Governor Gavin Newsom announced this morning that all Parking facilities at state beaches on the San Mateo County Coastline will be closed for the July 4 weekend. Local leaders are expected to close all SMC beaches and Gov. Newsom has stated he will close state beaches in Counties closing local beaches.
No Parking equals No Beaches
If you don’t live on the coast Stay Away, Stay Home, Protect the residents that do.
If you see Brent Turner make sure you tell him Thank You. A perfect example of one single person can make a difference.
Same goes for Pacifica Mayor Deidre Martin a true elected Leader.
From County Manager Mike Callagy to me this AM. “So like Dr. Scott Morrow has said, assume everyone you come in contact with and everything you touch outside your home is infected and use the precautions listed to prevent yourself from becoming ill.
In the last month Verified Voting has had 2 Advisory Board Members (Whistleblowers) Resign. The question I have is why haven’t the other 45 members done the same?
Community election reform activist Brent Turner has been warning San Mateo County and the USA about the vulnerabilities surrounding election systems. For the past six months Turner has publicly requested Supervisor Slocum step down due to a conflict of interest as Slocum sits on the board of Verified Voting. Turner has for years alleged Verified Voting had ” unclean hands” as a ” consumer watchdog ” as Verifed has business relationship with Microsoft and vendors. Turner originally became familiar with Verified Voting’s and Stanford professor David Dill from Dill’s ability to obtain Federal grant monies. Turner has alleged that Dill and his associates have blocked best election security efforts for personal gain. The following correspondence explains further.
As citizens of San Mateo County we are embarrassed by your association with this apparently nefarious activity.
Please consider joining other Verified Voting board members in stepping down from this group.
I would like to underscore and amplify Mr. Turner’s recent message by urging that all individuals who wish to maintain integrity in elections, who are in positions of leadership or affiliated with Verified Voting, should promptly resign. Before doing so, though, they should immediately move to have the VerifiedVoting.org organization dissolved and the Verified Voting Foundation removed from its 501(c)(3) status.
Everything that Mr. Turner has mentioned about the manner in which I and my company, Notable Software, Inc. were robbed of our share of the NSF ACCURATE grant, including by members of Verified Voting, despite the grantee’s continued and unauthorized use of my intellectual property, both in their funding application and in the naming of the Center, is true and well-documented.
Please also note certain highlights of the recent Fast Company article, as follows:
Richard DeMillo <https://www.cc.gatech.edu/people/richard-demillo>, a Georgia Tech professor who sat on Verified Voting’s advisory board, and UC Berkeley statistics professor and associate dean Philip Stark <https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/>, a VV board member, have resigned from the advocacy group, stating that they believe that Verified Voting has been giving election officials false confidence in some voting machines and providing cover for the companies that make and sell these machines.
In DeMillo’s December 1 resignation letter to Barbara Simons (chair of VV’s board of directors), he claimed that “Verified Voting’s policy positions were unpredictable, contradictory, and not aligned with the values I once believed we shared. On more than one occasion, Verified Voting has taken contradictory public stances in the span of a few days, undercutting allies and supporters. The pattern of espousing new positions and making public statements that take local VV stakeholders by surprise is nothing new. Rather than seeking out advice, Verified Voting has gone to great lengths to avoid it.”
With respect to VV’s involvement in a Risk Limiting Audit (RLA) pilot in Georgia, DeMillo claimed that “Verified Voting’s seal of approval for the security theatrics in Bartow County undermines efforts to make elections more accountable. … No audit based on an untrustworthy audit trail can confirm the correctness of the outcome. Billing such an exercise as an RLA and touting it as a proof of security plays into the hands of cynics.”
Stark, who resigned on November 21, accused VV of being on the “wrong side” saying: “Our message to jurisdictions that buy poorly designed, insecure, universal-use BMD [ballot marking device systems] should be, ‘We tried to warn you. You need a better voting system’ … Instead, we’re saying, ‘Don’t worry: VV will teach you to sprinkle magic RLA dust and fantasies about parallel testing on your untrustworthy election. All will be fine; you can use our authority and reputation to silence your critics.'” [End of Article Summary]
I personally worked side-by-side with some of the members of Verified Voting in the early years. It is to our collective credit, in part, that Voter Verified Paper Ballots (a concept that I promoted extensively, years prior to the formation of VV, and even prior to Bush v. Gore) are now considered the Gold Standard for elections.
