Secretary of State Debra Bowen reported:

Updated voter registration numbers released by Secretary of State Debra Bowen today show 23.1 percent of California voters registered without a political party preference – an all-time high. A total of 17,634,876 Californians are registered to vote.

That’s 4.1 million not registered with any party.

Democrats have 7.7 million registered voters, or 43.4 percent.

Republicans have 5 million registered voters, or 28.2 percent.

That means Republican registration is in third place, behind those with no party. On the other hand, Democratic registration is way below half and dropping.

People obviously are dissatisfied with the current system, which is so unresponsive to voter needs. Republicans obviously are having problems connecting with voters. Their current crop of candidates seems to be trying to change, but is unlikely to do better this Nov. 4. Any potential strong improvement is years off.

But Democrats are frozen into subservience to the powerful public-employee unions that write the campaign checks. That’s why pension reform is so halting, and comprehensive changes likely won’t occur until more municipal, and perhaps school district, bankruptcies shake the system during a future recession.

It also doesn’t help that voting seems to be meaningless. In 2008, voters approved Proposition 1A, $9 billion in bonds for a high-speed rail project. But the current project being built by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and the Democratic-led Legislature doesn’t resemble what the voters were promised, as lawsuits against the project have charged.

In 2003, voters recalled Gov. Gray Davis and elected Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who promised not to raise taxes and to “blow up the boxes” of bureaucratic waste. Instead, he went on a spending binge and to pay for it raised taxes a record $13 billion.

Might as well stay home and watch reruns of “Breaking Bad.”

Note: The registration numbers were changed from the original, which used the Secretary of State’s 2010 numbers instead of those for 2014.

Two months before Californians go to the polls to choose a governor, the state’s top elections official tearfully acknowledged Friday that she has been consumed by a “debilitating” depression that has often kept her away from the office.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen, who oversees statewide voting, told The Times that she has a history of depression and has moved out of the two-story country home she owns with her husband. She now resides in a trailer park on the outskirts of Sacramento. …

The secretary said she is receiving professional help, is comforted by support from friends and has not been hospitalized. She described her new living accommodations as a refuge, characterizing the mobile home park as one containing “extended-stay cottages.” …

Her trailer at Arden Acres has cracked windowsills, and some windows have cardboard behind the glass to block the sun. Behind it is a storage yard with a giant, rusting shipping container pressed against the other side of the fence. On Thursday, her state-issued Buick was parked outside, the back seats and front passenger seat full of cardboard boxes brimming with clothing and household goods.

Problems festered, never got solved

This may fully or partly explain her utter diffidence as secretary of state over the past seven and a half years. As the LAT story noted …

She has been criticized periodically for being distracted on the job, most recently during her 2010 reelection campaign. Republican challenger Damon Dunn noted then that the time it took her office to process business filings had more than tripled. (Bowen said a backlog was due to budget cuts.)

In addition, a project that now allows online voter registration was four years behind schedule. Bowen had said it takes time to find the right contractor.

Open-government advocates bashed her for failing to upgrade California’s online campaign finance reporting system, which is antiquated and unwieldy.

‘Embarrassing shortcomings and backlogs’

Her years of disinterest in trying to minimize business paperwork delays produced a harsh rebuke from the Sac Bee edit page in March 2013:

If Texas can process an application to form a limited liability company in five days, even less if the registration application is filed online, why does it take California six weeks? In California, home to Silicon Valley, the most sophisticated collection of high-tech companies in the world, why can’t the state process business filings online?

Why does a business owner in Los Angeles have to deliver papers to the secretary of state’s office in Sacramento to get expedited over-the-counter service? Why doesn’t the secretary of state have counter service in Los Angeles or Fresno or San Francisco?

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen blames state budget cuts for the many embarrassing shortcomings and backlogs in her office. Lack of money should not have been a problem. After all, the business portal side of Bowen’s office – the place where entrepreneurs seeking to form corporations or limited liability companies or partnerships file their paperwork – is entirely fee-based. It’s supposed to be self-supporting. The businesses pay for the cost of the operation.

In fact, California charges among the highest fees of any state in the nation for what appears to be perhaps the worst service, as a limited survey by The Bee’s Jon Ortiz suggests.

I sure didn’t see this coming. In 2006, I voted for Bowen over appointed Republican Secretary of State Bruce McPherson after being put off by McPherson’s hauteur and arrogance in an interview.

Mature, persistent leadership during energy crisis

It wasn’t just McPherson’s manner. I also was impressed by Bowen’s persistence, patience and maturity during the state’s bizarre 2000-01 energy crisis, the fiasco that so damaged then-Gov. Gray Davis that it paved the way for his 2003 recall. Bowen, a Redondo Beach Democrat, was chair of the state Senate’s Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee. In early 2000, after hearings by her committee, she warned that California’s faux energy dergulation bill of 1996 was going haywire.

