Security questions cloud election

CRITICS UNCONVINCED NEW TECHNOLOGY IS PROTECTED

By Elise Ackerman

Mercury News

As Santa Clara County prepares for the first countywide election using touch-screen voting machines, voters have an urgent question: Can they be confident the computerized system will accurately count their ballots?

Two weeks ago, California registrars made headlines when they declared their opposition to security measures recommended by Secretary of State Kevin Shelley. The registrars, who included Jesse Durazo from Santa Clara County, represented 10 of the 15 counties that will use touch-screen machines in Tuesday's election.

The security measures were a response to recent reports by computer experts who showed how electronic voting systems could be tampered with and election results altered.

Since then, Shelley and the registrars have reached a quiet compromise, with the counties agreeing to allow the presence of state monitors and to make backup copies of election results.

Santa Clara County officials also have applied tamper seals to their touch-screen machines. An armed police officer will guard the vote-counting computer on election night while another officer will supervise the delivery of cartridges containing digital ballots.

But some voting experts said counties still lack sufficient safeguards. In Santa Clara County and elsewhere, voting machines are being delivered to public polling places days in advance. In theory, the vast network of private garages, mobile home parks, community centers and schools that serve as polling places is secure. But in reality local officials lack the resources to check that voting machines are kept behind locked doors.

Likewise, officials said they cannot subject polling place inspectors, who are responsible for Election Day security, to background checks. In Santa Clara County, inspectors are required only to be U.S. citizens and county residents, and have previous experience working at a poll. In Alameda, inspectors need to possess basic computer skills, a dependable vehicle and the ability to follow written instructions.

Registrars said inspectors, and the poll workers they supervise, are committed, trustworthy citizens. They point out that the ad-hoc system, which relies on volunteers who are paid a stipend of $60 to $130, has historically produced reliable election results.

But critics worry that new touch-screen machines are more vulnerable than the punch-card machines they replaced because they do not produce a paper record of voters' ballots. ``There are all kinds of opportunities for fraud, misuse or accidents,'' said Peter Neumann, a computer scientist and an expert on computerized voting systems.

The secretary of state has ordered that all touch-screen voting systems be able to produce paper receipts by July 2006. Meanwhile, glitches have been reported in touch-screen voting systems around the country. During a special election for a seat in the Florida legislature in January, 134 voters signed in at the polls but were not recorded as casting ballots. The race was won by only 12 votes.

Voting-machine companies said they have added extra warnings to prevent voters from walking away without casting their ballots. In Santa Clara, poll workers are instructed to press a ``cast vote'' button on machines that have been mistakenly abandoned in mid-ballot.

But some voters remain worried. Doug Roberts, a 36-year-old San Jose truck driver, said he requested an absentee ballot so he could cast a vote on paper.

``I'm concerned because I haven't heard that the machines have been proved to be 100 percent reliable and 100 percent tamper-proof,'' Roberts said.

Roy Saltman, a voting technology expert who is retired from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said voting systems have become more secure over the years and that proper controls and procedures can effectively reduce the risk of tampering. A series of tests, including one that checks the tally function on each machine before it is delivered to a polling place, should ensure that votes are counted correctly.

But Saltman said the method of delivery of machines to public polling places and the limited requirements for poll workers and inspectors, do create a risk.

Another weak point is poll-worker training. For instance, security issues surrounding touch-screen machines were not addressed during a three-hour training session for Santa Clara County poll workers attended by the Mercury News.

Durazo, Santa Clara County's registrar, said poll workers are instructed not to use the touch-screen machines if the seals are broken before the polls open. The county's machines are made by Sequoia Voting Systems.

However, Durazo said the county is not writing down the serial numbers that identify each seal. In theory a resourceful saboteur could reprogram the machines, reset them to be used in the election, and apply a new seal.

Sequoia spokesman Alfie Charles said the counties should be taking the extra precaution. ``It's why we provide the serial numbers,'' he noted.

San Bernardino County registrar Scott Konopasek said scenarios involving tampered machines are too far-fetched. ``There are layers and layers of security,'' said Konopasek, whose county uses Sequoia touch-screen machines.

Still, Konopasek said, his county doesn't use private residences as polling places and makes sure to record the serial numbers of both the machines that are used and the tamper seals that protect them.