Article/online video report from David Bienick, KCRA News, Sacramento, February 11, 2005
Sacramento is buzzing today with the news that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed former State Senator Bruce McPherson to be the next California Secretary of State. The office is vacant as of March 1, when Kevin Shelley's resignation takes effect.
McPherson is an excellent choice -- not only is he well-liked and well-respected among both Democrats and Republicans, he also has a great track record on election and voting issues.
While a member of the Legislature, McPherson was a principal co-author of SB 49, the Online Disclosure Act of 1997 which led to instant online disclosure of money in California politics. He also co-authored SB 1438, which mandates that all electronic ballots in California be backed up with a voter verified paper record. That bill was unanimously approved by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger last year, and takes effect in 2006.
In making his announcement, Governor Schwarzenegger told the news media, "I looked for someone with strong experience, unimpeachable integrity and someone who is widely respected, and that is exactly what Bruce brings with him to the job." In accepting the nomination, McPherson said, "I will work hard to restore integrity, trust and confidence to the office of Secretary of State. I will work to repair relationships between the state and the 58 county registrars, and I will work assiduously to ensure HAVA compliance as soon as possible."
Friday, February 11, 2005
Thursday, February 10, 2005
NASS opposes federal oversight of election systems
The National Association of Secretaries of State wrapped up its conference in Washington, D.C. this week, but not before passing a resolution urging Congress to not reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission after 2006 and to not give the EAC rulemaking authority.
This preemptive strike by the Secretaries of States' association comes at a time when there is growing consensus that we need strong and mandatory federal security standards and testing of voting systems used in this country. The idea of having a uniform voting system in the U.S. is not feasible or practical at this time. But the idea of having a baseline for security in our voting systems is a no-brainer.
This preemptive strike by the Secretaries of States' association comes at a time when there is growing consensus that we need strong and mandatory federal security standards and testing of voting systems used in this country. The idea of having a uniform voting system in the U.S. is not feasible or practical at this time. But the idea of having a baseline for security in our voting systems is a no-brainer.
LA Times reports on costs of adding printers to California's e-voting machines
Monday's Los Angeles Times featured an article by Stuart Pfeifer reporting that local election officials estimate it will cost between $18 and $23 million to comply with California's new voter verified paper trail requirement, which takes effect in 2006.
According to the story,
"Five of the 13 counties with electronic voting systems say their suppliers will make the changes at no additional cost because the printers were part of their original contracts. But other counties are wondering where they'll find the money. Orange County estimates it will cost $9 million to make the changes. Riverside County estimates its cost at between $3.4 million and $4.7 million, and Alameda County may have to pay between $5 million and $8 million.
"The financial effect on Los Angeles County will be minimal, because it uses only a few electronic voting devices during early voting. For several more years, the county plans to use InkaVote paper ballots on election day."
Cathy Darling, the registrar of Shasta County, which expects to spend $200,000 to upgrade their machines with the paper record, told the Times that "Every dollar that [we] seek out of the general fund is money that can't go to local fire, can't go to local law enforcement, can't go to the local library". The thing is, Shasta spent far more than that -- over $1.6 million
-- to buy the touchscreens in the first place. Most of those costs were covered by state and federal dollars, and the same will be true for the printers.
Other registrars, such as Brad Clark of Alameda County, continue to insist the paper trail isn't necessary. "I really don't think it's necessary. I really don't," Clark told the Times. "But unfortunately the people who wanted it have raised such a fuss that they've created this atmosphere of distrust in the public." That's a funny comment coming from a man who oversaw the implementation of Diebold's touchscreen voting system, only to later join in a lawsuit seeking millions in damages because the company sold the county uncertified software.
The good news is that not all the registrars are unhappy about the paper trail requirement -- those counties with the foresight to build a paper trail feature into their contracts before signing on with a vendor will enjoy free or reduced rates on the printers. Pfeifer writes that "Santa Clara, San Diego, San Bernardino, San Joaquin and Kern counties have contracts with suppliers who agreed to provide the printers if they were ever required by state law. "I'm absolutely thrilled about it," said Donna Manning, registrar in San Bernardino County, which approved a contract in July 2003 that included printers at no additional cost."
According to the story,
"Five of the 13 counties with electronic voting systems say their suppliers will make the changes at no additional cost because the printers were part of their original contracts. But other counties are wondering where they'll find the money. Orange County estimates it will cost $9 million to make the changes. Riverside County estimates its cost at between $3.4 million and $4.7 million, and Alameda County may have to pay between $5 million and $8 million.
