Category: Elections

The Mailbox Won’t Save Us: Exclusive Interview with County Clerk Amelia Powers-Gardner

Posted on by itops

Below is the transcription of an interview conducted by David Cohen, Co-Founder and Managing Director of Techstars, the global platform for investment and innovation that connects entrepreneurs, investors, and corporations. 

David interviewed Amelia Powers-Gardner on this year’s election, her experience deploying the latest technology on the front lines, and more.

Amelia Powers-Gardner is county clerk of Utah County in Utah and was sworn into office in January 2019. Amelia is one of Government Technology 2020’s Top 25 Doers, Dreamers and Drivers.

(view full interview here)

David Cohen: Amelia, let’s start by talking about the Utah County election system for managing voting before you got there. I think the headline that announced your rival said something like Power has a way forward to fix the dysfunction in the elections office. So how was it like when you found it?

Amelia Powers-Gardner: The elections office when I came in, was really severely under resourced, and it was like all of their processes had been put together piecemeal. They had gone to vote by mail about a year and a half earlier, and in that process, they hadn’t laid out a workflow they had just kind of added a whole bunch of elements and shoved them together. They processed ballots in two buildings on three floors in six locations, moving ballots back and forth. At the polling locations, they were significantly under resourced, and that caused long lines, and basically a lot of chaos. Also, there was really no way to communicate with voters. They had no social media accounts, no email lists, no active communication with the voters. So dysfunction is probably a pretty good way to describe how it was.

David Cohen: One of the maverick sort of things that I know Utah County happens to be the first in the country to allow people with disabilities to vote remotely, tell me about the original conversation there and how that played out?

Amelia Powers-Gardner: Yeah, we did a pilot for mobile voting and it was for our overseas and military members. After that pilot, we did an audit, the audit came back clean. We surveyed everyone who had used it, those who surveyed loved it. We didn’t have negative feedback from those that had actually used the system it was all very positive. And as I looked at that I wanted to look at other demographics that could be served, underserved populations that we could, sort of utilizing this. As we looked at the law, it said that anything used for overseas voters can also be used for the disabled community. It was really a no brainer at that point. This is a demographic of people that are currently being underserved, and that we could really use some sort of a method to help serve them. It was a natural extension.

David Cohen: So I’d like to hear about the results that you had. What were the reactions of the voters who heard this news and used these technologies?

Amelia Powers-Gardner: That’s a great question. What’s interesting about this is the most positive feedback we have received has been feedback from people who have actually used the system. Those people that were being underserved, they found that sometimes mailing in a ballot is not as simple as putting a stamp on it and putting in the mailbox, and the alternate methods really put a barrier to them voting. Those that have used this system are our biggest advocates, and they give us the most positive feedback.

Those that have used [mobile voting] are our biggest advocates, and they give us the most positive feedback.

David Cohen: Because we’re talking about innovation specific to COVID-19, I also want to ask you about a voter who voted after a kidney transplant, and the oldest voter in America to have ever voted online. Can you tell us that story?

Amelia Powers-Gardner: Yeah, we have two different people that we’ve served in the last several elections, one of them is a recent kidney transplant, couldn’t leave their house, and frankly their wife didn’t want to leave the house either because she didn’t want to be exposed to anything that she could bring home. And this person didn’t have a reliable smartphone, we were able to bring them a tablet that they could then sanitize and they could cast their ballot using that. Because of the kidney transplant, they were in a long term care facility and therefore they didn’t get their ballot in the mail. They were still able to cast a vote, utilizing this electronic system independently. And for them, security is more than just a technological thing, it’s also a germ thing and they were able to do that.

The other person, the hundred and six year old, in fact she’ll be 107 this year, Maccene Grimmet, she broke her ankle about two years ago and is bedridden. Her caretaker is her daughter, who at 106, Maccene’s daughter is in her 80s, and Maccene can’t really hold a pencil very steadily but she’s very mentally astute, very spry, just can’t walk and has a hard time with arthritis holding a pencil. A paper ballot was difficult for her. We were able to give her an iPad, the print’s plenty large enough, she was able to read that ballot, cast her vote independently and with dignity. And the greatest thing about Maccene is, she is really passionate about being able to vote in every election. Maccene was born before women in the United States had a right to vote. So being able to cast her ballot every election is incredibly important to her. And we were able to facilitate that using technology.

David Cohen: Wow, those are terrific stories. And with an aging population and more people falling sick, lots of people in hospital beds, unable to access those mail-in ballots. What specific innovations are out there that would be helpful to get them to vote?

If someone’s in a hospital bed, they’re not at home getting their mail, so we can’t mail them a ballot. Also, it might be hard to verify their identity. But if they have a smartphone that has a thumbprint on it, then their phone can verify their identity for us, and we can ensure they’re getting the right ballot, and that they’re getting it in a timely manner.