But Davis was more interested in posturing and blaming utilities and power suppliers than acting decisively to address both soaring energy costs and supply limits that produced regional blackouts. He was such a dithering dolt that in December 2000, 75-year-old former Secretary of State Warren Christopher — an Edison board member — harangued him at a private meeting about needing to figure out the basics of public leadership.

Bowen played an important role in the cleanup, especially when she resisted attempts to rush through a flawed fix. As she noted, it was the rush to pass the faux deregulation bill in 1996 that created the mess.

I wasn’t just observing from afar. I was then a government and politics reporter for The Orange County Register, which sent me to Sacramento in late January and early Februrary 2001 to bolster our coverage as the crisis crested. In a Capitol dominated by a dilettante (Davis) and a wack job (Senate President John Burton), Bowen stood out.

Based on her performance in the Legislature, I never expected her to disappear after she got a promotion. But that’s pretty much what happened.

Missing-person report: SOS for the SoS

In May, when I met Pete Peterson, the brainy, impressive GOP reformer who hopes to succeed Bowen in November’s election, I told him how surprised I was that Bowen was such a fiasco in statewide office. I said someone should file a missing person report for the secretary of state.

Peterson laughed, and so did I. But I wouldn’t tell such a joke now. I hope Bowen gets the help she needs — and that California finally gets the great secretary of state that it needs and deserves.

Peterson could be that good. He’s already won a long list of endorsements from newspapers left and right. Don’t hold the LAT’s applause against him.

But I just got in the mail Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s “California Statewide Direct Primary Election Tuesday, June 3, 2014 Official Voter Information Guide.”

Although he has dropped out of the race, the Guide still includes Lee’s Candidate Statement in his bid to be the next secretary of state, which also is online.

Here’s the amusing sentence, “Under the Constitution, the Secretary of State’s job is to empower Californians to govern California, to guarantee fair elections, expose special interests, and prevent corruption.”

Oh, well.

The rest of his statement is standard Democratic boilerplate, interspersed with him writing several times, “It’s your California.” Which also is the name of his website, still online for now, to make it easier to register to vote.

The P.C. Democratic boilerplate brings up, “a place of exclusion to one of inclusion….end tuition discrimination against immigrant college students…. struggle for marriage equality….finally raising the disgracefully low minimum wage….”

Here are the Top 10 Quotes allegedly made by Yee and others, as quoted verbatim from the FBI’s 137-page criminal complaint. Some references are to his campaign, which he just quit, to be California’s secretary of state, which oversees all state elections.

10. Think Globally, Arms Deal Locally

Yee, allegedly on his expanding weapons trafficking business: “Because, I’m getting a little more into this, it’s not just Russia; the Muslim countries have sources too. And so, that has been brought to my attention recently.”

Yee: “I want to protect the entire enterprise.”

9. Chinatown Gangster: San Francisco politicians are dirty

Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow was previously convicted and jailed on other charges. In the new indictment, he allegedly told an undercover agent that, while San Francisco may look clean, the city was dirtier because of public corruption. Chow disapproved of San Francisco politicians.

Shrimp Boy: “If I’m into the game, I would step on them, I would nail those guys … all the people, they play the little dirty s— around me… Oh, I’m dirty too, you know, but I’m not dirty to my people.”

8. The Allure of Secretary of State?

Yee: “I’m just trying to run for secretary of state. I hope I don’t get indicted.”

7. Life imitates ‘The Wire’

The catch-phrase of “The Wire” TV show’s Clay Davis appears frequently in the indictment.

Yee: “$15k man, s—. For what we did man? S—. You know, we got him close to [State Senator 1].”

Yee: “There’s got to be some trust around here man, s—”

Yee: “S—, as much as I want that five thousand, I can’t do that man. S—. F—. S—.”

Yee: “S—. That’ s pay to play and you can’t do that. You cannot connect. You could go to jail for that . … They got to understand, it’ s about the long term. It ‘s not about the short term.”

Yee: On his possible election as mayor of San Francisco: “We control 6.8 billion, man. S—.” The number was the approximate size of the city’s budget at the time.

6. Psychoanalyze this: Because I’m unhappy as a child psychologist

When an undercover agent allegedly told Yee, a child psychologist, that Yee lived a great life, Yee allegedly responded that he was unhappy and thought about hiding out in the Philippines.

Yee: “There’s a part of me that wants to be like you. You know how I’m going to be like you? Just be a free agent there.”

5. It’s a marathon, not a sprint

Keith Jackson (not the sports announcer), the political operative who also was indicted, allegedly on the relationship: “You know, he just, he sees this as a long-term relationship and he don’t, he don’t you know, he don’t want to f— things up.”

4. Liberal SF Democrat driven by money

Allegedly Yee, who thought Africa was a largely untapped market for trade, was eager to get the goods and make money.

Yee: “Do I think we can make some money? I think we can make some money. Do I think we can get the goods? I think we can get the goods.”

3. Pillow talk for Capitol fundraisers

Yee: “Just give me the g—– money, man s— … you should just tell them, write some f—ing checks, man.”