"The financial effect on Los Angeles County will be minimal, because it uses only a few electronic voting devices during early voting. For several more years, the county plans to use InkaVote paper ballots on election day."
Cathy Darling, the registrar of Shasta County, which expects to spend $200,000 to upgrade their machines with the paper record, told the Times that "Every dollar that [we] seek out of the general fund is money that can't go to local fire, can't go to local law enforcement, can't go to the local library". The thing is, Shasta spent far more than that -- over $1.6 million
-- to buy the touchscreens in the first place. Most of those costs were covered by state and federal dollars, and the same will be true for the printers.
Other registrars, such as Brad Clark of Alameda County, continue to insist the paper trail isn't necessary. "I really don't think it's necessary. I really don't," Clark told the Times. "But unfortunately the people who wanted it have raised such a fuss that they've created this atmosphere of distrust in the public." That's a funny comment coming from a man who oversaw the implementation of Diebold's touchscreen voting system, only to later join in a lawsuit seeking millions in damages because the company sold the county uncertified software.
The good news is that not all the registrars are unhappy about the paper trail requirement -- those counties with the foresight to build a paper trail feature into their contracts before signing on with a vendor will enjoy free or reduced rates on the printers. Pfeifer writes that "Santa Clara, San Diego, San Bernardino, San Joaquin and Kern counties have contracts with suppliers who agreed to provide the printers if they were ever required by state law. "I'm absolutely thrilled about it," said Donna Manning, registrar in San Bernardino County, which approved a contract in July 2003 that included printers at no additional cost."
Tuesday, February 8, 2005
Butte County's election clerk says paper trail does nothing to improve security
Today's Chico Enterprise-Record features an article about the local county clerk-recorder's reaction to Kevin Shelley's resignation. In the story, Butte County Clerk-Recorder Candace Grubbs tells the paper that adding a voter verified paper record to computerized voting machines does nothing to improve security.
Grubbs apparently does not know about or understand the importance of the state's manual count law, which requires that a subset of paper ballots be selected at random and publicly counted by hand to verify that the software used to count ballots is accurate. With California's paper-based voting systems, such as optical scan, the manual count law can be satisfied. With paperless, electronic voting systems, it cannot.
Grubbs goes on to tell reporter Larry Mitchell that in the end, voters have to trust their election officials. But such trust is misplaced when neither the voters nor election officials have the ability to audit the proprietary software used to count our ballots.
Grubbs, according to the article, also criticized Kevin Shelley for "needlessly decertifying" voting systems that some counties had purchased. This would be Diebold's TSX machine, which the Secretary of State decertified after discovering that the machine had not in fact been federally qualified for use, even though the vendor and the Secretary of State's staff assured the certification panel that it had been. CVF and many others urged the Secretary of State to decertify the TSX primarily for this reason.
Grubbs apparently does not know about or understand the importance of the state's manual count law, which requires that a subset of paper ballots be selected at random and publicly counted by hand to verify that the software used to count ballots is accurate. With California's paper-based voting systems, such as optical scan, the manual count law can be satisfied. With paperless, electronic voting systems, it cannot.
Grubbs goes on to tell reporter Larry Mitchell that in the end, voters have to trust their election officials. But such trust is misplaced when neither the voters nor election officials have the ability to audit the proprietary software used to count our ballots.
Grubbs, according to the article, also criticized Kevin Shelley for "needlessly decertifying" voting systems that some counties had purchased. This would be Diebold's TSX machine, which the Secretary of State decertified after discovering that the machine had not in fact been federally qualified for use, even though the vendor and the Secretary of State's staff assured the certification panel that it had been. CVF and many others urged the Secretary of State to decertify the TSX primarily for this reason.
Monday, February 7, 2005
Los Angeles county registrar blasts tighter certification process
Last Friday's Sacramento Bee carried a front-page story about Los Angeles County Registrar Conny McCormack's testimony to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, which has been investigating Kevin Shelley's use of federal HAVA funds. Though Ms. McCormack has not yet testified before the committee, she did release her testimony to the news media.
According to the Bee, Ms. McCormack is now "asking lawmakers to pass emergency "narrowly crafted" legislation to override Shelley's office and temporarily certify 2004 systems for use in the 2006 elections. Such legislation also would have to suspend a state law requiring a paper trail."
