New York slows to embrace new voting machines

By YANCEY ROY
The Journal News

Voting machine makers lobby

Here is what some voting-machine companies have spent since 2003 lobbying the Legislature over what machines to buy

? Sequoia: more than $300,000.

? Diebold: $225,000.

? Election Systems and Software: about $200,000

? Several other companies spent less than $100,000 each.

(Original publication: May 6, 2005)
ALBANY ? They're cheap, easy to store and provide voters peace of mind, advocates say. So why haven't New York lawmakers rushed to embrace a new type of pencil-and-paper voting machine called the "optical scan?"

Because voting-machine manufacturers are strongly pushing a more expensive electronic option, some legislators and activists say.

The Legislature and Gov. George Pataki are under a federal mandate to revamp the election system by next year's statewide campaigns, including replacing New York's 22,000 or so lever-style machines. At the same time, manufacturers have spent more than $1 million lobbying the state Legislature and are openly touting an electronic machine with a much higher purchase price, about $8,000 per device.

"It is clearly affecting the debate," said Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, D-Kingston, Ulster County, one of 10 legislators on a joint Senate-Assembly committee negotiating the issue.

"There's a lot of money to be made," Cahill said. "Just multiply 22,000 machines by $8,000."

"Optical scan" machines cost about $5,500 apiece. They tabulate paper ballots (voters pencil in ovals to choices, much like a standardized school test).

Advocates for electronic touch-screen machines say the devices will save money on paper in the long run ? although some studies suggest otherwise.

That's not the message from leading manufacturers such as Sequoia Voting Systems and Election Systems and Software, both of which sell the two types of machines.

The electronic machines are much faster than optical scans and allow for multiple languages on a screen, Sequoia said in a promotional fact sheet e-mailed to media. Electronic machines also resemble the lever-style machines, so voters won't have to adjust to a new style of voting, the company notes.

Further, an electronic voting system with verifiable paper records would cost the state about $160 million, while an optical-scan system with hardware and supplies could run upwards of $300 million, the company claims. It makes no bones about promoting one machine over the other.

"We think the electronic system is more cost effective for counties," said Sequoia spokesman Alfie Charles.

That's hotly disputed by a group called New Yorkers for Verified Voting, which supports optical scans.

In a recent report, it said companies are inflating the peripheral costs (such as paper) for the optical-scan machines and understating the true costs of an electronic system. An electronic system would require more machines, more handicapped-accessible machines, code cards and more storage (optical scans are about the size of a computer printer), the group says.

Also, electronic machines have fragile components that are guaranteed for just five years. The life expectancy of an optical scan machine is twice that. All told, the electronic system would cost about $220 million; the optical scan about $110 million.

Plus, people may trust optical scans more, said Assemblywoman Sandra Galef, D-Ossining.

People fear that touch-screen machines could be vulnerable to computer hackers or programmed to change votes, Galef said. That's not the case with optical scans.

"I know when I fill in the circles, it's my vote," Galef said. "It's a trust factor." A key Republican said he likes the optical-scan machines but is concerned about paper costs. Senate Elections Committee Chairman John Flanagan, R-Suffolk County, also said he wants to let counties ? which will have to buy and maintain the machines, admittedly with help from the federal government ? choose from a range of machines. Otherwise, local governments may squawk.

"If the counties feel like we're sticking them with a big bill," Flanagan said, "they're going to jam us."