Machine testing lacks oversight

By BRIAN McDEARMON Red and Black
Published , August 31, 2004, 06:00:01 AM EDT 
 
The three companies ed to test Athens-Clarke County's electronic voting machines operate free of government oversight and refuse to divulge their findings and procedure for testing the machines.

CIBER and Wyle laboratories, in Huntsville, Ala., along with SysTest Labs out of Denver, were awarded contracts to test the software and hardware for the nation's voting machines to ensure they comply with federal guidelines.

Dan Reeder, spokesman for Wyle, said the agreement they have with the machines' manufacturers forbids them to release test procedures and results and would not even say whether his company evaluated the machines that will be used in Georgia.

"It's like a doctor-patient relationship," Reeder said. "We'd be out of business if we started talking about our clients like that."

Reeder referred all questions to the machine's manufacturer.

David Bear, a representative for Diebold the company that produced the voting machines the state has used over the past two years said the testing companies could not talk about the matter due to "proprietary reasons."

"There is proprietary information that isn't shared for competitive reasons," Bear said.

A CIBER employee, Shawn Southworth, confirmed that his company conducted testing on the Diebold machines but would not disclose any further information saying he would not "discuss particulars."

Gail Audette, vice-president of engineering for SysTest Labs, said the Colorado-based firm was not involved with the Diebold machines; however, it still was unclear as of press time which companies actually had a role in the testing.

Georgia broke new ground in 2002 when it became the first state in the country to implement electronic voting.

The switch was instituted after the state legislature passed a bill in response to problems during the 2000 Presidential election.

The idea was that the electronic system would make voting in Georgia more secure, however, opponents of the new technology contend the machines are inherently unreliable and more vulnerable to tampering.

In testimony given in July before the state House Administration Committee, Georgia Elections Division director Kathy Rogers challenged these criticisms and compared the computer system to ones used by doctors, astronauts and airline pilots.

"The conjecture that using current technology we are unable to make such a simple system secure and accurate is contradicted by the facts of our existence," she told legislators.

In 1990, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) passed the Federal Voting Systems Standards (FVSS). Later, the FEC handed over the certification process to the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED).

NASED, a voluntary group of election officials from around the country, is in charge of certifying private companies to test voting technology.

Brian Hancock, a spokesman for the Election Assistance Commission an auxiliary entity to NASED said the election director's board has a technical committee that performs some oversight of the testing companies' dealings.

On its Web site (www.nased.org), however, NASED affirms the contrary.

"NASED has no ability to determine whether a system passes or fails; the ITAs (the testing companies) operate independently to determine objectively whether the vendor has met or exceeded the FVSS," the Web site states.

But Hancock said the information on the Web site was outdated, calling it "old language."

University political science professor Trey Hood, III, said there is no oversight at the federal level.

"It's up to the states," he said.

Kara Sinkule in Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox's press office said the lack of federal supervision was a result of insufficient funding by Congress.

After the Diebold machines met federal regulations, they were sent to the Kennesaw State University Center for Election Systems where they would be further tested before being sent to the individual precincts.

Individuals at the KSU center directed questions to Cox's office.

No one in the Elections Division part of Cox's office including Rogers, could be reached for comment over a period of three days. Sinkule said officials were busy preparing for the November election.

Hood said that overall, electronic systems probably are more trustworthy than other methods of voting and that many of the criticisms against them are merely "conspiracy theories."

"Anything can have problems. The ballot box can fall off the back of the truck," Hood said.