It is unlikely, given the fact that the entire legislature voted unanimously to adopt the voter verified paper record requirement, that Ms. McCormack's efforts will succeed. It is disappointing, however, that the head of California's county registrars' association is fighting reform rather than embracing it. California voters would be much better served if all, and not just some of our local election officials were respectful of the public's desire for transparency and accountability in our voting systems.
The fact is that under Kevin Shelley's leadership, the Secretary of State's voting system certification process was tightened and strengthened, which cheered reform activists like me, but upset those registrars, such as Conny McCormack, who had been using uncertified software.
This practice was halted after the Secretary of State's office conducted an audit and discovered that uncertified software and hardware was being used in many California counties, and especially in those counties using Diebold voting equipment. The Attorney General and Alameda County even sued Diebold and were awarded several million dollars for the company's failure to meet its contractual agreement to provide certified software.
It is true that the certification process is taking longer than it did in the past, but that's because the process is more rigorous. No longer is the Secretary of State taking it on a vendor's word that their system is federally qualified; now the paperwork documenting federal qualification must be at the Secretary of State's office before state certification is awarded.
The goal of strengthening certification practices has spread to Washington State, where state election officials are conducting an audit similar to California's, as detailed in Michelle Nicolosi's February 4 article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
According to the Bee, Ms. McCormack is now "asking lawmakers to pass emergency "narrowly crafted" legislation to override Shelley's office and temporarily certify 2004 systems for use in the 2006 elections. Such legislation also would have to suspend a state law requiring a paper trail."
It is unlikely, given the fact that the entire legislature voted unanimously to adopt the voter verified paper record requirement, that Ms. McCormack's efforts will succeed. It is disappointing, however, that the head of California's county registrars' association is fighting reform rather than embracing it. California voters would be much better served if all, and not just some of our local election officials were respectful of the public's desire for transparency and accountability in our voting systems.
The fact is that under Kevin Shelley's leadership, the Secretary of State's voting system certification process was tightened and strengthened, which cheered reform activists like me, but upset those registrars, such as Conny McCormack, who had been using uncertified software.
This practice was halted after the Secretary of State's office conducted an audit and discovered that uncertified software and hardware was being used in many California counties, and especially in those counties using Diebold voting equipment. The Attorney General and Alameda County even sued Diebold and were awarded several million dollars for the company's failure to meet its contractual agreement to provide certified software.
It is true that the certification process is taking longer than it did in the past, but that's because the process is more rigorous. No longer is the Secretary of State taking it on a vendor's word that their system is federally qualified; now the paperwork documenting federal qualification must be at the Secretary of State's office before state certification is awarded.
The goal of strengthening certification practices has spread to Washington State, where state election officials are conducting an audit similar to California's, as detailed in Michelle Nicolosi's February 4 article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Saturday, February 5, 2005
Tearful Shelley resigns
By Jim Wasserman, The Associated Press, February 5, 2005
Friday afternoon California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley announced he will resign from office effective March 1. I issued a brief statement in response to the news.
Excerpts from Jim Wasserman's AP story:
----------
Secretary of State Kevin Shelley fought back tears Friday as he announced his resignation amid investigations into mishandling federal election funds, accepting tainted campaign contributions and sexual harassment allegations.
Shelley, 49, said he would leave his $131,250-a-year post March 1, after he is scheduled to testify at a legislative audit committee hearing about how he spent millions of dollars in federal election funds.
"While I have made errors that I deeply regret, I have never, ever done so with the intent of subverting the law or benefiting myself," Shelley said during a news conference outside his San Francisco home with his wife, Dominique, at his side.
Struggling to hold back tears, Shelley said he always tried to do the right thing and that resigning was the hardest decision he ever made.
"It has become clear to me that the tides of this storm are overtaking this office's very ability to function effectively," he said.
Shelley said he was confident he would be cleared of wrongdoing in several ongoing state and federal investigations.
While not being charged with breaking state or federal laws, Shelley found himself embroiled in controversy over mishandling $46 million in Help America Vote Act funds and charges by ex-employees of temper tantrums and a hostile work environment.
Shelley, the son of former San FranciscoMayor and U.S. Rep. Jack Shelley, was once a rising star in the Democratic party. His move paves the way for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, to name a replacement.
Schwarzenegger said he would move quickly to fill the position. His choice could be blocked by the Democrat-controlled Legislature.
