New electronic voting machines required by Secretary of State
By: Ashley Winchester, The Clinton Recorder  11/12/2004
 Clinton - The next time you vote, you may be using a new electronic voting machine. In compliance with the Help America Vote Act of 2002, Conn. Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz mandated that every voting location in Conn. have at least one electronic voting machine by next year's municipal elections. Local election officials, however, feel the replacement of lever machines, which have been used in Conn. since the 1950s, is an unnecessary cost.

So, why spend millions in replacing machines in a state where elections have never been problematic? The Help America Vote Act, authored by Conn. Sen. Christopher Dodd in response to the 2000 presidential election problems, requires that machines provide access to individuals with disabilities, permit voters to verify votes before casting a ballot and create a permanent paper record of votes with a capacity for a manual audit. Last August, Conn. received $32.7 million in federal funding toward implementing HAVA requirement. Registrars argue that the lever machines are adaptable to meet HAVA requirements and are easily repairable, despite the fact that they are no longer being made.

"In my experience, most are opposed to the new machines," Killingworth First Selectman David Denvir said. "Nobody has ever claimed problems with the lever machines. As I see it, there is no reason for towns to break their bank."

Denvir was among over 30 members of an advisory committee organized by the secretary of state to debate and discuss Connecticut's plans for the implementation of HAVA requirements. This included discussion of which electronic machines, if any, should be implemented. Some committee members felt weeks of negotiations and debates were ignored in Bysiewicz' final decision.

"It wasn't a committee; it was a war and it got ugly," Andy Sauer, executive director of Conn. Common Cause, said. "I can see where registrars and municipalities are crying foul... The electronic voting machines are very expensive and are quickly outdated. One machine per municipality is good in the short run, but in the long term we can't afford it. What it comes down to is money. Without a doubt, lever machines' days are numbered. That's a fact."

State law requires one lever machine for every 900 voters, but some models of the electronic machines support only 300 voters. Converting fully to electronic voting could mean three times as many machines, at an estimated cost of $5000 to $10,000 per machine. Finding storage space, training voters and poll workers and paying for maintenance and repair work are among major concerns registrars and clerks have with the new machines.

That's not the only problem. State law requires voting machines to present the entire face of the ballot to the voter at once. This becomes especially difficult in municipal elections, when ballots often include lengthy referendum questions. Touch screen, ATM-style machines do not meet this requirement. In addition, trials of machines which provide a verifiable paper trail in California and Florida caused major problems when printers jammed and polling places had to be temporarily shut down. This has led some Conn. legislators to consider waiving or altering the paper trail mandate.

"I want to see a hard copy when it's all done, not just a recount from some machine," Clinton Town Clerk Karn Marsden said. "How are you going to know if the machine messed up? The (lever) machines are archaic but they work. It's frustrating at the end of the day, tallying up votes, it's a long process, but in the 16 years I have been here, the few recounts we have had because of close votes were errors in absentee ballots, not because of the machines."

An alternative may have been optical scan machines. They cost an average of $200, and have a verifiable paper trail in accordance with HAVA. Sen. Dodd, however, advised against these in a written appeal to the State House last year, Sauer said.

Last year, eight towns tested two different types of electronic voting machines. In a University of Conn. exit poll authorized by the secretary of state, 80 percent of voters indicated a positive reaction to the electronic voting experience. However, voters were not asked whether they preferred using the new machines to the lever machines, despite recommendations by the HAVA committee and the State Elections Enforcement Commission to include this in the survey. Nor did the survey include a question regarding whether electronic machines preserved a voter's right to cast a secret ballot. This may have led to incomplete or misrepresented results, election officials say.

Ultimately, towns interested in fully converting to electronic machines after the 2005 election can apply for additional funding on a first-come first-serve basis. Bysiewicz is currently drafting a request for proposal for competing voting machine bidders. For now, the final financial impact on towns is unknown, but Secretary of State Communications Director Larry Perosino said federal funding is more than enough to cover the replacement of all lever machines in Conn.

"It is unlikely that all 169 towns will move to 100 percent electronic machines," Perosino said. "Each town can meet HAVA requirements with just one new machine. If towns are dead set against the new machines and don't want to fully convert, they don't have to."