Diebold revisited
Council should stand firm for equal protection

Editorial??? Dayton Beach News-Journal?? June 29, 2005

When errors occurred in Volusia County precincts during the 2000 presidential vote, paper ballots allowed an accurate manual recount.

If the county had relied only on paper receipts for what the machines had recorded not the actual paper ballots cast using the optical-scan system the recount would not have revealed voting discrepancies. But Diebold Elections Systems, Inc., which wants to sell the county $800,000 worth of touch-screen machines for voters who are disabled, says that a paper receipt is good enough.

The four council members who stood up to intense political pressure and rejected a contract with Diebold on June 6 Frank Bruno, Dwight Lewis, Carl Persis and Art Giles should stand firm today when they are asked to reconsider their votes. They should be joined by other council members in support of fair elections.

A close election like the 2000 presidential vote in Florida and 2004 presidential vote in Ohio necessitates paper verification of actual ballots for recounts. A machine receipt is not a reliable substitute to ensure voters as federal law requires that each vote is recorded as cast.

Voters who are disabled deserve the same assurances of accuracy as do all others.

In the 2000 election, it would have been impossible to trace two major glitches in Volusia County without a paper-ballot trail. One problem was in a DeLand precinct, where 219 people signed in to vote and where the tabulation machine recorded 2,813 votes for George W. Bush, subtracted 16,022 votes for Al Gore and gave an obscure third-party candidate almost 10,000 votes. In a DeBary precinct that same year, a malfunctioning tabulation machine canceled 320 votes; of those lost votes, 181 were for Bush and 129 were for Gore.

Today, Volusia County Elections Superviser Ann McFall and Diebold supporters are asking the County Council to reconsider its previous rejection of the Diebold contract.

The goal of buying the touch-screen machines is admirable to enable voters with disabilities to cast ballots independently. The objective is one that county and state officials should work hard to achieve. Indeed, federal law requires states to have equipment to enable independent voting by Jan. 1, and a footnote in Florida's election law puts the deadline at July 1 the only state with the earlier date.

But the technology has not advanced to the point that those objectives can be achieved by July 1. The Diebold touch-screen equipment allows independent voting for the blind, for instance, but not for paraplegics.

Moreover, the county is being asked to buy machines that may not meet standards based on the federal law because those standards have not been written. The county could be facing another costly bill to equipment before Jan. 1.

Troubling, too, are reports of verified malfunctions in touch-screen systems across the nation.

The critical issue here, though, is the ability for all voters whether disabled or not to verify that their ballots are correctly cast and counted and if necessary accurately recounted. The touch-screen machines as they now exist do not offer that assurance. There should not be one set of standards for the disabled and another for those who can use the optical-scan system.

Council members have been threatened with lawsuits if they don't change the vote; they have been threatened with lawsuits if they do. They are being told that the Diebold machines have been certified by the state while other county options have not been. They have been told they must follow the state rules even though the state has said the June 6 vote will not affect municipal elections in the fall.

Today, the council should be guided by the democratic principle of equal protection for all voters. The Diebold machines don't provide paper verification and they don't supply independent voting for all of the disabled who need it. The council should continue to look for better choices.