Changes to election act produce controversy
July 18,2005
Zac Goldstein
Sun Journal

Recent changes to North Carolina's Public Confidence in Elections Act continue to draw the ire of verified voting advocates, but state election officials remain supportive.

The bill, which originally required verified paper ballots, has been changed 25 times by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee. Verified voting advocates say it bears little resemblance to the version proposed by the Joint Select Committee on Verified Voting.

Among the more controversial changes to the bill is a provision that allows for non-paper means of verification, such as audio or digital scanning.

Verified voting advocates say this provision allows for the possibility of cameras in polling places.

"There was a proposal to allow a device that creates 25 digital images per second," said Justin Moore, a computer scientist who advised the Joint Select Committee. "Twenty-five images per second is the standard for television transmission."

Gary Bartlett, executive director of the state Board of Elections, dismissed the possibility of cameras.

Moore also believes the bill gives the state board of elections too much power. Under the bill's current language, the state board has the power to decertify voting machines that do not meet Request For Purchase (RFP) requirements that the state board has the power to set.

"The bill says a lot about what they can do, but doesn't have too much on what they can't do," he said. "If the state board created an RFP that said all voting machines must have an 11-inches by 17-inches screen, counties with optical scan machines would be effectively forced to get touch screen machines."

According to Bartlett, RFP requirements are guided by federal standards. He also added that adopting uniform standards does not rob counties of their voting machine choices.

"We create several models that counties can choose from," he said. "They can still have optical scan machines."

Bartlett defended the bill's certification power, citing the need to replace antiquated voting equipment.

"Some counties are using machines that are 30 to 35 years old," he said. "North Carolina needs to be flexible enough to change with the times." He acknowledged that replacing machines could be expensive and stressed the need to "strike a balance" between cost and access to new equipment.

Craven County, the site of a 2004 election controversy that saw 11,283 extra votes counted, currently uses direct electronic record (DRE) machines that are not verifiable. While the bill would require the county to refit the machines to print paper ballots, it would not require replacing them with paper-based optical scan machines.

Election officials in Carteret County, which permanently lost 4,438 votes during the November election, have already discontinued use of their DRE systems and are currently exploring alternatives.

A staunch critic of DRE systems, Moore points out that replacing the machines with optical scan systems costs less than making them paper compatible.

"Replacing all paperless DREs with accessible optical scan machines will cost about $20.5 million, well within the federal funds that are allocated," he said. "Replacing all paperless DREs with paper-fitted DREs will cost about $63.5 million."

Bartlett, however, believes counties should determine which voting machines are right for them.

The bill's wording is still being worked out in the Judiciary Subcommittee and more changes may be on the way.