" John Tuteur is enaging in the time honored political tactic of denying problems exist if they are expensive to correct. I would have hoped that rather than engaging in 'head in the sand' denial of the now proven fact that elections held on these machines cannot be trusted, he would have said, "Ok. We will work on fixing it." But I guess that is too much to expect. "

" Decertifying flawed machines and implementing paper trails are only the first baby steps in restoring integrity to a broken process. We must do more. What would profit-conscious corporate America do? We must be more business wise. We must implement high-bar stringent guidelines for voting machine providers and elections officials to uphold. And we must fix our election laws to protect us from machine and human error. Sarasota's 18,000 lost votes are still in dispute. And while Cady Palmer in Miami’s “Margin of Error Ballots of Straw” scoffs at the notion of a silent coup marching across the country in her fictitious voting machines…. how will we know it’s right? "

" Shame on you, Mr. Tuteur. You seem to laugh in the face of an unbiased real-world test of security measures for the most sacred of rights in the United States. Stop acting as if you're a spoiled little boy who got his toys taken away. We're concerned citizens who could potentially have our *votes* taken away. Have you considered that? Security at Napa polling locations is a complete joke, there is no verification that voters are who they claim to be, and there is absolutely no monitoring of what citizens do on or around the electronic polling machines. Napa citizens, we must get Mr. Tuteur out of office and regain control and security of our voting process. Who's with me? "

" Sequoia's inability to safeguard their voting machines against hacking -- both inside and outside -- has been well documented for several years. Tuteur's argument that the machines save money, and that the Secretary of State's motives in decertifying the machines are political, are irresponsible, cavalier and ignore overwheming evidence that use of these machines circumvent our most basic voting rights. "

" After watching the past three elections it's about time somebody does something. Verifiable paper ballots that are signed are the only way to go. How much money will that save if you don't have to go to court to defend it? Everybody in this county knows there were "problems." "

" Who cares if the machines can be hacked. We do nothing to verify the people who vote are actually the person(s) they say they are. I was absolutley appauled watching the scene at my precinct in 2006. People walking right up t the table, unable to speak a word of English and the administrtor just going down the list of names asking "Is this you? How about this, is this your name?". Eventully the people would nod or say "C" and be handed a card. Then they would be assisted through the whole process of actually recording their vites. I could care less whether the electronic machines can be hacked, the entire voting system is being "hacked" every election. "

" “We’ve saved money in every election up until Secretary Bowen’s misguided edict by not using paper,” he said. Well. If the criteria is saving money, that's all well and good. However, can you audit that electronic file after it has been hacked? Really, until we become a little bit more sophisticated, paper is the only way of auditing. But, hey, it's all good! There's no reason to be skeptical, even though "'They found that on all of the machines that they tested that there were a lack of built-in technological safeguards,' said Evan Goldberg, a spokesman for Bowen’s office." Doesn't that seem a contradiction to you? These findings do, indeed, leave me skeptical. "

" Oooh. In addition, John's citing of saving money on the one hand seems rather hypocritcal when looking at the final result of his actions: "Tuteur said Napa county is consulting with other counties to review their legal options. That could be a prelude to a lawsuit counties might bring against the Secretary of State’s office to try to get state courts to re-certify the machines." Yeah. That'll save money. Court actions are so cost-effective. "

" Tuteur, how can you put a price on democracy and fair elections? "

" Thanks to Secretary of State Bowen, OUR VOTES WILL COUNT!! The answer is paper ballots and hand counting. Debra Bowen passed regulations requiring all counties in California to return to a paper-based voting system, (with one electronic voting machine available at each precinct for voters who need or want to use it, such as those with disabilities who can’t mark a paper ballot on their own). Electronic voting machines can be programmed to record a vote for one candidate and give a paper receipt or print out showing a vote for the other candidate. Two presidential elections have been stolen, helped in part by use of these touch screen voting machines. We must have paper ballots and hand counting to regain our democracy. "

" John Tuteur is worried about saving money? Oh come on! If he were worried about saving us taxpayers our money, he would, instead of looking for a way to sue the state, try and fix the problem. He seems to ignore the fact that his precious Sequoia people were selling us machines which could be easily compromised! Now THAT warrants an investigation while we vote the time-tested and most accurate way- by paper. "

