Elections directors shop for solutions

High tech, ease of use, reliability top officials' list for voting machines

RICHARD RUBIN   Charlotte Observer   19 December 2004

Some of the latest voting machines on the market will be on display in Raleigh on Monday, ready for an N.C. commission on electronic voting to examine.

With the 2004 election behind them, companies are beginning to focus on North Carolina and other states that plan to buy new machines before the 2006 primaries.

The stakes are high. New machines would cost about $80 million, and North Carolina plans to allow just a handful of companies to operate in the state.

Meanwhile, state and local officials will spend the next year setting standards, changing state law, testing machines and watching them in action in other states. Lawmakers and activists will be watching closely with a particular eye on security and accuracy.

"They all sell pretty, when you've got them in a showroom," said Mecklenburg County Elections Director Michael Dickerson. "They've all got everything you need, the nice paint job and all that stuff. But you really want to see what it looks like on election day."

Some states, including Georgia and South Carolina, acted quickly after the 2000 election fiasco. They chucked many outdated voting machines and bought touch-screen computers. South Carolina's system debuted in 15 counties last month.

But North Carolina conducted the 2004 election with older equipment, including much-maligned punch cards and decades-old lever machines in some counties. Officials said they wanted to wait for companies to improve and refine their technology.

"It's kind of like buying video recording equipment or a new camera or a cell phone," said Larry Leake, chairman of the State Board of Elections. "Technology tends to make it better and cheaper very quickly."

Except for early voting, Mecklenburg County uses 10-year-old machines that will not comply with federal law in 2006 because voters with disabilities cannot use them without assistance. Replacing all of Mecklenburg's machines will cost at least $5 million. Currently, counties pay for voting equipment, but the federal and perhaps state governments will start picking up part of the tab.

Unlike Georgia and South Carolina, which bought statewide systems, North Carolina seems likely to allow different types of machines, but limit the number of different models to a handful, down from the current 14.

Limited competition allows for innovation while letting the state standardize voter education and training of poll workers, said Gary Bartlett, executive director of the State Board of Elections.

"There is not any single type of equipment, whether it's optical scan or (electronic), that outshines the other," Bartlett said. "Each one has its pluses and each one has its downside."

And each company will be touting its pluses.

For example, Sequoia Voting Systems supplied machines to Nevada, where some N.C. officials watched a primary election earlier this year.

Nevada is unique because it is the only state to have run an election with a voter-verified paper trail, a document that voters can view under glass to double-check that the computer recorded correctly. Many skeptics of electronic voting say such paper trails are the best way to double-check the machines' accuracy.

Sequoia spokesman Alfie Charles said the company's performance in Nevada gives it an edge as its competitors unveil their paper-trail models.

"You hate to be the guinea pig if there's a problem," he said. "You're a leader if it works well. You're a guinea pig if it doesn't."

The next two years will be particularly telling and trying for the voting-machine industry, beleaguered with complaints about computer security and political ties.

Many states besides North Carolina will be purchasing machines and trying to comply with detailed federal standards and localized state rules that have not been finished yet. Furthermore, the companies will have to meet manufacturing demand and provide enough staff support to election officials as the new systems get implemented.

"It's a very, very difficult market, because you've got to make all your money right away and you have to have enough money to survive the winds of the legislature and the federal government's funding," said Dan Seligson, editor of electionline.org, a nonprofit group that studies election reform.

The bigger companies will benefit, said Thad Hall, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Utah, who is co-writing a book on electronic voting. Diebold can plow money into research and development for its ATMs, then use the benefits for voting machines.

One smaller company with machines in North Carolina is already under fire. Coastal Carteret County used machines from California-based Unilect. A crucial setting was not d, and more than 4,400 voters did not have their ballots recorded at all.

That foul-up may lead to a new election for state agriculture commissioner.

"It was one of those darn things that, you know, a stubbed toe leads to, you know, something falling down the stairs and knocking down a million-dollar vase," said Unilect President Jack Gerbel, whose machines are also in Burke County. "It was not an intentional thing."

But Leake blames Unilect for not providing an audible warning to voters, and he added that the Carteret problem may be held against the company when the state winnows the field of certified companies.

When picking machines, local election officials consider factors that many voters probably never notice. Dickerson said he wants a system that can easily handle the multiple ballot styles in Mecklenburg's overlapping districts and split precincts.

In Union County, elections director Shirley Secrest is looking for something lighter and less bulky than the current electronic machines.

Secrest and election directors across North Carolina attended a recent meeting where vendors were showing their latest products. She looked, but she can't make any decisions yet, not until she knows what choices the state will allow.