A Touchy Debate Over Voting

By Cynthia L. Webb
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Friday, September 24, 2004; 9:54 AM

With the presidential election less than six weeks away, activists and security experts are ratcheting up concern over the use of touch-screen machines to cast votes.

After the 2000 election debacle and recount fiasco in Florida brought the words "hanging chads" and "butterfly ballots" to the masses, technology was hailed as a way to help reform voting nationwide by simplifying the way citizens vote for candidates and providing a paperless electronic count of votes. But with a slew of states adopting e-voting technology and planning to use electronic voting boxes for the upcoming national election, some critics of the technology are increasing their drumbeat of warnings of potential hacking attacks and other problems.
Washingtonpost.com is out with a package of articles on the e-voting debate, including a piece highlighting the state of Maryland's battle over e-voting technology. Voting activists want a paper trail to certify the votes in case of any problems with the machines, but voting in the state will be paperless for now. "Earlier this month the state's highest court upheld a circuit judge's ruling against an injunction that would have forced changes for the upcoming election," the article explained. That doesn't mean Nov. 2 isn't being held out as a case study for potential hits and misses with e-voting. "This year, some 6 million Washington-area voters will tap computer screens instead of pulling levers, punching cards or marking ballots. Some of them have used the machines before, but this year will see their most widespread use yet. It is a key test of their reliability as they take a major part in determining the outcome of what might be one of the closest presidential elections in American history," wp.com wrote.

The article boils down some of the problems election officials have with making changes to their newly minted e-voting systems. "Some voting machine makers already are testing versions of their machines with printers attached, but that could add hundreds of dollars to the cost of the hardware. State and local governments have already spent millions of dollars on computerized voting machines, and do not relish shelling out more cash. Local elections boards say that even if they wanted to, they can't do it in time for this election because the machines would have to undergo a new round of federal and state certification."
• washingtonpost.com: 'A Massive Experiment' in Voting (Registration required)
• washingtonpost.com: E-Voting: Promise or Peril? (Registration required)

The Los Angeles Times weighed in with its own piece on e-voting, focusing on reform efforts in Florida, a crucial battle state again in 2004 as Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and President Bush vie for the White House. The article provides a helpful survey of just how many states have bought into e-voting reform and the controversy that has dogged the technology over the past year. "More than 45 million people in 29 states and the District of Columbia are set to vote using touch-screen machines Nov. 2. But the devices once hailed as the answer to the nation's voting woes are stirring up some serious cases of buyer's remorse here and across the country. California officials have accused the companies that make electronic voting machines of delivering shoddy equipment and are suing to get their money back. Candidates in other states seeking to overturn questionable election results have turned to the courts as well. Election reform advocates rallied in 19 states this summer, demanding that the machines be retrofitted to produce paper ballots that could be tallied in the event of a recount. Meanwhile, computer scientists from coast to coast have warned that the machines sometimes err in counting votes and could be easily compromised by amateur hackers intent on disrupting elections. In either case, they say, a manual recount would be meaningless if it was based on corrupted electronic data. All of this has left officials like Palm Beach County Commissioner Addie Greene wishing they hadn't rushed to spend millions of dollars on the new touch-screen machines so soon," the article said.

The main concern of critics like Greene, according to the article, is how recounts can be done with no physical ballots to count. "Now election officials in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade [counties] are lobbying the state for permission to attach printers to their new machines so votes can be tallied by hand if a malfunction is suspected or a recount is called for. But state officials, including Gov. Jeb Bush, say the machines are safe, easy to use and replete with safeguards to ensure accuracy. They note that a stored digital image of each vote can be printed for a manual recount. And they say printers are expensive, difficult to maintain for poll workers and useless for blind people who can't read the paper record," the Los Angeles Times reported.
• The Los Angeles Times: Tallying the Woes of Electronic Balloting (Registration required)

Critics Turn Up Volume

The e-voting battle heated up in Washington this week, led by Bev Harris of the activist group Black Box Voting. "Activists and computer programmers Wednesday demonstrated what they said were flaws with electronic voting machines that could allow hackers to change vote outcomes Nov. 2. They recommended new procedures for states and counties to put in place before Election Day. Voting machine manufacturers, however, denied their machines could be tampered with and dismissed the demonstration as scare tactics. The head of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission said at least some of the proposed changes were unrealistic," the Associated Press reported. Reuters noted Harris and other activists "said officials still have time to set up a paper trail as a counterweight to an electronic voting system they portrayed as wide open to manipulation."

