Can the 2004 Elections Be Taint Free?

By Ekram Haque

As George Bush and the Republican Party go into full gear in hopes of clinching a landslide victory in 2004, many Americans will be looking for a comprehensive solution to the 2000 Florida voting fiasco. Three years and millions of dollars later, doubts remain if all states will have the necessary legislation and systems in place in time. Despite an extensive investigation of Florida election irregularities by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the passage of the federal landmark Help America Vote Act (HAVA), states have not implemented all of the mandated corrective actions, the high-tech voting machines being offered have security flaws, and their vendors are allegedly quite close to the Republican Party.

The 2000 presidential election will go down in American history not just for then-governor Bush’s razor-thin and disputed victory, but also for exposing the flaws of voting equipment and processes throughout the country. Perhaps it was a blessing in disguise for minority voters, especially African-Americans, who have complained of disenfranchisement by an unfair electoral system.

Many Problems Remain Unfixed

Complaints of widespread voting irregularities and the ensuing bitterness prompted the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to hold hearings in Florida in early 2001. Chairwoman Mary Frances Berry, who headed the investigation, lamented the extraordinary lapses thus: “Voting is the language of our democracy, and regrettably, when it mattered most on Election Day, real people lost real opportunities to speak truth to power at the ballot box. This must never occur again if we can do anything to stop it.”

The commission adopted its scathing report on June 8, 2001. On June 27, 2001, in her testimony before the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, Berry again lambasted the gross irregularities in Florida. Among the lapses found were the wrongful purging of non-felon voter registration rolls, unequal election resources in low-income areas, and the rejection of 54% of  the African-American votes.

Some of the other objectionable things noted were the following: Old and defective election equipment was found in poor precincts; many Haitian-Americans and Puerto Rican voters were not provided with language assistance; many African-Americans did not cast ballots because they were assigned to polling sites that did not have the resources to confirm their eligibility status; and voter registration applications were not processed in a timely manner, as mandated under the National Voter Registration Act.

“The election system is the engine that drives the participation of citizens in our democracy through the exercise of the precious right to vote,” said Berry in her testimony. “Regrettably, Florida officials with responsibilities for the operation of the election system were asleep at the switch.” With 93% of African-Americans in Florida voting for Al Gore in 2000, and 54% of their votes being rejected, one can understand why Bush’s assumption of presidency stirs deep emotions among Democrats.

New Requirements

HAVA was the response to the tempest created by the voting irregularities in Florida. President Bush signed it into law on Oct. 29, 2002. The legislation, a major reform of the electoral process, seeks to improve the administration of U.S. elections by three primary means: provisional voting, statewide voter registration databases, and voter identification.

There are other requirements as well, many of which are supposed to take effect in less than a year from the laws’ enactment. HAVA allocated $3.86 billion, with another $1 billion in October 2003, to help participating states replace punch-card and lever machines with those that can detect spoiled or uncountable ballots in voting precincts and that allow voters to review their ballot before casting it. The first batch of funds was issued to participating states in February 2003.

States are required to offer provisional voting – special ballots that allow for post-election verification of eligibility – for all voters who claim that they are registered but are not on the rolls, by January 2004. First-time voters who register by mail will be required to show verification before they can cast ballots. Other deadlines follow on the heels of each other, such as states changing or overhauling their election process through local legislation.

Fourteen months after passing HAVA, serious problems remain. According to the Election Reform Information Project (www.electionline.org), a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy website, no states currently meet all of HAVA’s three key requirements. Only 11 states have reported meeting one of the requirements; while four states and the District of Columbia have met two. The remaining 35 states say that they have met none of the requirements.

Problems with Vendors

A major problem area is the development and adoption of smart, efficient, and tamper-proof voting machines. On Dec. 2, 2003, Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell ordered four companies that have built new electronic voting devices to resolve security weaknesses uncovered in two comprehensive examinations. In all, 57 security flaws were found that, if not fixed, will throw election results into doubt and raise potential allegations of tampering. Ohio was a major test of these devices, and the final outcome will be watched closely by other states.

