Ney blocking bills to require states to issue voting receipts

By GREG WRIGHT
Gannett News Service 23 September 2004

WASHINGTON As states struggle to upgrade voting machines before Election Day, Rep. Robert Ney is blocking new bills that would make all states give paper receipts to voters who cast computer ballots.

The Ohio Republican, who has made voting reform a priority, has raised the ire of voting rights groups such as the Ohio Public Interest Research Group and Verified Voting Foundation, who say paper receipts could prevent computer fraud Nov. 2.

But Ney said providing receipts would add a costly burden to states already struggling to pay for new voting equipment. And the receipts could threaten privacy in the polling booth, Ney said.

Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee, urged congressional leaders this week to block electronic ballot receipt legislation from Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J. Holt's measure is supported by one of every four lawmakers in the 435-member House. A similar bill from Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., was introduced in the Senate and has four co-sponsors.

"He doesn't want to impose a federal mandate that would impose costs on election officials at a time when money is tight," Ney's spokesman Brian Walsh said.

About four of 10 Americans are worried that their vote could be tampered with or lost when they use a computer, according to a survey released this month by FindLaw.com, a legal services Web site. The survey of 1,000 U.S. adults had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Ney and Rep. Steny Hoyer co-sponsored the 2002 Help America Vote Act that gave states more money to buy d voting equipment after the 2000 Florida election debacle.

There is nothing in that law that stops states from giving electronic voter receipts, Ney said. But Ney and a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Hoyer and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the federal government should not mandate states to give out paper ballots.

Ney also worries that receipts could violate the secrecy of ballots, especially for some handicapped people who must rely on others to help them vote. The law he helped push two years ago created a committee to study computer voting security, and he urged lawmakers not to rush to pass any measures requiring ballot receipts until the group finishes its work.

Josh Gildrie, a spokesman for Ohio PIRG's New Voters Project, said Ney's arguments make no sense. Congress should support legislation that would improve voting accuracy, he said.

"I'm confused by it," Gildrie said of Ney's stance. "My concern with the rushing argument is that we need as many redundancy mechanisms as possible."

Despite Ney's opposition, Holt and Ensign said they would continue to fight for an electronic voting paper trail. However, supporters concede that even if the bills did pass, there might not be enough time to make a difference before Nov. 2.

"I would say eventually it will move," Holt said. "It makes too much sense not to. It has too much support around the country."

Under the law pushed by Ney and Hoyer in 2002, all 50 states will have at least one computer voting machine in each precinct by 2006.

However, only one state Nevada now gives voters a paper receipt to prove the computer cast their vote correctly. Ohio and California are expected to adopt paper receipts by 2006.

Computer experts and voting rights groups have said electronic receipts are necessary because dishonest computer programmers could change voting machine results.

Requiring all states to provide electronic voting receipts would not be a bad thing if it bolstered confidence in elections, said Dan Seligson, spokesman for the Election Reform Information Project in Washington, D.C.

And officials at Diebold, which installed about 40,000 touch-screen voting machines in Maryland, Georgia and California, said their machines already come equipped with a printer that could easily provide receipts.