Those of you who have, since then, endorsed technologies that promise to undercut the authenticity of these ballots, have put an indelible blemish on your formerly fine work. You should be ashamed of yourselves and embarrassed about what you are doing to endanger voting at this critical time in history, when it is likely that the Impeached US President will be running for re-election. Please leave your egos at the door and dissolve Verified Voting, as it is now as untrustworthy as some of the voting machines and methodologies you have encouraged for adoption. The World Is Watching.
With extreme sincerity,
Rebecca Mercuri, Ph.D.
December 1, 2019
Barbara Simons, Chair Verified Voting Board of Directors
It is with profound regret that I resign from the VV Board of Advisors. When you invited me to join the board shortly after the 2016 elections, I agreed for three reasons. First, Verified Voting’s promise to promote policy positions that “are based on scientific evidence and understood best practices in election administration” offered hope in addressing a decade or more of willful neglect of those principles in Georgia. Second, I thought that lending my name to the organization would help in the fight to eliminate vulnerable, unauditable voting machines in Georgia and nationwide. Third, I understood that my voice would be joined with the voices of respected colleagues to be sought out, valued, and debated by the organization’s leadership. However, it soon became apparent that Verified Voting’s policy positions were unpredictable, contradictory, and not aligned with the values I once believed we shared. On more than one occasion, Verified Voting has taken contradictory public stances in the span of a few days, undercutting allies and supporters. The pattern of espousing new positions and making public statements that take local VV stakeholders by surprise is nothing new. Rather than seeking out advice, Verified Voting has gone to great lengths to
I have tried over the last two years to engage in dialog, but you, Marian, and her team have been unwilling to have face to face conversations, even when we are in the same city and sometimes the same building. These apparent disconnects have been seized upon and exploited in Georgia and other states to weaken, not enhance, the cause of accurate and verifiable elections. Although my concerns have been growing for some time now, Verified Voting’s involvement in a “pilot RLA” in Georgia following the recent election makes it impossible to continue as a member of the advisory board. VV issued and supported misleading public statements that those pilots confirm outcomes and even prove the security of new election systems. Verified Voting’s seal of approval for the security theatrics in Bartow County undermines efforts to make elections more accountable. This exercise conducted behind closed doors and billed as a practice run—even if flawlessly conducted—could only confirm the correctness of the tally of the unverified (and therefore possibly corrupted) ballots, not that the ballots tallied were correctly marked. No audit based on an untrustworthy audit trail can confirm the correctness of the outcome. Billing such an exercise as an RLA and touting it as a proof of security plays into the hands of cynics. Whatever benefits accrue from this practice, it does not help public understanding to aid election officials in misstating the results. A similar false claim was made in Pennsylvania the following week. Verified Voting subsequently tweeted a weak repudiation of the incorrect Pennsylvania claim, but let stand an identical incorrect assertion in Georgia. That unrefuted statement will surely be a factor in future litigation. Most recently, Marian’sessay, posted on verifiedvoting.org shortly after Philip Stark’s November 22 resignation from the board, doubled down on these and other expanded claims. It is a short essay, but I count at least nine distinct contradictions of prior Verified Voting statements and published positions. In light of this, the promise to pursue policy positions based on scientific evidence and best practices rings hollow. I can no longer lend my name to Verified Voting. Some, including anti-transparency activists, conflicted supporters of ballot marking devices, politicians trying to silence and intimidate critics, and opponents of evidence-based policy, have already mischaracterized the mainly technical debates within the election integrity community. If they are successful at confusing the public about the correctness of election outcomes in Georgia and elsewhere, I fear it will be in some measure due to the absence of values once embraced by Verified Voting.
Richard DeMillo Charlotte B. and Roger C. Warren Professor of Computing and Executive Director of the Center for 21st
Jon Mays and Jerry Lee have known since December 4, 2018 Board of Supervisor Meeting that San Mateo County Sherif Deputy Heinz Puschendorf was requesting a by hand recount of every ballot for Measure W which passed only in the last two days of reporting and by less than 500 votes.
Today’s article talks about Harvesting of ballots, no mention of Undervotes, Ballots Printed etc.
The San Mateo Daily Journal has 84,000 readers per day times 5 is 420,000 views not seen. Heinz Puschendorf is looking for 300 volunteers John and Jerry know that.