The problems found during testing prompted Blackwell to promise during a news conference that he “will not place these voting devices before Ohio’s voters until identified risks are corrected and system security is bolstered.” He quickly stated that the problems would be fixed, although not by the deadline set by HAVA. “Fortunately, all of the documented risks will be expeditiously corrected by each of our voting machine manufacturers. When Ohioans begin casting ballots on these electronic devices they will do so with the knowledge that the integrity of their voting system has been maintained.”

The Vendors

The four companies whose voting devices are being considered for adoption – Diebold Election Systems, the Election Systems & Software, Hart InterCivic, and Sequoia Election Systems – are alleged to have close ties to the Republican Party. This has created some suspicion among Democrats. At least two of these companies, Sequoia Election Systems (Oakland, CA) and Election Systems & Software (Omaha, Nebraska) are known to have ties to the Republican Party.

The products of all four have flaws, according to Compuware, one of the two companies hired by Ohio to test and analyze the equipment. Compuware identified 57 potential security risks within the software and hardware, which it then sorted into “high,” “medium,” and “low” categories. Diebold’s AccuVote-TS had five high, two medium, and eight low potential risk areas. ES&S’s iVotronic had one high, three medium, and 13 low potential risk areas. Hart InterCivic’s eSlate3000 had four high, one medium, and five low potential risk areas. Sequoia’s AVC Edge had three high, five medium, and seven low potential risk areas.

The Testers

Compuware, based in Detroit, MI, conducted a thorough technical analysis of each electronic voting device vendors’ software and hardware. The review included an examination of the computer source code and scrutiny of the potential for penetration and points of failure specific to each voting machine. It also examined the Diebold Election Systems AccuVote-TS, the Election Systems and Software (ES&S) iVotronic, the Hart InterCivic eSlate 3000, and the Sequoia Voting Systems AVC Edge.

Ohio also hired InfoSENTRY, based in Raleigh, NC, to analyze the new machines. It conducted on-site vendor inspections and interviews to assess the voting system vendors’ security plans, procedures, and processes. The review included all of the information systems security procedures used by the vendors. InfoSENTRY also assessed Ohio’s administrative security procedures and recommended improvements.

As a result of InfoSENTRY’s review, the secretary of state will seek additional security and quality assurances with documentation from voting machine vendors. Also, the agency will ask vendors to implement industry standard security and quality practices and procedures. While citing procedural and administrative issues, InfoSENTRY advises that the identified risks are manageable and can be addressed in time to accommodate the secretary of state’s new deployment timetable.

Security Issues

Researchers from the testing companies “identified several significant security issues” with Diebold’s product. According to the report, this product allows an attacker to disrupt the election process or to throw the election results into question. For example, the cards used by supervisors to take charge of Diebold machines all had the simple PIN code of “1111,” which could leave the machines open to tampering. In the case of Election Systems and Software, its tally program could be tricked into gathering information from one machine many times, thus overcounting votes. Machines from Hart InterCivic and Sequoia could allow unauthorized people to gain supervisory control and close polls early.

 Critics say that the companies should open their software to outside examination and provide a paper trail that can verify votes. Some also accuse the companies of being tied to the Republican Party. Company representatives have replied that they either have, or soon will have, the solutions, and have assured the public that these bugs or deficiencies are minor and will be fixed by certain modifications.

 In November, California’s secretary of state Kevin Shelley announced that he would require all voting machine systems bought into the state to provide a paper printout. In Congress, Representative Rush D. Holt (D-NJ) has introduced a bill that would require paper trails for voting machines. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), a long-shot presidential candidate, has made voting machines a theme of his campaign.

Conclusion

After the 2000 crisis of confidence in Florida and the ensuing bitterness, the public’s trust in the electoral system must be restored. While electronic machines would be efficient and fast in recording and reporting elections results, they must be free from technical defects and political blemishes. Election 2004 will be watched very closely to ensure that it treats all voters with the same respect.