County to decide on voting machines
Push-button system recommended by Bucks election chief.
By Hal Marcovitz
Of The Morning Call

Bucks County commissioners are expected today to approve the purchase of new voting machines but they are doing so at the risk of forfeiting a $3 million federal grant because they don't expect the machines to be delivered by the May 16 primary.

When the commissioners meet this morning in Richland Township, they will vote on a recommendation by Board of Elections Director Deena Dean to buy so-called ''full-face'' machines from Electec Inc. of Mount Holly, N.J., a subsidiary of Danaher Corp. of Washington.

 
Lehigh Valley LocalLinks
  
The Danaher machines closely resemble the county's old lever machines, except voters cast their ballots by pushing buttons instead of pulling levers.

County Chief Operating Officer David Sanko said Danaher as well as other vendors notified the county government within the past 10 days that it could not deliver the machines by the primary.

On Monday, commissioners across the state received a warning from state Elections Commissioner Harry VanSickle that said counties risk losing their federal grants if the machines are not operational on May 16.

To save the grants, VanSickle urged the counties to buy machines from vendors who can deliver the devices.

Bucks County expects to receive $3 million in federal aid to help buy the machines. According to the proposed contract that will be placed before the commissioners, Bucks would pay $5 million to Danaher to buy 744 machines.

The grants are made available under the U.S. Help America Vote Act, which was adopted by Congress in the wake of problems in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. The county's old lever machines do not meet regulations of the act because they are not handicapped-accessible and they also do not notify the voter of an ''under-vote,'' meaning the voter failed to cast ballots in all races.

Danaher is one of three finalists under consideration by the commissioners. Other finalists include Advanced Voting Solutions of Frisco, Texas, which manufactures a touch-screen machine that resembles a laptop computer, and Election Systems & Software of Omaha, Neb., which manufactures an optical scanner. Under an optical scan system, voters cast their ballots by marking boxes on cards, which are then scanned by the machine.

Sanko said that Advanced Voting and Elections Systems also could not guarantee delivery by May 16, meaning that if the commissioners follow VanSickle's advice they would have to a system that they ped from consideration weeks ago.

Commissioner James F. Cawley said he found that option unacceptable.

''I'm not going to pick a system I don't trust,'' he said.

The decision to withhold the voting act grant will be made by the U.S. Justice Department. Sanko said he would hope the state government meets with federal officials to work out a consent order so that counties are not penalized.

Commissioner Sandra A. Miller said that the county's ''good faith effort'' to comply with the act should help save the grant.

The commissioners' decision to delay the purchase of machines was due to a number of factors, including delays caused by the state Elections Bureau's slow machine certification process, a desire by the county to stage public demonstrations of the machines, and a closely watched court ruling that required Westmoreland County to stage a public referendum before changing its voting system. That ruling was overturned earlier this month.

If the new machines aren't delivered and the county is barred from using its lever devices one last time, Cawley suggested the county may be forced to use paper ballots at the polls this May.

Meanwhile, members of the activist group Coalition for Voting Integrity have pressured the commissioners to an optical scanning system, arguing that scanning is the lone system available that creates a paper trail of votes. Coalition members argue that votes can disappear if the electronic machines fail on election night.

Mary Ann Gould, founder of the coalition, said her group has already decided to take legal action if the commissioners reject the optical scan system. She said the coalition plans to ask for an injunction barring the county from accepting the new machines until tests are conducted to determine whether the results of an election can be altered by a computer hacker.