For many years election system security experts have been whistle-blowing on Microsoft based vendor sold voting systems that utilize proprietary “secret ” software rather than a publicly viewable ” open source ” code. Experts state plainly that to defend against outside ( or insider ) interference an open source environment is preferred. NASA and the DOD utilize open source for mission critical operations.. and now New Hampshire has deployed the better systems. The systems are far less expensive and eliminate vulnerabilities to the point of being referenced as ” unhackable “
San Francisco County, just north of San Mateo County, CA has done extensive studies over a ten year period and now started the build-out of their open source / paper ballot voting system. The current voting machine vendors do not want SF County to accomplish this effort, and pioneering watchdog groups like California Association of Voting Officials ( www.cavo-us.org ) and CAVO is actively protecting the project against the derailing effects that have befallen other jurisdictions ( Travis County , TX and Los Angeles ) attempting to move away from the previously :”locked in” price gauging vendors.
The scenario is historic Davey vs Goliath as Microsoft and those who” bob in their wake ” scurry to delay the public systems while setting up to sell another round ( at a price tag over eight BILLION dollars ) of the scientifically concluded insecure systems. Money in the form of political contributions continues to flow toward decision makers.. and activists accuse the blocking politicians of putting personal gain before country and the national security. Recently U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard worked with CAVO to put forth a federal bill advocating open source election systems
So what’s up with San Mateo County ? As the technology capitol of the world, it would be natural for SMC to lead the advancements .. or at least follow San Francisco’s lead as a next door county. Could it be San Francisco politicians are that much more intelligent than those in San Mateo County.. or is it rather just corruption ? Let’s look at the Supervisors and some other elected folks..
Many years back Supervisor Warren Slocum was a major player bringing in the flawed voting systems that are now notorious as a national security threat. San Mateo County Supervisor ( and former registrar ) Slocum sweated profusely while presenting his case for purchasing the ” corporate / secret ” voting systems and prompted the League Of Women to join his advocacy. Upon direct questioning by this writer the LWV lead Jackie Jacobberger confessed ignorance regarding voting system security and promised to never advocate at Slocum;s urging again. It appeared “business as usual” occurred during that initial purchase, and the Texas based Hart Company scored a windfall.
Slocum then went on to join the board at Verified Voting, a group notable for destroying an open source voting project in Texas,and also for absorbing millions of dollars ( with no results ) in grant monies from federal voting projects.
Supervisor David Pine may not be directly corrupted but is apparently suffering from the controlling “persuasion” of notorious staff. Burruto is a controller of party politics and has been a staunch political opponent of open source voting The other SMC Supervisors Groom and Horsley seem to blindly follow behind Slocum and Pine apparently oblivious to their duties to country and democracy.
Relief is available to San Mateo County but it takes courage. Silicon donors that make or break politicians do not like the election system security solution as it involves a free software that out performs what they are selling. With the spotlight now on San Mateo County to join San Francisco’s efforts to set voting system security precedent, it will be interesting to see how the San Mateo Board of Supervisors deal with this circumstance.
Brent Turner is a native of San Mateo County.Mr. Turner is recognized as a civil rights activist and a catalyst for sustainability
San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf will be filing for a RECOUNT of all the ballots for Measure W in the November 6, 2018 election.
San Carlos Councilman Mark Olbert was the first Elected official to call for a complete Audit of the Elections Office.
Mark Simon the self proclaimed “genesis” of Measure W and a personal friend of Kevin Mullin and now a contributor for the Climate RWC stated clearly 271,704 was the number of ballots received by the absolute deadline.
Tonight the number has grown to 286,247.
Did Measure W pass using the 271,704 ballots.
It looks like Heinz Puschendorf is going to find out, a recount was going to happen no matter who won, I think this will be a much more transparent process for the average taxpayer who might have just got obligated with the Supervisors and SamTrans using $650,000 of taxpayer money against the taxpayers to pass Measure W.
Based on the information from San Mateo County Election Office there was a total of 286,210 ballots received, of that amount 265,793 ballots tallied a total 249,288 voted either yes or no for Measure W. That also means that 16,605 votes were not tallied or didn’t vote either way for Measure W. = 6.24% of the 265,793.
With a total of 20,417 remaining ballots to be tallied, minus the 6,24% No tally or vote for Measure W average leaves 19,149 votes to be tallied. The Yes on Measure W would have to get 68.7% of the remaining ballots “and they are statistically unlikely to meet the necessary threshold”.
With that information We are calling Measure W Failed.
