Paper trail still needed for elections

New technology for voting unproven

The new touch-screen voting machines used in Lee and 15 other counties appear to be working well, but given our tumultuous recent election history, it would be a good idea to have a paper trail on hand in case a re-count is needed.

Election officials insist such a backup is a needless expense. But at least for this year’s big general election, it would make the public feel a lot safer to have paper ballots to count if the electronic system fails. We are not yet confident that these machines can’t malfunction, leaving no electronic evidence of how people voted.

Since the machines debuted in the 2002 gubernatorial election, there has been concern about “undervotes,” those cases in which no vote was recorded for a person who used the machine.

In a Jan. 6 special election for a state legislative seat in Broward and Palm Beach counties, 137 people used the machines, but registered no vote. The election was decided by 12 votes.

Elections officials say undervotes don’t mean the machines malfunctioned.

Some people choose not to vote, despite clear warnings from the machine that the ballot is incomplete. They say a relative handful of such cases don’t warrant the expense and trouble of having each person’s ballot printed out as a backup.

Sharon Harrington, Lee County’s assistant elections supervisor, said adding printers to the voting machines so each voter could view or tear off a paper ballot and deposit it in a box could cost $1.2 milion to $1.3 million in this county alone.

The system is already capable of printing a paper ballot that the voter would not handle but which would be available for a manual recount. That seems adequate, and would be less expensive.

The voter doesn’t need a paper ballot to confirm his or her choices; the touch-screen machines provide plenty of chances for that. The demand by county commissioners in Palm Beach Boward and Miami-Dade counties for paper receipts for each voter is unnecessary.

There are lots of questions, including what to do about the counties where optical scan machines are used instead of touch-screen.

It could be tough to get add-on systems certified in time for the elections.

Admittedly, it seems odd to want paper ballots again, after spending so much money to get away from them.

Maybe election officials are right about the utter reliability of their machines, and maybe if the 2004 presidential election goes well, we’ll all feel the same way.

But the idea of needing a manual recount of paper ballots in the presidential election and not being able to conduct one, of this state even conceivably being once again accused of screwing up a national election — well, it’s just too awful to contemplate.

Give us a paper trail to follow, at least for now.