Integrity of 'paperless' voting at issue

Vanderburgh County to debut touch-screen balloting in May primary

By JOHN MARTIN Courier & Press staff writer 464-7594 or jmartin@evansville.net
February 9, 2004

Concern that new paperless voting technology could sabotage elections this year is surfacing across the United States in newspaper columns, Internet sites and among some members of Congress.

States are required to do away with antiquated voting systems such as punch-card ballots - which were at the center of the disputed 2000 presidential election in Florida - by 2006. Vanderburgh County will debut its new touch-screen equipment in the May 4 primary. 
 

But some fear that computerizing vote tallies means a turn for the worse, and there have, in fact, been some scattered foul-ups.

In the Broward County, Fla., election last year, no votes showed up for 134 people who cast ballots in an election decided by 12 votes, and Fairfax County, Va., voting machines repeatedly crashed, news reports said.

A Jan. 31 New York Times editorial cited "proof" that some computerized machines can be rigged. It reported that Maryland hired an independent firm to test its new voting machines, and hackers had no trouble exploiting them.

"It is clear that electronic voting machines cannot be trusted until more safeguards are in place," the Times editorial concluded.

The Maryland machines were manufactured by Diebold Election Systems, which has sold voting equipment to a few Indiana counties but not to Vanderburgh. Election Systems & Software is Vanderburgh's vendor.

Indiana Election Division Co-Director Kristi Robertson said state law requires that independent firms test voting machines before they are used.

She said the tests are meant to make sure the equipment works properly, gives accurate vote totals and can't be rigged.

Indiana counties that are already using touch-screen technology have not had any major problems, according to Robertson.

There have been a few bumps in the road, though. Voting equipment manufactured by Election Systems and used by three Indiana counties in the Nov. 4 election had not been certified by the state. But none of those counties had close elections, and results were not challenged.

Election Systems blamed an internal communication breakdown for the error and says that its Indiana customers, including Vanderburgh, now possess certified equipment.

Employees of Election Systems and Vanderburgh County Clerk Marsha Abell are demonstrating the equipment to groups throughout Vanderburgh County. They say the feedback is almost always positive.

But those who are skittish about touch-screen technology often point out the absence of a paper trail as a backup mechanism to confirm results.

The machines Vanderburgh County has can print a thin strand of paper indicating past votes. Robertson likened it to the tape an adding machine produces.

Bills have been introduced in Congress that would require all voting devices to have paper trails. Vanderburgh County Councilman Phil Hoy, D-at-large, says such legislation should be passed.

"The integrity of the system gets hit a lot of times, even aside from the last presidential election," Hoy said. "The public needs to feel like there's some integrity in the system."

Proposals before Congress, however, go further. They require that each voter be given a printed paper confirming what candidates he or she ed.

Robertson said there would be several problems with that, starting with the cost of printers.

"One, it would be incredibly expensive, and two, it doesn't work very well," Robertson said. "You could have printers breaking down. And you've also got to be concerned about vote buying. They (voters) can got back to their union representative or campaign they work for and say, 'See? Where's my $10?'"

Hoy argues that the printed proof of a vote "would make people feel a lot better."

"Unfortunately, even if you don't have that, somebody's going to do vote buying," Hoy said. "Vote buying is based on faith to a certain extent. If somebody is going to sell their vote, they're going to do it before they go to the booth."

The touch-screen machines are manufactured to be as fool-proof as possible and give fast, accurate totals. They don't allow a voter to too many candidates, which election officials say eliminates "overvotes."

As for the tampering issue, Robertson said the type of machine Vanderburgh County has is built to resist hackers.

"They keep the source codes very closed," Robertson said. "These are all protected under trademark and work product. You can't access it. The first question I have when I see a problem in other states is, do they require voting systems to go through an independent testing authority. Indiana does."

Others argue that no machine is tamper-proof and that despite the best efforts of local election officials to educate the public, some voters will be leery of the new technology.

"I'm not a Neanderthal about computers," Hoy said, "but they have their down side."