Voting Machines

The Issue: Election Board, commissioners divided over paying for new equipment. Our View: Get it certified, and then write the check.

July 5, 2004

The dispute concerning payment for the county's new electronic voting equipment may be dismissed by some as a silly political spat. We think it's more important than that.

County Clerk Marsha Abell and the local Election Board, of which she is a member, say the County Commissioners should authorize payment now for the county's new machines to Election Systems & Software. The machines, used in the primary election, are subject to a $2.59 million lease-purchase agreement with the company. Thus far, the county has received more than $500,000 from the state as partial reimbursement.

But Democratic Commissioners Catherine Fanello and David Mosby refuse to pay anything to the company until issues with the equipment are cleared up. They have a point.

The county did not learn until after signing the lease-purchase contract earlier this year that the software for the voting equipment had not yet been certified according to federal standards. The state gave Vanderburgh County a waiver from the certification for the May primary, and the machines performed flawlessly. But still, they have not been certified.

As Courier & Press staff writer John Martin reported Friday, three other counties are in the same boat as Vanderburgh. One has made payments on the uncertified equipment, and two others have not.

In the meantime, Election Systems & Software has been ordered by the state to get its equipment certified by Oct. 1, a month before the presidential election in November. It should be a far more demanding day of voting - and a better test of the equipment - than May's light primary.

It makes sense for the county to hold up payment until it knows for certain that the new equipment it is leasing will stand up to federal standards. In the meantime, Democratic Election Board member Don Vowels said the panel has learned that future reimbursements from the state will not be endangered by holding up this payment.

There is a subplot to all this, with Fanello, Democratic County Councilman Royce Sutton and others complaining about the amount of money paid to two Republicans for "voter outreach" prior to the primary election. This was for demonstrations of how to use the new voting devices. To make a long issue short, the Republicans should have included a Democrat as part of a bipartisan effort to instruct voters. That's the right way to do it.