Counties approve electric voting
Salt Lake, Weber: There is some grousing over costs and accuracy, and Corroon warns of possible tax increases to come

By Derek P. Jensen
The Salt Lake Tribune     07 September 2005

   
For two hours Tuesday, the Salt Lake County Council took jabs at the state's new electronic voting machines. The technology is unproven, they said, too expensive and part of an "unfunded" federal mandate.
   Then they voted for the new machines by a 7-1 count.
   The controversial machines also were approved, 2-0, by the Weber County Commission on Tuesday.
   Salt Lake County greenlighted the move despite Mayor Peter Corroon's prediction that costs to county taxpayers could balloon to $20 million - and perhaps lead to a tax increase.
   The price "isn't justifiable, given what we are getting," said Councilman Jim Bradley, the lone dissenter.
   But the remainder of the council reasoned that since the touch-screen voting machines - manufactured by Diebold Election Systems - have been carefully vetted by the county clerk and Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert, they are worth the gamble. The county will receive $10 million in federal dollars to pay for their purchase.
   Still, Councilman Joe Hatch criticized Herbert for signing a contract that gives the counties only one option to comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).
   "I'm asking you to put your political neck out because you're so adamant about it," Hatch told Herbert, who conceded his neck "is on the line."
   Herbert says error-free voting technology will eventually exist in the marketplace, but right now "we don't have that luxury."
   Herbert compared implementing the Diebold machines to making lemonade from a bushel of lemons, but conceded the state's most populous county won't get there immediately.
   "We hope we can choke it down without scrunching up your face too badly," he said.
   The state has a $27 million contract for 7,500 Diebold machines, 2,844 of which are slated for Salt Lake County.
   Critics say the state-of-the-art electronic instruments may not provide paper backups that qualify for election recounts. Diebold is developing an optical scanner to process a paper trail, but it is not yet perfected.
   Meanwhile, California's secretary of state has called into question the legitimacy of the machines' backup count and fears that election results under Diebold could be contested in court.
   The County Council delayed voting for one week after learning the current punch-card system may still satisfy HAVA requirements.
   Yet doing that "is practically impossible," according to Michael Cragun, state elections director. He notes the punch cards do not protect against voting for more than one candidate in a single race - a protection mandated by HAVA.
   During a public hearing Tuesday, residents urged the council to resist the change, arguing that an optical-scan system is more reliable and cost effective.
   "Making a ballot of electrons I can't verify is simply absurd," said Ryan Stokes, a software engineer from Holladay.
   Kathy Dopp, founder of Utah Count Votes, worries the decision is being made by politicians who have little or no knowledge of computers and voting systems.
   "This is a step backward," she barked. "It's like having the flight attendants the operating system for a jet."
   Even so, Herbert said he is comfortable the process in ing the machines was pure and professional.
   To make the transition, the county already voted to add six full-time employees at a cost of $300,000 per year. And officials are looking for a 25,000-square-foot, air-conditioned warehouse to house the machines, an expense expected to reach millions of dollars.
   Corroon says he expects costs over the next five years to the county - costs that will not be reimbursed by the feds - to hit between $5 million and $20 million.
   Said Councilwoman Jenny Wilson, "To a certain degree, we've got a gun to our head when we make this leap of faith."