Progressives Split Over Electronic Voting Machines
Disabled activists say machines are only chance for secret ballot
by Madeleine Baran

Aug 1 - Fractures between disabled and non-disabled activists within the broad progressive movement have been common in recent decades, and have emerged once again in the fight over electronic voting machines.

Although most of the media coverage of electronic voting focuses on the potential for fraud and error, disability activists say the machines constitute the only way they can exercise their right to a secret ballot, and they are vigorously defending the controversial devices against certain additional security regulations.

Specifically, many non-disabled progressive activists are advocating that all electronic voting machines print out a record of each person’s vote, which could be checked by the voter, but would remain in the machine in case a recount is necessary.

But a number of disability rights activists and organizations oppose these voter-verified paper receipts, saying that they are not useful to blind voters, and that the cost of installing printers and upgrading software would delay gaining access to the machines.

The real issue, they say, is the continuing disenfranchisement of disabled people at polling places. The new machines, with touch screens and optional audio via headphones, help remedy the situation by allowing people who are blind or have limited use of their hands, to vote by themselves for the first time. Previously, they had to be accompanied by someone who could provide assistance with paper ballots or mechanical booths.

The American Association of People with Disabilities opposes voter-verified paper receipts, which could be compiled into an auditable paper trail for individual machines, and has brought lawsuits demanding access to electronic voting machines in California.
Disability rights activist Anita Cameron, who worked as an election judge in Denver, Colorado and now works for the American Association of People with Disabilities’ Disability Vote Project, said secret voting is crucial. "The people who don’t understand or care about access are getting all the press about it," she said. "Hardly anyone is coming to people with disabilities and asking, ‘How do you feel about electronic voting?’"

She cited examples of incidents in which poll workers changed disabled peoples’ votes, failed to read off all the choices on a longer ballot, or expressed an opinion about a particular vote. Some polling sites, she added, remain inaccessible to people with certain disabilities, in direct violation of the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, which requires that ballot locations be accessible to all voters.

Addressing critics of electronic voting systems, Cameron said: "You’re concerned about fraud? What about the fraud that happens when people with disabilities are coerced into changing their votes? You seem to be blissfully unaware of that, and yet you’re putting all of this energy [into fighting these machines] while the chances of fraud happening are very, very small."

Most Americans only became aware of electronic voting after the controversial 2000 presidential elections, in which faulty mechanical equipment and confusing paper ballots led to the disenfranchisement of an estimated 1.5 to 2 million voters. In the aftermath, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, which requires counties to replace punch card systems and have at least one machine at each polling place providing private and unassisted access to disabled voters by 2006. As a result, many states have purchased electronic machines, and about one-third of voters are expected to use them to vote in November.

Disability rights activists praised the switch to electronic voting, a move they had advocated for many years. Jim Dickson, who is blind, placed his first secret vote this January, after 36 years of assisted voting. "It was an incredibly empowering experience," he said, adding that it contrasted sharply with the "embarrassing and humiliating" ordeal of voting with a paper ballot.

However, just months after Dickson and other disabled people voted in secret for the first time, concerns about the electronic machines began to surface. In March 2003, more than 13,000 internal memos from Diebold, the leading electronic voting manufacturer, appeared on a number of voting rights websites. The memos, sent between Diebold workers, complained of security problems, technical bugs and errors, including the lack of a password requirement for access to the database Diebold used to collect and calculate votes, and the ease with which the audit log, which records any database activity, could be altered so that a hacker could erase evidence of intrusion.

In addition, in a study of Diebold machines conducted last year by computer experts contracted by the state of Maryland, testers easily hacked into the system and changed voting results in less than a minute.

Critics say the machines are vulnerable to error, and that, without a paper audit trail, mistakes will go undetected and will be impossible to fix. "Problems are routine," said Will Doherty, executive director of Verified Voting, a non-profit organization lobbying in favor of voter-verified paper trails. He cited a March 2002 village council election in Wellington, Florida, in which 78 ballots, cast electronically, were recorded as blank. Doherty said the election supervisor "put forth the implausible explanation that those 78 people came to the polls, yet chose not to vote for the only office on the ballot." Since the ballots were cast electronically without a paper trail, there was no way to conduct a re-count or examine them. Councilman Al Paglia lost to opponent Lizbeth Benacquisto by four votes.

