Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Federal slap on the wrist for a voting equipment maker's misleading claims

Election equipment

Election Systems & Software, led by CEO Tom Burt, has been rebuked by the Election Assistance Commission for misleading marketing materials.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Election Assistance Commission has admonished the nation's largest manufacturer of voting equipment for making misleading claims in some of its marketing materials.

The federal agency's upbraiding of Election Systems & Software was prompted by a complaint from two good-government groups, Free Speech for People and the National Election Defense Coalition, which discovered that ES&S was claiming that one of its voting machines with a modem option was EAC certified.

The EAC action is significant because the agency has been criticized for not aggressively monitoring the voting machine industry, which is one of its principal assignments. The small but primary agency overseeing how states conduct voting has struggled through a leadership change, turnover and budget cutbacks in the runup to this November's election but has been starting to rebuild itself in recent months.


The agency sets voluntary standards for voting systems, and most states adopt by law or regulation some aspect of the federal testing and certification program.

Security is one of key elements of the standards, particularly in the wake of hacking attempts by Russian operatives during the 2016 presidential election. Any part of a voting system that could connect to the internet is considered to create an opportunity for a virtual break-in.

In their complaint field in January, the advocacy groups pointed out that marketing materials sent out for the ES&S DS200 voting system suggested that a version that included a modem had been federally certified. Only the version without a modem is certified, because modems are seen as opening up equipment to easy interference.

The company told the government it never intended to imply the modem-version was certified, promising to remove all references to the optional use of modems from its marketing materials.

The EAC's head of voting machine certification, Jerome Lovato, nonetheless concluded that promoting the modem violated the agency's testing and certification rules. He gave the company 15 days to come up with a plan to remove the sales brochures from circulation and notify customers they were inaccurate.

And he said ES&S should take the same steps with materials that exaggerated in describing vote tabulation systems as being submitted to rigorous and extensive independent testing campaigns as part of the federal certification program.

The company rejected that finding and said it wouldn't take corrective action, asserting its tabulation systems have all been approved by the EAC, even those for use in states that don't use the federal standards.

Lovato told the company it could have seen its equipment decertified and its manufacturer registration suspended. Instead, the federal regulator concluded the letter this way: "You are a valued stakeholder and I appreciate your proactive and prompt response."

Officials at Free Speech for People said that ES&S has sold voting machines with wireless modems to states around the country — including the presidential battlegrounds of Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin.

The company's website points out that using the modems to transmit unofficial results is legal in some states and that the company employs "numerous security safeguards to protect the transfer" of the information.

Susan Greenhalgh of Free Speech for People rejected the company's claim that it was not intending to be deceptive. "ES&S has a pattern of deception," she said. "We're very pleased the EAC took action to rebuke ES&S for its false claims, but this is just a part of a larger pattern of duplicity from the voting system vendors that operate with little to no oversight and without meaningful regulation."

Read More

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

The president is granting refugee status to white South Africans. Meanwhile, he is issuing travel bans, unsure about his duty to uphold due process, fighting birthright citizenship, and backing massive human rights breaches against people of color, including deporting citizens and people authorized to be here.

The administration’s escalating immigration enforcement—marked by “fast-track” deportations or disappearances without due process—signal a dangerous leveling-up of aggressive anti-immigration policies and authoritarian tactics. In the face of the immigration chaos that we are now in, we could—and should—turn our efforts toward making immigration policies less racist, more efficient, and more humane because America’s promise is built on freedom and democracy, not terror. As social scientists, we know that in America, thinking people can and should “just get documented” ignores the very real and large barriers embedded in our systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Insider trading in Washington, DC

U.S. senators and representatives with access to non-public information are permitted to buy and sell individual stocks. It’s not just unethical; it sends the message that the game is rigged.

Getty Images, Greggory DiSalvo

Insider Trading: If CEOs Can’t Do It, Why Can Congress?

Ivan Boesky. Martha Stewart. Jeffrey Skilling.

Each became infamous for using privileged, non-public information to profit unfairly from the stock market. They were prosecuted. They served time. Because insider trading is a crime that threatens public trust and distorts free markets.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

A pump jack seen in a southeast New Mexico oilfield.

Getty Images, Daniel A. Leifheit

Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now.

In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game.

Keep ReadingShow less