Venezuela dispute shows e-voting hazards for U.S., critics say
Secure paper trail and safeguards against hacking needed, experience in recall election shows

By Bob Dart in the Austin American-Statesman  WASHINGTON BUREAU

Friday, August 20, 2004

WASHINGTON The disputed presidential recall referendum in Venezuela offers ominous lessons about the use of electronic voting machines in U.S. elections this November, critics of the process are warning.

The company that makes the machines says the fraud alleged in Venezuela could not have occurred. But experts and citizens groups in the United States say the machines and the process can be tampered with. They are urging officials to ensure that safeguards are put in place, such as having all the machines create paper documentation of votes cast.

Opposition leaders in the oil-rich South American country are refusing to accept the results of the e-voting there and won't even participate in a partial audit of the results overseen by international observers led by former President Carter.

The losers charge that some of the nearly 20,000 electronic voting machines made by Smartmatic Corp. of Boca Raton, Fla., were rigged to limit votes in favor of ousting President Hugo Chavez in Sunday's referendum.

And they say the machines' paper voting records, similar to ATM receipts, were tampered with by their military guardians.

Smartmatic spokesman Mitch Stoller said "it would be impossible" for such instances of tampering to have occurred. "We welcome further audits," he said, noting that the Smartmatic machines produce the "paper trail" that critics charge is lacking in U.S. e-voting.

Nearly 50 million Americans will vote in November on touch-screen electronic machines, said Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services, which provides electoral consulting services to state and local governments. Most machines will not provide paper receipts.

That compares with 53 million who will use optical scan systems, 22 million who will use punch cards, 22 million who will use lever machines and only 1 million who will cast paper ballots.

The disputed election provides some guidance for use of electronic voting machines in the United States, said those skeptical of the technology.

"The first lesson from Venezuela is that without paper ballots, there is no recourse for a disputed election," said Avi Rubin, a computer-science professor at Johns Hopkins University. "The second lesson is that paper ballots are useless unless they are verified by voters and stored in a secure manner.

"Finally, it is important to count the paper ballots in many precincts and also to compare the final results to exit polls."

Rubin has analyzed software on the voting machines and said he thinks they are not protected from hackers.

The critics said a statistically significant sample comparison of paper and electronic ballots that all parties could agree to should be part of the election process. In Venezuela, opposition leaders dismissed the "quick count" audit that the country's National Electoral Council did on 199 of the 19,800 machines.

"You have to make these decisions to conduct an audit before you know the results of the election," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Project, a nonpartisan group seeking reforms in e-voting.

"Whether you're talking about the U.S. or Venezuela or Brazil, election officials are in over their heads with this equipment and haven't thought through" all the ramifications, she said. "You can't make this up as you go along."

To even make such an audit possible, "a voter-verified paper trail for every voter and every machine" is needed, said Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., who has introduced legislation to require such receipts.

If a paper trail is not required by federal law by the 2006 elections, "you have, in effect, outlawed recounts," Holt said at the news conference introducing his legislation.

The foundation of democracy is faith of the citizenry that every vote counts, critics of e-voting said. If U.S. election results this fall are questioned and e-voting results cannot be verified, the whole system could be shaken.

"I fear that will be the case," Holt said. "If there are a lot of irregularities observed, it will be a victory for cynicism and a defeat for democracy."

This November, using large numbers of 's'untested paperless electronic systems is going to be a glorified experiment, and we should not be experimenting with our democracy," Rubin said.