Amelia Powers-Gardner: There’s several things that we need to do. There’s some that we have, like mobile voting is becoming more accessible. That’s absolutely something that we need to consider. If someone’s in a hospital bed, they’re not at home getting their mail, so we can’t mail them a ballot. Also, it might be hard to verify their identity. But if they have a smartphone that has a thumbprint on it, then their phone can verify their identity for us, and we can ensure they’re getting the right ballot, and that they’re getting it in a timely manner. We also can do more securely germ-wise, right? A piece of paper could have a virus that it could carry on. I think we’re hearing that the COVID-19 virus can last possibly days on a piece of paper, but if you have your phone, you can wipe that down with a Clorox wipe. And it’s only exposed to you you’re not handing it to a nurse who’s putting it in an envelope, who’s giving it to the mailman, who’s giving it to our election workers. It’s more sanitary, it’s more accessible. If someone is sitting in a hospital bed all day, chances are, they’re on Instagram. And if they’re on Instagram, they can vote.

If someone is sitting in a hospital bed all day, chances are, they’re on Instagram. And if they’re on Instagram, they can vote.

David Cohen: I’m already wiping my phone down three times a day anyway, so this will work great for me. So I read the news like everybody else and I’m curious your perspective on this, you know what’s missing in the national discourse when we’re talking about finding solutions for safe and secure elections? November… even in the future, what frustrates you when you read the news?

Amelia Powers-Gardner: Right now, one of the most frustrating things for me is we have a political party that’s pushing for vote by mail nationwide. I’m not opposed to vote by mail – I’m a vote by mail county. I have about 300,000 registered voters in my county, and we mail every single one of them a ballot, every election. I think vote by mail is great. But what a lot of people don’t realize is that we had to put in our order for our envelopes for vote by mail in October. We had to solidify our schedule with the print vendors in December. We had to finalize those schedules in January. We’re four months past that right now. And in some cases and envelopes six months past that. You can’t just go down to your local print vendor on the corner and say, “Can you run a safe and secure election for me?”

I think vote by mail is great. But what a lot of people don’t realize is that we had to put in our order for our envelopes for vote by mail in October, had to solidify our schedule with the print vendors in December, had to finalize those schedules in January. We’re four months past that right now. You can’t just go down to your local print vendor on the corner and say, “Can you run a safe and secure election for me?”

In my county, I couldn’t go down to even Kinkos and say, “I have 300,000 people, and they belong to 300 different precincts and each one of those precincts receives a different ballot and it needs to be safe, and it needs to be secure, and it has to be timely. Can you make that happen?” We simply don’t have the bandwidth. You need to have print vendors that have experience and expertise in this. Those print vendors, this is not their small year. This isn’t a small municipal election. This is their biggest year, a presidential year. In an off year, a municipal year, they’re working one shift and they’ve got maybe some direct mail campaigns to kind of keep their presses running. And they could probably push that off and ramp up their production.

This year in a presidential year, they’re working three shifts. They have all of their assembly lines working, and they’ve been scheduled for a year. We can’t just turn a key and say, can every one of you triple your production because they don’t have capacity. They don’t have buildings, they don’t have machines. And the machines they use are custom order, most of them made in Germany and they’re a year or two out. We can’t turn a key and make vote by mail happen nationwide like that. What we can do is utilize a smartphone. The vast majority of Americans have a phone that they could use to securely vote, and then those that don’t, we could probably pick up the slack with the vote by mail. But a lot of people aren’t looking at the logistics. It’s not as simple as a piece of paper and an envelope when you’re talking about a safe, secure election.

We can’t turn a key and make vote by mail happen nationwide like that. What we can do is utilize a smartphone. The vast majority of Americans have a phone that they could use to securely vote, and then those that don’t, we could probably pick up the slack with the vote by mail. But a lot of people aren’t looking at the logistics. It’s not as simple as a piece of paper and an envelope when you’re talking about a safe, secure election.

David Cohen: It is one of the magical things about online it’s bits and bytes and it can be immediately distributed and immediately used.

Amelia Powers-Gardner: Technology is scalable in a way that paper and pencil just isn’t.

David Cohen: So before you go Amelia, talk to me about some of the gaps in the voting system that have been exposed by the Coronavirus. What should tech startups be thinking about? I’m an investor, where should I be making more investments to help? How do you best see the public and private sector sort of working together here?

Amelia Powers-Gardner: It’s a great question. I see two areas. One of them is polling locations. There’s a lot of issues with polling locations. It used to be that we did polling in elementary schools all over the country. In today’s society, we can’t have 1000 random people walking into an elementary school on a school day. That’s just not something we can have. On top of that I talked about it a little earlier, the vast majority of poll workers across the nation are retired, which means that they’re in that age demographic. Even if the polling locations are open, and people are willing to show up at the polls, in Clark County in Illinois, they had polling locations where no poll workers showed up, because they didn’t want to be exposed to the virus. Polling locations create a lot of logistical issues.

Technology is scalable in a way that paper and pencil just isn’t.

The second major issue is our voter database. That’s everything from the security of our database, Imagine vote by mail, if somebody messed with the addresses on my 300,000 voters, that could cause some serious problems. I would love to see our voter database put in the blockchain, because then if somebody changed those addresses, if they messed with that information, we would have a record of that change. So that’s part of the identity issue. The other part is verifying your identity. And a lot of cases right now you have to show up in person and pull out your ID, the government issued ID. If we can electronically verify someone’s identity, then we can allow them to cast a ballot, we can allow them to register to vote without having to physically be there in person, and then managing that database.