----------
Senate Republican and Democrat leaders said they favored former Republican Sen. Ross Johnson of Irvine. Assembly Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield suggested U.S. Rep. Mary Bono, a Republican from Palm Springs.
-------
Shelley apologized Friday to his supporters and staff.
"In too many cases, my intense drive to accomplish good things has been tarnished by my impatience, and I have allowed myself to direct that impatience at individuals when it should have been directed elsewhere," he said. "I have no one to blame for this but myself."
In 2003, Shelley won widespread praise for his smooth handling of an unprecedented gubernatorial recall election featuring 135 candidates that began only months after he assumed office.
Last year, electronic voting activists praised him for tightening security requirements on touch-screen voting to prevent fraud.
"While serious questions remain about his management practices, there is no question that Kevin Shelley provided much-needed leadership to reform California voting systems at a crucial point in the modernization process," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.
Friday afternoon California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley announced he will resign from office effective March 1. I issued a brief statement in response to the news.
Excerpts from Jim Wasserman's AP story:
----------
Secretary of State Kevin Shelley fought back tears Friday as he announced his resignation amid investigations into mishandling federal election funds, accepting tainted campaign contributions and sexual harassment allegations.
Shelley, 49, said he would leave his $131,250-a-year post March 1, after he is scheduled to testify at a legislative audit committee hearing about how he spent millions of dollars in federal election funds.
"While I have made errors that I deeply regret, I have never, ever done so with the intent of subverting the law or benefiting myself," Shelley said during a news conference outside his San Francisco home with his wife, Dominique, at his side.
Struggling to hold back tears, Shelley said he always tried to do the right thing and that resigning was the hardest decision he ever made.
"It has become clear to me that the tides of this storm are overtaking this office's very ability to function effectively," he said.
Shelley said he was confident he would be cleared of wrongdoing in several ongoing state and federal investigations.
While not being charged with breaking state or federal laws, Shelley found himself embroiled in controversy over mishandling $46 million in Help America Vote Act funds and charges by ex-employees of temper tantrums and a hostile work environment.
Shelley, the son of former San FranciscoMayor and U.S. Rep. Jack Shelley, was once a rising star in the Democratic party. His move paves the way for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, to name a replacement.
Schwarzenegger said he would move quickly to fill the position. His choice could be blocked by the Democrat-controlled Legislature.
----------
Senate Republican and Democrat leaders said they favored former Republican Sen. Ross Johnson of Irvine. Assembly Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield suggested U.S. Rep. Mary Bono, a Republican from Palm Springs.
-------
Shelley apologized Friday to his supporters and staff.
"In too many cases, my intense drive to accomplish good things has been tarnished by my impatience, and I have allowed myself to direct that impatience at individuals when it should have been directed elsewhere," he said. "I have no one to blame for this but myself."
In 2003, Shelley won widespread praise for his smooth handling of an unprecedented gubernatorial recall election featuring 135 candidates that began only months after he assumed office.
Last year, electronic voting activists praised him for tightening security requirements on touch-screen voting to prevent fraud.
"While serious questions remain about his management practices, there is no question that Kevin Shelley provided much-needed leadership to reform California voting systems at a crucial point in the modernization process," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.
Thursday, February 3, 2005
Printer fails to satisfy e-vote activists
By Rachel Konrad, The Associated Press, February 3, 2005
Excerpt:
The prototype that Diebold Inc. is now touting is exactly what some critics of the ATM-like machines have been demanding for several years.
Even so, paper records alone are not enough to satisfy computer scientists who say transparency in the electronic machines' design and software must complement paper backups.
The Diebold prototype seeks to reassure voters by displaying their selections under a piece of glass or plastic alongside the touch-screen machine. If they spot a problem, they can cancel the ballot and start over. And while voters can't touch the paper records, elections officials will be able to use them to verify close elections.
"Results in the last election reflected the accuracy and security of the (paperless) system," said Diebold spokesman David Bear. "But the fact of the matter is, there are some states that are demanding printers."
After months of criticism by computer scientists that electronic voting systems are unreliable, California and Illinois recently passed laws requiring a paper trail for electronic ballots, and at least 20 other states have considered similar legislation.
Critics of North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold say the AccuView Printer Module is a step in the right direction but doesn't address the potential for buggy software or malfunctioning hardware that could misrecord votes or expose voting systems to hackers, deletions or other disasters.
