[Clips] Reversing Course on Electronic Voting

[R.A. Hettinga]

<http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB114739688261250925.html>

The Wall Street Journal

Reversing Course on Electronic Voting
Some Former Backers of Technology
Seek Return to Paper Ballots,
Citing Glitches, Fraud Fears

By JEANNE CUMMINGS

May 12, 2006; Page A4

WASHINGTON -- Some advocates of a 2002 law mandating upgrades of the
nation's voting machinery now worry the overhaul is making things worse.

With the 2006 midterm elections approaching, proponents of the Help America
Vote Act are filing lawsuits to block some state and election officials'
efforts to comply with the act.

The Help America Vote Act called for upgrading election equipment to guard
against another contested outcome such as the 2000 presidential vote. Among
the flaws in balloting almost six years ago were antiquated hand-operated
voting machines and punch-card ballots that were difficult to read. To
redress that, members of Congress pushed for modernization, which could
include touch-screen voting machines, on which ballots are cast and
recorded solely electronically. At the time, the electronic voting machines
were seen as a reliable contrast to the older technology.

The lawsuits -- nine so far -- coincide with a stampede by state and county
officials to spend $3 billion allocated by Congress to help pay for
upgrades. To comply with the Help America Vote Act, a number of states and
dozens of counties purchased touch-screen voting machines. The deadline for
spending the money is tied to each state's 2006 primary dates.

Arizona was sued this week over such purchases and Colorado election
officials are likely to be sued next week.

The Arizona lawsuit seeks to block the purchase of electronic-voting
machines that critics say are vulnerable to fraud and prone to inaccurate
tabulations. Another complaint is that it is more difficult to recount
ballots cast on electronic-voting machines than paper ones.

The Help America Vote Act "has been turned on its head and it's causing
more problems than solutions at this point," says Lowell Finley, a San
Francisco lawyer and cofounder of Voter Action, a nonpartisan organization
that is bringing some of the lawsuits.

Makers of the new electronic-voting machines and local election officials
acknowledge glitches with the new equipment, but say most problems result
from human error, not technology. "This technology has been used
effectively for 10 to 15 years," says David Bear, a spokesman for Diebold
Inc., a maker of electronic-voting equipment.

Jan Brewer, Arizona's secretary of state, calls the lawsuit's allegations
"unsubstantiated" and said electronic machines are needed to allow disabled
voters to cast their ballots privately and efficiently. "I have referred
this matter to the attorney general and have asked him to seek a dismissal
as soon as possible," she says.

Still, the 2004 presidential campaign and some early primary elections this
year have provided evidence that the machines don't always work smoothly.
And several states, after experiencing problems with touch-screen
electronic systems, abandoned them to return to optically scanned paper
ballots, already commonly used for absentee balloting. Typically, paper
ballots require a voter to use a pencil to fill in a circle. The system is
less costly to buy and maintain, and provides a paper record of ballots
that can be reviewed in close or disputed elections.

Two governors have taken steps to curb the problems linked to electronic
voting machines. New Mexico's Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson found his
state in the national spotlight in 2004, when its election-night tallying
of electronic voting was tardy and confusing. This year, he pushed through
legislation mandating paper ballots -- which had been electronically
scanned -- throughout the state. Maryland's Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich
in February called for change after seeing a jump in the cost of
maintaining and storing the sensitive electronic machines. Costs are
anticipated to grow to $9.5 million next year from $858,000 in 2001.

Critics of the touch-screen voting method are following two lines of
attack: the machines are unreliable and some local election officials have
become too dependent on an industry that already has too much control over
testing and operating the sophisticated equipment.

A North Carolina early voting test in the 2002 general election of six
touch-screen machines made by Election Systems & Software Inc. uncovered a
software problem that led to 436 uncounted votes. Local officials were
further frustrated when a company representative acknowledged that they had
seen the glitch before in a nearby county -- and hadn't shared the
information. Ken Fields, spokesman for ES&S, of Omaha, Neb., said the
problem stemmed from an "obscure technical issue" that made some machines
function as if their memory was full. The glitch was solved by Election
Day, he said.


In Indiana, an ES&S employee alerted local-election officials that another
ES&S worker had installed unauthorized software on the machines before the
election. That and other disputes led to a multimillion-dollar settlement.
Mr. Fields said it was "a mistake" to alter the software. "We could have
done a better job communicating with the county," he said.

In other cases, investigations have found that problems were caused by
inexperienced election workers. In Illinois's recent primary, election
officials in one precinct inserted a ballot improperly and paper jams
caused breakdowns on other machines.

"Perfect shouldn't be the death of good," says Mr. Bear, who contends
there's plenty of evidence showing electronic machines perform far better
than Florida's much-lampooned punch ballots and antiquated lever ballots.
"There have always been issues with elections. Technology didn't introduce
those issues," he said.

Despite common charges that the machines lack adequate security, no cases
have emerged proving that a hacker or an insider has or could
electronically manipulate the vote.

Still, computer-science experts argue that the systems lack protection. And
former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former President Jimmy
Carter, who were co-chairmen of the bipartisan Commission on Federal
Election Reform, warned in their 2005 final report that it could happen.
"Software can be modified maliciously before being installed into
individual voting machines. There is no reason to trust insiders in the
election industry any more than in other industries," they found.

-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
_______________________________________________
Clips mailing list
Clips at philodox.com
http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips