Reform groups want statewide audit of machines; state says no

RACHEL LA CORTE

Associated Press

MIAMI - Election reform groups want the state to audit touchscreen voting machines in 15 counties, citing a disclosure that Miami-Dade County lost detailed electronic records from the 2002 gubernatorial primary in computer crashes last year.

State officials on Wednesday stressed that no votes were lost in the actual election, but that the record of those votes were lost during the crashes in May and November of 2003. Some records of other elections in Miami-Dade were also believed lost.

A coalition of election groups, however, say that the problem could be indicative of further problems with the machines and the only way to know for certain that votes are cast, tabulated and reported accurately is if an audit is done during a live election.

The coalition first called for the audit last week, but said Wednesday they are renewing the call based on Miami-Dade's recent problem.

Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, chairwoman of the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition, said the audit is still needed because it is "essentially battle testing" the touchscreen systems. After voters cast a ballot, they would be randomly asked to cast a test ballot at a separate machine that wouldn't count except for audit purposes, she said.

"You can test machines in the laboratory all you want but the only way you can know for real if these machines work is to use real, live machines, and have voters cast a test ballot on Election Day," she said.

Rodriguez-Taseff said they also want random testing of optical scan machines used by 52 other counties during the Aug. 31 primary.

But state officials said on-the-spot audits aren't necessary.

"We have full confidence in the certified equipment that worked flawlessly in the 2002 elections and in hundreds of successful elections around the state since then," said Alia Faraj, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Glenda Hood. "There is no reason to suggest that they will not perform just as well in November."

The erasure of the Miami-Dade information violated Florida law, which says ballot records for state and local offices must be kept for a year. The records for federal races must be kept for 22 months.

"There's a very distinct difference between votes being lost and data that they are required to retain for 22 months being lost due to a procedural failure," Faraj said.

But Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said that lost with the data was any proof of problems during the 2002 gubernatorial Democratic primary. Janet Reno lost to Bill McBride on a day when some polls opened late early in Miami-Dade and there were some problems operating the new machines.

"What is distressing about the lost data is that it robs us and elections officials of the opportunity to analyze and address the primary problem we're concerned about, and that's lost votes," Simon said.

A study by the American Civil Liberties Union after the 2002 primary concluded that 8 percent of the votes on the county's touchscreen machines were lost. But backers of touchscreens say it is impossible to determine how many people may have intentionally gone to the polls but declined to vote in the presidential primary, thereby not recording a vote and causing an "undervote."

Counties spent millions buying the touchscreen computers after the disputed 2000 presidential election caused by problems with the old punchcard systems. On the new systems, voters make their ions by touching a computer screen showing candidates' names. The computer then tabulates the votes.

The lost Miami-Dade information was discovered when the election Reform Coalition requested all data from the 2002 primary.

Faraj said the fact Miami-Dade did not have a backup system in place until December was "unacceptable."

She said a Division of Elections official met with Miami-Dade officials "to find out what happened and why we were not notified." An elections team was to meet with the office again Thursday.

Seth Kaplan, spokesman for the county's elections supervisor, Constance Kaplan, said Wednesday that the office was working with the state to pinpoint what happened, and whether the information may have been backed up somewhere else.

"There's a possibility that it does exist somewhere, we just don't know at this point," said Kaplan, who's not related to the supervisor. "We're as interested as everybody else in figuring out exactly what happened, and ensuring that it cannot happen again."

Faraj said it should be standard procedure for counties to backup data. The state sent a letter to all elections supervisors Wednesday asking that they confirm in writing that they have proper maintenance of their files.

Counties reached by The Associated Press on Wednesday said they do have backups, most with two or three different types of redundancy. All said they were confident with the machines and the data on them, and noted that tests are also done in a public forum for voters to witness.

Election Systems & Software, the vendor of touchscreen machines for Miami-Dade, said in a statement that this "is not a matter of electronic versus paper-based voting."

Company officials said it was a matter of local election management process and not "related in any way to the reliability, accuracy, or security of electronic voting technology in general, or our iVotronic touch screen system."

But Simon, of the ACLU, noted recent glitches, including revelations by state officials last month that the touchscreen systems used by 11 counties had a bug that would make a manual recount impossible. Earlier this month, a newspaper study indicated touchscreen machines did not perform as well as those that scanned paper ballots.

"We're supposed to simply rely on the governor and the secretary of state that they work," Rodriguez-Taseff said. "If you believe they work, why not have them tested? They have no good reason to not have them tested."