Hinds: No new voting machines for us

By Chris Joyner  The Clarion-Ledger    12 August 2005

   
What's next

Counties have until Aug. 19 to opt out of the state's contract with Diebold Election Systems for touch-screen voting machines. Counties that do not opt out are included in the plan automatically. So far, 36 of 82 counties have announced they will join the plan. None officially has opted out, although several, including Hinds County, have indicated they will not take part.

 
Hinds County, the state's largest, said Thursday it will keep its touchscreen voting machines and not accept new machines offered by the secretary of state's office.

Thirty-six of Mississippi's 82 counties have signed onto the state's plan to conduct elections on Diebold machines ? touch-screen voting machines that have been criticized in some states.

"We did so much research. We wanted to make sure our choice would be the best choice," Hinds County Election Commissioner Lelia Gaston Rhodes said about the county's machines from Texas-based Shoup Voting Solutions.

The county spent $1.5 million in 2002 to purchase 550 touch-screen machines. Under the state's plan, Hinds would have received 420 machines from Ohio-based Diebold Election Systems.

Terry resident Terrell Wilson said the county's machine "was pretty fast. I didn't have any problems with it."

The state's contract with Diebold is to comply with the Help America Vote Act, a federal election-reform law passed in the wake of the 2000 presidential election. Counties that take part in the state plan will receive the machines for free based on a formula using voter turnout in previous elections. Counties have until next week to decide.

Some county officials have complained that the formula is not generous enough and that they will have to buy more machines on their own. Critics claim that Diebold's machines are prone to hacking and mechanical failure.

Lee County Election Commissioner John Wages said he is concerned that hackers could change the vote totals and leave without a trace. Others claim that the machines are not user-friendly for disabled voters.

The state said the claims are baseless and released documents Thursday detailing the ion of Diebold, including a portion of the contract. Many of the contract's specifics, however, remain under court seal to protect the company's competitive information.

Wally DeRossette, a project manager for the Department of Information Technology Services, said the ion process for the voting-machine contract was thorough.

"We did more than kick the tires," he said.

A committee of local election officials, disability advocates and state ITS experts reviewed the proposals of the six companies that bid for the contract. The committee whittled the field to three finalists before deciding on Diebold as the best and lowest-cost company, DeRossette said.

Diebold's bid of $22.5 million was talked down by Secretary of State Eric Clark to $15 million, largely because the state will buy fewer machines than originally proposed, said David Blount, Clark's spokesman. Blount said the state also talked down Diebold's per-machine price to get further savings.

Concern about the Diebold contract comes from California's decision last month to ban the machines after 30 percent of the them experienced mechanical problems in tests.

Clark said the problems, which included paper jams and frozen computer screens, did not discourage him. Other states already are using the same machines in live elections, he said. "I just don't think it's a big deal," Clark said earlier this week.

Nghia Demovic, spokeswoman for California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, said about 100 Diebold machines were tested.

"In that process, we learned that the system failed too many times," she said.

Answering concerns that the machines do not leave a "paper trail," Clark on Wednesday announced a $1.1 million deal with Diebold to purchase paper printers for each machine.

Critics have called on Clark to order a random audit of 3 percent of the machines after the first election to compare the electronic vote totals with the paper printout from each machine. Blount said Clark does not have the legal authority to order a statewide audit.

Clark has defended the machines as the most secure and accurate option available.

"Any kind of machine you can think of can be manipulated," he said.

About 1.5 million of the state's 2.9 million residents are registered to vote. Last November, 1.3 million residents cast ballots in the presidential election.