2. Playing Mortal Kombat in the Philippines

Yee authored California’s ban on the sale of violent video games to children that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional. In the indictment, he allegedly said he was “agnostic” to working with a Muslim rebel group, which he knew to be responsible for “kidnapping individuals, killing individuals and extorting them for ransom.”

Yee: “People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don’t care.”

1. Which is better: 10 months or 8 years?

Yee: “I can be of help to you for 10 months or I can be of help to you for eight years. I think eight years is a lot better than 10 months.”

He wasn’t talking about time in federal prison.

After spending tens of millions of dollars in recent years on ineffective voting systems, California election officials are planning to experiment with an “open source” system that may prove to be the cure-all for secure, accessible balloting – or just another expensive failure.

Most computer programs, such as the Microsoft Windows or Apple OS X operating systems, are “closed source” programs. That means the original computer code only can be examined by the program’s owners, in these cases Microsoft and Apple. “Open source” means the original computer code is made public so it can be used and examined by anyone, in particular to find security holes.

According to Damicon, “True-open-source development requires that a community of software engineers band together to work on the software. The idea is that more minds create better software.”

Help America Vote Act

California still suffers from problems that open-source advocates say could be alleviated.

A state audit last August criticized Secretary of State Debra Bowen for wasting more than $22 million in federal funds from the Help America Vote Act by implementing new voting systems that counties and voters could not fully use. Six counties similarly wasted more than $29 million in California Voting Modernization Act funding.

Despite California’s counties having received $252 million since 2003 to replace their voting systems, nearly a fifth indicated they are currently using aging voting systems, according to the audit.

The audit was performed at the request of state Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima, who is running to replace the termed-out Bowen as secretary of state. Last year Padilla authored Senate Bill 360, which passed along party lines and empowers the secretary of state to revamp the state’s voting systems without needing federal approval.

A matter of trust

Padilla touted the bill before the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee as a boon to counties wanting more control over their voting systems.

“California has long been a leader in expanding voter access and participation,” Padilla said Aug. 13. “For everybody transparency of the voting process is important for the public to verify and trust the accuracy of voting outcomes. This trust is not just in the people who conduct elections, but in the systems and the machines that we use to cast and count our votes as well.

“In California there’s a patchwork of different technologies to develop … for each of the 58 counties by at least a half-dozen vendors. Currently counties only partially own the systems, which serve as the accuracy and transparency of the hardware and the software that they use in voting. Election equipment is subject to licensing agreements. Which means that counties at times additionally rely on vendors for system maintenance and repairs.

“I introduce this bill to allow a county to own their system and have full access to every part of the voting system. We trust officials to conduct elections. We ought to trust them to maintain our voting systems as well. This gives California full control over how our voting systems are approved by the secretary of state.”

L.A. County

The bill was sponsored by Los Angeles County, which is using a 30-year-old voting system. In 2009 it launched the Voting Systems Assessment Project, which could make it the first county in the United States to develop, own and operate its own voting system.

“We believe SB360 will help spur new approaches to voting systems development in an all but stagnant voting systems market in California while also creating more agile systems and regulations that can more efficiently adapt to technology and legislative changes,” Dean Logan, Los Angeles County registrar-recorder, told the committee. “The reforms sought by this legislation are an important step to improve the voter experience in California and helping to slow the precipitous decline in voter participation.

“Voting system challenges are not unique to Los Angeles County. Many counties have rolled back their systems, and in the process reduced access and voting options for many voters. Similar to Los Angeles County, many of our sister counties are anxious to see the approval and introduction of new voting systems.”

SB360 authorizes counties to implement experimental pilot voting systems that use software with publicly disclosed, open-source code. Proponents argue that this will make the systems more secure than closed, proprietary systems. But concerns have been raised that it might do the opposite.

Potential for fraud?

“I appreciate you tackling a very, very dicey subject,” said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, who also is running for governor. “We’ve had quite a debate in this chamber on anytime you’re changing anything wholesale in elections, it makes people very uncomfortable. Is it true that it would be based on open-source software that is publicly disclosed and might provide a roadmap for potential fraud?”

Logan’s response did not address the potential for hacking into an open-source system.

“There’s nothing in the bill that requires open-source software,” he said. “What it does say is piloting a new voting system in order to meet the conditions to participate in that pilot some of those conditions are disclosed source, because there are multiple definitions of what ‘open source’ means. And certainly the concern that you raise is about the access to that and the ability to look at it. So it’s intended for transparency purposes. That is one condition for the pilot.”

That did not satisfy Donnelly, who voted against SB360 in committee. He was joined in opposition by nearly every Republican when the bill came to the Assembly and Senate floors.

Not ready for prime time

The open-source voting system concept has been kicked around for years. In 2006 a study for then-Secretary of State Bruce McPherson found that it was not ready for prime time:

“At the outset, open source software is software whose inner workings are available for public review and unfettered technical scrutiny. However, in practice, the business of technical innovation and the effectiveness of information security may both depend upon some measure of confidentiality, which open source, by its very nature, precludes.

