To Avert Glitches

Council Pushes For Vote Machine Tests

By REUVEN BLAU

As the Sept. 12 primary nears, the City Council has unanimously passed a resolution urging the city Board of Elections to conduct public tests of the new voting systems that are under consideration for the fall 2007 elections.

TERESA HOMMEL: Electronic recorders flawed.

The resolution, which is largely based on research conducted by voter advocate Teresa Hommel, also asks the Board to publish an analysis of the "acquisition, transition, and continuing costs of new voting systems."

Electronic Kinks

Ms. Hommel and other election integrity advocates have charged that computerized Direct Recording Electronic systems are fundamentally flawed, and have been urging the Board to use only paper ballots and optical scanner devices.

They contend that computerized voting systems similar to ATM machines cannot be properly audited after elections and that the technology can be easily hacked into and manipulated. In addition, purchasing enough DREs for the entire city will cost approximately four to six times more than the simpler and more manageable optical scan machines, according to Ms. Hommel.

OPTICAL ILLUSION?: The city Board of Elections will be using these computerized ballot-marking devices at each of its borough offices in order to begin complying with the Help America Vote Act. Voter advocates are urging the Board to conduct tests of the new voting systems under consideration for the fall 2007 elections.

Optical scanners are similar to Scantron systems used by Teachers to grade tests. They involve placing paper ballots into an optical mark recognition machine to detect markings in each race and tabulate the votes. The ballots can later be manually checked to verify the results.

For the upcoming primary, the Board will use computerized ballot marking de vices called Vote Tracker machines at each of its borough offices in order to begin complying with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that was passed after the 2000 presidential elections. The machines are designed to allow disabled citizens to vote independently and privately. Other voters at those locations will also be able to use them as well.

Board Questions Idea

"We take issue with the resolution," said Board spokeswoman Valerie Vasquez Rivera, referring to the Council measure. "We illustrated to them that we have worked furiously to comply with HAVA."

After the primary, counties will choose which device they want from a list of machines that have been tested and approved by the state Board of Elections. All mechanical lever voting machines in the state must be replaced for the fall 2007 state elections.

HAVA granted Federal funds to help states rapidly revamp their technology, with special emphasis on getting machines in place that helped disabled voters, but mandated compliance by 2006. In March, the U.S. Department of Justice sued the state for non-compliance and threatened to pull the $220 million in Federal aid meant to help buy and install new voting technology after it missed a Jan. 1 deadline.

The DOJ, however, has since accepted the state's plan, which delays full compliance with HAVA until 2007, acknowledging that forcing the state to comply this year would be problematic. "The state's inability at this point to propose greater HAVA compliance than is found in its proposal is indeed regrettable and in the end does a disservice to the voter whom HAVA was intended to benefit," the DOJ's response stated. "However, the United States is mindful at this late date of the potential for disruption of the Federal election process in New York if plans for full HAVA compliance are implemented in too hasty a manner."

Temporary Plan

Ms. Rivera called the 17 ballot-marking devices that will be used for the primary an "interim solution." She noted that the machines were available to the public and the press to examine all week. "We've gone borough to borough to debut these machines," she remarked. "It speaks to how much we are trying to detail our work thus far."

Voter advocacy groups support the new devices but are concerned that the Board will purchase DRE systems that have not been properly tested for the 2007 election. "The city should test the machines before they buy them," said Richard Wagner, the former president of the Communications Workers of America Local 1183. "I'm very happy that the Council is looking at this stuff, and putting the vendor on notice."

Ms. Hommel, who has taught computer courses at various colleges throughout the city, agreed. "The struggle of which technology to get is a struggle to maintain democracy," she said. "That's purely what's going on. If you lose the ability to observe the election process, then you have chaos."

Board officials have pointed out that all machines must pass Federal inspections before they can be used, and that requires that two million votes be cast on each.

Mayor Is Concerned

"The state is testing these machines now," said Tal Golomb, the counsel to the Mayor's Election Task force. The Bloomberg administration, however, is concerned by some of the problems that could result in switching over to computerized systems, Mr. Golomb said. "New York State certainly has the opportunity to learn from the mistakes that other states have gone through," he added. "Under no circumstances would we want to purchase a machine that has security issues."

Ms. Hommel charged that the Board is against publicly testing the machines before purchasing them sometime after January. "They say a lot of things that are true, but they are not responding to the issue," she contended.

Ms. Rivera countered that the Board will hold public hearings before making a selection within the next few months. "Their input is very valuable to us," she said, noting that there were several public conferences held regarding the Vote Tracker devices before the board decided to use them.

The Council resolution calls for public hearings in each borough and for the Board to publish a cost analysis of the various devices under consideration. In addition, the resolution asks the Board to hold a mock election to make sure the equipment is manageable for election staff, poll workers, and voters.

"It's important to make sure that they don't have any idiosyncrasies," Mr. Wagner remarked. He pointed out that the DREs are compared to ATMs. But those devices, he noted, primarily measure how much money goes out. "A voting machine is a collector of wishes," he said. "There is no absolute number that it has to come up with."

Headaches Elsewhere

Ms. Hommel has created a comprehensive Web site detailing many of the problems with DREs. The site, www.wheresthepaper.org, points out that several states already using DREs have run into serious and costly issues with the machines.

DREs, she said, cannot be audited later because tracking specific voters is prohibited by law. "These machines were designed to not be verified," she asserted. "These systems conceal the recording and counting of votes."

Each touch-voting machine, Ms. Hommel said, may serve no more than 200 to 300 voters. In contrast, optical scanner devices can handle approximately 2,000 to 5,000 voters a day, according to Ms. Hommel. DREs are also large and heavy and require costly maintenance and transportation to polling sites. "You need more floor space for them," she pointed out. "Optical scanners are like big typewriters."

Several good government groups have cautioned that optical scanners are not the breakthrough many advocates portray them as. They point out that the votemarking devices also require a computer code that could create problems.

"Nothing's a panacea," Ms. Hommel replied. "If people are dishonest, no technology will protect. Only election observers can ensure an honest procedure." She acknowledged that optical scanner devices conceal the counting. But DREs, she contended, conceal and prevent observation of recording, casting, storing, handling, and counting.

Mr. Wagner noted that the Board has used scanner systems for the past several years for absentee ballots and expressed confidence there wouldn't be any problems during the upcoming primary. "We are not dealing with anything important here, just democracy," he added sarcastically.