Page 16


Listed On The National Register of Historic Places “Go gather by the humming sea Some twisted, echo-harboring shell, And to it all thy secrets tell” W. B. Yeats P.O. Box 8 Port Aransas, TX 78373 Dallas Observer Dallas’ alternative source for arts & entertainment East Dallas Printing Company Full Service Union Printing 211 S. Peak Dallas, Tx 75226 miscounting, which was not corrected; he alleged, therefore, that there had been no “errorless test.” According to Moon, when the program was being loaded into the hardware it would not connect with the computer’s internal clock correctly, so the representative of CES “disabled the system’s clock so it would not print the time from the computer system’s clock on the cumulative reports for the election. ” At various moments during the counting it was realized that the election had been muffed. The votes of ineligible voters were counted in a township race \(months later “The computer had been programmed,” said one member of the election board, “to count district two in the councilmanic race as if it were district three” and vice versa. People trying to vote for Philip Warner for the legislature were instructed to punch hole number 69, but the computer had been programmed to count number 67 for him. CES in Berkeley was consulted twice by long distance, and changes were made in control cards, after which the system was not retested. The Democratic county chairman, Howard L. Hostetler, one of the plaintiffs, said he was awakened by the telephone ringing around 3:30 in the morning to be told that the mixed-up legislative race had been recounted and the outcome reversed. Stutsman asked Wilmer L. McLaughlin, a member of the election board, whether the wrong totals in the reversed race had to be erased from the computer. “I was told it was done, and I believe it was done,” the official said, “but when technicians are sitting there playing around with the keyboard, and the other, I have to take their word for it that that’s what they’re doing.” Stutsman asked: “You don’t really know . . . what changes were made to the computer program by the technical representative, do you?” “Oh, no,” the board member said. “That’s like asking me if I know of my own knowledge what my mechanic does to my car.” Dan McGinnis, a CES salesman in the area, told the Elkhart Truth the program errors should have been caught in Berkeley or by more adequate local tests. “McGinnis said this was his first experience in ten years with CES that an error had developed,” according to the newspaper. The county clerk, Peter Sarantos, a graduate of Elkhart high school with no knowledge about computers, said he would not know how to prepare a test ballot: “We relied on the guarantee of the company” that a CES person would “help us through.” Speaking of the CES system, Peter Sarantos told me: “I think this is the most economical system. It is the most foolproof system. It’s a good system, a solid system. That’s been proven a number of times on recounts.” Of David Stutsman, Sarantos said: “He was more of a rabble rouser, he was more of a confusion man. He wanted to cause confusion at all times.” In pursuing the litigation Stutsman obtained a listing of the CES source code of almost 4,000 lines, called EL-80 \(EL stands in the election he is contesting. \(His description of the CES “spaghetti” source code: “It was like a rabbit running around on the purpose of one line in the code which states: “366200* Call ‘CRT-RTN’ using PRT-line.” Last July, while taking the deposition of CES programmer Jerry Williams in Indianapolis for the pending lawsuit, Stutsman asked him about the meaning and function of this line. “If you take that asterisk out” by modifying the source code, Williams explained, “it will attempt to call a subroutine CRT-RTN.” “What is that?” Stutsman asked. “In places where that is used,” Williams replied, “it’s a routine to display cumulative [election-night] results on remote video terminals.” “RTN” stands for routine, “CRT” for cathode-ray tube. Williams said the call is used in two Florida counties, Hillsborough and Pinellas, and also elsewhere, but he could not think where. “And where is this subroutine that’s called up?” Stutsman asked. “It doesn’t exist. If you want to use that, you’ve got to write your own routine,” the programmer responded, puzzlingly, it would seem, in light of what he had said a moment before. “And,” asked Stutsman, “a subroutine [written when CRT-RTN is called] will do whatever the programmer says as long as he calls it that?” “Yes,” Williams answered. A dispute is developing in the second federal lawsuit in Indiana concerning a recount , of the 1982 ballots that was conducted in 1986 by a CES representative, with Stutsman watching and making a notational record of the event, and a CES lawyer also watching, in the Elkhart bank vault where the ballots are stored. In this computer recount of about a third of the votes, with half the precincts chosen by the plaintiffs, three ballots were “found” and Bodine gained ten votes, but he had lost by more than 9,000. In an amended complaint opposing dismissal of his fourth suit, Stutsman contended that the CES system in the 1982 election in Elkhart “was used to commit willful election fraud and computer manipulation of the vote totals” by preprogramming the results or changing totals with control cards, which are the same shape in the CES systems as the ballot punchcards. Noting that in percentages the results of the outcome of 1982 and 1986 off-year elections for a Congressional seat in his district varied only two-hundredths of a percentage. point, Stutsman in his pleading referred to “a claim that a private vendor … has provided a computer voting system that preprograms the vote results by percentages in certain races.” Most startlingly, he alleged that his notes on the recount establish that “CES software adds fictional ballots . . . and subtracts fictional numbers of ballots. . . . The system manufactures erroneous cumulative ballot totals.” not yet responded, but are known to be THE TEXAS OBSERVER 19