Issues delay E-vote rollout

Security reviews, push for paper tallies, funding postpone use of Diebold's machines in Ohio

By Erika D. Smith

Beacon Journal staff writer

 

It all seemed so simple.

After weeks of figuring out which chads were pregnant and which chads were hanging, why wouldn't it?

Electronic voting machines were supposed to be the solution to all the problems raised in the disputed 2000 presidential election.

There were supposed to be no more confusing ballots, no more late-night hand counts and no more disenfranchised voters just competent touch-screen computers that record each American's vote accurately. All by 2004.

But things haven't gone as simply or as quickly as many people expected.

Federal funding to buy the new machines has been slow to arrive. The bipartisan commission charged with overseeing their deployment was formed almost a year late. Countless critics from a Ben & Jerry's co-founder to Ivy League professors have argued the machines are flawed.The companies that make them, including Green-based Diebold Inc., have had to do costly upgrades. And the few states that have deployed the machines have faced lawsuits, public criticism or independent security reviews.

Even Ohio has had problems.

Voters were supposed to use touch-screen machines on Tuesday, but several issues delayed the deployment. Right now, none of Ohio's 88 counties are using electronic voting machines bought with federal funds. (A few counties have older touch-screens, but those are no longer compliant.)

Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell expects to buy Ohio's machines by the August special election. But a dust-up between the Ohio General Assembly and Ohio Secretary of State's office could postpone the rollout another six months to a year.

``Any time you deal with such a large deployment and something as important as election reform, it's always going to be a lengthy process,'' said Carlo LoParo, of Blackwell's office.

Security issues key

Critics say government officials could've dodged a lot of the drama over electronic voting if they had just listened from the beginning.

``We'd be a lot better off if they had thought through the security issues,'' said David Dill, a Stanford University computer science professor who runs a Web site (www.verifiedvoting.org) advocating paper receipts for each voter. ``We were put in a situation of having to deal with this problem after the train had already left the station.''

Avi Rubin, the computer scientist whose study became the bible for every e-voting critic, agreed legislators rushed into things.

``I think they got all excited about how good it looked,'' the Johns Hopkins University professor said. ``There wasn't a process in place for computer security.''

The professors argue touch-screen machines like Diebold's AccuVote-TS are riddled with security vulnerabilities. They saya hacker could manipulate the system over the Internet or at a polling place, and a company programmer could rig votes without anyone knowing.

``In economic terms, an election is a very profitable thing to steal,'' Dill said.

The critics say a paper receipt for each voter is the only way to ensure an accurate count.

All the major e-voting manufacturers deny their machines are vulnerable and say polling place procedures are designed to weed out fraud.

But many secretaries of state are starting to listen to the uproar created by populist critics like Dill. Some have demanded receipts for voters. Others, like Ohio's Blackwell, have put the brakes on the fast transition from punch-card to touch-screen machines by ordering independent security reviews.

Diebold and its competitors Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic, to name a few have made several changes to their machines as a result of the reviews.

Mark Radke, director of Diebold's voting division, said the AccuVote has been through four independent security reviews. He wouldn't cite a cost for the required software upgrades, but Chairman and CEO Walden O'Dell said in late January: ``I think we've spent one or two million dollars trying to satisfy various secretaries of states,'' counties and federal testing agencies.

ES&S' president and chief executive, Aldo Tesi, said his company added an extra layer of security for Ohio. But he, too, couldn't assign a price tag to the upgrades.

``It's nothing new for us to make changes along the way,'' he said. ``We're not naive in knowing that our system must change over time.''

Voting machine upgrades can be time consuming, though, and, if they are not done correctly, they can throw elections into doubt.

Every ``significant'' upgrade to the software or hardware of an electronic voting machine must be tested and OK'd by state and federal officials before being installed. But mistakes do occur.

California is investigating whether Diebold used uncertified software in several counties during the gubernatorial recall election last year.The company could face penalties or even decertification, which would ban it from operating in the state. Millions of dollars are at stake with contracts in 18 counties.

Radke blamed the situation on a ``miscommunication'' between the California Secretary of State's office, elections officials and Diebold. The new software was tested by the appropriate authorities, he said, but not everybody knew about it.

The company's assurances haven't exactly fostered trust, though.

There were so many legal discrepancies over the upgrades that Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation doesn't believe the company's explanation.

``There's the principle, and that is the voters are relying on these vendors to tell the truth,'' said Alexander, who heads the nonprofit, nonpartisan voters rights group.

Complicating the issue for the companies, each state has a different set of certification standards. That means an AccuVote-TS in Maryland, for example, could be running a slightly different software version than a machine in California.

These disparities have caused confusion because the upgrades are needed so often.

Diebold has centralized its certification operations to keep track of all the upgrades and speed up accompanying paperwork. ES&S uses a similar system.

``Those kind of changes on the fly don't happen,'' said Tesi, of ES&S. ``There can be a struggle at times... but we think playing by the rules is very important.''

So do the critics.

Dill said certification is a big deal because it's the only thing that guarantees votes are counted accurately. The software each machine uses is proprietary and there is no paper trail in most states.

``Certification is our last line of defense,'' he said.

Certification inadequate

Critics like Dill, Alexander and Rubin blame the certification standards not necessarily the companies for the slow pace and problems with deploying electronic voting machines. The standards are completely inadequate, they said, and let all types of security flaws get through.

Rubin, who tested Diebold's voting software, says he has the proof.

``I signed up to be an election judge, so they sent me through training on the AccuVote-TS and the PIN number is still 1111,'' Rubin said.

The federal government also has recognized the need to pass stricter standards for electronic voting machines.

Right now, the manufacturers follow voluntary guidelines set by the National Association of State Election Directors. But it's the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, created by Congress and appointed by the president, that's charged with developing new certification requirements.

However, the commission is just now getting to work. It was supposed to be formed about a year ago.

That delay left states in limbo for months while they waited to receive billions of dollars in federal funding.

Congress authorized $3.9 billion in 2002 to replace outdated voting equipment, but only about $650 million had been distributed by early February. Later in the month, though, the commission set a timetable to release an additional $2.3 billion to states.

``That federal funding did not materialize until earlier this year,'' Ohio's LoParo said.

States also were waiting for the commission to set up standards for the electronic voting machines. That way, secretaries of state could buy the right equipment the first time.

But those requirements haven't been released yet and may not happen soon.

DeForest Soaries, chairman of the Election Assistance Commission, did not return phone calls and e-mails seeking comment.

``It was a little bit out of everybody's control,'' Tesi said.

Because of all these delays, nearly 32 million Americans, or 18.6 percent, will continue to vote on punch cards this fall, according to a study by Election Data Services. In 2000, that figure was 28 percent.

``It is a possibility you can still have a 2000 (a stalemate) in 2004,'' said Kimball Brace, president of EDS. ``If the election is close, election administrators need to make sure they're cognizant and have all the procedures down, because a lot more people will be watching.''
Erika D. Smith can be reached at 330-996-3748 or at ersmith@thebeaconjournal.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report.