State to seek voting-machine bids in '06

By Jan TenBruggencate    Honolulu Advertiser    05 September 2005

State elections officials plan to seek bids early in 2006 for new electronic voting machines to be used in the 2006 primary and general elections ? a timetable some folks feel is too tight.

"That's crazy. It's already too late right now. They won't have enough time for public input," said Bill Eger of Kea'au on the Big Island, who served as an election observer in 2004. He said voting officials did not have nearly enough time to work with the electronic voting machines of last year, and would be placed in a similar rushed situation this year.

The machines of 2006 will be fundamentally different in one key way from the eSlate voting machines provided by Hart InterCivic in the 2004 elections. Under Act 200, passed by this year's Hawai'i Legislature, each machine must generate a paper printout that voters can inspect before leaving the voting booth, and which elections officials can use to audit the electronic results.

That change addresses a fear voiced by many elections observers last year ? that it would be difficult after the fact to prove that the ion a voter keyed into the machine was identical to the electronic report that came out of the machine on election night.

Rex Quidilla, the state's voting services coordinator, said machines such as the ones envisioned under Act 200 do exist. Versions are available from a number of voting contractors, including both of the primary contractors hired by the state in the last election: Hart InterCivic and ES&S (Election Systems and Software).

Milo Clark of Pahoa, Hawai'i, worked at a Big Island election counting center in 2004 and agreed with Eger that the system needs more time to ensure everything is working correctly, and that elections personnel understand it.

"The minimum efficacious time required for knowing what machine you're going to have and using it effectively is probably 18 months. They're going to be back in the same situation they were in last year. They'll be rushing into it," he said.

Quidilla said the elections office is comfortable with its proposed schedule.

"We believe that the timetable provides time for the ion committee to study the options" and for the equipment to be tested, he said.

He said the office plans to issue a request for proposals early in the year. The interested companies will demonstrate their equipment to a ion committee with a majority of members from outside the state elections office.

The machines would let a voter make ions, then see a printout of those ions. If the voter agrees that the printout represents his or her intent, the voter can record the ion, and the paper is retained in the system as a backup for audit purposes. If the voter has made an error or disagrees with what the printout says, it can be invalidated and the voter can vote again.

In 2004, ES&S ran the paper ballot system in the election and Hart InterCivic provided the equipment and expertise for the electronic voting, which was mandated under the federal Help America Vote Act to aid voters with disabilities. For instance, electronic voting created opportunities to provide audio feedback for those with vision problems.

ES&S challenged the elections office's decision to give the electronic contract to Hart, arguing that the firm lacked the required three years' experience in electronic voting. A hearings officer from the state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs invalidated Hart InterCivic's contract, ruling that while Hart InterCivic had experience through three election cycles, that experience did not cover three full calendar years as the contract required.

Quidilla said the elections office is considering limiting the electronic voting contract to only one election cycle ? the elections of 2006. That way, it will end at the same time as ES&S' long-term contract as the state's primary election tally contractor, and in the future, the state can seek a single contractor to handle both the paper and the electronic balloting.