N.C. elections head wants options to solve future voting snags

By GARY D. ROBERTSON
Associated Press Writer   07 January 2005

RALEIGH, N.C. - Voters whose ballots were lost to machine error should be allowed to revote to complete an election, the state elections director recommended to lawmakers Friday.

The proposal to a legislative committee examining electronic voting machines comes the week after the State Board of Elections ordered a new statewide election for agriculture commissioner due to 4,438 machine-lost votes in Carteret County.

The remedy would apply to future elections, but that's not soon enough for some Republicans displeased with the board's ruling.

"That's what we should have been able to do this year," said Rep. Jean Preston, R-Carteret, a committee member who was among the voters whose ballots were lost. "We've got a lot of people upset in Carteret County, and in North Carolina."

A majority on the elections board said Dec. 29 that state law left it no other choice but to call for a new race in all 100 counties, even though election officials could identify the displaced voters.

In incomplete returns, Republican Steve Troxler led Democrat Britt Cobb by 2,287 votes. Troxler has appealed the board's decision. A court hearing is scheduled Monday.

Gary Bartlett, the elections director, proposed that the General Assembly pass a law allowing the board to give "identifiable voters" the chance to recast their ballots by mail or in-person in a two-week period after Election Day if it's determined their votes were lost.

Bartlett, who is not a voting member of the state elections board, said it would provide another option beside a statewide election if a precinct's ballots or machines didn't count or were damaged by severe weather.

Bob Cordle, a state board member from Charlotte who voted for a new election last week, said placing a revote in the law "would make some sense" in certain cases.

Bartlett's 12 other recommendations to the legislative committee included having lawmakers allow people to vote in all races in which they are qualified, even if they cast a ballot in the wrong precinct.

The question of out-of-precinct voting has prompted the state Supreme Court to block Democrat June Atkinson from taking office as superintendent of public instruction. Republican candidate Bill Fletcher argues those ballots aren't legal if cast on Election Day.

The Supreme Court will determine if out-of-precinct voting is constitutional. A hearing is set for Jan. 18.

Most of Friday's hearing focused on how to prevent the ballot mishap in Carteret County from occurring again.

Carteret County uses touch-screen machines to record voter choices, but they don't print out paper receipts to verify each vote has been counted.

The state's 100 counties now use four kind of machines, but Bartlett wants it reduced to essentially two _ electronic and optical scan machines. Punch cards and lever machines should be eliminated. Three small counties still used paper ballots counted by hand.

Any machine would be required to have "independent verification" of how each person's vote was cast.

On electronic machines, that probably would be through a paper printout of each ballot, Bartlett said, but he didn't want it limited if there is better technology down the road.

Other speakers and audience members said voters are demanding a "paper trail" on these electronic machines, or throwing out these machines altogether.

"Ladies and gentlemen, high-tech is not the answer," said Joe Capowski, a computer specialist and a former Chapel Hill town councilman. "Keep it low-tech."

A "certified ethical hacker," whose job it is to break into corporate computer systems to test their security, said he didn't trust anything except paper ballots, and counting them by hand.

"I will never trust systems with computers because I break into computers for a living," said Chuck Herrin, the computer expert.

Herrin showed the Joint Legislative Select Committee on Electronic Voting Systems how easy it was for him to change the vote totals in some vote tabulation software.

Harvard University researcher Rebecca Mercuri told the board that optical scan machines were the best option right now.

As long as electronic voting machine vendors keep their software hidden from public inspection _ citing trade secrets _ it will be difficult to ensure that the machines are secure, Mercuri said.

"Vendors and experts who come to you and testify otherwise are either lying or are unaware of fundamental underlying laws of computer science," she said.

The committee is working to complete its recommendations to the General Assembly before it reconvenes Jan. 26.