Total Registered Voters 399,591, 286,210 Voted = 72% Turnout
San Mateo County Elections Office should display:
Registered Voters 399,591 100.0%
Total Ballots Received (turn out) 286,210 72.0%
Vote by Mail 260,000 65.1%
Vote Center 26,210 6.7%
Total Ballots Counted 265,793 53.3%
Ballots received, damaged or challenged ##### ##.#%
Today November 21, 2018 The elections office shows a new and larger number of mail ballots that were received by 9:00PM November 9, 2018. The new number is 260,000 the previous number was 258,015. That is a 1985 ballot difference.
According to those numbers a total of 286,210 ballots have been received. When you add the 260,000 plus the 26,210 on Election Day . He is reporting that 247,256 ballots have been tallied that leaves 38,966 to be tallied.
The San Mateo Daily Journal which has a readership of 84,000 people per day has reported 12,744 ballots to be counted/tallied. Simply not true or accurate.
Measure W which has been failing consistently so far is now inching closer to pass.
Mark Church should be counting the ballots instead he takes time to write a public relations piece in the SMDJ.
I have received word that the SMC Elections office published election results a couple of days ago, which if true is a very bad thing.
Lets see what Mark Church says about this taken from his website several days ago.
County voter receives two election ballots
Apparent irregularity sparks concern, but top election official claims all is well
By Austin Walsh Daily Journal staff
William Holsinger received his official ballot in the mail and sent it back to cast his vote, per his usual process as a permanent absentee voter for about the last 10 years.
Then another official ballot arrived in the mail the next day. Caught off guard by the irregularity, Holsinger, who is registered in San Mateo, called county election officials who told him that he could discard the duplicate.
Seeking some peace of mind, Holsinger said his primary interest was receiving a guarantee that being issued a second ballot would not invalidate his initial one.
“I wasn’t planning on voting twice,” he said. “I just wanted to make sure that my first one counted.”
Officials in a phone conversation were initially unable to offer that certainty though, said Holsinger. For his part, Jim Irizarry, the county’s assistant chief elections officer, suggested the second ballot is likely due to the complex nature of operating a countywide election.
“Voters receiving two ballots is a common occurrence due to the complex and fluid nature of voter registration,” he said in an email, suggesting a second ballot can be issued when a voter changes their status with the county. Altering party affiliations, addresses or other details in the county’s record are examples of the type of action which would prompt issuance of a second ballot.
Holsinger though said he had not changed his status with the county recently, making his second ballot all the more perplexing.
“I was a little puzzled,” he said.
To get clarification on whether the ballot was counted, Irizarry said the county offers a service which requires voters to share information such as their name, address and birthday.
“With this information, we can determine the number of ballots issued, when they were issued, what types of ballots were issued, if any ballots were voted or returned,” he said.
He added changes to the county record may not be immediately apparent to voters, as activity at the DMV for example may result in prompting a second ballot.
“Voters may not associate a second ballot with a DMV interaction made weeks ago, plus the time for the ballot to reach them,” Irizarry said.
He took time to note though that issuance of a second ballot would not invalidate the first. He said the voting system is designed to flag ballots in the case of potential redundancies, which then requires staffers to check the voter’s record, rather than automatically render it uncountable.
But so long as Holsinger only sent his first ballot, Irizarry confirmed his vote counted.
“If the voter … sent in his first ballot, and only that ballot, it would be counted despite the issuance of a second ballot,” he said.
Irizarry also tamped down concerns raised by those who were alarmed to see mock election results posted on the county elections office website in late October. Some felt the outcomes shown were real and may affect the behavior of those yet to vote.
Irizarry though said the mock results were not actual outcomes, and instead only a standard system testing mechanism commonly used by officials in advance of an election.
“These results are labeled ‘test’ or ‘mock’ to distinguish them from the actual reports released on Election night. Every system tested worked correctly. Once the mock election testing is complete, the numbers on racetracker revert to zero in preparation for Election night reporting,” he said.
The issues raised follow a series of missteps county officials have endured during election season.
First, officials found the county Board of Education race was left off sample ballots, causing elections officials to postpone sending actual ballots one week from Oct. 9 to Oct. 15 while they addressed the error.
Elections officials incorrectly identified the race as a district election, resulting in only those living in District 1 along the coast receiving information about the candidates in their sample ballot. The Board of Education candidates are required to be residents of the district they represent, but members are elected by voters across the county.
