Vote PA HOME

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SHOWS A LOT OF VOTING MACHINES, BUT LITTLE SENSE Review of the Northampton County Voting Machine Vendor Fair, January 15, 2008 By Marybeth Kuznik, VotePA Voters, vendors, and voting machines jammed into a third floor meeting room in the Northampton County Courthouse in Easton this week, as Northampton, Lackawanna, and Wayne counties came together to view potential replacement voting systems for their now-decertified AVS WINvote touchscreen machines. Assuming that no federal money becomes available, the purchase of mew machines by the three counties will be funded by the taxpayers of Pennsylvania in what amounts to a $4 million bailout of the original vendor. After a closed-door morning session between officials and vendors that excluded the public, dozens of citizens and members of the press attended the afternoon demonstration. With machines lined up and slick salesmen pushing hard during the demonstration time allotted to each of them, it was a scene reminiscent of the heady days back in 2005 and early 2006 when the Help America Vote Act had every county in the nation scrambling to buy whatever new or used "HAVA compliant" voting system vendors had available to promote. But this time, citizens came armed with something new ­ the knowledge that in intensive tests recently commissioned by multiple Secretaries of State, computer scientists have proven electronic voting systems to be hopelessly insecure and unreliable. Many in the audience were well aware that only a combination of paper ballots and meaningful audits can provide any assurance at all that the will of the people is being followed in an election. That knowledge led to total dismay on the part of many when Northampton County Administrator John Conklin announced that of the six voting systems displayed, five were Direct Record Electronic (DRE) machines, which produce no voter marked and verified paper ballot to protect the vote. Only the Hart/Intercivic eScan / eSlate digital scanner and DRE blended system had any capability at all to produce or handle a paper ballot. Mr. Conklin explained that optical scan systems with ballot markers were not being shown because the Pennsylvania Department of State 'has assured us they are satisfied with the Direct Record Electronic machines.' His remark came as a shock to those citizens who have been assured that the Department of State does not recommend one Pennsylvania-certified voting system over another. Ed Matthews, representing ES&S, confirmed to VotePA that he was asked not to bring either his M100 precinct-count scanner or the AutoMARK ballot marker. He said that he was told the counties were not interested in optical scan. Even more shocking than the missing optical scanners were some of the statements vendors leveled at audience members during the presentation and the question and answer period that followed. Representatives from Premier Election Systems (Diebold) assured those present that problems with their products in Leon County, Florida and in the California review had been "resoloved." Larry Tonelli, of Sequoia systems, stated that there is "no operating system" on the Advantage full-face machines he was displaying. When asked how citizens can be sure that the machines are running the correct certified software, Ed Matthews representing ES&S, said that his machines' Logic and Accuracy test was the best way. Matthew Lilly of Electec (Danaher) stated that one could be certain because the machines are tested for Pennsylvania by "someone from Carnegie-Mellon and his staff." And Tonelli pointed to the printout of the software version number on the results tape as a way to be sure, and that his company was moving the machines (which he said have no operating system) to open-source Linux. All the companies present promised voter-verified "paper trail" printers to be available for their DREs, although several correctly pointed out that at present the Pennsylvania's State Constitution makes roll-paper printers illegal for storing votes. Voter-verified paper trails "will never fly" in Pennsylvania according to Matthews, while Tonelli promised that Sequoia's cut-and-drop printer, first shown in the state at the Allegheny County Voting Machine Expo in November 2005, was "almost ready". One of the questions asked by an audience member dealt with life expectancy of the systems. Premier responded that their touchscreens were rated for five years or 35 million votes, but went on to claim that despite that 10 years could potentially be expected. Other vendors present went on to suggest useful life of as much as 15 to 20 years. Hart/Intercivic did claim to be testing for lifespan through the use of accelerated aging or "speed" testing. Although many of the questions posed indicated that citizens are becoming more informed, the vendors handled all with an air of slick nonchalance and none of the answers that experienced election integrity activists found rather outrageous were challenged to any great extent. The only remotely controversial moment came when former Northampton County election commissioner Lilly Gioia brought up some of the companies' failures and problems with their machines in other states, and was challenged by current commissioner Joan Rosenthal. Following the session, vendors remained to answer additional questions of the public and press and to allow those attending a closer look at each machine. As it was in 2006, the counties are scrambling to choose quickly with the 2008 Presidential Primary looming in April. With the meeting on Tuesday, Northampton County officials vowed to make a final decision only two short days later at their Thursday, January 17 County Council meeting. Other counties stated that they would take a few days longer to make a choice. ###   See Channel 69 WFMZ Report with VotePA Executive Director commenting.