http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/politics/15vote.html

June 15, 2004

He Pushed the Hot Button of Touch-Screen Voting

By Katharine Q. Seelye

Kevin Shelley is a big and voluble Irish politician, the son of a former San Francisco mayor, and not the sort you would figure for the heretofore semi-obscure job of California secretary of state. But Mr. Shelley, who was elected to the post in November 2002 after a career as a state legislator, has adapted the job to suit his style, taking the arcane matter of voting machines and turning it into a hobbyhorse that some predict he could ride to the governor's office.

Mr. Shelley, a Democrat, has gained national notice for his skepticism toward touch-screen voting and his insistence that voters be able to look at a paper record inside the voting booth to verify their ballots. He says such paper trails are crucial if government wants voters to have confidence that their ballots are being counted correctly.

As a result, he has ordered that after July 1, 2005, no county in California can buy a touch-screen system without a paper record that is verifiable by the voter, and as of July 2006, all touch-screen systems here must be equipped with paper trails, regardless of when they were bought. Until the machines have that capability, he wants people who do not trust them to have the option of voting by a traditional paper ballot.

Then, on April 30, he banned the use of certain touch screens in 4 counties and decertified them in 10 other counties until additional security measures could be put in place.

"Someone said to me, 'The problem with Kevin Shelley is, he's an activist,' " Mr. Shelley recalled in an interview earlier this month in his office here overlooking the black-and-gold dome of City Hall in San Francisco. I plead guilty. But, oh my God, never has it been more important to be an activist."

His directive has national implications because 40 percent of all touch-screen voting machines in use are in California. If vendors start making equipment to the specifications of the huge California market, that market is likely to dictate what is available to the rest of the country.

But Mr. Shelley's advocacy of paper trails has set off a fierce and emotional reaction among local election officials in California and elsewhere and has brought the purchase of such systems to a near standstill. Nearly one third of voters nationwide this November will vote on touch screens.

Local officials say that despite demonstrations from computer experts that hackers can break into the machines, there is no evidence that anyone has done so. Moreover, voters may expect an actual, individual receipt after they vote; what happens instead is that a paper record, visible to the voter, is created in the machine. Officials have also expressed concern about paper jams.

Mr. Shelley's insistence on paper trails has prompted officials in four California counties to sue him. The clash is being repeated in other states and courtrooms and has even roiled the venerable League of Women Voters, where advocates of paper trails tried to overthrow the league's establishment, which has been against them. They settled yesterday on a compromise resolution to support "secure, accurate, recountable and accessible" systems, all code words for paper trails.

Conny B. McCormack, the respected registrar of Los Angeles County, the biggest voting jurisdiction in the country, has emerged as one of Mr. Shelley's chief critics. Ms. McCormack said that Mr. Shelley had confounded local officials by handing down directives that require a technology that does not yet exist. Rather than inspire voter confidence, she said, Mr. Shelley has undermined it.

(Manufacturers have said that if the technology were required, they could supply it, but not in time for the November elections.)

"He put out a report on April 20 saying that touch screens were 100 percent accurate," Ms. McCormack said. "And then two days later he decertified them." She said such actions had "destabilized the entire election process in California and potentially nationwide."

In random testing during the March 2 California primary, Mr. Shelley's office found that the machines "recorded the votes as cast with 100 percent accuracy."

In an effort to prod the industry, Mr. Shelley yesterday issued standards for the manufacturers in developing paper trails, the first in the country. They include requirements that voters who are disabled be able to vote and verify their vote without assistance, that voters be able to verify their votes before casting them and that the paper records be printed in both English and the voter's preferred language.

"I'm insisting, quite unapologetically, on the need to have these appropriate security measures in place to protect the voters, which is my principal charge," Mr. Shelley said.

Mr. Shelley, 48, grew up in politics, the son of Jack Shelley, a former mayor of San Francisco. His father also served in Congress and the California Legislature, where, he was one of two lawmakers to vote against the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II.

"My dad's vote seems like a no-brainer now," Mr. Shelley said. "But at the time, it spoke to who he was and what he believed in, and he passed that on to me." (Jack Shelley died of lung cancer in 1974, when his son was 18.)

Mr. Shelley began his career as a legislative director in Washington for Representative Phil Burton, a liberal icon in California. He was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and then the State Assembly, where he served for the allowable limit of three two-year terms and became majority leader.

He said he ran for secretary of state because he wanted to counteract the decline in voting, though he has used the office to highlight other issues, like domestic partner rights and corporate responsibility. Mr. Shelley did not deny an interest in the governor's office someday but said his goal for now was "to make policy and set precedent; it has nothing to do with my future."

Eric Jaye, a political consultant here and longtime associate of Mr. Shelley, said he had transformed what was essentially an administrative post "into a bully pulpit."

Several recent analyses have bolstered Mr. Shelley's view that touch screens need more security. These include a recommendation by the chairman of the federal Election Assistance Commission that every voting jurisdiction that uses touch screens enhance their security, with either paper trails or other methods, by November.

A joint report issued yesterday by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and the National Science Foundation endorsed touch screens with paper trails as the most effective voting system.

Still, many officials who run elections believe the push for paper trails is more window-dressing than a necessary expense.

San Bernardino County, which is among those suing Mr. Shelley, plans to ignore his directive to provide separate paper ballots for those uncomfortable with touch screens. "It would be an expression of a lack of confidence in the machines," for which the county just spent $14 million, said David Wert, a spokesman for the county supervisors.

In May, the supervisors noted that Mr. Shelley had certified the county's system before the March 2 primary and that "absolutely nothing has occurred since that certification to call the system's performance or reliability into question."

To those who say he is only fanning fears, Mr. Shelley laughs.

"If a machine breaks down in San Diego, and it breaks down in Georgia, and they break down in Maryland, and they break down in Alameda and we have high schools where they can hack into the systems, the deficiencies are in the machines," he said.

"Look," he added, "I believe these machines have a very, very firm place in our future, but I also believe that in responding to the chaos in Florida in 2000 these machines were rushed out before all the kinks were worked out."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

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.