The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.


The nation's clearinghouse for election audit information!



Indiana: State Enforces Action Against Errant Voting System Vendor PDF  | Print |  Email
By Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita Press Release   
April 04, 2008
Secretary of State Todd Rokita moves to collect fines and fees totaling more than $360,000.00

This week, Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita’s office filed a Petition to collect civil penalty fees from voting systems vendor, MicroVote General Corp. totaling more than $360,000. The Secretary's Office filed the Petition just as the appeals process is near completion on a July 2007 administrative ruling. The ruling ordered MicroVote to pay the State more than $360,000 in civil penalties and investigative costs stemming from 198 violations of Indiana election law.

"The Secretary of State's Office will not tolerate voting system vendors that violate Indiana's election laws," stated Deputy Secretary of State Matt Tusing. "Moreover, MicroVote's apathetic attitude towards proper certification is disconcerting, especially considering that their profits come from taxpayer dollars.”

“On behalf of voters and taxpayers, our office will continue to fully enforce our laws, protect the integrity of our votes, and work hand-in-hand with county clerks to execute the most fair and accurate election process in the nation,” stated Tusing.

MicroVote came under initial investigation in April 2006 following allegations that the company sold uncertified voting equipment in as many as 47 Indiana counties. Indiana law requires voting systems to be certified by the Indiana Election Commission before being sold, leased, or marketed for use in an election.

Tennessee: Problems with MicroVote Prompt Candidates To Call For A Revote PDF  | Print |  Email
By Warren Stewart   
August 09, 2006

"There is a cloud over this and I think it needs to be lifted."


Problems with MicroVote Infinity voting machines led to long lines and delayed results in several Tennessee counties in last week's primary and candidates in at least one county are demanding a revote. MicroVote equipment was used in 45 of Tennessee’s 95 counties. They are the same machines that led caused a meltdown in Canada’s first experiment with electronic voting last November.

The Stewart-Houston Times reported that Stewart County Election Commssion member Ronnie Byrd noticed that vote totals generated by MicroVote technicians exceeded the number of voters in some districts. Apparently in cumulative reports, the early and absentee votes were being added in twice. The technician eventually managed to generate the ‘correct’ results, which were double-checked by entering the totals into a spreadsheet.

"The new machines were supposed to eliminate the need for doing the spreadsheets that we used to do, but we'll be doing (backup) spreadsheets from now on," said Stewart County Administrator of Elections Nellie Anderson. "The new machines will generate a report, but it will have to agree with our spreadsheet in the future. If we ever had to go to court, we'd win because everything agrees.

"It's always good to have more than one way to check the vote totals," she continued. "We have to let the voters know that the totals are correct."
Just exactly can Anderson let the voters know that the totals are correct? Of course, the MicroVote Infinity doesn’t really provide more than one way to check the totals – there is no independent means of verifying that the vote totals are correct.
Montreal's Electronic Voting Debacle: What Went Wrong PDF  | Print |  Email
By Alain Beaulieu,   
November 22, 2005
PG Elections president discusses glitches that delayed results  

This article appeared in IT

Delays, equipment breakdowns and erroneous results marred the IT systems used to handle the recent municipal election of Montreal and several cities in Quebec.

The voting box IT infrastructure was supplied by PG Elections, an affiliate of PG Mensys, which has helped to run several elections since 1999. PG Elections deployed some 1,400 electronic ballot boxes and voting terminals in 604 sites, providing an electronic voting system in a majority of municipalities in the province of Québec (a number of others cities also voted electronically using systems deployed by another service provider). Some of the machines failed to count properly and a mayoral contender in Montréal called for a legal recount in several districts after noting a number of problems in the voting process.

A voting terminal is a completely electronic device that registers votes using a touchscreen display, but the systems that failed during these municipal elections across the province were electronic ballot boxes used to scan paper ballots, which are then digitized and compiled. Some 900 of those voting terminals were deployed, of which 450 were rented from an American supplier. Thomas Gagnon, president of PG Elections, refused to name the partner who supplied the electronic voting systems.
Microvote Resources
Microvote Website
Microvote Infinity Demo
Download Microvote Election Incidents (PDF)
Notice Regarding Used Infinity Machines in South Carolina
: mosShowVIMenu( $params ); break; } ?>
Vendor Pages
Voting Equipment Vendors
Advanced Voting Solutions
Danaher Corporation (Guardian Voing Systems)
Election Systems and Software (ES&S)
Hart Intercivic
Liberty/NEDAP Powervote
VoteHere (Dategrity)
Voter Database Vendors
VoTing Technologies International
: mosShowVIMenu( $params ); break; } ?>