“Open source advocates point to impressive accomplishments for software developed and maintained according to their principles, with apparent benefits to costs, efficiency, quality and security; however, upon close examination, the open source experience is more limited in scope and specific in application.”

The study concluded:

“After extensive investigation, it is clear that significant further examination of open source software in voting systems is needed. While there may be benefits associated with using open source software, they are neither empirical nor measurable. There is no precedent that fully supports the feasibility of a potential effort to develop, deploy, and maintain an open source election system.”

Internet voting hacked

In 2010, the city of Washington, D.C. implemented an open-source pilot project that allowed voters to cast their ballots via the Internet. Officials held a mock election and invited hackers to test the security of the system.

A University of Michigan group took that challenge and issued a report detailing how they were able to successfully hack into the system:

“Within 48 hours of the system going live, we had gained near complete control of the election server. We successfully changed every vote and revealed almost every secret ballot. Election officials did not detect our intrusion for nearly two business days – and might have remained unaware for far longer had we not deliberately left a prominent clue.

“Conducting elections for public office over the Internet raises grave security risks…. Our successful penetration supports the widely held view among security researchers that web-based electronic voting faces high risks of vulnerability, and it cautions against the position of many vendors and election officials who claim that the technology can readily be made safe.”

Smart-phone voting

One nonprofit company hoping to implement open-source voting is the California Association of Voting Officials. A recent YouTube showed CAVO board member Brent Turner voting with his smart phone.

“To vote for President Washington, say ‘one,’” a computerized voice instructs.

Turner says into his phone, “one” and, after a computer prompt, says “three” to vote for “Governor Ross.”

The computer asks him to confirm. Turner says, “Cast ballot,” and has fulfilled his civic duty.

In an email interview, CalWatchdog.com asked Turner whether Donnelly’s concern is valid about open-source voting systems leading to voting fraud.

“Actually the use of open source in election systems will greatly diminish the potential for fraud,” Turner said. “Open source is beneficial, as ‘security by obscurity’ is a failed concept. And the great majority of computer scientists now recognize open source for its security benefits. See projects in other countries and in the USA used by the D.O.D. [Department of Defense]/Air Force, etc.”

Does publicly disclosing the source code make it easier for hackers to tamper with elections?

Turner said, “No. But disclosure is not enough. The software should be General Public License open source.  Mere disclosure is a nuance that is not acceptable.”

Why would open source be just as safe (or safer) than non-disclosed software and proprietary hardware?

Turner said, “The more eyes on the process the better. Small groups can be corrupted and subject to ‘group-think.’”

He added that the cost to develop and implement the system would be about $4 million to $6 million.

Los Angeles County may roll out its pilot voting system in 2015, according to an article at California Forward. The details of that system are still being worked out.

Here’s the Turner voting YouTube:

It’s been frequently ignored, but a late amendment to Assembly Bill 1436 required officials to conduct a statewide voter review before California’s same-day voter registration law can be implemented. According to the Legislative Counsel’s digest for the bill, it becomes operative “on January 1 of the year following the year in which the Secretary of State certifies that the state has a statewide voter registration database that complies with the requirements of the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002.”

The law was expected to take effect in 2014. However, to be operative for the 2014 general election, the Secretary of State needed to complete its HAVA compliance by December 31, 2013. Last month, Bowen took to Twitter to explain why the state won’t be adopting California’s landmark same-day voter registration law anytime soon.

“That law (CA Elections Code section 2170) will likely take effect in 2016 or later,” Bowen tweeted on Jan. 13.

VoteCal: Voter registration database debacle

The state’s HAVA compliance has been illusory, and the statewide voter registration database project nothing short of a debacle. VoteCal, the project for a new statewide voter registration database, began in 2006 as a replacement for the system built in 1995.

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, has been critical of the project and worries the technology will be out-dated by the time it’s completed.

“VoteCal has been in development since 2006 and already failed once,” Alexander wrote in a November 2013 blog post comparing the project to the federal government’s troubled Obamacare website, HealthCare.gov. “It is not scheduled to be in operation until 2017. It’s hard to imagine the technology they are planning for today will still be state-of-the-art by 2017 and that assumes the project is not further delayed.”

Same-day voter law not as extensive

Same-day voter registration is expected to boost voter turnout. But just how much — that’s up for debate.

“We expect same-day registration to be an important factor in helping to increase everyone’s participation in the electoral process,” said Mindy Romero of the California Civic Engagement Project at UC Davis. “In general, states with same-day registration laws have shown higher turnout rates. It should be noted though that California’s same day registration law is potentially not as extensive of a reform as similar laws in other states.”

In California, a provisional ballot will be issued to same-day voters and counted only upon later verification.

Secretary of State Candidates: Yet another tech problem

Bowen is term-limited and cannot run for re-election. Three of the candidates running to replace Bowen as Secretary of State criticized her office for the voter database delays.

“This is yet another example of the Secretary of State’s problems with technology,” said Republican Pete Peterson, who serves as executive director at Pepperdine University’s Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership.

