State among leaders in initiatives to ensure all votes are counted
Martin L. Haines   Opinion   Asbury Park Press on 10/6/05

Paper ballots used in New Jersey elections served us well for many years. Then came the age of technology and voting machines replaced those ballots, bringing with them their own problems. The machines sometimes turned out strange results. While New Jersey voters encountered no crucial problems in past presidential elections, voters in other states did.

Florida and Ohio, key states in those elections, both reported serious problems with voting machines, old and new. Examples: People who voted for Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry in 2004 found their votes recorded for George W. Bush; one machine recorded more votes cast than the record of eligible voters; most machines did not provide paper trails needed in recounts and for checking machine accuracy.

There were many complaints. Congress responded by adopting the Help American Voters Act, which mandated the use of modern machines countrywide, established standards and provided funds to cover machine purchases.

HAVA has been helpful, but it has not resolved all problems. It did not, for example, mandate machines with paper trail capacities. Most voting machine experts consider them to be indispensable.

New Jersey, stepping ahead of the pack, has solved the problem. It enacted legislation (A-33) June 9 requiring all voting machines to "produce an individual permanent paper record for each vote cast" not later than Jan. 1, 2008. The federal government has refused to address the issue, although bills were introduced for the purpose in 2004 by Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., and in 2005 by Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

The Holt bill was filed well before the 2004 presidential election but was never released from committee. It not only required paper trails, but also required the random testing of machines to be sure they were operating properly. It is still pending. Why? Apparently, the Bush administration considers maintaining the status quo to be in its best interest, a position that ignores the public interest.

The failure of HAVA to require all voting machines to create paper trails will be an expensive failure. The New Jersey Legislature reported that implementation of its paper trail law, statewide, is estimated to cost $21,412,500. The highest estimated cost, on a county basis, is $2.4 million for Bergen County; the lowest is $160,000 for Salem County. The state, not the counties, will assume responsibility for the costs, if the federal government fails to provide for it.

New Jersey, again ahead of the pack, has adopted a law making absentee voting much easier. Now everyone is entitled to absentee ballots; justification, such as illness or absence from the state, is no longer required. Voters, once having used absentee ballots, will receive them automatically before every future election. According to Philip Haines, the Burlington County clerk, under present law voters must visit a county clerk's office to obtain their first absentee ballot. Current technologies should be shaped to alleviate that difficulty.

New Jersey's new laws are very helpful, but problems remain. Because the paper trail law does not become effective until 2008, it leaves voters without its protection for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 election years. Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer, has filed suit challenging the delay. Success is far from assured, but it should be.

Nothing has been done to make machine software available for public inspection. Manufacturers claim a right to trade secrecy, a position that ignores the fact that their machines are for public use and paid for with public funds. Control of software not only controls the machine, it can also control elections. The public, through appropriate authorities, should have access to that software. Its independent examination and approval is crucial to any correct determination concerning the proper operation of voting machines.

One bill (A-40), introduced but not yet adopted, would allow "early voting" ? opening polling places to permit voting before the dates of presidential primaries (now moved ahead from June to the last Tuesday in February) and general elections. That's an excellent idea. The law should be adopted.

New Jersey's Fair and Clean Elections Law ? a pilot project that has the potential for taking private money out of politics ? has come a cropper. Only one of the five campaigns covered by the law qualified for public financing, apparently the result of time limits and unrealistic monetary thresholds, The pilot should be extended.

Other states are considering election reforms on their own, responding to the obvious: The federal administration has no interest in improving election laws.