The recount debate goes on

Judge hears touch-screen tales

By Nancy Cook Lauer

DEMOCRAT CAPITOL BUREAU CHIEF

Experts on touch-screen election equipment battled it out before a judge Tuesday in a case that seeks to require the same recount rules for electronic votes as paper ballots.

At issue is a state Division of Elections decision to exempt 15 counties that use touch-screen equipment from having to do recounts in case of a close election. More than half of the state's registered voters live in those counties.

The challenge was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, the state chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Florida Voters League and Common Cause Florida.

After the disputed 2000 election in Florida, when George Bush was declared the winner by 537 votes, the groups worry that any problems with the new electronic machines coupled with a lack of a recount could result in a repeat of disenfranchised voters. They also allege that the Division of Elections overstepped its authority.

"Not only is there no manual recount, there is no paper trail," said Sharon Lettman-Pacheco of the People for the American Way Foundation, which intervened in the case. "We've had an overwhelming outpouring of our members looking for some type of assurance that this election will have the ability for checks and balances."

A recount is required by state law when the margin of votes between candidates is one-half percent or less. Its purpose is to determine voter intent - usually accomplished by inspecting paper ballots to see whether the voter, for example, circled the candidate's name instead of filling in the oval next to it.

Election officials say recounts aren't needed with the touch-screen equipment because it's impossible to vote for more than one candidate, known as an overvote, or to accidentally not vote for one at all, known as an undervote.

The voter groups contend there is potential for an undervote, if voters walk away from the machines without pressing the proper button to submit their choices, as well as the potential for electronic fraud.

The touch-screen systems can be programmed to capture an image of each vote for comparison against the final tally later, said John Seibel, founder of the Bethesda, Md.-based election-administration company TrueBallot Inc.

"I would think it would be irresponsible" not to take advantage of that capability," said Seibel, testifying for the voter groups. "I am loath to use the words 'trust' and 'election' in the same sentence."

But Paul Craft, head of the bureau that certifies voting equipment for the state, characterized that kind of recount as a "long, drawn-out, pointless exercise."

The state also argued that the voter groups don't have legal standing to challenge the exemption because they can't show that they have more than a general interest or that they would be harmed more than others if the election went forward under current rules.

"There is no specific injury. Here, the only concern they have with standing is exactly that. They are concerned," said George Waas, arguing for the state. "They're not happy with the touch screen. But those kinds of personal concerns don't translate into the requisite degree of injury necessary to establish standing."

Administrative Law Judge Susan Kirkland said she would rule within 40 days.