Paper trail poses problems
Voting records may ease fears, but they could also lead to arguments

BY TYLER WHITLEY
Richmond TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Aug 17, 2004

Virginia should go slow before joining the rush to require a paper trail in voting, a computer expert told a voting-equipment study committee yesterday.

Dr. Michael I. Shamos, of the Institute for Software Research at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, said creating a paper receipt that would show people how they voted would calm a great deal of anxiety that has emerged since the contested 2000 presidential election.

But Shamos said the anxiety is misplaced.

Electronic voting machines have been used for 25 years without a "single verified incident of tampering," he told a joint subcommittee studying the state's certification process for voting equipment.
 Shamos said the subcommittee should await the results of paper-trail technology in voting in California, Missouri and Nevada in the Nov. 2 elections.

"Let's see what stew this pot" produces, he said.

Shamos said he expects the results will not answer the questions raised by proponents of paper-trail balloting.

The problem is that "voters do not trust" electronic voting machines, Shamos added. This stems from voting irregularities around the country, warnings by computer scientists and increased public awareness of the dangers of computer hacking.

Despite helping voters feel secure, a paper trail would create problems, he said.

There is no guarantee the vote would be counted or that a record of the vote would be in existence if there is a recount, he said. Moreover, there would be paper handling and security problems and a slow vote count that would anger the news media, he continued. He noted that the nation began moving to mechanical voting machines because there was so much fraud with paper balloting. With a paper trail, losing candidates will seek more recounts, Shamos said.

Del. Timothy D. Hugo, R-Fairfax, who was named chairman of the study committee, said the committee is not worried about fraud at the national level. He fears that local elections that are expected to be close could be manipulated.

Under the federal Help America Vote Act, Virginia and other states will receive millions of dollars in federal grants to replace the old mechanical-lever and punch-card voting machines. The latter played a role in the Florida election debacle.

There are concerns that the computerized replacement machines are not secure. The State Board of Elections hired outside consultants to check Virginia's voting systems. Although more localities are ordering electronic systems, most voters will still use the older models for this fall's election.

The lead consultant, Hoyt M. Warren Jr. of the Arlington County-based firm of CACI International, said electronic machines are vulnerable to manipulation unless security policies are in place from the State Board of Elections level to the local registrar level.

He said there should be established, uniform security policies, standards, guidelines and checklists for the implementation of new electronic-voting systems.

Because not all Virginia localities are alike in terms of computer sophistication, local electoral boards should be charged with administering voting-system security programs, Warren added. The local programs should be formalized in writing, he continued.

Warren's recommendations were based on a survey of nine Virginia localities, representing rural, suburban and urban areas.