book Pilot Program.” This
technology appears to be in need of lots of work from the basic findings:
“Background. Under the authority of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the EAC developed ESTEP,
which was formally established by hiring its first director in 2022. ESTEP is responsible for the creation of
draft standards and administration of pilot programs for technologies not covered under the Voluntary
Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). In response to the increasing demands from the public and various
stakeholders, ESTEP piloted the nation’s first voluntary program for testing of EPBs on the federal level,
to determine if federal certification is a viable solution in the foreseeable future of EPB usage during
elections in the United States.
Purpose. This Pilot Program was designed to create testable guidelines and materials for standardizing
the security, accessibility, and usability of electronic poll books (EPBs) in the United States. Ultimately,
the main objective of this pilot program is to create cross-jurisdictional standards that ensure EPBs
provide a positive user experience, can defend against network-related security threats, minimize human
errors, and make the voting process accessible and efficient for all eligible voters.”
https://www.eac.gov/estep-program/electronic-poll-books
From Ap News: “Despite their importance and potential vulnerabilities, national standards for the
security and reliability of electronic pollbooks do not exist and efforts underway to develop them may
not be ready or widely adopted in time for the 2024 presidential election.” ““We have a trust issue in
elections. The more we can say there are standards that equipment must be tested to, the better,” said
Larry Norden, an election security expert with the Brennan Center for Justice. “It’s like a seal of approval
that really doesn’t exist right now.””
https://apnews.com/article/arizona-united-states-government-2022-midterm-elections-donald-trump
los-angeles-651d0e923973daf28ff3b9d6105b4d74?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share
Adopting an electronic system which is neither proven nor readily accessible to the public does nothing
to assuage voter apprehensions.
Please stop these proposed changes to the voting code in subcommittee and leave the current code as it
stands. Thank-you for your consideration.
Nicholas Thompson
Comment:
I vehemently oppose this as this bill removes powerfrom our local representatives to
hold elections intheir own way. Trust in our elections and morespecifically the
machines that tabulate them is at anall time low.. this would only worsen it. We
should bemoving the other way.
“Fingerprints of Fraud” 2020 Election Cast Vote Record Report, Volume 1
Summary of Findings
by Jeffrey O’Donnell ([email protected])
The information presented here is a top-level summary of the “Fingerprints of Fraud, Volume 1” report. Much additional
supporting information can be found in the complete report, available at https://FingerprintsOfFraud.com.
The findings are taken from the 2020 General Election Cast Vote Records (CVR) of 202 counties from nine states, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, West Virginia. A CVR is a record produced by the election
computer which shows each ballot processed and the votes which were counted on it, in most cases, in the order of
processing. (If the order of the CVR was changed or sorted, this analysis cannot be performed.) They can also include the
precinct, tabulator, batch, ballot style, and voting method. No voter-specific information is included.
Because mail-in ballots can be expected to be received and processed by the county in a random order, only mail-in
ballots are used in the analysis. Since they show a random receipt pattern (based on metrics such as precinct
distribution of the ballots), the votes upon them should generally follow the Law of Large Numbers, which dictates that
the more samples you have of a random population, the closer their cumulative average should be to the final average.
(Think of a series of coin flips or dice rolls).
1. 168 of the 202 counties, or 80%, fall into a similar pattern where there is an initial high advantage for the
Democrat candidate, and at some time before the midway point that average gradually turns toward the
Republican candidate. Following is a sample that shows this pattern in Mesa County, Colorado.
The red lines on the left-hand chart, which shows the percent of mail-in votes for Donald Trump during the
counting (shown in blue), indicate the range which would be expected from the Law of Large Numbers. Instead
of expressing the expected pattern, there is a large initial series of votes favorable to Biden, followed by the
general gradual increase to the final average. The right-hand chart shows the Trump percentage for each
consecutive 100-ballot batch, and the gradual upward pattern is apparent. As I first noticed this phenomenon in
this county, I refer to this as the “Mesa Pattern”.
2. The 168 counties referenced above also share a “predictive” aspect. Namely, the percentage which Donald
Trump had at the end of the counting is 1.1 to 1.3x the percentage he had at the midpoint (with most hovering
closely around 1.2).
3. Nearly all the remaining counties which did not show the Mesa Pattern were either very small (under 4,000 total
ballots) or showed signs that the CVR was sorted by precinct or other index.
4. Statistically speaking, the chances of 168 counties in 9 states spread across the country demonstrating this same
unnatural pattern are too low to be calculated.
5. The 168 counties showing the Mesa Pattern spanned five different election vendors: Dominion Voting Systems,
ES&S, Hart Intercivic, Clear Ballot, and Smartmatic.
6. Numerous counties in other states also demonstrate this pattern and will be detailed in future volumes of the
report.
These findings demonstrate proof that the mail-in votes in the 2020 General elections in those states were altered via a
software algorithm. Please see the entire report (URL above) to view the complete details of each county analyzed.