Democrat Secretary of State candidate Derek Cressman, a former vice-president of the good government group Common Cause, said the implementation delay was further proof that better management is needed at the top elections office.

“This is why it is imperative that our next Secretary has both the policy background and management experience to implement a new registration database without further delays,” said Cressman, a supporter of same-day voter registration.

Other reforms delayed with VoteCal

Same-day voter registration isn’t the only electorial reform put on hold by the state’s vote registration database. Other laws being delayed include the ability for 17 year olds to pre-register to vote and the email delivery of a sample ballot.

“Same-day registration is one of numerous election reforms enacted in recent years in California that are on hold as we wait for the state’s new voter registration database to be built and deployed,” Alexander said. “California is one of only two states with no statewide voter information lookup tools. These are online tools that let voters check if they are registered to vote or registered at an old address, find their polling place, check the status of their vote-by-mail ballot and see what contests will be on their ballot.”

At least one Secretary of State candidate has experience sidestepping bureaucratic delays related to the voter registration database. In 2011, State Senator Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, authored the state’s online voter registration law. Yee’s hugely successful SB397, which helped register more than a million new voters in 2012, was drafted because an earlier measure — SB381 in 2008, by State Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello — couldn’t take effect because of VoteCal delays.

“I look forward to the day in California when eligible voters will have the opportunity to walk into their local polling location, and immediately be able to cast a ballot and participate in our democracy,” Yee said.

• Ensure that the state’s voting systems are accurate and secure by introducing strict auditing requirements so that every vote is counted as it was cast.
• Register every eligible voter, encourage every voter to participate on Election Day and ensure that every vote is counted accurately.

Bowen, a Democrat who narrowly defeated Republican Bruce McPherson in 2006 and won an easy re-election in 2010, has fallen short in achieving those top priorities, according to a recent state audit. In addition, Bowen has wasted more than $22 million in federal funds from the Help America Vote Act of 2002, according to the report by California State Auditor Elaine Howle.

The audit, “Office of the Secretary of State: It Must Do More to Ensure Funds Provided Under the Federal Help America Vote Act Are Spent Effectively,” details years of mismanagement by Bowen’s office in the administration of California’s voting systems. Bowen’s response to the audit places much of the blame on unrealistic federal regulations.

Audit highlights

According to the audit:

• Bowen has not effectively spent HAVA funds for new voting systems; more than $22 million has been spent on replacing voting systems with new systems that counties and voters cannot fully use.
• Bowen has not adopted regulations that define the state’s process for voting system approval, as required by state law.
• Many counties need additional funding to replace their voting systems, and some have concerns about Bowen’s process for voting system approval or are waiting for vendors to develop new systems.
• Bowen has not declared compliance with certain HAVA requirements to the federal government, which would enable the Legislature to determine how best to appropriate the remaining $131 million in HAVA funds.
• The first attempt to develop VoteCal, a statewide database of voter registration information, failed, costing the state at least $4.6 million.
• Bowen’s practice of providing the Legislature with financial information that does not come from her office’s accounting system unnecessarily weakens a key accountability and transparency tool.
• Bowen can do more to implement important requirements of the National Voter Registration Act to increase the rates of voter registration.

Unusable voting machines

The waste of more than $22 million resulted from Bowen and other secretaries of state “reaching different conclusions as to whether particular direct recording electronic voting systems — such as computer-based push-button or touch screen systems — were suitable for use in California,” the audit said. “As a result, some counties that used HAVA funds to buy certain voting systems subsequently found that they could no longer use these systems or could use them only with significant restrictions.”

Six counties collectively wasted more than $22 million in HAVA funding and more than $29 million in California Voting Modernization Act funding on voting systems they can no longer fully use. San Diego County spent $15.5 million on 8,200 machines, Riverside County spent $13.5 million on 7,200 machines, Santa Clara County spent $11 million on 3,500 machines, Alameda County spent $8.8 million on 2,781 machines, and Kings and Los Angeles counties each spent a little over $1 million.

Bowen’s response to the audit chides Howle for failing to note that the problem with direct recording electronic voting systems existed nationwide, with many states banning the machines after “many computer scientists proved [them] to be vulnerable to tampering and inaccurate vote tallying.”

Bowen blames the federal government for requiring that new voting systems be in place (replacing paper punch cards with their notorious hanging chads) by 2006, but not issuing new voting standards until December 2005, “after many jurisdictions had already purchased inferior early model systems to meet the January 1, 2006 deadline.” Those jurisdictions included several California counties who were either unaware or ignored the fact that “[s]tate officials continued to be appropriately skeptical about DRE voting systems.”

Bowen blames Congress

Bowen said she then carried out legislative direction to conduct an in-depth review that revealed that DRE systems “could be exploited to change election results” and that “electronic systems that optically scanned paper ballots proved to be much more reliable. … It is truly unfortunate that the U.S. Congress foisted poorly constructed DRE voting systems onto governments and the voting public without first establishing high security, accuracy and reliability standards for these systems to meet.”

