Woman's quest to decertify voting system succeeds
By: J.D. Prose - Beaver County Times Staff
04/22/2005
 NEW SEWICKLEY TWP. - Sheila Green said she never wanted to be a crusader against Beaver County's electronic voting system, but county officials just wouldn't heed her warnings.

"I was hoping to save them embarrassment," the New Sewickley Township resident said. "I just met this immense wall of resistance. They weren't hearing me at all."

Spurned by local officials and a judge last year in her efforts to have the county stop using its $1.2 million UniLect Corp. Patriot touch-screen voting system, Green took her argument to the state, which certifies all voting systems used in Pennsylvania.

"I wanted (the Patriot system) to be secure enough. I wanted it to be good-enough technology. I like computers," said Green, a 46-year-old part-time computer instructor at the Community College of Allegheny County. "It isn't a reality yet. It's science fiction. Like hover cars."

After her court case failed last fall, Green circulated a petition and got 18 other county residents to sign it. She paid a $450 filing fee, which forced the state to re-examine the Patriot system.

On Feb. 15, Michael Shamos, a computer professor at Carnegie Mellon University retained by the state, retested the Patriot system. Earlier this month, Shamos told state officials that UniLect's machines were unreliable and shouldn't be used in Pennsylvania elections.

To the surprise of many, including Green, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Pedro Cortes immediately decertified the Patriot system, throwing into question the May 17 primary. The Department of State oversees elections in Pennsylvania.

"I really expected them to whitewash it," Green said. "They did the right thing. I don't know why. I never expected it."

Since Cortes' decision April 7, officials in Beaver, Greene and Mercer counties - the only three Pennsylvania counties that use the system - have been frantically shifting preparations for the primary from the Patriot system to an optical-scan method, which uses scanners to read paper ballots marked in pencil by voters.

The state has promised to pay for any costs associated with implementing the optical-scan method.

Jack Gerbel, president of California-based UniLect, asked state officials to allow him to address the eight major deficiencies that Shamos claimed made his system unreliable. In another surprising decision, the state department, which was also prodded by state legislators, an-nounced last week that it would give Gerbel the opportunity to have his system retested by Shamos today.

State officials said the Patriot system could be recertified for use in Pennsylvania if Shamos approves. Beaver County Commissioners Chairman Dan Donatella said that he has full confidence in Shamos and that the county would use the Patriot system if it meets the state's standards.

A skeptical Green said she doubts Gerbel can have his voting system ready.

"I really don't think that he can fix the essential problems that exist with the system," she said. "I don't see any possibility of (a recertification) occurring."

Green, a native of Geauga County, Ohio, said she started to question the reliability of electronic voting the first time she used the Patriot system in November 1998, the first election it was used in Beaver County.

And the more she read about electronic voting, the more she began to believe that the systems weren't secure or reliable. She exchanged e-mails with Gerbel but didn't receive satisfactory answers, Green said.

"I wanted (the reliability) to be true, but I also just couldn't believe it on faith," she said. "I wanted so badly to believe that they were right."

Her admittedly "very idealistic" reasons for pursuing the issue were simple, Green said. Americans, she said, have fought and died for the right to vote, and immigrants have treasured those same rights for centuries.

"To throw that away seems like a slap in the face to everyone," she said. "It was really, these are our votes we're talking about, and we don't want (county officials) to mess with them."

County officials, Green said, have been misguided in directing their anger at the state.

"They want to fight and attack back against the commonwealth when UniLect is the one that let them down," she said.

Commissioner Joe Spanik, chairman of the county elections board, said he isn't angry at Green for pushing the issue.

"It was due process," he said. "Our opinion was that everything was running smoothly."

Green said she has no interest in the outcome of the controversy other than to see the county use a reliable, verifiable voting method, such as the classic paper ballot. Green said she already has sunk at least $6,000 of her own money into fighting the Patriot system.

As for UniLect's second chance today, Green said software can be manipulated to make it appear that problems are fixed, although the inherent glitches could still exist. Truly fixing the Patriot system "is just an impossibility," Green said, "because the equipment that they have just isn't going to be made right."