Elections system's safeguards effective

By CATHY COX   Opinion   Atlanta Journal-Constitution   Published on: 03/10/05

Among the goals we have for elections ? accuracy, security, fairness and accessibility ? we undoubtedly must include public confidence. Although 90 percent of Georgians surveyed last year said they were confident their vote would be accurately counted, we'd love to push that level of approval even higher.

Several facts are not widely reported: First, our touch-screen voting system is dramatically more accurate than the antiquated systems that preceded it. A new MIT study shows Georgia experienced the greatest improvement in voting accuracy in the nation between 2000 and 2004, propelling us from second worst in accuracy to second best.

 Second, today's security procedures are more extensive than ever. We've used computers to count votes in Georgia for more than 40 years. But only with our new system has Georgia put in place mandatory security procedures and audits to assure the integrity of each county's equipment.

Third, today's system is not "paperless" at all. Paper records are printed on each voting unit before voting begins, and multiple paper vote tallies are printed on each unit after the polls close election night. Three separate auditable paper records of who voted are retained for two years, and never is the system connected to the Internet.

Yet, for some voters, doubts persist. Some of these critics want to remove any electronic device from the voting process ? and return to a 19th century system of hand-marked paper ballots. That would throw open the doors to fraud, and delay results literally for weeks.

A paper receipt that a voter can review before casting his or her ballot could address lingering doubts, but it's not as simple as hooking up simple printers to our existing machines.

It would not be cheap. Outfitting our nearly 25,000 voting terminals with a robust printer that secures completed ballots could cost $17 million. But first, we need uniform federal standards on how such a system should function without compromising ballot secrecy or accessibility by disabled voters. We're anxiously waiting for a federal panel of experts to develop clear guidelines.

Before we spend those dollars, we must also have technology that has been proved reliable in real-world elections. The technology that exists is cumbersome and would dramatically slow down the process.

Before we adopted touch- screen voting in 2002, I chaired a special commission that spent a full year analyzing available technology. We owe Georgia voters the same careful study before embracing an untested, expensive process that could turn back the clock on our election improvements.

This column is solicited to provide another viewpoint to an AJC editorial published today. To respond to an AJC editorial, contact David Beasley at dbeasley@ajc.com or call 404-526-7371. Responses should be no longer than 600 words. Not all responses can be published. Published responses may be republished and made available in the AJC or other databases and electronic formats.