Irizarry said the additional information originally intended for the sample material was included with the actual ballot in an addendum which required additional time to craft. Elections officials sent out ballots last month, and voters still received their material within the legal time requirements.
Later, officials found the sample material problems carried over to real ballots, and dozens of overseas voters were sent ballots also omitting the Board of Education race. Officials were forced to scramble and assure those voters were offered ballots including the race.
For Holsinger, he shared fears that his experience could be a byproduct of a potentially dysfunctional system.
“I believe that good process makes for appropriate results. Bad process never has good results. And the ends don’t justify the means,” he said.
This is a perfect example of why I support elected official Sabrina Brennan she cares. If you know of any other San Mateo County elected official who has publicly commented on this subject let me know.
San Mateo County election irregularities:
1.) Why were multiple ballots mailed to individual voters…?2.) On Tuesday, Oct 30, 2018, Race Tracker was published on the San Mateo County Elections website with “mock” results. Voters discovered the Race Tracker results online when they Google searched a candidates name. The word ”mock“ was in fine print giving voters the impression the results were from votes cast in the Nov 2018 election. The “mock” results did not appear to berandomized.
3.) The *countywide* Board of Education election was excluded from the Sample Ballot pamphlet everywhere except the Coastside. Delaying the arrival of ballots by a week or more.
4.) The sample ballot problem carried over to real ballots, and dozens of overseas voters were sent ballots also omitting the Board of Education race.
Third-party audit needed of Elections Office
November 8, 2018
I just completed my official San Mateo County vote-by-mail ballot. In addition to a mistake involving a position on the County Board of Education (the correction of which I’ve been told necessitated delaying distribution of the ballots), the provided instructions are incorrect. Specifically, step 3 calls for the voter to “remove the strip to seal the envelope” … when in reality the envelope, or mine at least, is a traditional lick-to-seal one.
Granted, that’s not a big deal. But two mistakes involving a single ballot package? I can’t recall the last time there was any mistake on a ballot, and I’ve voted in every election for the more than 20 years I’ve lived here.
It may be unfair to give voice to this next concern. But it needs to be asked. What else went wrong? It’s the mistakes you don’t see which can cause the biggest problems.
The people of San Mateo County should insist on a thorough, top-to-bottom independent third-party audit of the Elections Office. Our hard-working county employees deserve not to work under a cloud, and county residents deserve a first-class election operation.
The letter writer is a member of the San Carlos City Council. The views and opinions expressed here are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of the city of San Carlos or its City Council.
Mark Church has certified the June 5, 2018 Election results for San Mateo County.
The Sheriff Office race was an exciting one with three candidates. Mark Melville and Heinz Puschendorf both San Mateo County Sheriff Deputies and Carlos Bolanos the illegally appointed Sheriff who started his campaign over three years ago to make sure no deputy would run against him. That didn’t happen. Mark Melville told several editors including Jon Mays of the San Mateo Daily Journal in May that he watched a 3 minute video of Concerned Citizen Mark De Paula’s presentation to the Board of Supervisors on March 13, 2018. He described it as brilliant and clearly stated based on that presentation it proved that Greg Munks and Carlos Bolanos were liars. Heinz Puschendorf was a last minute write in candidate told several reporters including Dave Boyce that in 2007 when he was the President of the Deputy Sheriff Association DSA he was ordered by UnderSheriff Carlos Bolanos not to talk about or mention the FBI Human Trafficking Sting Operation Dollhouse where he was caught and detained as a customer on April 21, 2007.
Melville and Heinz were very brave to offer their services to the residents of San Mateo County. Look no further than the last write in candidate former deputy Juan P. Lopez.
Imagine what the outcome of this election would have been had Jon Mays printed the brave statement Mark Melville made in May. He and Jerry Lee didn’t think it was newsworthy, 83,500 readers didn’t know about a candidate deputy calling his boss a liar.
That is a big deal. Another big deal is that 100 voters spelled Heinz Puschendorf correctly.
To the 52,996 voters for Mark Melville, I recommend you send him your e-mail addresses so that he can keep you informed if anything bad should happen to him. Same for Mr. Puschendorf. Note Mark Melville has not conceded yet, with close to 30,000 votes in Carlos Bolanos favor 81,032.
In another race between Nancy Magee and Gary Waddell for Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Waddell conceded right away with less than 1% difference.
Magee 65,683 Waddell 64,485
For the record I believe SMC Sheriff Deputies Heinz Puschendorf and Mark Melville.