Ready for electronic voting?
The company Roanoke might use to provide electronic voting machines has been getting a lot of negative attention. But a Roanoke official is comfortable at this point that the product will work effectively.

By Todd Jackson

 Archives
 Reprint
 
   todd.jackson@roanoke.com

   981-3253

   

    The company Roanoke chose to provide electronic voting machines is embroiled in a national debate over the new technology - including questions about the firm's conduct and political ties.

    Election Systems & Software, headquartered in Omaha, Neb., is one of just a few vendors providing most of the electronic voting systems across the country.

    In recent months, ES&S executives were skewered in Indiana for the company's use of uncertified technology in the state's November election, questioned about allegations of offering kickbacks to a Florida governmental group and criticized for the firm's relationship with Sen. Charles Hagel, R-Neb., who has financial ties to a company that has partial ownership of ES&S.

    The election company acknowledged its mistake in Indiana and denies any other wrongdoing or misconduct. It continues to provide its products to numerous localities across the country. Its Web site boasts that its machines have been used in 1,037 elections.

    Roanoke voters may use the ES&S iVotronic system for the first time on May 4, when the city holds its city council election. The recent attention given to ES&S should have no bearing on its ability to uphold its obligations to Roanoke, said Ellen Bogard, a company spokeswoman.

    Bogard said much of the national debate surrounding electronic voting - including all the attention ES&S has received - is indicative of an electorate dealing with major change.

    "Whenever you change something like the way people vote, it's a big deal," she said.

    Roanoke Registrar Beryl Brooks said the city has yet to sign a binding contract with ES&S, but she said negotiations are ongoing. The city is planning to buy 135 machines at a cost of about $600,000. Brooks said she's asked the company about some of the allegations against it and is comfortable at this point that ES&S' product will work effectively.

    Brooks said a team of city representatives - including herself, members of the city electoral board and city finance and computer department employees - looked at five different vendors before choosing ES&S. She said she was intensely pressured by some of the vendors to buy their equipment - but not by ES&S.

    Brooks said she believes the competition among the firms is driving them to exploit negatives in an effort to gain a business advantage, mainly because they have a limited amount of time to sell their product. According to federal law, the nation is supposed to be switched over to the new voting systems by 2006, she said.

    Gilbert Butler, Roanoke's electoral board chairman, said he's confident the city made the right decision in choosing ES&S. Butler said he had heard about some of the criticism directed at the company but said the city's ion process was sound and deliberate. The company also offered the strongest support and maintenance assurances, he said.

    "That's a critical component," Butler said. "Without that, we could be stuck with unusable machines if something went wrong."

    Bogard said the national move to electronic voting can be complicated by individual state requirements. Also, the electronic voting companies must adhere to federal standards first set forth in Congress' Help America Vote Act of 2002.

    In Indiana, ES&S sent localities machines that contained an upgraded version of its technology. Problem was, the d version hadn't been approved by the state.

    The uncertified machines were used in a November election in Indiana, and state election officials found out afterward. During a March 10 hearing, Indiana Election Commissioner Brian Burdick told ES&S officials: "God forbid we have a problem in Johnson County or something like that where we're all lined up to get sued, all because you derelicts couldn't get your act together."

    Dale Simmons, co-counsel for Indiana's Election Division, said last week that the situation prompted the state legislature there to pass new laws establishing penalties for electronic voting companies that violate the certification process.

    However, Simmons said there appears to be no major problems with the election results.

    Said Bogard: "It is important to point out that the results, security and accuracy of the election are not and never have been in question. The issue here is strictly about process and procedure for certification."

    In Virginia, which also has a state certification process, Bogard said the ES&S system that would be used in Roanoke has been approved.

    Another more prevalent issue Bogard, Butler and Brooks mentioned is the security of the computer systems being used for electronic voting.

    Bogard said ES&S' iVotronic will allow for a printed record of precinct-level election activity to verify results. If an election is ever contested, the system allows replication of the entire election process, including production of all ballot images for re-verification. Beyond that, she said, the iVotronic has three independent but redundant memory chips to ensure that no votes will ever be lost or altered. Accuracy of the system can be verified for each terminal through current electronic ballot records already stored within the terminals and with random audits of polling locations, she said.

    "There's a much better chance to rig an election with paper ballots than with computers," Brooks said.

    She said a decision will be made next week on which voting method Roanoke will use in the May election. Brooks said she still needs federal approval to use the ES&S machines. She said she's made the request, but has yet to receive a response.