Voting rights
Paper trail ensures accurate records

Editorial    Volusia-Flagler News-Journal
Last : April 06, 2005

Advocates for touch-screen voting machines claim that opponents are echoing arguments against new technology similar to those launched against automatic teller machines years ago. Not so. ATM machines provide receipts that consumers can take to the bank to prove deposits were made. Touch-screen voting machines, like the ones being considered in Volusia County for disabled voters, offer no paper trail, no proof that a vote cast was recorded properly.

Yet appointed state elections officials are trying to push elected county officials to buy touch-screen machines manufactured by Diebold Inc. to provide ballot access for disabled voters.

Today for the second time in a month, the Volusia County Council will consider buying the Diebold machines, which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The state Division of Elections says only the Diebold machines are state-certified and each county must comply with a July 1 deadline for counties to provide special equipment for the disabled or face hefty fines. Some lawyers question that deadline, citing ambiguities in the law.

That leaves the Volusia County Council in a state-imposed conundrum.

? Approve the Diebold machines and face potential lawsuits from disabled citizens who would not be assured that their votes are counted properly. All other county voters would use an optical-scan system in which voters themselves deposit ballots in a locked box.

? Choose alternatives that could put Elections Supervisor Ann McFall in the position of facing hefty state fines for noncompliance.

Given the circumstances, the council's best option again would be to postpone a vote, buying more time to clarify legal issues and seek alternatives from other voting-equipment manufacturers. The county, in conjunction with others, could also lobby legislators to set the deadline for installing equipment for the disabled to Jan. 1, 2006, the date required by federal law.

If the state's action appears heavy-handed, consider it in context with a much larger issue. Secretary of State Glenda Hood is attempting to herd bills through the Legislature that would give her department sweeping authority over locally elected election supervisors.

The bills, which have passed Senate and House committees, would empower the state to set binding rules for counties and severely limit challenges. Candidates and parties could not appeal the rules. The state, not counties, would control early-voting rules.

The legislation would also give the secretary of state sole control of statewide voter databases including certifying voters. The supposition is that a single state office of about two dozen employees could replace certification work now done in 67 counties, by about 400 employees. Also, only the state office could purge voter rolls.

Under the bills, the state also could collect precinct information that could be used for partisan purposes to redraw voting districts after the next census.

The attempt by non-elected state officials to usurp power from elected county officials is unprecedented.

What could be in the future? A red flag goes up with the state's insistence that Diebold touch-screen machines are the best option for providing access to disabled voters. In Florida counties where touch-screen voting machines are used for general elections, legitimate questions have risen about missing votes and machine malfunctions. That's also been the case in other states.

Voting-rights advocates have good reasons to insist on a paper trail. Voters disabled or not should have the same assurances of accuracy as do users of ATM machines. And they should be able to turn to local elected officials, not state bureaucrats, when that accuracy is in question.