David Cohen: As an investor who’s invested in a couple thousand tech startups, one of the things that I’ve learned is that sometimes buzzwords and new technologies are the things that scare people. So blockchain, is what some people hear is unproven. Does that really work? Is that really secure? Do you think that plays a role in the psyche that maybe we ought to at first depend on much more long term established technologies than necessarily trying to use the latest, greatest thing?

If we can electronically verify someone’s identity, then we can allow them to cast a ballot, we can allow them to register to vote without having to physically be there in person.

Amelia Powers-Gardner: Well, I think if those technologies have the ability to give us an immutable record, then yes. I link to blockchain because it gives us an immutable record. If something is changed, we know it. If we can do that with an existing technology I’m not opposed to it. But currently, we have our voter databases, they have all the protections of a server you can think of. We have secure transfer services to our print vendor. But let’s say it’s secure on our end then we send it to a print vendor, if someone hacks into that print vendor’s system and messes with those addresses, just prior to them printing labels and sending out our vote by mail, once again that could wreak havoc. I would love for them to have the ability to check that record against an immutable record.

The vast majority of people utilize their cell phone to do their banking, fill out the census, send money, purchase items — they put their most private information on their phone. The vast majority of people are excited about mobile voting and they want it, they just don’t happen to be the loudest in the crowd.

One thing that I want to point out is, the vast majority of the people, they utilize their cell phone to do their banking, they fill out the census, they send money, they purchase items, they put their most private information on their phone. The vast majority of people are excited about mobile voting and they want it, they just don’t happen to be the loudest in the crowd.

David Cohen: That’s awesome. Yeah, I totally agree with that.

Voatz Completes Mobile Voting Election in South Dakota

Posted on by Justin Witkowski

Summary: The Republican party of South Dakota offered mobile voting to all delegates in its virtual convention last weekend with 85% delegates voting through the Voatz app. 50% of those voters submitted ballots within the first 20 minutes of the voting window. 

Boston, June 25, 2020 — Following the momentum of successful virtual conventions in both Utah and Arizona, last weekend Voatz successfully completed its third virtual convention with no incidents, generating elevated participation numbers and record engagement. The convention brought together delegates from 31 counties and concluded on Saturday, June 20, 2020. 

Dan Lederman, Chairman of the South Dakota Republican Party, said “Our goal was to create a convention experience that energized the Republican party in South Dakota and replicated an in-person convention. An uncontested convention did not deter delegates from voting, because it was easy. It was a team effort – Voatz worked with us for four weeks ahead of the convention to credential delegates, ensure a smooth rollout, and provide a test vote to get delegates comfortable with the system. It was a successful day for the South Dakota Republican Party.” 

“Voatz is proud to partner with the South Dakota Republican Party to securely enable their delegates to vote in their convention while, most importantly, keeping them safe during this uncertain time,” says Voatz Co-Founder and CEO, Nimit Sawhney. “This was the first time voters in South Dakota were able to vote through a mobile app in an election, and we were glad to see the enthusiastic response. More than half of the voters using the app submitted their ballot within the first 20 minutes of the voting window opening.  Voatz is excited to replicate the successes we’ve seen in the Utah and Arizona Republican Party Conventions, where record numbers of delegates submitted their votes seamlessly.” 

The successful use of mobile voting in South Dakota is an excellent roadmap for election officials looking to expand voting options in states where mail-in voting and polling places are likely to be impacted by Coronavirus. A mobile voting solution would bring relief to anywhere the population skews more elderly. 

The South Dakota Republican Party chose Voatz as the mobile voting platform for its virtual convention after clear demonstrations that Voatz could handle the dynamic nature of the convention and the potential for runoff rounds of voting. The platform allowed delegates to vote securely, privately, and electronically through their mobile phones. Voatz helped make the voting process safe and verifiable for delegates and candidates.      

Voatz is an award-winning mobile elections platform that leverages cutting-edge technology (including biometrics and a blockchain-based infrastructure) to increase access and security in elections. Since 2016 Voatz has run more than 65 elections with cities, universities, towns, nonprofits, and both major state political parties for convention voting. Learn more here.

We Cannot Afford to Dismiss Online Voting

Posted on by Justin Witkowski

Below is a letter from Voatz CEO to the editor of The Economist in response to last month’s article, “Why voting online is not the way to hold an election in a pandemic“.

Dear Editor of The Economist,

Allow me to begin by saying that I hold immense respect for The Economist, its well-researched content, and data-driven conclusions. I was surprised, however, to see an almost categorical dismissal of online voting in your article last month, “Why voting online is not the way to hold an election in a pandemic”.

Whether we like it or not, technology has permeated our lives in undeniable ways, including our vote by mail system (like online absentee requests, voter registration, and electoral rolls). According to Pew Research, an outstanding 75% of adults across the world’s advanced economies own a smartphone, and most of us perform critical work through our mobile devices (including consuming this article).

Without our devices, we have no essential services—banking, telemedicine, news, video conferencing, online faith services, and social interactions—especially in the midst of a pandemic.

