Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
In May, Secretary of State Debra Bowen — who oversees elections — sent a letter to Election Systems and Software, the provider of The City’s electonic voting machines, saying she would not grant an extension on the certification for San Francisco’s voting system as the company had requested.
ES&S subsequently submitted an updated version of the voting software June 25 that it expects will be certified for the February 2008 primary election, according to company spokeswoman Jill Friedman-Wilson. In the meantime, the company is under the impression that the state will allow it to once again use the older system, she said.
However, the former secretary of state told ES&S in September 2006 that the system would not be administratively certified, said Nicole Winger, spokeswoman for Bowen.
“Nevertheless, in April, ES&S ignored the prior warnings and asked Secretary Bowen for a fourth ‘one-time’ administrative certification of their seriously flawed system,” Winger wrote in an e-mail. “Of course, Secretary Bowen declined.”
The state is working to create a contingency plan for San Francisco, said Winger, who added that she couldn’t discuss any of the alternate ideas for counting ballots at this time.
San Francisco is preparing itself for the possibility that ballots will need to be hand-counted, according to a June 28 memo that John Arntz, the director of elections, sent to Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors.
Arntz was not available for comment Tuesday, but told The Examiner in May that the cost to count all the ballots, based on an estimate determined in 2004 when The City faced a similar problem, would be roughly $1 million — and it could take as long as a month. State law allows counties 28 days to complete their accounting of ballots.
In his June letter to city officials, Arntz said it would take an estimated 400 people to conduct a manual count of a citywide election — which the department predicts will bring in 208,000 voters. Since each voter is expected to cast as many as 15 votes, between measures and contests for elected officials, election workers would have to tally more than 3 million votes, he said.
The concerns about possible handcounting could have been avoided, because The City had other options, said Newsom, who added that he was “utterly perplexed” by a January decision by the Board of Supervisors not to approve a $12.6 million, four-year contract for a new electronic-voting system with a different company.
The contract was never approved due to the high cost, the potential for the equipment to become obsolete and concerns that the deal — with Oakland-based Sequoia Voting Systems — didn’t provide public access to the source codes, the system of computer programming, Supervisor Chris Daly told The Examiner in May. Daly was at the time chairman of the Board’s Budget and Finance Committee.
Share your comments below.



Comments from Examiner Readers
12:19 AM MST on Fri., Sep. 21, 2007 re: "S.F.’s vote tally will come late"
Report as inappropriate
10:46 PM MST on Thu., Aug. 23, 2007
re: "State: S.F. may have been swindled"
Report as inappropriate
11:46 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 18, 2007
re: "Hands may replace digits in November vote count"
Report as inappropriate
2:56 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 18, 2007
re: "Hands may replace digits in November vote count"
Report as inappropriate
12:52 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 18, 2007
re: "Hands may replace digits in November vote count"
Report as inappropriate
12:05 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 18, 2007
re: "Hands may replace digits in November vote count"
Report as inappropriate
10:40 AM MST on Wed., Jul. 18, 2007
re: "Hands may replace digits in November vote count"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Maybe folks in San Francisco will give up the ridiculous boutique style voting called Instant Runoff Voting. That is one of the biggest delays in the vote counting process. Oh, thats right, SF renamed it "rankec choice voting", since it is not instant. It appears that IRV has actually created a glass ceiling that keeps incumbents in, and bold minority or female challengers out. Gotta love that incumbent protection. Guess its worth all that huge expense. But it gives people a good feeling to rank their choices, even if it is a waste of time.
315 agree | 293 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Go back to paper ballots, counted on optical scanners, the results will be in just as fast and with paper ballots, they will be able to be audited accurately, which computerized voting machines do not permit.
291 agree | 273 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Sacha said:
“Our system will most likely be able to be used in the November 2007 election.” John Arntz, July 18th, 2007 I find it irresponsible to print a front-page story about San Francisco elections without interviewing the San Francisco Director of Elections, John Arntz. In your article you state that "city officials (are left with) no other choice but to prepare for a possible hand count of The City’s expected 3 million-plus votes in November.” At tonight's Election Commission meeting Director Arntz stated on the record: "A hand count is not the plan. We are still planning to go with ES&S." "We intend to use the ES&S system. We have a contract to use the ES&S system," he said. As far as not having a certified system for the next election, Director Arntz did not seem worried either. When asked about a certification deadline that would allow an alternate solution to be implemented he said, "Our system got certified on October 29th or October 26th for the November 2007 election. (cont
270 agree | 311 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
A 4 year, $12.6 million contract for outdated, untested, and not yet certified machines with secret software, or spend $1 million per election for a hand count you can trust, if our current machines can't be used? Seems like Newsom needs to get up to date on this issue.
336 agree | 298 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Bob said:
I think its all for progranda from City Hall to keep some employees on the payroll.
312 agree | 317 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Beverly Eden said:
Congratulations to our Board of Supervisors and to Debra Bowen for making the tough but correct decisions to ensure San Francisco's votes are counted as cast. It would have been much easier to rubber stamp the proprietary sourced voting machines. I would be happy to volunteer to help count the votes.
272 agree | 303 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
San Francisco has nothing to fear if it has to hand count our ballots. New Hampshire, with about the same number of people, does it all the time. We can do it too. The most important thing is to be sure we can TRUST THE RESULTS. Sequoia and other voting machines, like Diebold whose owner boasted that they'd carry Ohio for Bush, simply cannot be trusted. The secret source code running their machines can be hacked, by their operatives and by others, and we'd never know it. Computer code running the voting machines must be publicly disclosed and fully examined. We should wait for that to happen before we invest $12M in buying new, secret code systems. Alec Bash
289 agree | 325 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree