http://www.dailyfreeman.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1769&dept_id=74969&newsid=15688867
The Daily Freeman
12/04/2005
By Patricia Doxsey , Freeman staff
RHINEBECK - Advocates for voters' rights say regulations put
forth by the state Board of Elections to guide companies that want to supply
new voting machines to New York are "terrible" standards that will
fail to ensure the integrity of the system.
Local elections officials, meanwhile, say they are less
concerned with the regulations themselves that with what they will mean to
their counties.
The proposed standards released last week are intended to
provide guidance to companies interested in designing new voting machines to
replace the state's current machines, in which voters pull levers next to the
names of candidates.
The new machines are required under the Help America Vote
Act, which was passed by Congress in 2002 in response to the contested Florida
vote in the 2000 presidential election. As part of the legislation, which was
adopted by New York in June, all lever-action voting machines in the state must
be replaced in time for the 2006 election.
Bo Lipari, executive director of New Yorkers for Verified
Voters, said not only are the regulations technically deficient, but they seem
to favor a direct-recording electronic voting system over the precinct-based
optical scan system supported by his organization.
"We think they're terrible," Lipari said. "They're
actually really poor."
Miriam Kramer, a government policy analyst with the New York
Public Interest Research Group, said the state Board of Elections "failed
the voters by passing weak and incomplete regulations about how (existing
voting machines will be) replaced."
Lipari said his organization is still conducting a technical
review of the standards, but that, at first blush, the regulations seem to give
"far too much latitude" to companies to define and satisfy accuracy
testing requirements and what can be considered proprietary information.
He also criticized a section of the new rules that would
allow the state Board of Elections to waive some standards and said the
regulations, as written, contain vague definitions of "crucial
terms."
"There should be no reason that any part of the test or
any other regulations can be waived by the state Board of Elections because
that would make the regulations meaningless," Lipari said.
Kramer said the regulations proposed by the board reflect a
disregard for voting integrity.
"They don't care about lost votes or if somebody
'undervotes,'" she said. "There's nothing to notify voters if they
missed voting in a particular race."
She said the board should have recommended the state
Legislature eliminate its demand for a full-faced, instead allowing the use of
a two-sided ballot, and should have gone farther to accommodate voters who
don't speak English.
"The regulations are weak and need to have significant
changes before they're adopted," she said.
Lipari and Kramer also criticized what they said was the
"secretive" manner in which the regulations were drafted.
Local elections commissioners said they had not reviewed the
proposed regulations in detail but added that they are less concerned with the
regulations themselves than with the pressure that will be placed on counties
to implement them.
Nevertheless, "I am confident whatever we do certify
here in New York, will meet the criteria and be well tested," said Thomas
Turco, the Republican commissioner of elections for Ulster County.
Dutchess County Democratic Elections Commissioner Fran Knapp
said she is primarily concerned that the state certify new voting machines in
time for counties to obtain them in time for next year's election.
Copies of the proposed regulations are available at all
county Boards of Elections and can be viewed online at
www.elections.state.ny.us.
İDaily Freeman 2005
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.