Computer science academics who argue that “no electronic system can be fully immune to cyber-attacks and technical issues” are missing the inclusion of key technological advances in their findings: fingerprint and facial authentication, the immutability of a digital signature, cryptography, and the decades-long work championed by Bill Gates and others in the field of trustworthy computing. Remarkably, these advances are all now embedded within our current-generation smartphones and can be leveraged to secure our ability to vote remotely. These arguments against online voting also overlook the very real imperfections of the current system, and its lack of resilience—during the U.S. 2018 midterm elections, for example, nearly half a million mail-in ballots were not counted, and many of those voters were not informed.

These arguments rob our critical infrastructure of the nuance demanded for consideration, and they keep our country locked in the past, actively shutting out citizens from participation. They also ignore the multiple, successful pilots that began in 2018 to enable deployed military, overseas citizens, and voters with disabilities to vote more easily and securely from the safety of their mobile devices. 

If we can agree that online voting is someday inevitable, how will we get there without the support of pilots and testing? 

This pandemic has revealed, in plain sight, the glaring flaws in our current voting systems. They are not resilient. There is no room for contingencies or disruptions. In a COVID-19 world, we must consider all methods to secure access to the vote—and this includes safe and auditable ways to conduct voting online. 

The time for piloting and testing is now. I will champion any initiative that works in tandem with local officials to ensure the security and integrity of each vote. With all due respect, however, shutting down the conversation is not the way to get ready for voting during this pandemic—or even the next. 

Sincerely,

Nimit Sawhney
Co-Founder and CEO, Voatz

State-of-the-Art Security Performs First-Rate Threat Mitigation in Largest Mobile Voting Exercise

Posted on by Justin Witkowski
A few weeks ago, nearly 7,000 votes were submitted using the Voatz mobile voting platform. During the election, our advanced security threat detection mechanisms were able to detect, mitigate and thwart a handful of smartphones that had malware, were operating on insecure networks, or had insecure applications installed. The ability to detect, log and mitigate these types of threats is unique to the Voatz mobile voting platform. To do this, we combine widely-used threat detection software with our own technology to safeguard the voting process. This ensures that only voters with secure smartphones are permitted to cast a ballot, and if the system detects any threats on the smartphone, a voter will not be able to vote. In short, if a voter has a compromised device—whether they know about it or not—they’ll receive an error and will not be able to vote.

Threat Mitigation

In the election, a handful of voters had compromised devices and were prevented from voting until their device threats were mitigated. In some instances, voters were asked to remove malware on their devices. In others, some voters were asked to delete certain applications or functions they had installed which made their smartphones insecure. These voters were unable to vote until they did so. These cases reveal important, cutting-edge data that indicates the system is capable and successful in both detecting threats at a very granular level, and mostly, ensuring a secure vote. Below includes compelling statistics around the types of malware or applications detected, along with the device type. First, what’s interesting to note is that despite far more voters voting from an iPhone, far more threats were detected at the Android level:

Mitigated Threat: Network Security Threats

A network security threat means that a device is operating on a WiFi network that isn’t safe. Voatz doesn’t allow voters to vote from an unsafe WiFi network because it could lead to a “Man-in-the-Middle” attack, or a malicious attacker hijacking traffic, stealing credentials, or delivering malware to the device. If a voter tries to vote on an unsafe WiFi network, they receive error messages and are asked to switch to a different network in order to vote.
# of iOS devices detected with a network threat, over time
# of Android devices detected with a network threat, over time
Threat detected: Voatz detected (18) iOS devices and (17) Android devices to be operating on insecure WiFi networks. These voters were unable to submit their ballots as a result. Mitigation: These voters were asked to switch to a more stable cellular or WiFi network, reboot their device, and then they were able to submit their ballots.
1 Android device threat detected with ARP poisoning
Threat detected: Voatz detected (1) Android device to be susceptible to ARP Poisoning (meaning the device was operating in an insecure network environment, perhaps with an appliance that was interfering with the network traffic). Mitigation: After this cause was discovered, the voter was asked to remove the offending network appliance from the network and then was able to proceed.

Mitigated Threat: Device Pin Not Set

If a smartphone doesn’t have a device PIN set, that means that the person who owns the smartphone hasn’t yet setup their smartphone’s PIN or activated their biometrics to keep the phone secure (i.e. when they go into the phone, as a safety measure they have to enter the device PIN or use their biometrics to get inside).  Voatz doesn’t allow voters to vote from a device that doesn’t have a PIN set, because it leaves the device susceptible to easier access if an outside bad actor were to obtain physical access to the device. If a voter tries to sign up with Voatz and doesn’t have their device PIN set, the voter will receive an error until they set their device PIN or enable biometrics.
# of iOS devices detected with PIN not set, over time
# of Android devices detected with PIN not set, over time
Threat detected: Voatz detected (3) iOS devices and (89) Android devices that had not yet set their device pin. Mitigation: They were requested to activate their device pin or biometrics and after, were able to proceed with voting.

