Deadline looms to repair voting

Opinion   Poughkeepsie Journal   09 March 2005

The facts are simple: New York needs to change its outdated voting machines. If it doesn't have a plan in place by 2006, the state will lose $216 million in federal funds. You do the math. However, the legislators have been acting as if the rules don't apply to them.

Since the 2000 presidential election, the country's voting systems have come under scrutiny. While the results in Florida may not have changed the election outcome, it illustrated a fundamental flaw in voting: every vote cast was not every vote counted.

To fix this egregious situation, the federal government created the Helping America Vote Act. The goal is to have all voting machines in the country brought up to date and accessible for all. In fact, this issue is so crucial, the federal government even funded this mandate.

But here in New York, a lack of action threatens our ability to get the money. No surprise for the legislature that was named most dysfunctional in the nation.

Thankfully, Monday's meeting of the Helping America Vote Act Conference Committee, with five members each from the Senate and Assembly, showed some promise. With Sen. John Flanagan, (R,C-East Northport) as Senate chairman, his fresh perspective put two of the federal requirements in focus: Developing a statewide registration list and filing complaints about the voting process.

This is a good step. But the elections committee still needs to run a marathon if the changes are in place by the 2006 deadline.

New machines needed

When the committee meets today, it's time to start addressing the big items. Replacing the state's old lever pull machines should top the list.

Since this is so controversial, the best approach would be for the state to develop specific criteria for the machines, including being handicapped accessible and generating a paper trail. Then the companies that manufacture those machines can be included in a state-approved list. From that, each county elections department can the system that best serves its local constituency.

There is too much at stake for the state to award one huge contact for this major purchase. Lobbyists have already been flexing their muscles, and opening their wallets, to the tune of $375,000, to get such a plum contract. But the people's right to vote with confidence must not be compromised. This basic premise must guide each and every decision of the committee.

And if the moral reasons for responsible action were not compelling enough, the fact is this is the law. The state has got to be in compliance. If we're in compliance by the first federal election in 2006, the state gets the money. If not, we'll be paying for the changes from an already cash-strapped budget.