http://www.fltimes.com/Main.asp?SectionID=38&SubSectionID=121&ArticleID=10691
January 9, 2006
By MIKE MASLANIK
Finger Lakes Times, mmaslanik@fltimes.com
HENRIETTA — Negotiating through the throng of people
examining voting machines at the Dome Arena Thursday afternoon, Chris
Hilderbrant was determination in motion. As the director of advocacy for the
Center for Disability Rights in Rochester, it was his job to cast a critical
eye on each of the seven machines offered by four manufacturers.
“It’s just a big topic for people with disabilities,” said
Hilderbrant, who is wheelchair-bound and has limited use of his hands. “Voting
is something that normal, able-bodied, fully sighted people take for granted.
Access to voting is something that we’ve been denied.”
Accessibility for disabled voters is one of the central
requirements of the federal Help America Vote Act, but Hilderbrant and other
advocates for the disabled were disappointed by Thursday’s offerings. Some
machines were difficult to access with a wheelchair, some lacked Braille for
the vision-impaired and others lacked some of the features that are required by
state law.
Sales representatives for the vendors said the models could
easily be upgraded once the state releases the criteria for certification.
Thursday’s demonstration, organized by the Monroe County
Board of Elections, gave voters an opportunity to try machines made by Danaher
Industrial Controls, Liberty Election Systems, Election Systems and Software
(ES&S) and Sequoia Voting Systems. Voters were encouraged to fill out
surveys grading the machines, which election officials will take into
consideration as the state board finalizes its criteria.
A draft plan, ratified July 12, 2005, calls for, among other
things, a voter-verified paper trail, full-faced ballot, an audio device for
the sight-impaired and a sip/puff system for quadriplegic voters. Fully half of
the people who took advantage of the opportunity were those with disabilities.
The board will release a full list of standards after a
public comment period, ending Jan. 23, during which voters can contact their
county elections boards with suggestions.
The machines on display represented the two dominant methods
of voting: optical scan and direct recording electronic (DRE). With optical
scan machines, voters make marks on paper that is fed through a computer,
counting the vote. As the name suggests, DRE machines record votes electronically,
store them internally and print a receipt with the results.
Voters swarmed around the machines, lining up to test them
and peppering the sales reps with questions about accessibility, verified paper
trails and susceptibility to fraud. Hilderbrant buzzed around the crowded
floor, waiting in line and talking to other advocates with the Center for
Disability Rights.
ES&S
Gene Spinning of Rochester, also from the Center, gave mixed
reviews to the two machines provided by ES&S, an Omaha, Neb.-based company
that boasts 74,000 machines worldwide.
While he said they were clear and easy to use, he questioned
whether they would comply with state regulations.
With the AutoMARK Voter Assist Terminal, blind or disabled
voters feed a paper ballot into the machine. Races and candidates are shown on
the screen (or can be heard through headphones) and buttons are used to vote or
to advance from one race to the next. A summary of votes cast is shown on the
screen or read through the headphones. The ballot is ejected, the voter drops
it into a privacy sleeve and takes it to another machine to be counted.
“If you use that as a disabled person, you have to look at
each [race] separately,” said Spinning, who uses a wheelchair. “I don’t know if
New York state will accept that.”
He said that the other machine, the iVotronic LS, is “pretty
good, but terrible for the vision-impaired,” because the button layout could be
confusing.
Consisting of a large computer touch-screen, the iVotronic
LS is purely electronic. It was also the only machine at the show that was
equipped with the sip/puff system for voters without use of their arms.
Gene Seets, regional sales manager, called the iVotronic LS
the “Cadillac of voting machines.” In addition to the audio option, voters can
zoom in on the screen and put the ballot in high contrast. The machines are
accurate as well, he said.
“I’m not saying they’re perfect, but they don’t lose votes,”
Seets said.
Hilderbrant said he’d heard good things about the machine,
but the paper verification was too fast for voters to confirm their vote.
Danaher
The ELECTronic 1242, by Danaher Control, Inc. of
Connecticut, is a touch-screen system designed to mimic the lever-action
machines currently in use. Voters press buttons situated behind a large,
full-faced ballot on the front of the machine. To cancel a vote, they press the
button again. A roll of paper near the top of the machine is available for write-ins.
Votes are confirmed on a piece of paper that the voter can see inside the
machine, and it is cut and dropped when they press a large “VOTE” button.
The system is electro-mechanical, said sales rep Matthew
Lilly, so the machine doesn’t rely on programs that could be hacked.
Brenda Pagliarli, of Greece, didn’t like the machine.
“It’s too hard to maneuver with my fingers,” she said.
A brain injury left her wheelchair-bound with very bad
eyesight and tactile limitations in her fingers.
Hilderbrant wasn’t impressed with the machine either, saying
that it was hard to press the buttons and the write-in roll was too high up. He
did like the verification feature, though.
Sequoia
Sequoia Voting Systems, which is based in Oakland, Calif.,
and has two factories in New York, brought three machines along. The entire
state of Nevada used Sequoia machines in the 2004 election, said sales rep
Larry Tonelli.
The Optec Insight is a paper-based machine with an audio
component for the blind. Voters fill in an arrow next to the candidates they
wish to vote for and place the ballot in a scanning machine. If there are any
problems with the ballot, such as multiple votes for the same office, the
machine spits it back out and the voter gets a new piece of paper. The machine
prints the vote count when the polls close and all the ballots are sealed
within it for manual recounts.
While non-disabled voters appreciated its simplicity,
Hilderbrant said it wouldn’t do.
“You have to use a pen or a pencil,” he said. “There’s no
real way for someone with physical limitations to vote.”
The AVC Advantage and AVC Advantage Plus were both
full-face, touch-screen machines, the only difference being that the Advantage
Plus featured a computer screen that could zoom in for those with bad eyesight.
Voters cast their ballot by touching a box next to a candidate’s name. A key
pad on the bottom of the machine allows voters to write in candidates. There is
no Braille on the keypad and blind voters have to cycle through the alphabet
via headphones.
Hilderbrant flagged the Sequoia machines because of the lack
of Braille and, he said, it was hard to reach the top row of candidates even
when the machine was tilted down.
LibertyVote
The last of the voting machines on display was the
LibertyVote, a Dutch-made machine distributed by Albany-based Liberty Election
Systems. Structurally similar to the ELECTronic and the Advantage series, it
features a full-faced touch-screen DRE ballot and a keypad for writing in
candidates.
The model on display wasn’t outfitted with a voter-verified
paper trail system or a sip/puff device, corrections that will be made when the
state releases its final specifications, said Jeff Ernst, technician with
Voting Machine Service Center, Inc., the company that services the LibertyVote.
“We’re waiting on the specs before we put a lot of money
into it,” he said.
The LibertyVote was a hit with Pagliarli, who liked that a
real, not computerized, voice provided the audio voting. Ann Parsons, of
Brighton, who is blind, also gave the machine high marks.
“I found it easy to use and the instructor was good,” she
said.
In the end, Hilderbrant said he was pleased with the turnout
to the demonstration, but not so much with the machines.
“I’m glad they had it, but I definitely want the machines to
be farther along,” he said.
The next step in the fight for disabled voters’ rights, he
said, will be writing letters and talking to state and local elections
officials.
“We’ll compile comments for each of the machines and send
our demands to the state board,” he said. “They will be able to pressure the
manufacturers.”
Prices were not available because the machines are not fully
outfitted and won’t be until the state’s criteria are completed.
Content © 2006 The Finger Lakes Times
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.