Mitigated Threat: Sideloaded Apps

Sideloaded apps are applications that have been installed on a device, typically by bypassing the device’s security protocols. Voatz detects any time a device has a sideloaded app installed, because some sideloaded apps can contain malware. Even if the the sideloaded app is benign, as an extra precaution Voatz detects this and then analyzes whether or not it is benign. If it is deemed benign, then the voter is able to proceed. If the sideloaded app contains malware, the voter is requested to remove the application from their device before they are able to proceed and vote.
# of iOS sideloaded apps detected, over time
# of Android sideloaded apps detected, over time
Threat detected: Voatz detected (15) iOS devices and (173) Android devices with sideloaded apps (apps that could potentially introduce a security threat on the device). Mitigation: After investigation, the apps were deemed to be benign and the voters were able to proceed.

Mitigated Threat: Sideloaded Apps with Malware

Malware detected on Android devices
Threat detected: Voatz detected (2) Android devices with sideloaded apps that contained malware. Mitigation: Voters were asked to delete the offending apps and reboot their phones, or to use a different device in order to proceed.

Mitigated Threat: USB Debugging Enabled

USB debugging enablement is a threat only associated with Android devices. It lets the device communicate with a computer, and allows access to specialized areas of the phone otherwise inaccessible. Voatz detects if a device has USB debugging enabled and whether or not that device is connected to a computer. If the device is connected to a computer, the Voatz system will not let a vote be submitted and the voter will receive an error.
# of Android devices detected with USB debugging enabled, over time
Threat detected: Voatz detected (11) Android devices with USB debugging enabled (which allows a smartphone to communicate with a computer). Mitigation: Because the mobile device was not connected to a computer at the time of voting, voters were able to proceed.
[Data provided by Voatz Security Operations]

First Female MA State Treasurer Speaks on Power, Voting & Changes Across Time

Posted on by Justin Witkowski

Below is the transcription of an interview conducted by David Cohen, Co-Founder and Managing Director of Techstars, the global platform for investment and innovation that connects entrepreneurs, investors, and corporations. 

David interviewed Shannon O’Brien on voting, elections, and changes throughout time.

Shannon O’Brien was the first woman state treasurer of the state of Massachusetts, and former Democratic nominee for governor.

(view full interview here)

David Cohen: You were elected to office for the first time in 1986, 30 years later, what has changed in how we vote?

Shannon O’Brien: Well, back in 1986, it was incredibly labor intensive. Everything was done on paper, getting phone numbers so that you could reach out to voters was an incredibly labor intensive process, getting absentee ballots, again took time and had a lot of rules and regulations about how you actually got those absentee ballots into the town clerk’s office. And so back then it took a lot of human beings to make this happen.

So a lot has changed over the years. But now, as we’re seeing that as technology and different issues are coming to the forefront, we have a lot of people thinking that it’s an important time to go back to those days where it’s just all paper. I think it’s sort of fascinating that you see a lot of people now calling for harking back to paper ballots, and I sort of shudder when I think about what that was like back in 1986.

I think it’s sort of fascinating that you see a lot of people now calling for harking back to paper ballots, and I sort of shudder when I think about what that was like back in 1986.

Shannon O’Brien, Former Massachusetts State Treasurer

David Cohen: In 2000 we were introduced to hanging chads. Today we’re back to talking about paper ballots. Kevin Roose from the New York Times says that he has decided that Americans should vote by etching our preferred candidates name into a stone tablet with a hammer and chisel. I think he’s kidding. What do you think about the evolution, and thought, and the perception? Why is it that people feel this way?

Shannon O’Brien: Well, obviously everyone is concerned about the possibility for compromise or hacking. I mean, I was working on the campaign back with the hanging chads. And we had something similar in the congressional district, where I live something similar in terms of how the paper ballots and the punch system did not work during a very heavily attended congressional race. So what we’ve seen over the course of the last number of years, we’ve seen the Equifax hack. We saw in 2016, that the Russians had attempted to, at least in 21 states, attempt to hack the voting machines in different jurisdictions there. So I think that there’s a heightened concern about technology whether or not it can be fully secure, and especially whether or not it can be fully secure for such an important right as placing your vote and expressing your opinion as to who should be leading the state or the country.

David Cohen: Most people like myself these days we do online banking, I just did my census online. As an investor, I transfer a lot of money around online, but today we’re hearing people say that mail-in ballots are really the only option. It seems crazy to me, but what do you think are their barriers to mail in ballots that people generally miss? Are states willing to bear the cost? When we need money in other places, are we justified in investing our resources here?

Most people like myself these days do online banking, I just did my census online. As an investor, I transfer a lot of money around online, but today we’re hearing people say that mail-in ballots are really the only option.

David Cohen, Co-Founder and Managing Director, TechStars

Shannon O’Brien: Paper ballots are not hackable, but they are not infallible. We’ve seen I think in this country in the last election, the last presidential election. Over 400,000 absentee ballots, either didn’t make it to get counted, were rejected because the signature on the ballot did not match a signature within the clerk’s office. So paper ballots, while the putting pen or pencil to paper and getting that done is not hackable, the process between getting that vote from your home or your office, or wherever you’re going to be, actually filling out the ballot and getting it in, and actually having it counted, there are many potential pitfalls that can happen, and we saw this just this past week in Wisconsin, where there were so many people who needed to send in absentee ballots because workers concerned about the Coronavirus did not want to show up and man the polls. And so I think they had something like 1/10th the number of in-person balloting locations, so people had to wait hours and hours. Those ballots that, you know, did not get in on time, they will not be counted.

