http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060305/NEWS0201/603050328/1002/NEWS

Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

I'm still not sure why we need new voting machines

By Mark Hare

(March 5, 2006) — With more than a century of voting experience among them, Tim Minerd, Al DeSoto and Jake Patla have every right to be concerned about the so-called improvements required by the so-called Help America Vote Act.

The three retirees, all from Pittsford, are concerned that federal law, and now a federal lawsuit, may push the state into buying equipment that will be less reliable and less secure than the automated voting machines we've been using for decades.

"I don't want the state to make a mistake," says Minerd. "I'm glad that the state and county boards of election are taking their time and trying to do this right." Patla, who looked at sample machines recently, says, "They look pretty amateurish, not really ready yet."

The 2002 federal law requires that states upgrade their voting equipment and operations for the 2006 congressional election. Because New York has been slow to act, the federal government last week sued the state, demanding that New York finalize a plan within a month to replace its voting machines this year.

It's not possible — and that could cost New York up to $49 million in federal funds for new voting machines.

The law is the law. But the 2006 deadline was never realistic, and racing to comply could actually compromise the integrity of elections.

First, says Peter Quinn, Monroe County's Republican elections commissioner, before the state can certify that various voting machines meet state standards, the feds must certify the machines meet federal requirements — and Washington has not reviewed many of the products available. Only after that's done can New York select a range of machines that meet additional state requirements. New York law, for example, requires that machines display the entire ballot, as the current automated machines do, and it requires that even computerized machines be stand-alone units, not tied into a network that could be subject to tampering.

"We have to have control" of the machines, Quinn says, and not allow returns to be centralized or reviewed by an outside entity. Some states may allow networking, but not New York.

"It's not fair," says DeSoto. If national election returns are tampered with in other states, he says, "I don't feel my vote counts."

Once machines are certified by the state, counties can choose the machines they want.

Monroe County needs roughly 900 machines, "and we have no control over the manufacturing process," Quinn says. There may well be delivery delays no matter what machine is chosen.

The county has 3,300 election inspectors, many elderly and not computer-literate. The inspectors all must be trained on the use of the new machines, and there must be a public education program, too.

Is all of this really necessary? Well, it's the law. But it seems to me the new requirements ought to be imposed first in places with a history of election problems.

The federal law requires states to use either a digital electronic machine or an optical scanner, both of which must have paper copies of the ballot in case of electronic failure or error.

Fine, but there's nothing wrong with the automated voting machines we use now. And when they break, parts are readily available.

Sorry, but this law looks like a solution in search of a problem. Washington is determined to protect us from fraud, whether we need it or not. I'm glad New York is taking its time. With time, we may wind up with machines that are almost as good as the ones we have.

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.