Calling All Precincts

Like it or not, electronic voting is here to stay. But the question is: Can state and local election agencies roll out systems that satisfy everyone — or at least enough people?

Consider last year’s e-voting technology use. During the November 2006 general election, 36 percent of the nation’s counties used direct-recording electronic (DRE) systems, according to Election Data Services. The Washington, D.C., consulting firm, which specializes in election administration, found that another 56 percent of counties used optical-scan equipment. In all, 84 million registered voters live in jurisdictions that used optical-scan equipment last year and 66 million in jurisdictions that had DRE systems.

By next year’s election, those numbers will no doubt rise as states and counties strive to return accurate election results quickly. Yet, the move to e-voting continues to generate controversy, headlines and questions about the security and integrity of the underlying systems.

Vote of Confidence?

E-voting’s detractors say its shortcomings include security vulnerabilities, recurrent equipment malfunction and the potential for voter fraud. The most recent elections included incidents of failed equipment and programming errors.

“There’s no way to audit most of the systems used, so there’s no way to verify accuracy,” says Bruce Schneier, a security analyst in Mountain View, Calif. “We believe the problems we’ve seen so far are all errors, but the real worry is malicious vote tampering.”

Schneier says the only way to protect against tampering is through a paper trail. “The electronic machines must print a paper copy of the vote, and that paper copy must be verified by each voter and then deposited in a secure box,” he says. “The machine provides a quick count, but if there is any problem or dispute, the paper ballot provides a more reliable backup.”

E-voting systems did not suddenly come on to the scene; some jurisdictions have used them for years. For example, Leon County, Fla., rolled out its first optical-scan devices in 1992 and has used them ever since. Last November, it launched its first touch-screen systems to comply with the Help America Vote Act requirement that systems be accessible to disabled voters.

For the November 2006 election, an overwhelming majority of Leon County voters chose to use the optical-scan systems, says Ion Sancho, supervisor of elections for Leon County in Tallahassee, Fla. Sancho says he prefers the optical system to the touch-screen devices because it can generate an auditable paper record in the event of a recount.

“I’m a proponent of verifiable voting; it’s clear to my constituents in Leon County that if they want an audit trail, they should vote on a paper ballot,” Sancho says. “With touch screens, there’s no way for me to transparently audit.”

Sancho says both systems performed well in the fall election. He says the county, which was in the vanguard of Florida jurisdictions adopting e-voting, has seen its residual votes — those not properly counted — drop since the introduction of e-voting and has low residual vote rates compared with other counties in the state.

Still, Sancho remains concerned that the newer, touch-screen systems lack an audit trail and pose other security risks. When testing the touch-screen equipment in December 2005, Sancho says he discovered that the electronic memory card in each system could be manipulated and results altered without detection. That led to several states temporarily withdrawing their certification of the device, he says.

“We need to develop a way to routinely audit our votes, verifying that election results were accurate prior to certifying our elections,” Sancho says.

Pilot Perfect

Routt County, Colo., began using an e-voting system at all polling sites last year and was pleased with the results, says Terry Barber, director of information systems and geographic information systems for the county. The system uses a wheel pad to let voters scroll through and select candidates, Barber says.

Tallying results was speedier and more accurate than culling votes using paper ballots, Barber says. “Computers don’t make mistakes — unless you’ve programmed them to make mistakes.”

The county spent $200,000 on its systems and expects to use them for the 2008 primary and general elections, Barber says. He also expects e-voting will save the county money in labor and paper costs.

“I don’t think you can go backward,” Barber says. He’s aware of the concerns others have with e-voting but says Routt County is confident its new systems are secure and accurate.

The major challenge is getting people accustomed to the systems. “Because it’s new technology, people will take a while to embrace it,” just as they did with automated teller machines in banks and scanners in retail stores, he says.

It’s not just the voters who need persuading. Many jurisdictions also remain leery of leaving behind their tried-and-true systems.

To make sure that systems meet some basic mandates, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission in December 2005 unanimously adopted guidelines that significantly increase security requirements for voting systems and expand access for individuals with disabilities. The EAC is a national clearinghouse for voting information and reviews federal election procedures.

For the 2008 election, EAC intends to certify all voting systems to ensure that they meet the guidelines, which take effect in December 2007. From that point on, voting systems will no longer be tested against the 2002 Voting System Standards developed by the Federal Election Commission. EAC says states can adopt the guidelines before December.

Fine Print

The EAC guidance comprises two volumes, “Voting System Performance Guidelines” and “National Certification Testing Guidelines.” The performance guide details recommended features for accessibility, usability, software distribution, system setup validation and wireless communications. It also offers an overview on creating an independent verification system to produce a paper audit trail.

The testing guide lays out the criteria against which the commission will review systems. It also requires that vendors submit software to the National Software Reference Library, which will allow local election officials to make sure they’re buying certified versions of vendors’ products. As with many such certification programs, third-party testing organizations — accredited by EAC — will conduct the tests (see sidebar, Page 25).

The goal, according to EAC, of the new guidance and testing is simple: “Ensure that voting systems will be accurate, reliable, secure and accessible to all voters.”