|
State panel says diebold glitches tainted primary { April 23 2004 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040423-9999-1n23evote.htmlhttp://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040423-9999-1n23evote.html
State panel says Diebold glitches tainted primary
By Bill Ainsworth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
April 23, 2004
SACRAMENTO – A state panel has recommended banning the use of 15,000 Diebold touch-screen voting machines used in the March primary in San Diego and three other counties, saying malfunctioning computers kept people from casting ballots.
Yesterday's recommendation, if approved by Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, would force San Diego, Kern, San Joaquin and Solano counties to use a different voting system for the November election.
The four counties most likely would turn to optical scanner systems, which they already use to record absentee votes, or rely on a modified system Diebold hopes to get approved by the state and federal governments, according to state and company officials.
San Diego County's registrar of voters, Sally McPherson, said that even after attending the panel's hearing, she was uncertain what the recommendation means. "We still have a lot of questions," she said.
The Voting Systems and Procedures Panel voted 8-0 yesterday to advise the state to decertify the AccuVote-TSx system, made by Diebold Election Systems Inc., for use in November. Committee members said the company had failed to win federal approval for the system and did not meet state conditions to operate it. As a result of the machines' failures, potentially thousands of voters were unable to cast ballots in the March 2 primary, according to panelists.
In San Diego County, a faulty power switch malfunctioned on computer encoders that poll workers used to activate cards that called up ballots on touch-screen monitors.
Diebold had said the switches failed to fully turn off the units, even when they were in the "off" position, causing the battery power to drain.
According to a recent report by the California Secretary of State's Office, the failure prevented nearly half of the county's precincts from opening on time, a higher number than some previous estimates. The report has been sent to the Attorney General's Office for a possible criminal investigation.
"People did not get to vote because these things did not function, and that's not acceptable," said Robert Mott-Smith, a panel member and head of the elections division in the Secretary of State's Office.
Members of the panel chastised Diebold, contending, among other things, that the company:
Misled state officials about the prospects of the voting machines' receiving federal approval.
Installed uncertified software in machines in 17 counties.
Downplayed security concerns that had been raised in four separate studies.
"I think Diebold can see the culprit by looking in a mirror," said Tony Miller, a panel member and former acting secretary of state. "Being sorry isn't really enough; apologizing isn't really enough."
Diebold executives said they planned to issue a response that they hope will persuade Shelley to reject the panel's recommendation. He faces an April 30 deadline to act on the recommendation.
Shelley's spokesman, Doug Stone, said the secretary of state "plans to do everything in his power to ensure the integrity of the voting process."
Mark Radke, director of marketing for Diebold, said the company was disappointed with the recommendation. "We were upset and chagrined," he said.
Radke acknowledged problems with the encoders, but he said Diebold touch-screen machines accurately and securely recorded votes in the primary.
But he also said Diebold would follow the panel's suggestion to start over by bringing a federally approved voting system in front of the state for approval. Radke said the company could do so in time for the November general election.
In San Diego, county Supervisor Bill Horn said the county would still prefer touch screens over other voting methods, if the electronic voting system can be fixed and certified.
"I know many people find the (Diebold) system convenient," he said. "It seemed like the optimum way to go."
San Diego County hasn't yet paid Diebold the $31 million for the 10,200 machines that it used in March.
Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Dianne Jacob said the county's contract with Diebold requires the company to provide a certified voting system for the Nov. 2 election if its machines do not get certified.
"The county has a very good contract with Diebold," she said. "We have not paid one dime. We will not be paying anything until we have a voting system that is 100 percent successful."
Supervisor Ron Roberts said it might be time for the county to consider other ballot-machine manufacturers. "The supervisors are committed to having a good system and having it up and running," he said. "If Diebold can't satisfy the requirements, we will find somebody that can."
County and state officials said the county could use the optical scanning system as a replacement.
With optical scanning, voters use a pen to fill in circles to make their choices, similar to taking a multiple-choice test. The ballots are then scanned into a computer and tabulated.
Early this month, the county revealed that 2,821 optically scanned absentee ballots were miscounted because of a glitch in the computer tabulation system, also supplied by Diebold. Despite the problem, the state advisory panel didn't recommend banning the software.
The panel's recommendation also didn't cover the machines used in Alameda and Plumas counties, which were slightly older versions of the Diebold machines. However, Alameda experienced problems similar to those in San Diego. The secretary of state's report said Alameda County avoided widespread problems because officials there followed a state recommendation to keep backup paper ballots at the polling places.
When the encoders didn't work in some Alameda machines, most voters were able to cast provisional ballots that were ultimately counted, the report said.
By contrast, San Diego County failed to provide backup paper ballots at polling places, despite repeated recommendations from the Secretary of State's Office, according to the report. Voters who turned up at problematic polls were asked to come back later.
"There is no way to estimate the number of voters who failed to return to the polls after being turned away," the report read.
Representatives of Solano, Kern and San Joaquin counties said they disagreed with the recommendation to ban the Diebold machines.
"It's a sad thing for the voters. We had a successful election. The touch screen offers voters much more than the paper ballots," said Kern County Registrar of Voters Ann Barnett.
Touch screens, she said, are easier for disabled voters. They also give voters a chance to review what they've done so they can avoid mistakes.
The panel said it will consider additional recommendations that could affect other counties that used voting machines from Diebold and other companies.
Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a nonprofit organization, welcomed the panel's decision.
"I think it's a good start," she said. "The secretary of state's panel is sending a clear message – they intend to take voter security issues seriously. I'm disappointed that we had to have thousands of voters disenfranchised to learn that lesson."
|
|
