The Man From Sacramento

 By Cynthia L. Webb
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Thursday, June 17, 2004; 2:33 PM

With the presidential election less than five months away, concerns over the security and accuracy of new high-tech voting machines are intensifying, fueled in no small part by the top elections official in the nation's most populous state.

California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley (D) moved in April to decertify several types of electronic voting machines in several counties. He also ordered some counties to halt plans to use new voting machines in the upcoming election and mandated stricter security guidelines for e-voting machines. On Tuesday, he released new standards for the creation and testing of verifiable paper trails for the machines.

So how big of an impact is Shelley having? Well, getting profiled by The New York Times says a lot. In a feature article on Tuesday, the Times said Shelley's action on e-voting technology "has national implications because 40 percent of all touch-screen voting machines in use are in California. If vendors start making equipment to the specifications of the huge California market, that market is likely to dictate what is available to the rest of the country. But Mr. Shelley's advocacy of paper trails has set off a fierce and emotional reaction among local election officials in California and elsewhere and has brought the purchase of such systems to a near standstill. Nearly one third of voters nationwide this November will vote on touch screens."

But the California official has his fair share of critics. The Times focused on Conny B. McCormack, Los Angeles County's elections registrar. McCormack, who runs "the biggest voting jurisdiction in the country ... said that Mr. Shelley had confounded local officials by handing down directives that require a technology that does not yet exist. Rather than inspire voter confidence, she said, Mr. Shelley has undermined it."

Wired News reported that Shelley's paper trail standards are the first of their kind. "There are currently no federal standards to test a machine that produces a paper trail. But it's possible that the Federal Election Commission, which has assumed oversight for certifying voting systems, will adopt the California standards for the nation," Wired said.

But don't count officials in California's San Bernardino County among those willing to play ball. "San Bernardino County spokesman David Wert said the county will continue to pursue its lawsuit against Shelley's office," despite Tuesday's release of the paper-trail standards, The Victorville Daily Press reported. It noted that the county, along with Riverside and Kern counties, is suing Shelley over his decertification decision. "We have supported a paper trail since the beginning, and if there is one available for use, we would be happy to do this," Wert said. "But we don't, and never will, support an election where voters are told they can vote electronically or on paper."

Making A Difference?

Still, Shelley is winning some accolades. An editorial in Wednesday's San Jose Mercury News praises Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Jesse Durazo for cooperating with the secretary of state. "On Monday," the editorial said, "Shelley recertified the county's new touch-screen voting system after the county responded to Shelley's demands for a secure and accurate election in November. The county has five months to put those measures in place." The opinion piece said Shelley's "unprecedented measures angered county registrars whose counties have invested $100 million in new equipment. But Shelley's actions, based on a record of software glitches and legitimate worries about fraud, were warranted. ... Four counties have challenged Shelley's orders in court. Their voters would be better served if their registrars spent their time working with Shelley, as Durazo has done, instead of suing him." Another article in the paper's Tuesday edition provided more background on the compromise.

The Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal reported that "three of the four vendors who produce touchscreen voting systems have agreed to meet the Secretary of State's security measures. Merced and Orange Counties were recertified last week. That leaves a total of 11 counties casting about for ways their residents can cast their ballots in November, a Spokesman for Mr. Shelley says."

Dan Gillmor, the Mercury News's technology columnist, singled out Shelley for praise in his column today: "In the end ... the pivotal player has been Shelley. He's done what a public official should do: Listen to the arguments, look at the evidence and then reach a conclusion that is logically unassailable. He's taken some risks for doing the right thing. Let's hope the nation will follow his lead."

So will we be seeing more of Kevin Shelley in the future? First elected California's secretary of state in 2002, he is a young up-and-comer in Democratic politics, and The New York Times profile concluded that he is "taking the arcane matter of voting machines and turning it into a hobbyhorse that some predict he could ride to the governor's office."

Revolving Door Watch

Meanwhile, The San Jose Mercury News on Tuesday reported on the close ties between former state officials and e-voting companies. In January 2003, "California Secretary of State Bill Jones sent letters to each member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, reassuring them that the electronic voting machines they wanted to buy were reliable," the paper said. "One month after Jones sent the letters, the Republican became a paid consultant for Sequoia Voting Systems, a touch-screen manufacturer that was bidding for Santa Clara County's $19 million contract and ultimately won it. Critics say Jones' move illustrates a troubling reality of elections in the electronic age: close, often invisible, bonds link election officials to the equipment companies they are supposed to regulate. When voting machines were simple mechanical devices, no one much cared if manufacturers helped local officials and maintain their equipment. But a switch to sophisticated computerized machines, and the sudden availability of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies, has raised questions about counties' dependence on private firms."

An example of that coziness? "One of electronic voting's strongest defenders is Mischelle Townsend of Riverside County, the first California registrar to introduce touch-screen machines. Last summer, Townsend flew to Florida to appear in an infomercial sponsored by Sequoia, the manufacturer of Riverside's voting machines."

The Times vs. E-Voting?

A scathing editorial in Sunday's New York Times argues that slot machines in casinos are more secure than new high-tech voting machines. "To appreciate how poor the oversight on voting systems is, it's useful to look at the way Nevada systematically ensures that electronic gambling machines in Las Vegas operate honestly and accurately. Electronic voting, by comparison, is rife with lax procedures, security risks and conflicts of interest."

