Election board picks voting system
By RENEE BROWN    The Times-Record    24 May 2005

For the second time in less than four months, the Tuscarawas County Board of Elections chose a new voting system for use in 2006.

At Monday?s special meeting called to meet today?s deadline set by the Ohio secretary of state, the board unanimously picked the electronic, touch-screen voting machines manufactured by Diebold. Had the board not made a decision, a choice would have been made for it by officials in Columbus.

But it really wasn?t a choice, said Chairman Thomas Hisrich, because only Diebold?s DRE ? or direct recording electronic ? machine with a voter-verified paper audit trail has been certified for use in Ohio elections. A rival company, Election Systems & Software, has filed suit in an effort to get its electronic voting machines certified.

Before the board could decide to go with Diebold, the board had to determine whether electronic machines or large paper ballots were the best for Tuscarawas County voters. In the precinct count optical scan system, the voter marks a large, printed ballot that is fed into a machine and counted.

County boards of elections already have been told they must provide one DRE machine at each precinct to accommodate handicapped voters so pollworkers must learn that system no matter what.

?Why consider two different systems?? said board member Douglas Wills. ?We have to have a DRE at each precinct, and if we choose optical scan, why put the pollworkers through that? In my opinion, optical scan is no better than what we have now.?

Board member Socrates Space said he doesn?t feel as if the county needs a new system because the punch-card system has served county voters well. He said it seems a waste to spend more than $800,000 in taxpayer?s money for a new voting system.

?One thing the public doesn?t understand is that the problems with the punch-card system relate to counties not keeping the machines clean,? Space explained. ?Tuscarawas County does an outstanding job of keeping the machines clean and runs our elections without fault.

?I have serious questions about the necessity of this in this county but we?ve been instructed to do this.?

Director Charles E. Miller said he?s been told by state election officials that no matter which system was chosen, it would be fully funded by the state. He said $809,767 has been set aside for Tuscarawas County.

Miller said one electronic voting machine is needed for every 175 voters, so about four machines will be located in each precinct. The electronic system will cost $807,772, while the optical scan system would cost $762,814.

Miller explained that the voter-verified paper audit trail feature on the DRE does not provide the voter with a paper receipt of his or her votes. He said a replica of a paper ballot showing how the voter voted appears on the screen and the voter must approve that before the vote is officially submitted.

Miller pointed out that with the optical scan system ? manufactured by both Diebold and ES&S ? the county still would have repeated ballot printing costs as it does now. Miller said he?d prefer to have to teach pollworkers how to operate only one system.

Miller pointed out that one optical scan system will be in place at the courthouse for absentee and walk-in voting.

Hisrich said he is frustrated with this process, which began in 2003. The new system is to be in place by Jan. 1.

?We?ve ed, we?ve de-ed, we?ve re-ed,? he said. ?Is this the final shot at this? I doubt it.?

In advance of another deadline in February, the board chose the optical scan option by ES&S ? but under protest. The board agreed that option was a lateral move but they felt pressured to make a decision.