Michigan tries online balloting: Attempt by Dems in Arizona in 2000 was unsuccessful

Jon Kamman for The Arizona Republic
Feb. 7, 2004 12:00 AM

Today's caucuses in Michigan featured the presidential primary season's only opportunity to cast an early vote over the Internet, a novelty that brought Arizona Democrats international attention when they pioneered it with limited success four years ago.

Since then, attempts to shepherd voting into the Computer Age have produced many advances, but the process still is fraught with questions of security and accountability.

Amid warnings by computer experts that online voting could be sabotaged by computer hackers, viruses or election manipulators, the Pentagon this week canceled a contract that would have allowed about 100,000 U.S. citizens overseas, mostly members of the armed services, to vote online in the November general election.

The plan already had become the center of controversy over possible foreign interference in a U.S. election.

A year ago, Election.com, the upstate New York company that ran Arizona's 2000 Democratic presidential primary and held the federal contract for overseas voting, announced that it was nearly out of money and had sold majority control to Osan Ltd., a group based in Yemen and made up of anonymous Saudi and possibly other Arab investors.

Since then, Osan has sold off the segment of the company that worked with governmental entities. The buyer was Accenture, a consulting company formerly known as Arthur Andersen Consulting.

The remaining portion, which specialized in election services to private associations or corporate shareholders, is now known as Election Services Corp. This group is managing the Michigan online voting in what is not a true governmental election but a party-run affair.

For five weeks until today, Michigan Democrats could vote by mail or online. Anyone wishing to vote today must go to a designated caucus site.

"We expect as many as one-third of the votes to be cast online," said Jason Moon, spokesman for the state party.

In Arizona's 2000 presidential primary, voters could cast ballots online for four days. On the fifth day, voters had to show up at a polling place to use either a ballot or vote on a computer on the premises.

More than 40 percent of the about 86,000 total votes were cast electronically, but thousands of people were unable to make the connection and had to vote in person.

Hundreds of others saw their attempts thwarted by such technical vagaries as needing to "enable cookies" or because they had lost the personal identification number issued by the party.

At one point, so many people voted at the same time that the server receiving the votes crashed.

In the end, the election made little difference, because Al Gore's opponent, Bill Bradley, ped out of the race in the midst of the voting period.

As in Arizona, Michigan has faced wide criticism from minority groups and advocates for the disadvantaged, Moon said. Opponents have argued that online voting excludes low-income voters while giving computer owners a larger voice.

Meanwhile, the main competitor for election business, VoteHere.net, has turned much of its focus to ensuring security and accountability for touch-screen voting machines being installed in thousands of places nationwide under federal reform legislation.

Congress authorized up to $3.9 billion to replace antiquated voting equipment after Florida's voting in the 2000 election exposed defects.

The paperless touch-screen system has been attacked for lacking a way to ensure that votes are counted the way they are cast or that they are counted at all.

VoteHere.net, based in Bellevue, Wash., is providing software that maintains the secrecy of a ballot while allowing a voter to audit whether his or her votes were counted properly.

"The whole flap about electronic voting is good for us," said Jim Adler, the company's chief executive. "The focus is on confidence and trust, and that's where our technology shines."