The Times editorial noted that Nevada officials have access to all gambling software, which is regularly reviewed and d. That stands in contrast to e-voting software: "When it comes to voting machine manufacturers, all a company needs to do to enter the field is persuade an election official to buy its equipment. There is no way for voters to know that the software on their machines was not written by programmers with fraud convictions, or close ties to political parties or candidates." The Times concluded: "Election officials say their electronic voting systems are the very best. But the truth is, gamblers are getting the best technology, and voters are being given systems that are cheap and untrustworthy by comparison. There are many questions yet to be resolved about electronic voting, but one thing is clear: a vote for president should be at least as secure as a 25-cent bet in Las Vegas."

Women Dump E-Voting

The League of Women Voters earlier this week ped its support for e-voting machines. In its article, The New York Times said "advocates of paper trails tried to overthrow the league's establishment, which has been against them. They settled [Monday] on a compromise resolution to support 'secure, accurate, recountable and accessible' systems, all code words for paper trails." The Associated Press had more on the League's decision, reporting that the group's "relatively neutral stance was a sharp change from last year, when league leaders endorsed paperless terminals as reliable alternatives to antiquated punch card and lever systems. ... Last year's endorsement [of e-voting machines] infuriated members from chapters around the country particularly in Silicon Valley and other technology-savvy enclaves, where computer scientists say the systems jeopardize elections. Legitimate recounts are impossible without paper records of every vote cast, they say."

The Charleston Post and Courier, one of South Carolina's largest newspapers, used news of the League's e-voting compromise to weigh in on the paper trail debate with an editorial this week. Excerpt: "Electronic voting systems currently in use in Charleston County provide a paper record of vote counts and, therefore, offer some assurance that errors can be properly challenged. A paper trail is essential to election integrity, which should be the first requirement of any voting system. The League of Women Voters, long committed to election integrity, should be the first to recognize the necessity of providing minimum requirements of security and accountability in the election systems used by the voting public."

Florida on My Mind

All eyes will be on Florida this November, given the Sunshine State's 2000 vote-counting debacle. But will e-voting be this year's "hanging chad" in Florida?

The Associated Press reported this week that the touch-screen voting machines in 11 Florida counties including Miami-Dade and Broward counties have a software glitch that "could make manual recounts impossible in November's presidential election, state officials said. A spokeswoman for the secretary of state called the problems 'minor technical hiccups' that can be resolved, but critics allege voting officials wrongly certified a voting system they knew had a bug. The electronic voting machines are a response to Florida's 2000 presidential election fiasco, where thousands of punchcard ballots were improperly marked. But the new machines have brought concerns that errors could go unchecked without paper records of the electronic voting. The machines, made by Election Systems & Software of Omaha, fail to provide a consistent electronic 'event log' of voting activity when asked to reproduce what happened during the election, state officials said." Company officials said they could fix the problem by hooking up the voting machines to laptop computers, the article said.

In other Florida voting news, Wired reported on Monday that thousands of Florida voters who are eligible to vote "may be removed from the rolls in this year's election because of a faulty database aimed at convicted felons. Despite protests from critics and nervous election supervisors, the state will continue with plans to implement the system. Convicted felons are not allowed to vote in Florida unless granted clemency, but before 2000 there was little enforcement of the law." State "officials promise the new database, assembled entirely by public entities with state records, will be more accurate with added precautions. County election supervisors in all 67 counties will be responsible for verifying every name as a convicted felon, and those stripped of rights must be notified before the elections so they may challenge the finding. 'We have developed much more stringent matching material on the list,' said Jenny Nash, a spokeswoman for the Division of Elections. 'We run each name through a whole series of algorithms now. If a name doesn't meet a certain threshold it is not purged.'"

E-voting Across the States

Ohio, home to major e-voting machine maker Diebold Election Systems, has been grappling with its own problems. State election officials have certified touch-screen voting machines manufactured by AccuPull. The machines feature a voter-verified paper trail, something required by a recent state law, Federal Computer Week reported last week. However, the same article pointed out that paper trails are not a panacea for voting woes: "Some e-voting advocates say a paper trail causes its own set of problems. There are no national standards for how paper records would be generated or what information they should contain. The need to preserve voter anonymity makes it more difficult to create meaningful receipts than for a nonanonymous transaction such as an automated teller withdrawal, they argue."

In New York, The Ithaca Journal yesterday reported that the New York State Comptroller's office has $66 million to spend on voting upgrades in the state, part of $230 million for new e-voting machines and voter registration databases mandated by the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002. "But state Legislature wrangling over issues like what is an acceptable form of identification and what kind of verification system should be included in the new machines is holding up one of the largest purchases of new voting equipment in the last 70 years. As the clock ticks away, state and local election officials are remaining optimistic that the deadline of having the machines and a database in place by 2006 can be met," said the article, which included material from The Associated Press. "Time is of the essence," said Lee Daghlian, director of public information at the state Board of Elections. "This is a new process for just about everybody. We need to get cracking."

An E-voting End Note

A nonprofit group called VotersUnite! is working to spread the word about e-voting security concerns. Ellen Theisen, who is active in the group, sent me an e-mail last week about a study she conducted investigating voting machine glitches. Theisen contends that they are due to flawed ballot definition files. Read more of her findings in a PDF document on VotersUnite's Web site.

For balance's sake, Diebold has a snazzy online presentation outlining the security and trustworthiness of their e-voting products. Sequoia Voting Systems posts a list of testimonials from local elections officials touting the benefits of its machines.