Local commissioner joins voting-reform suit

Supports state against feds

By Tom Grace

Cooperstown News Bureau

Hank Nicols wants to be sued by the federal government, which is suing New York state over its slow implementation of voting regulations and installation of equipment.

On Wednesday, the federal Justice Department sued the state in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District, prodding the state to move more quickly.

On Friday, Nicols, Otsego County’s Democratic elections commissioner, joined the League of Women Voters of New York State; New Yorkers for Verified Voting; Stephen DeWitt, Democratic elections commissioner of Tompkins County; and others in filing a memorandum with the court, asking to be included as defendants in the case.

Nicols said Monday that he is trying to intervene in this case because he is not confident that state officials will do what is best for the voters of the state.

"I think the pressure is on the state to act quickly, and I think that acting quickly now could be disastrous," he said.

Nicols, who has been an elections commissioner for 21 years, said he and DeWitt are attempting to intervene in this case as voters rather than as commissioners. He added that he discussed his decision with Otsego County’s Republican elections commissioner, Charlotte Koniuto.

Koniuto declined to comment on the lawsuit Monday.

The memorandum of law filed with the court alleges that, "All interveners claim they will suffer irreparable harm if the state of New York tries to overhaul its voting systems before the 2006 elections, due to foreseeable 2006 election-day chaos. They all further claim their voting rights, or those of their members, will continue to be violated thereafter due to the continuing use of voting systems acquired in haste in 2006 with security flaws."

In response to the controversial presidential election of 2000, where results from Florida showed many discrepancies, Congress adopted the Help America Vote Act and provided billions of dollars for states to changes rules and install equipment to make voting easier for people with disabilities.

Two main types of voting systems are available to replace the nation’s older voting machines: optical scanners, which count paper ballots filled out by voters, and direct-recording electronic machines, which keep a computerized tally.

New Yorkers may also have these choices, but because the state legislature decided last year that voters must be able to see all the candidates for all offices at one glance at a ballot, manufacturers have been forced to design special large machines just for New York.

Some elections officials and many venders have touted the wide-screen DREs built for the state in recent months, but critics, including interveners in this case, have said DREs are not secure or reliable.

Nicols said Monday that neither proposed system could be properly installed for this year’s election. There is not sufficient time to train people to operate the equipment nor to prepare voters to use it, he said.

Lee Daghlian, a spokesman for the state Board of Elections, said Monday that the state was sued March 1 and has until March 20 to respond in court. The state Board has proposed "plan B, where we would have a device at every polling place this year that will allow access to handicapped people."

Then, after the election, the full-scale changing of equipment would occur.

"But the court could change all that," he said.

David Grosky, of Morris, a voting-rights activist who addressed the Otsego County Board last week, and Ellen Tillapaugh, president of the League of Women Voters of the Cooperstown Area, said they support the actions of Nicols and others who are trying to intervene in this case.

"If they rush us and we get struck with DREs, there goes the integrity of the voting process," Grodsky said.

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.