More from Reuters: "The debate over electronic voting has largely centered on touch-screen systems like Diebold Inc.'s AccuVote-TS, which will be used by roughly one in three voters this November. But a far greater threat is posed by the software used to tabulate votes on the county level, which counts not only electronic votes but those cast using traditional paper-based methods, Harris and others said," the wire service reported. "At a press conference, computer-security experts demonstrated what they said were flaws in tabulating software made by Diebold and Sequoia Voting Systems." Harris helped show a film on Wednesday of a chimpanzee breaking into an election, the Associated Press said. "Using a laptop computer, she demonstrated what she said were easy hacks to software by Ohio-based Diebold Inc., which is used in central tabulators that will count votes Nov. 2 in some 1,000 counties. Harris contended that hackers could easily change vote totals by entering the database through a backdoor method. She also claimed hackers could enter the standard way after obtaining passwords, then manipulate vote totals and cover their tracks."

Wired News, which noted Harris and another activist have filed a lawsuit against Diebold, said: "The vulnerabilities involve the Global Election Management System, or GEMS, software that runs on a county's server and tallies votes after they come in from Diebold touch-screen and optical-scan machines in polling places. The GEMS program generates reports of preliminary and final election results that the media and states use to call the winners. David Jefferson, a computer scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a member of the California secretary of state's voting systems panel, agreed with Diebold that election procedures could help prevent or detect changes in votes, but said that election officials and poll workers do not always follow procedures. Therefore, election observers need to know about the vulnerabilities so they can help reduce the risk that someone could use them to rig an election."

But a lot of this may just be hot air so close to the election. Black Box's associate director, Andy Stephenson, "said at least one congressional office has expressed interest in legislation proposed by Black Box Voting that would require paper ballots in the upcoming elections for president and Congress," IDG News Service reported. "Supporters of such a bill would have to act fast. Congressional leaders are planning to adjourn around Oct. 1 and not come back to Washington until after the election. Asked if it was too late to stop Diebold and other e-voting machines from being used in the fall election, Stephenson answered, 'Pretty much.'"

'Not a Real-World Scenario'

Diebold has defended the security of its machines. As reported by CNET's News.com: "Diebold's David Bear said there were standard checks and balances that would prevent this method from affecting official election results. 'The premise is based on something that doesn't happen, which is complete and unfettered access to an elections system,' Bear said. 'In the real world, it does not happen...The scenario they threw out wouldn't have any effect on an election, because it affects only the unofficial vote total, not the official vote total.'" Diebold posted a PDF document titled "Reality vs. Fantasy" to shoot down claims by Harris and other activists.

Sequoia also disagreed with the criticisms. "It's not a real-world scenario," said Sequoia spokesman Alfie Charles, as quoted by Reuters. "It's unfortunate that they use disingenuous tactics to try to frighten the electorate this close to an election."
• CNET's News.com: E-Voting Critics Report New Flaws

With the two sides at odds, there is a massive push to make changes in just the few weeks that remain before Election Day. "Roughly a third of the votes cast in the November presidential election will be made on controversial paperless electronic voting machines, but as any political analyst can tell you, the only votes that will matter a great deal will be cast in a handful of swing states," Wired News reported in a separate article. "And just as the Kerry and Bush campaigns are spending most of their efforts in those states where neither holds a heavy margin in the polls, voting advocacy groups concerned with the integrity of voting technology are devoting their resources toward the states which matter most."
• Wired News: E-Vote Fears Soar in Swing States

