Experts call for voting safeguards
MIT-Caltech report fears that, as in 2000, millions of ballots could be lost
BY KEVIN COUGHLIN
Star-Ledger Staff

The U.S. risks a repeat of the 2000 election debacle unless basic steps are taken soon to shore up lax voting procedures, an expert panel warned yesterday.

A joint report from the Massachusetts and California institutes of technology outlined simple steps meant to ensure that votes are tabulated more accurately.
 

The schools have estimated that 4 million to 6 million voters were disenfranchised in the last presidential election, which was decided by 537 votes in Florida after a five-week legal fight that landed in the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Although some progress has been made these past four years, we are still concerned that millions of votes could be lost in November particularly if the popular vote is close," Caltech's Mike Alvarez, a political science professor, said in a prepared statement.

The presidents of MIT and Caltech convened experts from their schools to examine voting technologies after the 2000 election.

Their latest report urges the federal Election Assistance Commission, a bipartisan clearinghouse, to require states to collect better data for auditing elections for federal offices.

Other suggested fixes include clear labeling of two-sided ballots and replacing the term "Write In" with "Someone Else (write name)" to avert confusion on optical scanner systems.

Guidelines for provisional voting also are needed within weeks so people still can vote if registration questions arise at the polls. Many voters who went to the wrong precincts in 2000 could not vote.

The Election Assistance Commission also needs procedures for investigating complaints, the report advises.

While the two schools recommended random testing of voting machines, they did not address the controversy over whether electronic voting machines should have paper printouts to verify votes.

"We're talking about what the EAC can do for November," said MIT's Ted Selker, who contends paper printouts are not the best safeguard.

In 2001, MIT and Caltech ranked ATM-like touch-screen systems behind paper ballots, optical scanning devices and lever machines for efficiency.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University and elsewhere warned last year that electronic voting machines are vulnerable to hacking and malfunctions. Ohio last week barred three counties from buying electronic voting machines until security questions are resolved, following California's lead.

Selker said problems with polling places, registrations and ballot design largely were to blame in 2000. The EAC can compel states to fix procedures by withholding funds under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, he said.

The EAC, chaired by New Jersey's Rev. DeForest "Buster" Soaries Jr., is expected to issue its own proposed remedies this month.