Stand firm
Diebold deal wrong for Volusia

Editorial     Volusia-Flagler News-Journal   June 22, 2005

Four Volusia County Council members are under heavy-duty pressure to change their votes against paying nearly $800,000 for 210 voting machines equipped to help some voters with disabilities. These council members should stand their ground. The valid point is: Voters with disabilities deserve the same guarantees as ordinary voters the right to verify the accuracy of their votes before their votes are cast.

The machines in question, made by Diebold Election Systems Inc., do not currently have the capacity to provide that verification as required under the 2002 federal elections-reform law.

The four Volusia council members Frank Bruno, Art Giles, Dwight Lewis and Carl Persis have all supported giving voters with disabilities capacity to cast ballots without the help of others (such as someone reading ballots for the blind). The issues before them are complicated and highly politicized. Given the history of the 2000 presidential election in Florida, they have correctly made voter-verification a priority.

Yet, these four of the seven-member council are being portrayed as being against voters with disabilities. Indeed, a Washington-based advocacy group is threatening to sue the county if they don't agree to the Diebold contract in a special meeting called for June 30.

These council members are also criticized for being out of step with the rest of the state. Flagler County commissioners, for instance, voted for the same touch-screen system this week with only one commissioner Hutch King dissenting because of a lack of paper verification of votes. Many other counties have also bought the touch-screen machines rather than contest efforts by the state Division of Elections to push counties to buy specific voting systems (Diebold, in Volusia County).

But the council members should be hailed for standing up for a basic democratic principle that all voters, regardless of abilities, deserve to know their votes are correctly recorded. Touch-screen machines, still in stages of development, fall short in that regard.

The federal elections law, passed in 2002, requires special equipment for voters with disabilities by Jan. 1, 2006. It also requires that all voters be able to verify their votes. But there are complications. The federal law is not specific in many areas, requiring the government to define standards for things such as special equipment for the disabled; those standards have not been written. Critics also argue that state and federal laws are putting elections officers in the position of buying equipment before the technology is available such as for verifying ballots.

Diebold and two other systems for serving the disabled have been certified by the state, but the other two certifications were made before the 2002 federal and state election-reform laws were passed. Can voters be assured that the certifications will be valid after the federal government defines standards?

Meanwhile, the American Association of People with Disabilities may file a suit against Volusia County based on the federal law prohibiting discrimination against the disabled. While it claims a victory in a federal suit against Duval County, that case is under appeal. It was also filed before the 2002 federal election law was passed and is based on different circumstances.

Florida counties are put in untenable positions because it is the only state to require equipment for the disabled be put in place by July 1 six months before the federal deadline. While the validity of the state deadline is in question, it still increases pressure to buy equipment that may not fully meet the needs of the disabled.

Volusia County's four council members are courageous for taking the lead and they should be joined by other council members in standing firmly for fair, verifiable secure balloting for all voters.