Election integrity
Secure votes' legitimacy by facing problems

Daytona News-Journal   November 17, 2004

The 2004 presidential election is more or less in the books, despite a few sputtering contests, such as an effort to conduct a statewide recount in Ohio.

But the accusations and frustration over this election continue to mount, fueled by reports of voter suppression and questionable technology. Consider the case of 95 Georgia residents who were challenged at the polls merely because they had Hispanic surnames and were forced to provide proof of citizenship before they could vote. Or the flawed machinery in Broward County that was discovered to be counting votes backward. The Dayton Daily News reported that machines at one Ohio precinct would not register any votes for John Kerry.

Suspicion of potential, undetected problems is even greater. Most of the doubt centers on ATM-like touch-screen voting machines, which provide no independently verifiable record of vote totals. It would be easy far too easy to tamper with the results in a way that would be difficult to detect.

There is nowhere near enough evidence to suggest that the election was "stolen." But it is a known fact that this nation's collective election system failed, in many ways, in many places. The administration should acknowledge this and work openly, cooperatively and diligently with the states to correct it. Nothing less will restore confidence in America's elections system.

To date, the administration's concern and its investigative firepower have been reserved for those who apparently cast votes when they were not entitled to do so. In doing so, the Justice Department is making a federal case over a mosquito bite, while ignoring symptoms of a far greater threat: voter disenfranchisement. Voters were turned away in Florida because they didn't check an easy-to-overlook box on a registration form. In Ohio, the thinness of the paper the form was printed on became an issue.

The Justice Department should thoroughly investigate the technology used in voting in many areas. A national standard should be established for voting machines one that provides an independently verifiable means of checking votes. Touch-screen voting machines should be equipped with printers that allow voters to see the record of their vote before finalizing it, and those printouts should be preserved. The software that runs the machines should not be hidden behind the veil of "trade secrets," but open to inspection by independent experts who can analyze its security.

An administration cannot fairly claim a mandate from voters while overlooking documented cases where voters were never given the chance to make their voice heard. Acknowledging that there were problems will do nothing to detract from the president's legitimacy, and go a long way toward healing the rifts that still divide the electorate.