State, county registrars clash over voting machines
Tuesday, March 2, 2004

By JAY GOETTING
Register Staff Writer

An edict from the California secretary of state to county election officials has Napa's registrar of voters and others fighting mad.

Secretary Kevin Shelley fired off a memo last month to the registrars in 18 counties officials who oversee ballots for 40 percent of the California electorate calling for state testing of randomly ed voting machines, retention of images of every vote cast, posted results of voting on each machine, and preparation of a security plan which would be reviewed by the Secretary of State's office. Shelley's plan is intended to ensure the confidentiality and security of electronic touch-screen voting machines.

Electronic voting is just gaining a foothold in Napa County and elsewhere following an infusion of state and federal funding to upgrade equipment.

The Secretary of State's move has prompted an angry response from voter registrars in those counties, and a call from a voter consumer group to boycott electronic voting machines. Local registrars are charged with preparing for and running elections, including statewide ballots.

Napa County Registrar of Voters John Tuteur joined with several of his colleagues in responding to Shelley shortly after receiving his memorandum, saying in essence that Shelley doesn't have jurisdiction to tell the registrars what to do, and that security issues have already been addressed.

Meanwhile, the California Voter Foundation is calling on voters in 14 counties, including Napa, to request absentee ballots instead of relying on the machines. "Our advice," said Kim Alexander, president of CVF, "is to cast your votes on paper. Voters who do not want to entrust their ballots to risky, inauditable technology can reject the paperless touchscreen system and instead vote absentee using a paper ballot."

Tuteur said that move is totally unnecessary. There has not been a single incident or any evidence of security breaches in elections in which electronic voting systems have been used, he said.

"We believe the directives included in your memo propose measures which could erode, rather than engender, voter confidence," says the memo, which also notes Shelley does not acknowledge the many administrative safeguards already in place.

Addressing the fear that hackers can enter the voting system to either read results or cast multiple votes, "Nothing could be further from the truth," the registrars wrote. "Equipment is not networked together and has no connectivity to the Internet."

Tuteur expressed disappointment with the strained relations between county registrars and Shelley's office. "It's the first time in 40 years," he said.

Tuteur termed CVF's call for paper ballots "ridiculous" and said if the move is carried to the extreme, it could cripple the system.

The memo to Shelley, signed by Tuteur and nine others, states, "As your colleagues, not your subordinates, we urge you to begin to restore, not undermine, the confidence of the voting public in the elections process and the voting systems which your office has rigorously examined for accuracy and reliability prior to approval for use in California. Significantly, the memo does not acknowledge the administrative procedures counties already have in place to assure security, accuracy and reliability when deploying our state-certified ... equipment."

Tuteur said Shelley would not be sending poll watchers to Napa County. But he noted there is a process which allows public scrutiny and participation, in which registrars invite advocacy organizations, media, the civil grand jury, political party representatives and members of the public to observe testing processes and to view vote tabulation after the polls close.