The printers are only valuable to the extent that counties use them, and critics worry that county elections officials with tight budgets may not opt for them.
Computer scientists also are concerned that the handful of private laboratories licensed to certify voting equipment, including the printer module, still operate in secret and without any federal guidelines.
"It's a very, very small step forward in terms of security of elections," said Avi Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute of Johns Hopkins University and co-author of a scathing report on Diebold machines.
Like many computer scientists, he thinks paperless voting systems should be banned.
"I'd say a Diebold machine with a paper trail is better than a Diebold machine without a paper trail, but that's as positive I can be about it," Rubin said.
Diebold stock price rose sharply in the months after the presidential election, when the machines fared far better than critics had predicted. But executives warned investors last week not to expect more dramatic improvements from its voting equipment division. The company's stock hit a 52-week high of $57.75 in mid-January, and closed at $54.91 on Thursday.
About 40 million Americans cast electronic ballots during the Nov. 2 election, but only 2,600 touch screens in Nevada - made by Oakland, Calif.-based Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. - and a few other prototypes around the country produced paper records.
Some of the paperless systems were blamed for high-profile failures in November that included these:
_ In Carteret County, N.C., where paperless machines failed to retain 4,438 votes during early voting, one Democratic incumbent lost by 2,287 votes out of about 3 million cast, and election administrators had to conduct a special election in early January to determine the next agriculture commissioner.
_ About three dozen voters in six states complained that they tried to select Democrat John Kerry, but the touch screens showed them as having voted for President Bush until they revised their ballot. Equipment manufacturers blamed miscalibration.
_ And in a Franklin County, Ohio, a precinct where 638 voters cast ballots in the presidential election, a computer recorded 3,893 extra votes for President Bush. The error was corrected in the certified vote total.
Even with the printer, breakdowns and paper jams are possible, said Stanford University computer scientist David Dill, a leading touch-screen critic.
Excerpt:
The prototype that Diebold Inc. is now touting is exactly what some critics of the ATM-like machines have been demanding for several years.
Even so, paper records alone are not enough to satisfy computer scientists who say transparency in the electronic machines' design and software must complement paper backups.
The Diebold prototype seeks to reassure voters by displaying their selections under a piece of glass or plastic alongside the touch-screen machine. If they spot a problem, they can cancel the ballot and start over. And while voters can't touch the paper records, elections officials will be able to use them to verify close elections.
"Results in the last election reflected the accuracy and security of the (paperless) system," said Diebold spokesman David Bear. "But the fact of the matter is, there are some states that are demanding printers."
After months of criticism by computer scientists that electronic voting systems are unreliable, California and Illinois recently passed laws requiring a paper trail for electronic ballots, and at least 20 other states have considered similar legislation.
Critics of North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold say the AccuView Printer Module is a step in the right direction but doesn't address the potential for buggy software or malfunctioning hardware that could misrecord votes or expose voting systems to hackers, deletions or other disasters.
The printers are only valuable to the extent that counties use them, and critics worry that county elections officials with tight budgets may not opt for them.
Computer scientists also are concerned that the handful of private laboratories licensed to certify voting equipment, including the printer module, still operate in secret and without any federal guidelines.
"It's a very, very small step forward in terms of security of elections," said Avi Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute of Johns Hopkins University and co-author of a scathing report on Diebold machines.
Like many computer scientists, he thinks paperless voting systems should be banned.
"I'd say a Diebold machine with a paper trail is better than a Diebold machine without a paper trail, but that's as positive I can be about it," Rubin said.
Diebold stock price rose sharply in the months after the presidential election, when the machines fared far better than critics had predicted. But executives warned investors last week not to expect more dramatic improvements from its voting equipment division. The company's stock hit a 52-week high of $57.75 in mid-January, and closed at $54.91 on Thursday.
About 40 million Americans cast electronic ballots during the Nov. 2 election, but only 2,600 touch screens in Nevada - made by Oakland, Calif.-based Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. - and a few other prototypes around the country produced paper records.
Some of the paperless systems were blamed for high-profile failures in November that included these:
_ In Carteret County, N.C., where paperless machines failed to retain 4,438 votes during early voting, one Democratic incumbent lost by 2,287 votes out of about 3 million cast, and election administrators had to conduct a special election in early January to determine the next agriculture commissioner.
