Dust-Up Over E-Vote Paper Trail-(a major defeat for the disabled & minority-language communities?)

wired.com ^

[chance33_98]

Dust-Up Over E-Vote Paper Trail

SAN FRANCISCO -- California election officials who oppose a paper trail for electronic voting machines appear to be gearing up for a fight with the state.

Angered by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley's announcement Friday that all e-voting machines in the state must produce a voter-verifiable paper audit trail, the election officials released their own statement on the same day saying Shelley had "overstepped his bounds" and acted unilaterally by not consulting with county election officials.

The California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, or CACEO, led by Shasta County Clerk Ann Reed, called the decision "a major defeat for the disabled community, as well as the minority-language communities."

Mischelle Townsend, registrar of voters for Riverside County, said she could not say yet whether the CACEO would pursue legal action against the state. But the group will be meeting in Sacramento next week to discuss its strategies and response. Out of 58 counties in the state, only a handful have previously stated their support for a voter-verifiable paper trail.

Shelley announced Friday that any e-voting machines purchased after July 1, 2005, must produce a voter-verifiable receipt. Machines purchased before then must be retrofitted with printers to produce a receipt by July 1, 2006.

That means machines would have to print a record of a voter's ballot to enable the voter to verify his vote. The paper receipt most likely would be encased behind glass, so voters could not take it home or touch it. Officials would use the paper trail to recount votes in the event of election irregularities.

Townsend said Shelley did not consult with election officials before announcing his decision. She added that the majority of members on a voting machine task force that Shelley convened in February did not advocate a voter-verifiable paper trail.

Shelley convened the task force to examine security issues with e-voting machines that had been raised by computer scientists and voting activists.

But the state task force, which included Townsend and a representative of the Unique People's Voting Project, an advocacy group for disabled voters, was divided on the issue of voter receipts. Computer science experts on the task force supported it, while Townsend and others opposed the idea.

More than 1,000 lawyers, computer scientists, political scientists, elected officials and organizations have gone on record supporting a voter-verifiable paper trail. These include Darryl R. Wold, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, who believes that the Help America Vote Act requires a voter-verifiable paper trail (PDF) but has been misinterpreted by states.

The act was passed by Congress in 2002 in response to the election debacle in Florida in 2000. Congress allocated $3.9 billion to help states upgrade voting systems before 2006. Critics say the act has led states to hastily adopt electronic voting equipment in order to meet deadlines for funding without considering potential flaws in the systems. A California court has added further pressure by requiring counties to get rid of punch-card machines by the March 2004 primary.

Townsend said those who worry about the security of e-voting machines don't understand election processes -- election procedures and the physical security of voting systems prevent anyone from compromising an election.

A previous Wired News report, however, revealed that the physical security of 4,000 touch-screen machines used in California was not always up to par.

Regardless, CACEO officials say a voter-verifiable paper audit trail, or VVPAT, violates state election laws by discriminating against voters who have a visual impairment and voters who don't speak or read English.

[Vermonter]

Townsend said those who worry about the security of e-voting machines don't understand election processes -- election procedures and the physical security of voting systems prevent anyone from compromising an election.

And as one who has worked elections for over 10 years, I can't imagine not having a paper trail.

What happens when the machine fails, for whatever reason?

Without a paper backup for a manual count, there's a chance all votes will be lost.

And what happens when it's discovered that there's a mistake in the machine's programming (believe me, it happens)

Do you hold up the election and call in a programmer?

Don't let anyone talk you out of having some form of paper trail for every ballot cast.

[spokeshave]

Me.... I'm going postal (vote) so I can punch those chads

[Voteamerica]

I'm not sure how this hurts the disabled, but even if it does it seems like a good idea.

What am I missing?

[chance33_98]

I dunno. Maybe they will just issue everyone smart cards to insure one vote which you can record and verify. Something like a national Id....Hmmmmm

[Paleo Conservative]

I don't understand the reason for expensive computerized voting booths. They only get used about once a year, while computers commonly become obsolete in 2-5 years. Optically scanned ballots are easily counted by machine but can also be read by humans.

[Vermonter]

Optically scanned ballots are easily counted by machine but can also be read by humans.

Exactly. When the machine breaks, you can start hand counting.

The disabled can be assisted by an election worker from the party of their choice if they cannot manage the ballot

[Pontiac]

Regardless, CACEO officials say a voter-verifiable paper audit trail, or VVPAT, violates state election laws by discriminating against voters who have a visual impairment and voters who don't speak or read English.

The visually impaired must assisted in voting regardless, so they must be assisted in verifying their vote as well. What’s the difference?

Those who don’t speak or read English either have a ballot in their language or an interpreter. So the receipt can be printed in their language and English or the interpreter can translate. It is only a programming problem not a problem with the concept. It is certainly not a violation of anti-discrimination law.

[So Cal Rocket]

The California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, or CACEO, led by Shasta County Clerk Ann Reed, called the decision "a major defeat for the disabled community, as well as the minority-language communities."

Regardless, CACEO officials say a voter-verifiable paper audit trail, or VVPAT, violates state election laws by discriminating against voters who have a visual impairment and voters who don't speak or read English.

These people have absolutely no business running elections when they can't even understand simple logic. First, the electronic voting machines will be in place in March 04 - it's a done deal... The only issue is whether there will be a paper trail left inside the machine on election day.

How are visually impared/non-English speaking people discriminated against? By these people's rationale, they're discrimated against because they can't see/understand the "receipt" of their ballot which will show under the glass after they vote.

So, the two alternatives are:
1. No paper trail - and the blind and non-English speaking people can't check their ballots after they vote -or-
2. Paper trail - and the blind and non-English speaking people can't check their ballots after they vote.

What's the difference?

[itsahoot]

Optically scanned ballots are easily counted by machine but can also be read by humans.

Bingo, they worked just fine and were easily machine counted.

I would go a step further and say that the secret ballot, in national/state wide elections, is only important to the fraudulent voter,