Honorable Senators,I am in opposition of this bill. SB1517-1 is continued effort to remove the requirement to destroy theunused ballots on election night at 8 PMImmeasurable time and effort has been spent on the numerous bills that have come to this legislatureover the last several years regarding this statute ORS 254.483. Our representatives have
beenconvinced that it is a good bill. To this point it has been rightly rejected. Yet the proponents of this bill,continue, to pursue this change in law, putting in at every opportunity. It wearies the most vigilantcitizens.Several citizens have observed election processes in Multnomah County over the last several years. Weasked for Mr. McCullough and Mr. Nisbet to evaluate the electronic security of Multnomah County.McCullough Research is a highly successful research company that found the Enron scandal from theiroffice in Portland. They are well versed on corporate computer fraud. They made a report at the end oftheir evaluation of Multnomah County Elections. I have attached it to this email. If the electronicsecurity could be compromised as the report says is possible, that with the presence of unused ballotscan only leave us to consider the vulnerability of our election process to mischief. Not forgetting thatthere is plenty of motive for mischief. The results of the election will determine how billions of dollarsare spent. Integrity in our election process is vital. We must uphold the highest of standards possible.
Unused ballots must not remain in play. They are only one piece of the process however.Combine them with electronic security problems as listed above and you have a troublingscenario.
You may be interested in the linked an article I wrote, which was published on theOregon Catalyst.It
references the attached report on Electronic Security at Multnomah County Elections Division.
Our time on election reform would be better spent adding safeguards for electronic security of the counting machines in the sited passages of ORS. This has been ignored, and is not found inthe ORS. The pc that tabulates the machine is not examined for compromising software. Thisshould be part of the review before the elections,
with a both parties present. The pc should trulybe isolated without USB drive ports, in it's own enclosure. A printer should print the results.Paper is the mode of transportation of the data to the outside. The paper can be scanned into theoutside office pc. A reporting function for a security breach is also absent in the law. The publichas a right to know if their election has been compromised.
The undisclosed security plan should only include the most basic functions as in the security codes forthe office. Counting and Storing ballots is not a mystery. It is an accounting process and should be opento the oversight of the public.The proponents of this bill site the following reasons to pursue this bill. Here are some solutions.'The language is confusing.' (Solution: The law has 3 requirements, which are to destroy, secure andcount the unused ballots. Most folks would count them before destroying them. It is just logical tocount them first, then destroy. Hopefully they were secure throughout the process.)'The ballots are needed to give and account of the the total ballots used at the end of the time when arecall could be called (40 days post election).' (Solution: Count the ballots by election board members.These are bi-partisan members trained to do these functions. They can do this just prior to the stated 8