" I vote and will continue to vote, but I signed up for absentee ballots from now on so I don't have to worry about voting machines. I do worry, however, if my vote is being counted. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 so did almost everyone I know. And he lost? Don't think so. So look who we got. Our clueless leader and his evil twin, Dickie Boy Cheney. I am so fed up with them and it is all because of the inability to run an election in this country. Raise your hands if you thought voting machines were a bad idea. One, two, three......., oh, all of you? Well, then how did we get them? Were you asked?, or you? There went your constitutional rights, folks. Get with it and understand what you are being fed - garbage in the form of a machine. And you have no say in the matter. Sad "

" As we all know, the Napa County Election Dept. has long been the joke of the county. Most every election has been marred by a myriad of mistakes caused by that office. What to do? First, email your representative on the Board of Supervisors and ask your supervisor to DENY funding for any frivilous voting machine-related lawsuit that John Tuteur seeks to file. Secondly, as an elected official, Mr. Tuteur is subject to recall if, in the opinion of the majority of voters, he is not performing his duties in the best interest of his constituency -- us taxpayers. Want him out? Start a recall petition! Enough of his total disregard for the wishes of the public. "

" John Tuteur has wasted quite enough of our tax money buying the electronic voting system, which has been suspect from the get-go. Now the UC study proves the vulnerability, and Tuteur wants to spend more of our tax money by suing the Secretary of State. Let's hope our County Supervisors deny him any funds for his retaliatory suit. Secretary Bowen ran on the issue of thoroughly testing the voting equipment and the majority of California voters elected her to do so. Thank goodness! "

" Where to start! I've been fighting to have these e-voting machines removed from Napa County since the last election. At the time Mr. Tuteur stated that no one had complained about the electronic voting machines. I didn't believe him since I had personally heard much complaint and concern. So I did my research. And found that a significant number of people don't want them. It has been proven beyond any doubt that too many things can and do go wrong with them. From inaccurate voting, hacking, break downs and waiting for someone to come and fix them, confusing use directions and so on. Paper ballots do not break down or vote for someone you didn't. You do not need to pay an electronic technician to repair paper balloting equipment. Mr. Tuteur stated in the Napa Valley Register, 11-15-2006 article that he wanted to buy more machines at considerable taxpayer expense and add more technicians. It has already cost the California taxpayer an exorbitant amount of dollars. I would hope the Napa County Registrar of Voters would be more concerned with the conducting of an honest and accurate election, than obsessing over retaining his electronic "toys", which in this case are dangerous to the people of Napa County. "

" To Assessor Tuteur: You have put your personal interests above the will of the people. It's time for you to go. I, too, will sign up to collect signatures for a recall. "

" This is probably too difficult for most of you posters to understand, but I will try anyway: all the problems in Napa's recent elections were with the PAPER ballots. The electronic ballots worked just fine. John, you are doing a great job. Debbie Bowen is wasting millions of tax dollars and needs to be stopped. Sue her and end this fiasco... "

" These weren't high school kids they hired, they were peofessional software engineers who knew the voting machines, and had plenty of advance notice that they were being asked to "hack" on behalf of the State. It was a set up folks. No different then if you gave me permission to hot wire your car next Wednesday and told me where it would be parked, make model, year, etc. There is a political interest in this set up...Follow the money. "

" I hate to tell you that the people who have hack into these machines already know all the information. Just like the state people did. "

