Vote paper trail sought

Lawmakers want secure, reliable way to check accuracy, do recounts

By Erika D. Smith

Beacon Journal staff writer

At the crux of the controversy over electronic voting is whether Americans should get a paper record to verify their vote.

Most states don't require receipts now, although California and Nevada will by at least 2006. (Florida has actually outlawed printing receipts for a recount.)

Voting machine companies such as Diebold Inc. say they can add a printer to a touch-screen machine if states order them to do so. But they insist the machines are accurate and secure without a paper trail.

However, some Ohio legislators and critics of electronic voting have their doubts.

``Studies ignore that something malicious can be put in these machines when they're built,'' said David Dill, who runs verifiedvoting.org. ``It's almost impossible to detect if it's done right.''

The only way to ensure that a vote is recorded properly, Dill and others say, is to require a voter-verified paper trail. That means every voter would get a tally of the candidates he or she picked before he or she leaves the polling place. That receipt would then be placed in a sealed ballot box and used as the official record in case of a recount.

Print tallies as needed

Mark Radke, director of Diebold's voting division, said such distrust is unjustified.

Before every election, poll workers run a ``logic and accuracy'' test on the machines to make sure they're working properly. The AccuVote-TS and AccuVote-TSX models also are tested by Diebold before they are shipped, he said.

If a recount is needed, however, poll workers could print a tally from each Diebold machine, as opposed to printing the ballot of each individual voter. That's to ensure voters remain anonymous.

Aldo Tesi, president and CEO of Election Systems & Software, added that votes are stored on each of its machines as a backup for recounts or post-election canvassing.

``It's very well thought out,'' he said. ``It'd be very difficult for someone to tamper with it.''

However, a growing number of state and federal legislators are calling for a paper trail. The change of heart could delay Ohio's ability to buy electronic voting machines for a year.

Sen. Kimberly Zurz, D-Green, is co-sponsoring a bill that would require a broader assessment of Ohio's voting machines.

``We believe there should be a voter-verified paper record. We want to know a little more securitywise before we buy these machines,'' she said. ``What we're asking for is to slow this process down.''

Late last month, Zurz and the bill's main sponsor, Sen. Teresa Fedor, D-Toledo, won over Senate Majority Whip Jeff Jacobson on the issue. That high-level shift could make it harder for the secretary of state's office to get spending authority from the state Controlling Board to buy the machines.

``We feel that the brakes have been put on this process arbitrarily,'' said Carl LoParo, a spokesman for Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.

Ohio board will review

The board, which is made up of legislators and an adviser to Gov. Bob Taft, will consider Blackwell's spending request on Monday. Republicans, who control the House and Senate, have said the board probably will turn Blackwell down while legislators review the issue.

On Thursday, LoParo characterized the chances of Ohio voters using touch-screen machines in the August special election as ``diminishing.'' That was hours after Fedor and other members of the Joint Committee on Ballot Security explained their concerns to Blackwell's office.

``We gave them a list of areas to address,'' said Fedor, the Senate's assistant minority whip.

Among them, the committee asked for more information on how other states are addressing voting security and the machines' performance in Tuesday's primary election in Maryland, California and Georgia.

Blackwell seemed unfazed, pointing to only minor, people-related problems on Tuesday and the results of Ohio's earlier security reviews.

``All the questions can be answered in 24 hours,'' Blackwell said Thursday, gesturing to a thick binder his office prepared on electronic voting. ``I don't understand why we can't get on with the business of the people.''

But Fedor said that information doesn't begin to satisfy the questions the committee posed. She also pointed to reports from other states that came to very different conclusions than Ohio.

``The computer scientists, we need to take heed of what they are telling us. They're the experts,'' she said. ``... We're lessening our security because we're fascinated by the technology.''

Still, Fedor said the committee isn't going to drag its feet. A resolution could come in 30 to 60 days. Blackwell's office plans to cooperate, LoParo added.

Ohio can wait until 2006

Another major delay could be costly for companies such as Diebold, which already had to wait several months for security reviews. Ohio, on the other hand, could legally wait until 2006 to deploy new voting machines.

``The only deadline we have is being arbitrarily set by the secretary of state,'' Zurz said.

However, long before 2006, the state could lose a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union for using punch-card ballots.

Even the states that have required a paper trail aren't sure how they will implement it.

Officials are debating whether voters should keep the receipts, put them in a ballot box, or verify them through a glass screen, as Ohio legislators want. Even the type of paper is up for discussion because thin sheets can smudge easily.

Despite the difficulties, Zurz said she'd rather be safe than sorry.

``I prefer to learn from Maryland's mistakes and not make the same ones myself,'' Zurz said.
Erika D. Smith can be reached at 330-996-3748 or ersmith@thebeaconjournal.com.