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

VotersUnite.Org
is NOT!
associated with
votersunite.com

Touchy voting issue returns
Volusia to decide on touch-screens

By JAMES MILLER
Staff Writer

Last : December 11, 2005

One paper-ballot proponent tagged it "Armageddon" in an e-mail to her peers.


How they differ:
Here's a look at Volusia County's two proposed voting technology contracts:

DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS:

COST: $782,185 for 210 touch-screen units for disabled voters with hardware and training. Other voters would continue to use optical scan paper ballot tabulators the county already owns.

RATIONALE: Employees and poll workers would not have to learn an entirely new system during a major election year.

ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE:

COST: $2.6 million for 231 optical scan devices similar to current system, plus 210 touch-screen units for disabled voters.

RATIONALE: Contract would allow the touch screens to be traded in for devices that allow disabled voters to mark paper ballots for use with the optical scan machines as soon as the technology is state-certified, leaving a complete paper trail for recounts.
SOURCES: Volusia County Legal Department,
New Journal Research

 

Timeline
Here's a recap of Volusia County's efforts to acquire accessible voting machines for people with disabilities in Volusia County:

FEBRUARY 2002: Volusia County Council approves Supervisor of Elections Deanie Lowe's request to buy Diebold touch-screen machines contingent upon state certification.

MAY 2004: Council changes course and approves Lowe's request to buy AutoMark ballot- marking devices instead, also contingent upon state certification. Lowe says she trusts touch-screen technology but thinks state and federal authorities may eventually call for use of paper records.

MARCH 2005: Council denies new Supervisor of Elections Ann McFall's request to switch direction and buy Diebold touch screens to meet a state July 1 deadline for accessibility.

APRIL 2005: Council allows negotiation of contract for McFall's requested purchase of Diebold touch screens.

JUNE 2005: Council rejects Diebold contract, twice.

DECEMBER 2005: Council to choose between Diebold touch screens and full replacement of county voting system. *

JANUARY 2006: Federal deadline for complying with guidelines for disabled- accessibility.

* All other council votes involved additional machines to augment existing voting system.
Demonstrating a little less flair, Volusia County officials have dubbed it "Item 24" on the County Council's Friday agenda.

Either way, touch-screen voting and the need for a so-called paper trail to verify election outcomes one of the county's most passionately debated issues in 2005 is slated to emerge one more time this week.

"I still think we need a paper, verifiable, ballot," said Councilman Carl Persis, one of four councilmen who earlier this year rejected a proposal to buy 210 touch-screen machines for voters with disabilities because the machines didn't use paper ballots.

Against a back of growing attention from lawmakers nationwide, grumblings elsewhere in Florida, conspiracy theories and an array of devoted local activists pushing in several directions, he'll soon get another shot.

Committed to beating a Jan. 1 federal deadline for making independent, secret balloting accessible to everyone, council members on Friday will choose the county's voting system for what could be the foreseeable future.

THE OPTIONS

Regardless of what they think about it, council members will buy temporarily, at least touch-screen machines that don't use paper ballots but have an audio function to assist voters with disabilities, many of whom currently require assistance from friends, family or election workers in Volusia County polling places.

The solution proffered by County Chairman Frank Bruno is to replace the county's current paper-ballot system with a similar paper-ballot system and additional touch screens from Nebraska-based Election Systems & Software for $2.6 million.

Under the deal, the company would exchange the touch screens for the paper-ballot marking AutoMARK, a device with audio capabilities already being purchased for use by disabled voters in some other states, when it's approved for use in Florida. If the technology is not certified in Florida by a date still under negotiation probably May 1 or June 1 the county could return the entire system for a refund.

The alternative preferred by Supervisor of Elections Ann McFall is to keep the current system and buy touch screens without paper ballots from the current system's vendor, Texas-based Diebold Election Systems, for $780,000. In either case, federal grant money would pay for about $700,000 of the cost.

McFall has cited voter satisfaction with the current system and concerns about training employees and poll workers on an entirely new system during a major election year like 2006.

BESET BY DELAYS

What's got some council members and pro-paper activists fired up is what they see as an unreasonable delay in AutoMARK's state certification.

Some council members blame the state. If several large counties had pressed the issue, certification might already be finished, Persis said. Some pro-paper-ballot activists have gone further, alleging the state has deliberately weighted the process in favor of touch-screen voting in general or Diebold Election Systems in particular although touch screens from other manufacturers have been approved for use in Florida.