" Judging by the comments on this issue, it seems obviously clear that the people of Napa County are in general agreement that there is a problem with the e-voting machines. I for one feel greatly encouraged that someone has finally stepped up and taken responsibility and become accountable in this very important and critical issue concerning these proven problematic and faulty electronic voting machines. As far as Mr. Tuteur and his position as Registrar of Voters record, I would define it as impressive, impressively bad. Within the last six years, this office has been investigated by the State of California and the Napa County Civil Grand Jury for ballot-tampering, ballots being sent to the wrong voting district and two Napa Valley College Board election incidents, among others. These implications are quite serious considering that in both college elections the actual winner initially lost and apparently to this day we are not sure of the actual winner of the Mike Rippey-Harold Moskowite race, not to mention the multitude of problems encountered at numerous polling places by voters last November. My advice to Mr. Tuteur is to use all the energy being spent complaining, threatening, whining and sniveling about the absolute gloom and doom that will surely descend on his office if his precious e-voting machines are taken out of commission and heaven forbid he is forced to carry out his job as the Napa County Registrar of Voters without them. As far as Mr. Tuteur calling California Secretary of State, Deborah Bowen's edict "reckless and ego driven" I find uncalled for and unprofessional considering his position. I have met Mr. Tuteur and I can honestly say that I found him to be arrogant and would go so far as to say even rude. I encourage all who value our right and civic responsibility to vote to e-mail or call our California Secretary of State, Deborah Bowen and support and applaud her stand on this very important issue. Thank you. "

" To “Reality Check” and “duh!!!”: Here’s a reality check (and a “duh!!!”) for you. Of all the systems reviewed by Ms. Bowen’s “Red Team” in advance of her decision to de-certify virtually all of the electronic voting systems now in use in this state, the report concerning Sequoia’s voting systems was the most alarming of all. For its system’s “vulnerabilities could be exploited by a determined attacker to modify (or invalidate) the results of an election” without “access to [or knowledge of] the source code". In laymen’s terms, that can be loosely translated to: Sequoia’s software’s control of the voting results database (which serves as the system’s collective record of the electronic votes cast) can be easily overridden or bypassed through the introduction to such systems – possible through a variety of different access points - of an undetectable (and apparently remarkably simple-to-create) malicious external (i.e., unauthorized) application. In other words: Sequoia’s systems are so easy to hack that high school kids – and not even very sophisticated ones, at that – could do it with relative ease. Furthermore, your implication that all the information they needed to easily carry out their attacks were virtually handed to them on a silver platter (“knew the voting machines, and had plenty of advance notice that they were being asked to "hack" on behalf of the State”) which allowed them to come up with the findings upon which Ms. Bowen based her decision is simply inaccurate. If you had actually read the reports of the Red Team’s findings, even if you didn’t understand much about how computers work – which you clearly do not, you would know that the “hackers” were working with a very tight window of time and were obstructed by stonewalling and factual misrepresentations by both Diebold and Sequoia in connection with their investigations. Why don’t you try going to a source document yourself once in a while, instead of acting like helpless baby birds who wait for someone else to pre-digest what they consume and regurgitate it to them in some reconstituted – and often inaccurate - form. "

" To “Kevin”: Of all of the comments that you have ever posted (that I have so far read), this one (Aug 7, 2007 9:34 PM) is the most over-the-top. The evidence that Sequoia’s systems are so full of cavernous security holes that you could drive a fleet of Humvees through them is overwhelming. Yet you are trying to make the case here that, just because we haven’t stumbled upon evidence that one of those vulnerabilities has been exploited yet in one of OUR local elections (luckily, we’ve apparently managed to dodge that bullet so far), we should continue to use Sequoia’s Swiss-cheese-style-excuse-for-a-voting-system-software. But if you have examined the evidence, which is available not just from our own Secretary of State’s Web site, but can also be independently verified through an alarming number of other sources, you simply cannot make the argument that continuing to use our very vulnerable existing voting system in the face of its consistent and repeated failure to withstand hacking attacks from a multitude of different sources would be anything less than the equivalent of (paraphrasing somewhat one of the comments made earlier on this page, but which was inaccurately applied in that case) parking on the street and then leaving your keys in the ignition of your unlocked car. You might get lucky; maybe nobody that discovers your keys in your unlocked car will actually steal it. Or maybe you won’t. Even if the odds are somewhat better that one’s car won’t actually be stolen if left vulnerable in that way, most people don’t take that chance. And let’s say you did get lucky the first time you do that and your car doesn’t get stolen: Does that prove that there’s no reason to take your keys and lock you car in the future. Of course it doesn’t. And I'd be willing to bet in your case, Kevin, that you don’t leave the keys in the ignition to your unlocked car, either. So let’s not continue to do the equivalent of that with our precious electoral process. "