Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

A group of people wait in line to get their ballots to vote in the election.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could reshape presidential elections as Midwest states debate Electoral College reform, political polarization, and the future of winner-take-all voting in America.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

700+ Proposed Amendments Failed, Midwest Voters Can Succeed

The Midwest served as the vanguard and ideological heartland of the Progressive Era, acting as a crucial laboratory for political, social, and economic reforms that later adopted national significance. Midwestern states (the cradle of the movement) pioneered anti-monopoly efforts, democratic, and social improvements.

After 770+ failed proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendments (the most on record for one issue) to remedy the factionalism (21st century polarization) feared by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less