But the case against DRE machines may not be as conclusive as Bowen asserts. In February 2006, her predecessor, McPherson, approved a DRE voting system based on the fact that the vendor had received federal certification, the system was being used in 19 states and UC Berkeley computer scientists investigated the system and found that, while some problems did exist, they were manageable, and any risks could be mitigated by counties following appropriate use procedures, according to the audit.

So, Bowen’s ban on the machines may have been unnecessary, costing taxpayers the $51 million for unusable machines.

“Adding to the problem, there appears to be a lack of clarity for the counties buying voting systems, the manufacturers who make them, and the general public as to what California’s expectations are for its voting systems and what standards are being applied as part of the secretary of state’s process for voting system approval,” the audit states.

As a result, despite California’s counties having received a total of $252 million since 2003 to replace their voting systems, nearly a fifth of the state’s counties indicated that they are currently using aging voting systems. And nine indicated that they need additional funding to upgrade them, four of them having exhausted their funds for voting-system replacement.

Bowen sitting on $131 million

A potentially larger waste of tax dollars is that Bowen is sitting on $131 million in HAVA funds that could be used to increase voting registration because she refuses to declare that California is in full compliance with HAVA requirements — even though Bowen’s office and the auditor’s analysis show California is in fact in full compliance.

Bowen’s office “has chosen not to declare its compliance because it has yet to successfully deploy a new statewide computerized voter registration list called VoteCal,” the audit states. “[T]he lack of a fully deployed VoteCal system should not prevent it from declaring the State’s compliance with HAVA …. Doing so would enable the Legislature to determine how best to use the remaining HAVA funds.”

Bowen responded that the implementation of the VoteCal system is necessary in order to fully comply with HAVA. “California taxpayers could end up footing more of the bill if the Legislature and Governor spend these limited federal funds before knowing the true costs of maintaining and operating VoteCal,” her response states.

But Howle countered that Bowen could renegotiate the agreement with the U.S. Justice Department to implement VoteCal. In any case, an official in Bowen’s office confirmed that the terms of that agreement with Justice “do not prohibit the State from declaring compliance with HAVA,” the report states.

Following tradition

In Bowen’s defense, she’s actually following in the footsteps of the last Democratic California secretary of state, Kevin Shelley. In 2004 an audit found that Kevin Shelley poorly managed the $81 million in HAVA funds he received, failing to spend nearly $35 million of it for the replacement of outdated voting machines in the time allotted by the grant, according to the San Francisco Business Times.

Also in Bowen’s defense, she has followed through on her third top priority when she was running for office in 2006: “Improve disclosure of campaign contributions to candidates and ballot initiatives so people can easily track how the money flows in politics.” Last week, nearly seven years after winning election, Bowen announced that she is now providing raw campaign finance data online that was formerly only available on CD-ROM or paper.

By John Hrabe

Last week, two nonpartisan organizations interested in government transparency had a seemingly simple request for California Secretary of State Debra Bowen: share the state’s campaign finance database in a single, accessible file. The request shouldn’t have been too difficult. Bowen’s office already posts the information on its clunky and crash-prone Cal-Access system.

“We write to request that your office make a simple change that would save costs for the Secretary of State’s office while greatly increasing data transparency in the state of California and public accessibility to important campaign finance and lobbying information,” wrote MapLight and Common Cause, the two organizations leading the public disclosure request. “This change would vastly improve the public accessibility of valuable civic information, reaffirming California’s role as a leader in open government, and showing your commitment to shining a light on money in politics.”

CD-ROM

The poorly-designed Cal-Access system requires users to download each campaign report one-by-one rather than as one massive data file. CalWatchdog.com, which routinely spends hours reviewing campaign reports, understands the organizations’ complaints about the current system. The only alternative to individually reviewing reports is to fork over $5 a day for a new CD-ROM.

Bowen says that an alternative to the CD-ROM option would be too difficult and costly.

“It is not clear to me that creating such a ‘filter’ is cost-effective when designing, developing and deploying it would divert limited information technology resources from other high-priority responsibilities,” Bowen wrote in response to the disclosure request. “This cost-benefit analysis would be different if the data was not readily available in another medium, but it is readily available on a CD-ROM.”

Technology experts predict that the CD-ROM will likely be extinct by 2016, due to rapidly increasing broadband connections, which “means most programs can be downloaded in a matter of minutes, or even seconds.” As Suzanne Kantra pointed out in 2011 at Techlicious, “So, why would you want to pay the extra cost of having a DVD printed, boxed and shipped to your home? You wouldn’t. And in five years it won’t even be an option.”

Phillip Ung, a policy advocate for Common Cause, believes it’s time to upgrade the state’s technology. “21st century voters are demanding our ‘dial-up’ government get plugged into the times and ditch the CD-ROMs,” he said.

Bowen took to Twitter late Monday evening to rebut that criticism, arguing that state law differentiates between data posted online and shared on a disk.

