Judge rebuffs suggested safeguards for e-voting

By Dion Nissenbaum

TIMES SACRAMENTO BUREAU WRITER

SACRAMENTO - Saying there is no evidence that California's primary election is in danger of being manipulated, a skeptical Sacramento County judge Wednesday rebuffed an attempt to impose new safeguards on 19 counties that use electronic-voting equipment.

Judge Raymond M. Cadei rejected arguments by a group of concerned residents that millions of California voters would be relying on new technology that is vulnerable to electoral mischief.

"The petitioners have failed to provide any evidence of an actual threat," Cadei said at the close of the hearing. "At this point it is merely speculative."

Activists concerned that new electronic voting systems are highly susceptible to tampering went before Cadei in an effort to force Diebold Election Systems, the company providing the 19 counties with the technology, to add more safeguards.

Diebold's systems, they argue, allow hackers to change election results.

"There is a threat because we know the holes are so big," argued Lowell Finley, the Berkeley attorney who asked the judge to take immediate action.

But Cadei said it would take extraordinary circumstances for him to step in so close to an election.

Last year, civil rights groups sought to block the historic recall election by arguing that some counties were relying on unreliable paper ballots. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to intervene, saying it would be unprecedented to block an election once absentee voting had begun.

Cadei made the same argument in refusing to order new safeguards for the March 2 election.

The security of voting technology has emerged as a new concern for elections officials trying to mothball disputed punch-card systems that came under fire in the 2000 presidential election.

While states and counties have been shifting to electronic voting systems, new questions have emerged about the integrity of the Diebold machines that will serve one in four California voters, including those in Alameda and Solano counties.

A recent study by the Maryland Legislature found that the technology was ripe for hacking, while Secretary of State Kevin Shelley discovered that Diebold had installed unapproved software in 17 counties.

Shelley has called on counties to implement new safeguards, such as random testing, to ensure the integrity of the March election. But some county elections officials including Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Jesse Durazo are objecting.

Durazo and nine other county elections officials contend Shelley is misleading voters by suggesting that there are serious concerns.

Diebold attorneys told Cadei that there are no problems with their technology, and that it worked well in the fall recall election.

"The product is a good product," said Diebold attorney Daniel McMillan.

The dispute briefly flowed over into the courtroom halls after the hearing when Bev Harris, a leading critic of electronic voting technology and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, confronted McMillan and challenged his claims.

Harris said she was disappointed with the ruling and vowed to continue her fight in the courts before future elections can be held.