But those people in Wisconsin, those 400,000 people whose absentee ballots didn’t count in the last cycle, their vote doesn’t get diluted, their vote gets stolen. And so for me, accessibility, if I have to determine between security and voter fraud and accessibility, I’m going to tip the scales in terms of accessibility, but I still think there is a way that you can do both. I believe that there is a way that you can balance many of the concerns that different people have right now, and do it in a way that’s reasonable that protects both the ability to access and have an opportunity to vote, but also promotes security and reduces voter fraud.

I believe that there is a way that you can balance many of the concerns that different people have right now, and do it in a way that’s reasonable that protects both the ability to access the opportunity to vote, but also promotes security and reduces voter fraud.

Shannon O’Brien, Former Massachusetts State Treasurer

David Cohen: I’m certain that with Coronavirus changing how we do business, you know some government services maybe licenses and IDs will move online, but what are the practical barriers to elections moving online?

Shannon O’Brien: The real issue is, I think right now, going to be cost. We saw that in the stimulus package approximately 400 million was put into that bill to help make sure that people can get to the polls during this Coronavirus crisis. So it’s going to cost money, but it’s also going to require a meeting of the minds between the left and the right, the Republicans and the Democrats, that they agree that making sure that voter access, especially during this just unusual pandemic crisis we’re having right now, is important, and I think that the most important thing toward making voting more accessible is to understand that making voting more accessible is an important civil and constitutional right, that we all have.

David Cohen: Sounds reasonable to me. You’ve sort of answered this one but I’m going to ask it again in case you have anything else to add, what are the political challenges associated with modernizing the voting process?

Shannon O’Brien: The political challenges are that right now you don’t have everyone in agreement about what the best process is for both securing the vote and making voting accessible, and I think that the most important thing that can happen is to take some very measured and rational steps towards testing some new technologies. But the fact is, you had people who weren’t trained, you had new rules that were brought to bear during those Iowa caucuses. So there were many things beyond the technology that made the Iowa caucuses a failure. And so understanding that any new technology, even going to mail-in ballots, there will be issues and problems that have to be dealt with. And so it’s making sure that we understand that whatever we do, this is not going to be a quick fix, and has to be part of a longer process, moving us forward where we can both use technology and maybe old fashioned technology to increase both accessibility and security, but do it in a rational well thought out, and hopefully, bipartisan way.

I think that the most important thing that can happen is to take some very measured and rational steps towards testing some new technologies.

Shannon O’Brien, Former Massachusetts State Treasurer

David Cohen: What needs to be done to make the changes necessary to improve access? What would you do if you could wave your magic wand?

Shannon O’Brien: I am a believer in taking a look at mobile voting platforms, looking at ways that we can enhance both the accessibility, but also the auditability. Because there are many voting machines out there that count the paper ballots that we cannot subject them to simple audit. So making sure that we understand that we can use technology to make these improvements. And so I think it’s just understanding that we’re going to be able to use technology, that we need to do it in a number of different facets that can help us as a state, as a nation, and so moving in that direction I think is going to be very, very important for all of us as citizens.

I am a believer in taking a look at mobile voting platforms, looking at ways that we can enhance both the accessibility, but also the auditability.

Shannon O’Brien, Former Massachusetts State Treasurer

David Cohen: Shannon, I hear you have a personal story about voting that is relevant to all this.

Shannon O’Brien: In 1976, my dad ran for the United States Congress in the post-Watergate era. And it was a year that many people thought that a democrat might win the seat. And my father ran against a very well qualified candidate Ed McColgan, and the primary, he won by something like 12 votes. And then during the recount process, there were votes that went back and forth, and he ended up losing by four votes. I think it was the closest congressional vote in the history of the state. I think it still remains.

But the real issue was, and this is the problem with paper ballots is that you can’t change paper ballots because they need to be printed, they need to be sent out. And so the problem that my father faced is that he actually thought he might be able to go to court and successfully challenge the outcome of that recount, but he couldn’t go to court because even if he won the court case, there would not have been enough time to print his name on the ballot. So he gracefully stepped back, and you know a lot of people thought that my dad actually won that primary. So it was one of those things that you understand the inflexibility of a paper ballot. Someone goes and they vote for Pete Buttigieg, he drops out or Bernie Sanders, he drops out. They’re not on the ballot anymore. And if you’ve already voted, you don’t get an opportunity to quickly or easily change your vote.

Republican Party of Arizona Drives Momentum for Mobile Voting in Virtual Convention

Posted on by Justin Witkowski

Voatz successfully completes another significant mobile voting exercise, confirming that mobile can be a viable voting option in these unprecedented times.

