Vote early, vote often and get a receipt

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

For elections to have validity, the public must have confidence in the count. That's a big challenge as America begins more electronic voting.

No reasonable person should accept assurances that computerized voting is immune from error, fraud or vote rigging. There's no such thing as total security. The political involvements of some voting-machine companies underline the need for skepticism.

Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed is taking steps that should enhance confidence in electronic voting. Most critical, Reed has sided with those who believe that voters deserve a paper record of how they vote on a computer.

Although there has been fierce debate about the paper receipts nationally, their value ought to be obvious. The voter receives a record of what ions were made. The need to have the option of proof is as essential to confidence in using computerized voting machines as it is in banking by ATM.

The state's paper record requirement will go into effect in 2006, the first time electronic voting machines will be widespread in the state. This year, only Snohomish and Yakima counties will use the machines at all voting places. But under a federal law passed in the wake of the Florida voting scandal, at least one electronic machine must be available in every voting place in 2006.

Reed also set forth a series of other requirements that may do as much or more for voting security. His policies demand careful training for elections workers, absolute separation of the computers from the Internet or other connections that hackers could access and random testing of the computers. What's more, the tests will occur before, during and after elections.

Reed believes that electronic touch-screen machines offer advantages in efficiency, the ability to serve people in multiple languages and opportunities for voters to avoid the mistakes found in 2000. But there is nothing to be gained from rushing to institute electronic voting without proper controls. By providing increased protections, we can make changes without damaging the confidence that's vital to a democracy.