_ About three dozen voters in six states complained that they tried to select Democrat John Kerry, but the touch screens showed them as having voted for President Bush until they revised their ballot. Equipment manufacturers blamed miscalibration.
_ And in a Franklin County, Ohio, a precinct where 638 voters cast ballots in the presidential election, a computer recorded 3,893 extra votes for President Bush. The error was corrected in the certified vote total.
Even with the printer, breakdowns and paper jams are possible, said Stanford University computer scientist David Dill, a leading touch-screen critic.
Tuesday, February 1, 2005
Paper trail for e-votes would cost millions
By Ian Hoffman, The Oakland Tribune, January 29, 2005
Excerpt:
Diebold revealed Wednesday its elections business lost more than $7 million in the last quarter of 2004, partly because of a $2 million settlement of a lawsuit with e-voting critics and the state.
Diebold chairman and CEO Walden O'Dell said he expects the elections division will make less in 2005 than originally thought because elections officials in the firm's headquarters have decided largely not to approve purchase of the machines.
Diebold shares fell 40 cents on the news.
O'Dell asked investor analysts to "be patient" and see what happens in the elections market, reminding them local and state governments still have $1 billion in federal voting-modernization money to spend.
California's oldest e-voting counties are looking to federal Help America Vote Act money to finance the addition of paper-trail printers and a swap for newer systems. But it is unclear whether state officials will approve using the federal funds for the full cost, leaving Alameda County elections officials to consider asking for at least some of the money in the next county budget.
One of Alameda's alternatives is to wait until Diebold gets a printer approved for its older machines and ships it. Those printers would cost about $2million and have a projected delivery on the eve of the June 2006 gubernatorial statewide primary.
"If we decide to upgrade to these new machines, that's going to cost more than if we just retrofit," said Alameda assistant registrar Elaine Ginnold. "But we think the state will reimburse pretty much all of that."
In time, she said, the new machines could save trucking fees of up to $156,000 per general election that the county pays for delivery of the touchscreens to its polling places. Pollworkers would haul the machines and printers themselves.
Ginnold said she still has misgivings about adding printers to the touchscreens. In a demonstration to county elections officials, Diebold's prototype printer jammed.
"We have a huge ballot and I don't see it working smoothly at all," she said. "I have lots of trepidations."
Alameda's other alternative is switching back to paper ballots, driven largely by the surging popularity of mail-in voting. The county's ranks of absentee voters exploded last year from 60,000 to more than 200,000, and Ginnold expects more than half of county voters will want to mail in their ballots within a decade.
Excerpt:
Diebold revealed Wednesday its elections business lost more than $7 million in the last quarter of 2004, partly because of a $2 million settlement of a lawsuit with e-voting critics and the state.
Diebold chairman and CEO Walden O'Dell said he expects the elections division will make less in 2005 than originally thought because elections officials in the firm's headquarters have decided largely not to approve purchase of the machines.
Diebold shares fell 40 cents on the news.
O'Dell asked investor analysts to "be patient" and see what happens in the elections market, reminding them local and state governments still have $1 billion in federal voting-modernization money to spend.
California's oldest e-voting counties are looking to federal Help America Vote Act money to finance the addition of paper-trail printers and a swap for newer systems. But it is unclear whether state officials will approve using the federal funds for the full cost, leaving Alameda County elections officials to consider asking for at least some of the money in the next county budget.
One of Alameda's alternatives is to wait until Diebold gets a printer approved for its older machines and ships it. Those printers would cost about $2million and have a projected delivery on the eve of the June 2006 gubernatorial statewide primary.
"If we decide to upgrade to these new machines, that's going to cost more than if we just retrofit," said Alameda assistant registrar Elaine Ginnold. "But we think the state will reimburse pretty much all of that."
In time, she said, the new machines could save trucking fees of up to $156,000 per general election that the county pays for delivery of the touchscreens to its polling places. Pollworkers would haul the machines and printers themselves.
Ginnold said she still has misgivings about adding printers to the touchscreens. In a demonstration to county elections officials, Diebold's prototype printer jammed.
"We have a huge ballot and I don't see it working smoothly at all," she said. "I have lots of trepidations."
Alameda's other alternative is switching back to paper ballots, driven largely by the surging popularity of mail-in voting. The county's ranks of absentee voters exploded last year from 60,000 to more than 200,000, and Ginnold expects more than half of county voters will want to mail in their ballots within a decade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