Progressive are also alarmed by the connections between Diebold’s CEO and the Republican party. Walden O’Dell, Diebold’s chief executive, is a registered Republican who has donated exclusively to the GOP himself and has assisted in the party’s fundraising efforts. In a fundraising letter sent on August 14, 2003, O’Dell said he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

These concerns have prompted states to reconsider using the machines. Last week, Ohio stopped buying new electronic voting machines because of the potential for error and fraud. This spring, California decertified 14,000 electronic voting machines.

While many progressives are pleased with the closer scrutiny of Diebold and other electronic voting manufacturers, members of the disability rights movement have been speaking out, saying that the machines are safe, and should be installed in as many states as possible before the November elections.

Mary Johnson, editor of Ragged Edge, a magazine that covers the disabled community, said that disabled people are frustrated and angered that the machines were finally installed only to be taken away. "It’s like if you’ve been trying to get somewhere for a long time and then you get there and you can’t go in," she said. Johnson called the movement against paper trails an "emotional response."

The National Federation of the Blind (NFB), the nation’s largest organization of blind people, and the American Association of People with Disabilities, the nation’s largest non-profit, non-partisan general disability organization, have been the most vocal in defending electronic voting machines, angering many in the progressive camp, who argue that these groups know little about voting security issues.

The NFB passed a resolution last week upholding its support for the new machines and recommending that state officials "avoid any hasty changes in the name of security that would compromise the right of the blind to vote independently and privately in November and thereafter," according to a draft of the resolution.

"We’re more interested in having the right to cast a secret and independent ballot," said James Gashel, executive director for NFB’s Strategic Initiatives, adding that, "I don’t think a piece of paper guarantees you anything."

Gashel’s organization, with over 50,000 members nationwide, has recently come under attack for its acceptance of a $1 million grant from Diebold to fund a new research and training institute. A June 11 New York Times editorial called the donation "troubling," but Gashel defended the gift, noting that the NFB received it in October 2000, before the major controversies over electronic voting had surfaced. He added that the donation came after the NFB sued Diebold for access problems in the company’s ATM machines. The organization ped the charges after the company agreed to work to increase accessibility.

The American Association of People with Disabilities has taken an even greater public role in the debate. The group opposes voter-verified paper receipts, which could be compiled into an auditable paper trail for individual machines, and has brought lawsuits demanding access to electronic voting machines in California. Jim Dickson, the blind man who cast his first secret ballot five months ago, works at the organization as vice president for government affairs and has quickly become the most outspoken defendant of the machines. He is also a member of the advisory board to the Elections Assistance Commission, a federal panel created after the 2000 elections to institute uniform national voting machine standards.

Dickson said any delays caused by installing additional security precautions are unacceptable. "Why don’t I want to wait?" Dickson said. "Maybe it’s because every election I get abused and [other disabled] people stay home." He said the fight against Diebold is "yet another example of progressive groups eating their own" by abandoning the disabled, and he called those in favor of voter-verified paper ballots "lunatics and demagogues [who] are having so much fun scaring the public and getting headlines that they’re just trashing us."

According to Dickson, if states are forced to add paper receipts, they could decide electronic voting is too costly and abandon it altogether. He also expressed concern that blind voters would not be able to verify their votes using a paper system.

Progressives counter that activists like Dickson are creating a false and misleading conflict between access and security. They point to emerging technology that can scan and read text out-loud for blind voters, and would allow them to independently verify their votes. "We very much support the disabled community in finding voting machines that enable them to vote in private," said Doherty, the executive director of Verified Voting. "But it has to be a secure vote, not just accessible. What good does it do if you have a very accessible vote, but your vote doesn’t count because of a machine failure?"

Last week, Nevada officials announced that the state would be the first to use electronic voting machines that create an auditable paper trail. Doherty said he is hopeful that other states will follow in time for the November elections. Once all states make the switch to secure and accessible electronic voting required by the Help America Vote Act, he said he believes the rancor between progressives and disability rights activists will subside. "When that technology’s truly certified and verifiable everywhere, I don’t think there’s going to be any more controversy," he said.

In the meantime, disability activists say they will continue to be disenfranchised when they are not able to vote secretly and independently in most states by the November elections. "The vast majority of us want to vote," Cameron said. "When you get to a polling place and you can’t even get inside that polling place to vote, or they only have machines you can’t use by yourself, it’s not a matter of apathy."

Johnson, the editor of Ragged Edge, added that, although the controversy will eventually be resolved, right now most progressives are doing nothing to help disabled voters get access to the polls, and appear ignorant that privacy and access could even be an issue. "It’s like two ships passing in the night," she said.