“Point is, what happens on paper and what happens on line are not, under CA law, identical,” she tweeted.

She continued, “If you could legally put it on line, you’d need a *secure* server w/ capacity. We lack hardware, software, + ppl to run things.”

When asked why she wasn’t cooperative with the groups disclosure request, Bowen reply tweeted, “What makes you think I’m not? I’ll do my own analysis first, tho. I was a Girl Scout. I like to be prepared.”

FPPC embraces technology

While the Secretary of State’s office has struggled with new technology, another state agency that is responsible for political disclosure has embraced a tech upgrade. Last week, while the Secretary of State was denying the disclosure request, the Fair Political Practices Commission launched a new gift tracking app for legislators and their staff to keep track of gifts.  Under the leadership of Ann Ravel, the FPPC has made technological improvements one of its top priorities.

“We are extremely proud of our latest effort to make the disclosure and reporting rules for officials and employees less burdensome and time-consuming,” said Ravel, who has promised to bring the agency into the digital age. “We believe that the FPPC Gift Tracker will not only assist officials and employees and save their time and resources, but will also help the public to ensure that gift information is disclosed accurately.”

Which raises the question: Why has the FPPC, which operates under the same budget and bureaucratic limits as the Secretary of State’s office, been successful in upgrading its programs?

Bowen, who authored a 1993 bill to make legislative information accessible by computer modem, has repeatedly faced technological failures as Secretary of State. In 2010, the state’s election results website crashed because, in the words of Bowen’s spokeswoman, “The traffic basically blew up the cloud.” This year, the office announced that it was working through a 122-day backlog in processing business filings.  The legislature is now rushing through an additional $2 million in special funding to alleviate the backlog.

2014 candidates pounce on the issue

Several candidates to replace Bowen, who is forced to step down due to term limits, criticized the most recent disclosure denial.

“Memo to the Secretary’s office: tear down this data wall!” said GOP Secretary of State candidate Pete Peterson, executive director of Pepperdine University’s Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership. “In the midst of an open data revolution, our Secretary of State’s office is still stuck in a closed data world.”

San Francisco state Senator Leland Yee, a Democratic candidate for Secretary of State, echoed Peterson’s criticism of the Secretary of State’s antiquated processes.

“While California has long been a tech leader, its government still lags behind,” said Yee. “We should use all the tools we have available to keep the public informed as to what affects the way California is governed.”

No stranger to technology, Yee authored California’s landmark online voter registration law, which allowed citizens to register to vote via the Internet or a mobile device. As of November 2012, Yee’s office reported that more than a million people had used the system.

Derek Cressman, another rumored Secretary of State candidate, declined to comment because he hasn’t formally announced his campaign. However, Cressman’s views on technology aren’t hard to ascertain. He serves as vice president for state operations of Common Cause, one of the organizations that are pushing for the disclosure.

The office of Democratic State Senator Alex Padilla (another potential candidate for Secretary of State) did not respond to a request for comment.

By Katy Grimes

SACRAMENTO — Operating more like the Dewey Decimal System, the California Secretary of State’s Office has been under a great deal of scrutiny lately for its historic backlog in processing business filings. And for good cause.

The recent reports of up to an 122-day backlog is not news to anyone in the private sector. This has only been a surprise to state lawmakers.

As an emergency stopgap measure, the Assembly voted Monday to immediately give $2 million to Secretary of State Debra Bowen. The funds are to be used to pay overtime for existing staff members and hire some temporary workers, with the goal of speeding up processing of permits to five days.

Slowing businesses from starting up

It may be only a quick fix, but some say it’s a very important quick fix. This prompted Assembly Speaker John Perez to fast-track AB 113. The bill “appropriates $2 million of business filing fees to the Secretary of State only to be used for overtime pay and temporary staffing to reduce business filing processing times by amending the 2012-13 Budget Act.”

The bill also requires the secretary of state to report monthly progress to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

Reports vary on exactly how many days business filings are backlogged.

The analysis of AB 113 says the standard is 20 days to process business filings. A Sacramento Bee report cited evidence putting the current average delay at 43 days. Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield, D-Los Angeles, said the current system can take up to 65 days to process the paperwork for a new business. AB 113 also says that last year, “budget cuts and insufficient staff pushed processing times to an all-time high of 85 days.” But the Secretary of State’s Office has said that at its worst, the backlog was 122 days.

Whatever figure is correct, the state is getting in the way of its own entrepreneurs and delaying future tax revenues.

It was not that long ago in California that an aspiring business owner could have his new business documentation filed by the Secretary of State’s Office while he waited.

Lawmakers seek to make state ‘a little bit better’

Fortunately, state lawmakers have realized that until a business is up and operating, the state isn’t getting its cut of revenue.

“This is our chance to make state government a little bit better,” Blumenfield said. “Five days or less [to process business permits] will make California one of the best.”

Every lawmaker who spoke in favor of the bill agreed. “California businesses face needless delays with the Secretary of State’s Office, due to budget cuts,” said freshman Assemblyman Jose Medina, D-Riverside. “These are the very people we should be supporting.”

