No voter verification
Too many questions about touch-screens

Editorial      Daytona Beach News-Journal
Last : March 24, 2005

Forty years ago, in a moment that showed America at its finest, President Lyndon B. Johnson reacted to "Bloody Sunday" by calling for the "toughest voting rights act" that could be devised, one with "no ifs, ands or buts."

Johnson and others were motivated by the brutal assault of more than 500 non-violent marchers in Selma, Ala. on March 7, 1965 a march for voting rights and civil rights in Alabama. By August, the president signed the Voting Rights Act that ended literacy tests, poll taxes and other mechanisms to prevent minorities from voting.

The battle for voting rights is far from over and it is no longer just a minority-rights issue but one that affects all and especially disabled voters in Florida.

State elections officials across the nation are being pressed to change to touch-screen voting machines, allegedly to conform with the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002. But the touch-screen machines do not offer a voter-verified paper record. Voters have no assurance that their choices are accurately recorded. Some question whether that meets the federal law, which says "the voting system shall permit the voter to verify the votes ed by the voter on the ballot before the ballot is cast and counted." Critics of touch-screen voting also note correctly that there have been numerous reports of malfunctions in the machines.

In contrast, the optical-scan system used by Volusia County works well and provides a paper trail. Before voters place ballots into the sealed collection box, they can review their choices.

In Florida, county elections supervisors are being led to believe that state law will require them to buy touch-screen machines for disabled voters before July 1. Yet the state law appears to be unclear about the July 1 deadline. The federal law calls for a Jan. 1, 2006 deadline for providing special equipment for the disabled.

The Volusia County Council has wisely tabled a request from Elections Supervisor Ann McFall to buy touch-screen machines for disabled voters. McFall, to her credit, also is wary of the lack of a paper trail but says she believes the department must meet the July 1 deadline. She also says that the state Elections Division tells her that the machines have to be certified, and the AutoMark system the county considered last year which allows the disabled to use optical scan ballots is not certified. There are legitimate questions, however, about whether AutoMark needs certification because it does not record or tally votes; rather it provides technical means for disabled voters to mark optical-scan ballots.

Clearly the state law and the Election Division's interpretation of it should be reviewed and clarified.

Meanwhile, Diebold Elections Systems, the manufacturer of the machines Volusia County might buy, claims there are no security issues. But security is what the manufacturer says it is. A government agency doesn't test the machines. Instead, Diebold and other touch-screen makers hire outside companies to test and certify machines, and those tests are secret. "When it comes to ensuring accuracy and accountability," The Economist noted last fall, "casino slot machines in Atlantic City, New Jersey get more government supervision than federal election voting machines."

The testing and certifying of voting machines should be a function of government whether state or federal not private manufacturers.

Troubling, too, is that Diebold and others appear to be pushing for touch-screen use nationwide, possibly because those systems are more profitable than the optical-scan systems (which they also make).

A machine lacking a voter-certified paper trail undermines faith in our election system. And it brings to question Johnson's test of "no ifs, ands or buts" in the separate Voting Rights Act.