Electronic Hanging Chads?

What, Me Worry?

And then there's the argument that e-voting is what the people want. The Information Technology Association of America released findings from a public opinion survey showing that more then three-quarters of registered voters are "either not very concerned or not concerned at all about the security of election systems, regardless of technology platform."

In flacking its study, the ITAA said in a statement that "the controversy surrounding electronic voting is more rhetoric than reality. A few critics have tried to play to the fears of many Americans by spreading myths, misinformation and conspiracy theories, but frankly, the facts are irrefutable. Electronic voting systems work, and work well. Our recent survey shows that over two thirds of Americans believe that electronic voting is a secure, reliable way to conduct elections."

Even if the Election Assistance Commission decided that the e-voting critics had proven their case, the agency probably couldn't do much to fix things anyway. Why? Well, according to an Associated Press report from earlier this week, the commission "says it is so woefully underfunded that it can't be expected to forestall widespread voting machine problems, which would cast doubt on the election's integrity." The Boston Globe ran an article in February that focused more on the panel's funding situation.

While Diebold is the most visible in the e-voting sector, both for its systems getting singled out for flaws and for its size, there are a number of other e-voting hardware and software manufacturers who are surely keeping an eye on the e-voting debate, including Hart Intercivic Inc., Election Systems & Software Inc., and Sequoia Voting Systems Inc.

A Big State With A Big Message

The not-so-tiny player in the whole debate is California, which last week decided to decertify one specific e-voting machine (Diebold's TSx) and to require extensive modifications to other machines before they can be used in the November elections. But is it too late?

Officials in some California counties are threatening lawsuits against the state's chief election official, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley (D), The Los Angeles Times reported. A chief concern is the cost. The San Jose Mercury News reported this week that "Santa Clara County could spend up to $2.3 million to provide paper ballots to voters who do not want to cast electronic ballots in the upcoming presidential election, Pete Kutras, the county manager, said Monday."

And while Shelley has conceded that providing paper ballots "would cost $1 million statewide," The Los Angeles Times said "[r]egistrars and voting technology companies said the cost would run much higher. Orange County Registrar of Voters Steve Rodermund said the cost of producing and counting paper ballots could reach $1.5 million in his county alone." Over in Riverside County, which has already filed suit to block Shelley's order, registrar Mischelle Townsend "said it could cost $700,000 to install voting booths for those who want to vote on paper ballots. 'We are in a total state of disbelief,' said Townsend, who has been using touch-screen voting for four years. ' [Shelley] has chosen not to listen to the people who are conducting the elections and instead to people putting forth what-if scenarios that have never occurred.'"

Meanwhile, the California legislature may be coming down on Shelley's side. A California Senate committee voted Wednesday in support of the e-voting ban, The Associated Press and others reported. "I am not anti-electronic voting," said the author of the bill, Sen. Ross Johnson (R-Irvine), according to The AP. "But we have very real concerns about how this system has performed to date and what we are saying is, let's take a time out."

Some California editorial pages are weighing in on the issue. The San Diego Union-Tribune ran an editorial on April 24 that declared the "electronic voting problems in the March primary election that embarrassed San Diego County election officials, disgraced the system's manufacturer and, most important, disenfranchised an untold number of citizens, were preventable and unacceptable. They are also fixable. The unanimous recommendation from a state advisory panel that Secretary of State Kevin Shelley decertify the electronic systems in San Diego and three other counties for the November general election was an overreaction that we hope Shelley will disregard."

In a Thursday editorial, The San Jose Mercury News noted that Shelley's order that counties upgrade their e-voting machines didn't come with any money to help accomplish that task. Excerpt: "Shelley has said the voting companies should pick up most of the tab, since their actions and systems' flaws created this mess. But Santa Clara County Executive Pete Kutras is assuming nothing till he has a check. Shelley's order will create more work for registrars; some are grousing and threatening to sue. We're encouraged that county Registrar Jesse Durazo and Kutras aren't among them. They say they will do what it takes to comply. The state has six months to prevent a touch-screen fiasco. Shelley has given the counties notice and put them on the right course."

Some Florida voters are upset by the technology too, meanwhile. The Orlando Sentinel reported today that "a few dozen demonstrators [on Thursday] demanded voting machine printers and an independent, random audit of the county's Sequoia Voting Systems touch-screen machines to prove the system's integrity. They promised to rally at least once a month."

More Editorials

The Christian Science Monitor came down in favor of e-voting technology in an editorial that still encouraged efforts to upgrade machines: "Generally, the primaries this year showed how well electronic voting can work. ... As the country makes election-related adjustments, and especially with the potential for another close election, building in redundancy will help allow for mistakes to be corrected. Actions some states have taken, such as requiring that electronic voting machines also generate a paper trail (at least two bills in Congress would mandate this), should help allay worries for a while. Audio devices that let voters confirm choices over a set of headphones also can help."

A Washington Post editorial in today's edition says e-voting "dangers are not only hypothetical. In a Broward County, Fla., election in January, touch-screen machines failed to record a choice on 134 ballots -- an odd result since there was only one race on the ballot. The election was decided by 12 votes, but there was no way to conduct a recount. In California's March 2 primary, more than half the precincts in San Diego County opened late because their Diebold machines malfunctioned." The Post warns: "Time is growing perilously short to deal with these problems. The preferable solution is to modify machines to include a 'voter-verified audit trail' -- a paper printout that would let voters make certain their choice was accurately recorded and would be retained within the system in case a recount was needed. There are legitimate worries about such a system -- printers could jam, or the privacy of blind voters could again be compromised -- but these seem capable of being solved. The knottier problem is that it may not be feasible to put an audit capability in place by November."

E-mail government IT tips, comments and links to cindyDOTwebbATwashingtonpost.com