It wasn’t just Medina who blamed the backlog on budget cuts. So did every Assembly Democrat who spoke on the bill. But other states have had revenue shortfalls as well during the national economic downturn. Yet in New York, it takes about five days to process a business permit. In Texas, it takes about three to five business days to process an application. For an extra $25, the state will process a business application in one business day. Texas also has its system automated online.

At a press conference Monday following AB 113’s passage, Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, Blumenfield and Assemblyman Tom Daly, D-Anaheim, together with business stakeholders, hailed bipartisan support of AB 113 to “aid California businesses and help advance the state’s economic recovery.”

Representatives from the national Federation of Independent Business, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, The California Chamber of Commerce, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and the California Business Roundtable attended the press conference in support of the bill.

John Kabateck with the NFIB called the delays  at the Secretary of State’s Office “outrageous,” and “an unnecessary burden on businesses in the state.”

Kabateck said there are 22,000 small businesses members in California and 300,000 members across the country.  There are 3.6 million small businesses in California. “We are very grateful to Speaker Perez for this much-needed fix.” Kabateck added, “Every big business was once a small business.”

Behind the problem: yet another state computer mess

But even with the announcement of help for the Secretary of State’s Office, some in the media still wanted to know how the office got so backlogged. According to Perez, “resource limitations” led to the backlog. “But we’re not here to assign blame,” he said.

Perez explained how his office decided last summer to lend the secretary of state $1.5 million out of Perez’s discretionary fund to clear up the backlog. He said he thought it was a one-time issue because of recent budget cuts.

However, lawmakers also want to give Bowen $8.9 million in the 2013-14 budget year to hire nearly 70 more staff members. Until a new computer system comes online in 2016, the Secretary of State’s Office would have to maintain the five-day processing standard, according to AB 113.

The new computer system is estimated to cost taxpayers $20 million. Initiated in 2011, the project is not expected to be completed until 2016.

Such delays are unheard of in the private sector, when months can matter in the life and death of a business, and extra employees can’t just be added to do the work.

The five-year time frame to implement a computer system has many scratching their heads, wondering how the state that is home to Silicon Valley can be so bungling and ineffectual with its computers. There have also been computer debacles with state attempts to upgrade its basic payroll system and with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

By Chris Reed

Democratic lawmakers have been a bit more likely to discomfit the status quo and show high expectations than normal this year. A Senate committee report strongly suggesting that school districts were stealing federal school lunch funds for inappropriate uses used to be the best example. But this week’s decision by a freshman Democrat assemblyman to embarrass a veteran Democratic pol over her poor performance in statewide office is without recent precedent. Here’s Brian Joseph’s account in the Orange County Register:

“Brought before legislators to explain a six-week backlog of business filings in her office, Secretary of State Debra Bowen offered this week a small window into state operations.

“It was not, as Assemblyman Tom Daly, D-Anaheim, said afterwards, encouraging.

“She explained how the her agency’s Sacramento office building, constructed in 1995, has ‘maxed out’ on available electrical outlets and how the state’s tortured procurement process virtually ensures that whatever software she orders will be obsolete by the time it’s delivered.”

It’s 2013, and a lack of electrical outlets is used to explain a major shortcoming at a state agency. Feel free to laugh, groan, guffaw or cry. Or all four simultaneously.

“She blamed budget cuts, staffing shortages and a generally unresponsive and inefficient government system for embarrassing delays that businesspeople say is costing them money.

“‘I almost needed smelling salts the first day I took a tour of the Secretary of State’s office,’ said Bowen, a former Marina Del Rey legislator who was first elected California’s chief elections officer and business records clerk in 2006. ‘It was just so incredibly paper-driven.’

“Bowen’s office has taken heat in recent days after it was revealed that her staff was taking 43 days to process business filings. As Assembly Budget Committee staff reported, this backlog delays businesses from starting up or hiring employees and postpones business tax payments.

“New York processes such documents in seven days, committee staff found. Texas, five days.

“‘There is a scoreboard,’ Daly said, referring to the other states’ better turnaround times. ‘At some point, the time for excuses is over.'”

How un-Sacramento: Expecting competence, rejecting excuses

This is a “wow” moment, given how Sacramento has worked for years. But it shouldn’t be. Lawmakers shouldn’t go easier on statewide officials just because they’re in the same party.

Especially now that Democrats’ power has reached hegemonic levels, taxpayers have to hope Dem lawmakers will make like Tom Daly going forward.

As for Bowen, I got to know her a little bit a dozen years ago when she was a state senator during the 2000-01 blackout crisis/debacle/scandal. I found her and another Democratic state senator, Joe Dunn, to be impressive and smart. I find it confounding that as secretary of state, she’s been so low-key and passive.

But maybe she just harbors hopes of following the Bill Lockyer route, moving from powerful statewide office to powerful statewide office without ever going for the governor’s job.

But at least Lockyer occasionally makes waves and gives a middle finger to the Democratic status quo.