BOSTON, May 14, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — Voatz, the Boston-based mobile voting platform, today announced the successful completion of the virtual Arizona State Republican Party Convention, the first of its kind to also incorporate visual live streaming and telephonic townhall components. This continues the momentum of mobile voting as an alternative, secure way to exercise the democratic right to vote. 

In order to ensure a smooth rollout of the platform, Voatz worked closely with Republican Party of Arizona officials to train voters and test the platform ahead of the May 9 convention. 

More than 1,100 delegates voted using the Voatz app on May 9, with a nearly even split of voters using iPhones (58.3%) and Androids (41.7%). 

Arizona builds on the success of the Utah Republican Party’s State and County Conventions, when roughly 7,000 votes were cast using the Voatz app. 

“This is a critical moment for our democracy, and we have to ensure that we have safe alternatives to voting in person. Voatz is proud to be able to meet this need and to ensure the safety and health of its voters,” says Voatz Co-Founder and CEO, Nimit Sawhney. “We believe deeply in expanding access to voting, and with many voters’ health at risk, we are proud to leverage our experience to support the Arizona Republican Party’s mandate to represent their delegates’ voices.” 

Commenting on the success, Republican Party of Arizona Executive Director Greg Safsten said “Voatz was a great partner in fulfilling our goal of being minimally disruptive to our convention procedures. After a careful vetting process, we were confident in Voatz’s ability to support secure and private voting with the added benefit of an immediate confirmation that each delegate’s vote counted. In developing the plan for this convention, we knew that we needed to provide the most reliable connection to it for all participants, and we were able to do this by ensuring everyone who wanted to vote could do so easily and from the safety of their home.”

About Voatz
Voatz is an award-winning mobile elections platform that leverages cutting-edge technology (including biometrics and a blockchain-based infrastructure) to increase access and security in elections. Since 2016 Voatz has run more than 60 public and private elections. Learn more here.

Press release issued from PR Newswire.

Hacking, Fear & Voting: Former NSA Director Speaks on Election Security

Posted on by Justin Witkowski

Below is the transcription of an interview conducted by David Cohen, Co-Founder and Managing Director of Techstars, the global platform for investment and innovation that connects entrepreneurs, investors, and corporations.

David interviewed Dr. Eric Haseltine on the security of our nation’s elections.

Dr. Eric Haseltine is an author, futurist and neuroscientist. He is former director of research at the National Security Agency, Executive Vice President at Walt Disney Imagineering, Associate Director at CTO for National Intelligence at the Federal Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and a director of engineering at the Hughes Aircraft Company.

(view full interview here)

David Cohen: Eric, in addition to your credentials at the NSA, I understand you were a psychologist, we do our research here. I’d love to get your read on our national psyche right now, how it relates to voting and security and I’m wondering if there’s a connection and maybe why people might be resistant to online voting today?

Dr. Eric Haseltine: The way I would assess the national psyche right now when it comes to elections, is lack of trust, lack of trust that someone isn’t going to try to mess with the election as they did in 2016, and we’re hearing reports from the intelligence community and elsewhere that that’s going on right now. Lack of trust that the voting system is secure from other issues. And then there’s the issue of disease. If I go vote am I going to pick up a virus? So I think people are very nervous about voting. And there’s a lot of concern about trust, can you trust the system?

David Cohen: So from your background of directing research at the NSA, I’m sure you’ve been privy to lots of conversations about hacking. We saw the misinformation campaign, in some cases, attempts to hack our voter registration list in 2016. In every tech category from finance to healthcare, we’ve managed to develop a system for managing that risk. Based on your background and what you’ve witnessed across critical infrastructure like this. Do you think there’s a solution for voting?

Dr. Eric Haseltine: I do believe that electronic voting can be secure. There is no system including our nuclear launch codes that’s 100% bulletproof. The key that modern security acknowledges is to operate under the assumption that you’ve been compromised, so that you can detect it quickly, isolate it when it does happen, and fix it quickly. And that’s really state of the art. And because of my knowledge about how these things are done, I’ve seen it done, it works very well. And I don’t have any concerns at all that we can vote securely, and I would go so far as to say that electronic voting is probably more secure than the paper ballot or the kind of voting we have right now.

“I would go so far as to say that electronic voting is probably more secure than the paper ballot or the kind of voting we have right now.”

Dr. Eric Haseltine, Former Director of Research, NSA

David Cohen: Before we move on to anything else let’s talk about Iowa. You and I know that wasn’t really a voting app that caused all this stir, but it really scared people obviously.

Dr. Eric Haseltine: That wasn’t so much a voting app issue as it was a reporting of the votes issue, as to do we know what happened and will we ever know? Absolutely. It’s the same thing that happens when you have any failure. It’s a human element, at some point in the chain, a human didn’t set it up right, didn’t specify the right thing, didn’t operate it correctly. So people tend to focus in the electronic realm on the technology. But having been what you think of as a bad guy or a burglar in this space, what we always focused on to exploit a target was the human element. And that’s the piece that gets under recognized. So I can say without fear of contradiction, that the problem in Iowa and all the other problems that we’ve had, at their root is a human vulnerability.

David Cohen: It would be a lot easier if it weren’t for those pesky humans, I guess. And I always thought of the NSA as the good guys, I guess.

