Worth A Vote Of Confidence?
November 6, 2005

Having abandoned her quest for governor, Susan Bysiewicz has returned to the business of running the secretary of the state's office. Tops on her to-do list is resolving the voting-machine problem that's been dumped in her lap, a problem that was aggravated by the Bush administration's stalling tactics and the Justice Department's lassitude.

Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 to force states to upgrade their voting technology and eliminate hanging chads and other snafus that undermined the integrity of the 2000 presidential election. It took the Bush administration a year to begin drafting standards and two more years for the somnolent Justice Department to rule that the mechanical lever machines used by many states, including Connecticut, are substandard.

Pending the outcome of an appeal of that decision, the $33 million question facing Bysiewicz and all 169 municipalities is this: Will Connecticut be forced to buy 769 voting machines or 3,300? The answer can't come quickly enough because the Help America Vote Act requires the technology to be in place for next year's federal elections.

If the state is allowed to keep using the lever machines, Bysiewicz will have to provide only one new HAVA-compliant machine (meaning adaptable for use by the disabled) for each polling precinct in Connecticut, or 769 in all. If the Justice Department pulls the plug on the levers, all 3,300 machines will have to be replaced - and pronto.

But even then, it's not that simple. There's disagreement as to which of the new voting machines comply with the federal law, which ones are the most tamper-resistant, which are the cheapest and which are the easiest to use.

The biggest thorn in Bysiewicz's side has been TrueVoteCT, a group of computer scientists and academics concerned about the sanctity of elections. They believe the state's bid specifications were rigged to allow only for touch-screen, ATM-style machines that can be infected with viruses and otherwise corrupted. They say the most reliable system is an optical scanner used in conjunction with a ballot-marking device called AutoMark. And they fought hard to ensure that whatever system is adopted, voters are given a paper record to verify the accuracy of their choice. That requirement was approved earlier this year by the legislature.

Although TrueVote and Bysiewicz are working toward the same goal, their relationship has become adversarial. In a recent exchange of letters, Bysiewicz accused TrueVote of acting as a front for one company.

"The bulk of your letter is devoted to extolling the virtues of a single product by a single manufacturer, the Automark by ES&S," Bysiewicz wrote to Ralph Morelli, a professor at Trinity College. "Therefore, it is not appropriate to meet with your organization while we are engaged in the purchasing process."

A copy of the letter was sent to Trinity President James F. Jones Jr., a move that had all the makings of an intimidation tactic, which Deputy Secretary of the State Maria Greenslade denies.

Michael Fischer, a TrueVote member and Yale professor, calculates an optical scan system in every polling precinct in the state would cost $24 million, compared with $42 million for touch-screen machines. Bysiewicz is perplexed by his numbers but says she believes Connecticut's $33 million grant from the feds would cover either system.

The two sides also have butted heads over whether the optical scan technology would pass federal muster. TrueVote says AutoMark is federally certified and can be used by people who are sight-impaired or have limited manual dexterity. What's more, optical scan ballots are voter-verifiable and simple to count.

But it's ever more complicated. Bysiewicz agrees that AutoMark is HAVA-compliant. But she says the optical scanner that reads the ballot isn't. Only one brand of optical scanner has been certified by the feds, and it's made by a different company.

"We can't plop a marking device in a different optical scan machine," says Greenslade. So, that would seem to eliminate AutoMark as an option.

Later this month, the public will be able to try out the various forms of voting technology at five sites around the state; optical scanners will not be among them. TrueVote continues to think the process has been rigged.

This is not the way to instill confidence in an electoral system.