|
Napa wants state funding for voting machines { July 16 2003 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id=1C10D1E0-F9E2-40E4-91A7-1C6BC4F2DDF3http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id=1C10D1E0-F9E2-40E4-91A7-1C6BC4F2DDF3
Napa County wants state to pony up for voting equipment
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
By JAY GOETTING
Register Staff Writer
A frustrated Napa County Registrar of Voters has convinced the board of supervisors to fire off a letter to Secretary of State Kevin Shelley seeking promised federal funding for voting equipment upgrades.
John Tuteur said Shelley is prepared to release only a limited amount of the promised money, allowing the purchase of only 250 touch screen voting machines in time for the March 2003 election. One hundred more are needed to ensure a smooth voting experience for Napa County voters, according to Tuteur.
Tuteur said Shelley is ignoring the recommendations of his own advisory panel and is attempting to divert the funding to voter education and precinct worker training, areas where California already leads the nation.
Tuteur accused the Secretary of State of "failing to carry out the congressional mandate to improve voting systems throughout the nation."
Rather than the $4,000 per precinct envisioned in the federal legislation, the amount has been reduced to $3,100.
Tuteur is traveling to Sacramento today to attempt to convince Shelley to release an additional $360,000. Napa County's position is that it should be eligible for the so-called Title II funds to cover the entire local share of voting machine costs.
"My goal is to see that no local funds are used in this process," Tuteur told supervisors. Local funding of $300,000 has been committed for voting modernization, although Tuteur said he hoped that would not have to be spent.
In March, 2003, California voters approved Proposition 41, which provides $200 million in bond funds statewide. Then, in November, Congress made further commitments based on the Florida presidential voting debacle in 2000 and recognition that antiquated systems around the nation need upgrading.
Los Angeles County expressed similar concerns to the Secretary of State's office, and received a reply from Shelley. He insisted that voter equipment remains a top priority for him, but he has other areas that need funding as well.
Shelley, in the communiqué to Los Angeles County, cited the need to establish enhanced databases, upgrade military voting capability and train poll workers.
The Los Angeles voter base is among the largest in the world and would command more than $80 million in state and federal funds for the project.
The allocation for Napa County is much smaller, $891,000 in federal funds with an additional $360,000 in state Proposition 41 funds. Tuteur says the latter figure should be $463,000, bringing the grand total to $1.2 million for Napa County.
Tuteur's draft letter, which has now been sent to Shelley, states, "It would be most unfortunate and unfair if Napa County taxpayers had to contribute general fund monies that could be used for the safety net of our most disadvantaged citizens for the cost of a federally mandated election system when federal funds are available for this purpose."
Tuteur chastised the Secretary of State for providing only 10 percent of needed funding for machine upgrades while other states are providing as much as 90 percent.
Contracts have already been signed with Sequoia Voting Systems for the 250 machines, so the bulk of what is needed should be in Napa County by October 1. "I want 100 more," said Tuteur, adding, "We've only begun in this fight."
He said the intent of the Congress and an advisory group appointed by Shelley was to have local control over the upgrading of equipment. "(Shelley's) ignoring that," said Tuteur.
Jay Goetting can be reached at 256-2216 or jgoetting@napanews.com.
|
|