Dr. Eric Haseltine: Well, we always like to think of ourselves that way. We aren’t always painted that way in the press, we’re hackers for God and country I guess you could put it that way. But because we do that, and we’re the best in the world, and we go up against the best in the world, we know what can be done and what can’t be done, what can be guaranteed and what can’t be guaranteed, and that’s why I say that the state of the art right now is to say, this system sooner or later probably will be compromised in some way. How do we set it up so that when that happens, and if that happens, we’re still going to be okay?

David Cohen: You were an op ed recently that said we should continue to do these tests and pilot things around voting. There’s not as much time for pilots now though. So should every piece of tech be considered and my peers in Silicon Valley are coming together like crazy and there’s, as you say, tech for everything. So do we just need to jump in headfirst here given the situation?

Dr. Eric Haseltine: Yeah, if I were in charge, I would say let’s find the best one or two, get the best white hat hackers we can, attack the heck out of it. Really beat it up, find its holes and get it working as fast as possible. And continue to do that. That’s the thing about penetration testing and white hat exercises. They can’t stop once they’re done with the initial attack, they have to keep it up 24/7 actually.

David Cohen: Do you think that ever gets politicized where someone that’s just against online voting for whatever reason tries to create that lack of trust or do you think that that’s just the default state that we’re in and we’ve got to work through it?

Dr. Eric Haseltine: I absolutely think it’ll get politicized, how can it not, and after all it’s about politics. And clearly, there are some who really are not going to benefit from electronic voting. Without mentioning any names, one party historically is underrepresented at the polls, because people in that party have other life issues and they don’t get to the polls, for any number of reasons. If we lower the barrier to entry, so that anybody could vote really easily, I think it’s clear that one party is going to benefit over the other and you can just bet your bottom dollar that is going to get fought tooth and nail.

David Cohen: So what’s the counter argument there if you’re in that other party, why do you think that this is a thing we shouldn’t do?

Dr. Eric Haseltine: I think that If I were in that other party and I actually am in that other party, the way I would look at it is to say, this is an opportunity, not a threat. And the key is since it’s inevitable, sooner or later it’s going to happen. Rather than fighting it let’s get out ahead of it and see how we can surf that wave rather than be drowned in that wave.

“[Electronic voting] is inevitable. Sooner or later it’s going to happen. Rather than fighting it let’s get out ahead of it and see how we can surf that wave rather than be drowned in that wave.”

Dr. Eric Haseltine, Former Director of Research, NSA

David Cohen: No one would know better than you, Eric, thanks for taking the time to talk to us today.

Dr. Eric Haseltine: Well, you know what, it’s a really important subject I really appreciate being asked to weigh in.

Full Techstars interview viewable here.

Groundbreaking Virtual Convention Reveals Majority of Voters Prefer Mobile Voting

Posted on by Justin Witkowski

Last week, nearly 7,000 votes were submitted using the Voatz mobile voting platform in the Utah GOP’s virtual convention. This constituted a 93% turnout for the convention.

All submitted ballots undergo a public citizen’s post-election audit, in which anyone is able to participate as an auditor, hosted by the National Cybersecurity Center.

We wanted to share interesting data from this election. In addition to voting statistics, after voting, several Utah GOP voters voluntarily responded to a survey regarding their experience with mobile voting.

Highlights:

  • 90% reported being “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the convention
  • 87% reported being more likely to serve as a delegate if future conventions are online
  • 89% reported that their experience with Voatz was “positive” or “very positive”
  • Only 13% prefer to return to a traditional, in-person convention

[Data from a UT GOP survey with nearly 1,000 respondents.]

Additional highlights:

  • A majority of the voters prefer submitting their ballot via secure mobile voting
  • Nearly two-thirds of the voters felt secure submitting their ballot via mobile voting
  • Nearly all voters felt the instructions for completing verification were clear, that their ballot was easy to navigate and to cast

[Data from a voluntary survey specific to mobile voting with nearly 300 respondents.]

Below includes other highlights and data points from the election itself, as well as survey responses.

% RETURN RATE ON BALLOTS RECEIVED


This means that 99.6% of delegates who successfully verified in the Voatz app and received their ballot successfully submitted it.

BREAKDOWN OF VOTER SMARTPHONE TYPE

Q: Were the instructions for completing the verification clear?

Q: Was the ballot easy to navigate?

Q: Was it easy to cast/submit your ballot?

Q: How did you submit your last ballot, prior to this election?

Q: How secure did you feel submitting your ballot through this mobile voting project?

Q: What method do you prefer to submit your ballot?

State-of-the-Art Security Performs First-Rate Threat Mitigation

During the election, our advanced security threat detection mechanisms were able to detect, mitigate and thwart a handful of devices that had malware, were operating on insecure networks, or had insecure applications installed.

This is important data that indicates that the system is successful at ensuring a secure vote.

In these instances, voters were prevented from voting until the threat was mitigated. In some instances, voters were asked to remove malware on their devices and in others, some voters were asked to delete certain suspicious applications they had installed or remove certain appliances from their networks that could pose a threat to their smartphones. 

Stay tuned for some more details in a forthcoming blog post.