Meanwhile, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports international monitors will observe the upcoming field test of e-voting. "A team of international monitors has spent this week in Georgia, drawn by the state's use of electronic voting machines, which has attracted vehement opposition from activists who fear they can be manipulated to steal elections. Monitors from Argentina, Australia, Ireland and Zambia are leaving Georgia today for California to compare notes with teams that visited Arizona, Florida, Missouri and Ohio. The group, hosted by San Francisco-based human rights organization Global Exchange, plans to issue a report next month," the paper reported.
• The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: E-Voting Attracts Global Monitors

E-Voting Opinions Roll In

The media has been busy covering the e-voting debate (see a past Government IT Review column I wrote in May for background and another on California's e-voting reform push). But with Election Day so close, some final verdicts are being weighed.

The Los Angeles Times wrote in an editorial yesterday that a lot is up to voters to recheck their votes: "Fans of electronic voting, including members of a ballot project at Caltech, say voters themselves ought to be more vigilant. In a report issued Tuesday, they recommended that voters stop and double-check their choices on the summary screen that should appear at the end of any e-voting session," the paper said, concluding that "a bill requiring all e-voting machines to produce a 'voter-verified paper audit trail' by January 2006 sits on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk waiting to be signed into law. Schwarzenegger should sign the measure, SB 1438, even though it's no help for November. As Ronald Reagan said, 'Trust, but verify.' At least, that is, until voters nationwide get a lot more comfortable with e-voting."
• The Los Angeles Times: E-voting: Trust, but Verify (Registration required)

The Christian Science Monitor today adds its 2 cents with a commentary on the virtues of a printed "paper trail," a concept that had a successful, albeit small-scale, test in a Nevada primary election Sept. 14. "Perhaps inadvertently, Nevada's success will help squash much of the controversy over the reliability of electronic voting machines. Though states are moving toward e-voting - approximately one-third of voters are expected to use such digital machines on Nov. 2 - many types of them still aren't error-free. Too many show vulnerability to hacking or software glitches. A paper trail remains the best interim step as states make their glacial efforts to comply with Congress's 2002 Help America Vote Act (a result of Florida's ballot snafus in 2000)," the paper said. "As obvious as it may sound, the ability to properly record and count all votes must remain a priority for states. Even with the sad memory of Florida, too many have simply dragged their feet on this subject for too long. More should follow Nevada's example."
• Christian Science Monitor: E-Voting, With a Paper Trail

Michael Carrier, a Rutgers law professor, penned an opinion piece for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer warning of dire consequences if potential flaws with e-voting machines aren't fixed. "The bitter wounds opened by the 2000 presidential election continue to fester four years later. But if we do not act immediately to address the dangers of electronic voting machines, the 2004 election will be far worse, with potentially devastating and irreparable consequences for democracy," Carrier said.

"The 2004 election likely will be decided in swing states that are using electronic voting machines without paper trails. There is a significant likelihood that the current polls in those states are, and in fact the exit polls themselves will be, irrelevant because tampered or faulty software not voters will determine the outcome," Carrier continued. "This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. None of us, not to mention our representatives, gains from a system in which the results of elections cannot be trusted." He urged those concerned about the issue to call their representatives in Congress.
• The Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Can You Spare 5 Minutes For Democracy?

And on the opposite side of the spectrum, Harris Miller head of the trade group the Information Technology Association of America wrote an opinion piece for USA Today that ran earlier this month, praising touch-screen devices, also known as direct-recording electronic machines.

"DRE machines have become scapegoats for every election woe, from misplaced disks to power plugs switched off. In a well-administered election with formal processes and well-trained poll workers, e-voting works, and it works much better than the technologies it is replacing," Miller wrote. "While the Nevada primary was obviously an excellent case of a well-run election, including the state's use of paper receipts, voters in states using electronic voting machines without paper trails this November should be no less confident. DREs feature a variety of other ways to verify election results, and election officials in each jurisdiction are best positioned to choose which methods best meet the interests of their constituents. Today the American economy hums along on digital data. Shouldn't American elections do likewise?"
• USA Today: E-Voting Works