The battle heated up recently when activist Susan Pynchon of the DeLand-based Florida Fair Elections Coalition launched an e-mail missive charging the state with improperly certifying Diebold's newest touch screen.

She cited evidence from a public records request showing one of four machines brought to the state for testing in March failed, but the state didn't acknowledge it. Among her other numerous charges is that AutoMARK for its certification test was required to recreate the 2004 general election in Miami-Dade County with almost 800,000 ballots, while Diebold in its test was required to run only 10,010 ballots.

"You know what it really seems like to me?" said Pynchon, who strongly supports the Election Systems & Software deal. "It seems as though the state of Florida does not want verified elections."

Jenny Nash, a spokeswoman for the Department of State, rebuffed the accusations.

The state Division of Elections did not consider the touch-screen breakdown a testing failure because problems with the machine's screen kept it from being used in the test in the first place. Only three machines were tested and none failed, Nash said. Different standards were applied to the AutoMARK and Diebold because AutoMARK was tested after a law came into effect changing requirements for election reporting.

On the other hand, some observers and officials have also questioned whether voting-machine vendors have aggressively developed and promoted new paper-ballot technology that also meets accessibility demands.

"The county is honorable in wanting the AutoMARK, I can tell you," McFall said. "We've gotten the runaround, though, for going on the third year, (saying) 'Any day, any day, any day.' "

Election Systems & Software representatives have said they're working to get the equipment certified.

THE BIG PICTURE

Local officials are not alone in their frustration.

While most Florida counties have already bought touch screens to meet the deadline, officials in both Leon and Polk counties will soon be mulling Election Systems & Software contracts for temporary touch screens like the one up for discussion here.

"In Leon County, we're all united behind making sure that voters' votes can be recounted at a 100 percent level," said Ion Sancho, that county's elections supervisor. Sancho said he thinks the state's certification program should be terminated altogether in favor of certification at the federal level. He also said the records Pynchon dug up speak for themselves.

In Polk County, elections chief Lori Edwards said she also prefers a paper ballot. She would have liked to have seen certification move more quickly but said she did not blame either the state or Election Systems & Software . She said she thinks the company is fully committed to the AutoMARK, which is a joint project of Election Systems & Software and AutoMARK Technical Systems.

The "paper trail" issue has also gained prominence nationally. A recent Government Accountability Office report outlining concerns about electronic voting and possible responses has highlighted the issue.

"Certainly, we've seen a trend toward states adopting paper-trail requirements," said Dan Seligson, editor of Electionline.org, a Washington D.C.-based clearinghouse for information about election reform.

In October, the organization issued a report saying that 25 states require either a paper ballot or a "voter verifiable paper audit trail" like those produced by touch-screen printer modules being manufactured by the major vendors, including Diebold, which has not yet submitted the printer for Florida certification. In May, the organization's research indicated only 15 states with similar requirements.

As for Diebold Election Systems, Seligson said it's true that some activist organizations have zeroed in on the company. Each has its reasons, but the company is also the largest vendor of its kind in the United States and that may make it a magnet for criticism, he said.

Director of marketing Mark Radke defended the company's work Friday.

"We all certainly hope that Volusia County will implement that solution (touch screens), quite honestly for the sake of the blind and physically impaired in the county," he said.

ACCESSIBLE?

But the accessibility issue is not without complications, either.

Advocacy groups for people with disabilities have generally judged touch screens to be accessible, primarily because of an audio-ballot feature that directs blind voters and allows them to listen to ions. But some have challenged whether people with limited use of their hands will benefit.

In contrast, AutoMARK advertises a sip/puff mechanism that allow voters to vote with their mouths in addition to an audio ballot for visually impaired voters. But some who have seen demonstrations of the machine say they've never seen the sip/puff demonstrated. And critics say the AutoMARK forces those voters to ask for assistance taking the ballots to the tabulators, which means the vote is no longer secret and independent.

For the National Federation of the Blind, which has an unresolved federal lawsuit filed against the county after Volusia defied a state-imposed July 1 deadline, both touch screens and the AutoMARK are OK.

"I don't think it's the brightest thing to spend millions of dollars to retrofit the whole voting system," said Kathy Davis, president of the National Federation of the Blind of Florida. "(But) That's their deal. Our deal is accessible voting."



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!