Home
Site Map
Reports
Voting News
Info
Donate
Contact Us
About Us

VotersUnite.Org
is NOT!
associated with
votersunite.com

E-vote directive has counties upset, concerned about costs

By Andrew LaMar

Mercury News Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO - Election officials in 14 California counties are busily piecing together plans to bring paper ballots back to polling booths for the November presidential election.

Under orders from Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, counties that had leaped to electronic voting must backtrack. Some must abandon their touch-screen systems for now; others can keep them if they supplement the electronic balloting with paper versions.

It's part of Shelley's mandate to ensure an accurate vote count so California isn't branded with the ignominious reputation that plagued Florida after the 2000 presidential election. But the directive has embittered county officials, who say Shelley's bold push is costly, unwarranted and unauthorized.

``His office made demands without realizing the outcome of the demands and without knowing how this whole process would work under those directives,'' said Kathleen Williams, clerk-/recorder of the Plumas County elections division.

Federal lawsuit

Plumas was among four counties that filed a federal lawsuit charging that Shelley overstepped his bounds. A hearing is set for Friday.

Even those who are not party to the legal action complain. ``San Joaquin County is being punished for somebody else's mistakes,'' said Debbie Hench, registrar of voters. ``I don't know what the problem is because we conducted a good election without any problems in March.''

The 14 counties contain 43 percent of the state's registered voters. After witnessing the debacle of the Florida vote count in the 2000 presidential election, the California counties, like hundreds of others across the country, ditched their balloting systems for the high-tech versions.

But the new systems that were lauded by many just a few years ago as the election solution of the future are now under attack as flawed and susceptible to fraud. Last week, voting experts echoed Shelley's conclusions when they told a House subcommittee in Washington that testing of electronic-voting machines was inadequate.

Punch-card systems

In California, most of the 14 counties had abandoned punch-card systems like those at the center of the Florida follies to move to what they thought were more reliable touch-screen systems.

To be sure, those counties won't return to the infamous chad-laden cards. Rather, the paper ballots used in November will involve a more-reliable system in which voters darken bubbles next to the names of their preferred candidates rather than poke holes.

Meanwhile, the counties have millions of dollars worth of new electronic-voting equipment that will be underutilized or abandoned in November. They also must spend unanticipated millions to purchase paper ballots they thought they had left behind.

The severity of the punishment depends on the electronic-voting system each county purchased. Four counties San Joaquin, Kern, San Diego and Solano must completely scrap their systems for November because they purchased Diebold Election System's newest model, the AccuVote TSx, for which the manufacturer failed to obtain federal approval.

The other 10 counties which use other Diebold models or systems from other manufacturers can recertify their touch-screen machines if they agree to train poll workers more extensively, provide paper ballots for at least one-quarter of voters, disconnect the machines from the Internet or telephones and follow 20 other security steps.

So far, only Merced, Orange and Santa Clara counties have met the criteria. Alameda County is working to do the same.

Shelley said the state would ultimately cover any costs for paper ballots with a pot of federal money provided to California as part of a national effort to upgrade voting machines. However, county registrars interviewed for this story doubted they would see state assistance.

Following Shelley's orders will cost Santa Clara County $1 million, said Jesse Durazo, the registrar of voters. In Riverside County, the price tag will be nearly $3 million, said Mischelle Townsend, the registrar of voters there.

``We are already having to make Draconian budget cuts, and there are clearly no additional funds for redundant paper ballots that our voters have not been calling for,'' Townsend said.

But Shelley said he is committed to covering the extra expenses. ``We are absolutely reimbursing counties for the cost of these security measures,'' he said. ``In the recertification agreements we have made with counties, we have put that in writing.''

While county registrars criticize Shelley, others cheer and defend him. ``This is not a student government election,'' said Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Foundation, a non-profit group that advocates using technological advances to benefit democracy. ``We need to have rigorous oversight, testing and management of these voting systems.''

Nevertheless, Riverside, San Bernardino, Plumas and Kern counties say Shelley went too far. They joined with disability rights groups seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent Shelley's directive from taking effect.

Headed to court

The suit has little chance of succeeding, says one legal expert who reviewed the counties' written argument for Knight Ridder.

``Courts have suggested it is indeed the discretion of the secretary of state to certify and decertify machines,'' said Mary Beth Moylan, a professor who specializes in election law at the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. ``The bottom line is courts are reluctant to say one machine over another. The courts don't want to be in the business of choosing what types of machines have to be used.''

John Tuteur, Napa County's director of the elections department, is watching the case closely, although his county has not joined it.

Tuteur doesn't believe Shelley originally listened to county officials' concerns. But he will comply with Shelley's order. ``I am not going to defy the secretary of state,'' Tuteur said. ``You don't play chicken with the November 2004 election.''



Previous Page
 
Favorites

Election Problem Log image
2004 to 2009



Previous
Features


Accessibility Issues
Accessibility Issues


Cost Comparisons
Cost Comparisons


Flyers & Handouts
Handouts


VotersUnite News Exclusives


Search by

Copyright © 2004-2010 VotersUnite!