FEBRUARY 2008 Briefing/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/… · replaced older voting systems with...

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Requirements for Paper Usage in Voting Systems . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Back to the (Paper) Future . . . . . . . . . .18

Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Methodology/Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Back to Paper: A Case Study

F E B RUA RY 2 0 0 8

I n s i d e

BriefingBriefingIn the not-too-distant past, American elections got an overhaul. The

problems identified in the 2000 presidential election with punch-card voting systems convinced policymakers in state capitals and onCapitol Hill that change was needed – particularly in the method bywhich ballots were designed, cast and counted.

Bolstered by public discontent and the availability of federaldollars, voter-rich states including Florida, California and Ohioreplaced older voting systems with touch-screen or scrolling-wheelelectronic voting machines.

The newer machines offered flexibility and features the oldersystems, mostly punch cards, never could – no more over-votes, theability to display multiple languages on the same machine, accessibilityfor a wide range of voters with disabilities and no more ambiguitywhen determining a voter’s intent.

Machines were bought. Millions of dollars were spent. Votes werecast. Controversy ensued.

Not long after their introduction, computer scientists, voteradvocacy groups and others called into question the integrity, securityand accuracy of the next generation of voting machines. By 2003, thecalls of computer scientists for further research had blossomed into amovement.

Problems at polling places strengthened their arguments andlawmakers listened.

Misprogrammed machines in one North Carolina county failed torecord votes, throwing a statewide race into confusion. Statistically

electionline briefing2

improbable numbers of under-votes plaguedelections in some Florida counties, including a raceto replace former Congresswoman and Secretary ofState Katherine Harris (R) to represent the 13thDistrict in the U.S. Congress.

Further, the security of systems was called intoquestion in studies conducted by both the privatesector and by government agencies.

In a growing list of states, the questions turnedto concern. Concern gave way to legislation andlegislation led to more changes at polling places. By2007, a second overhaul was underway in somestates. The experiment with direct-recordingelectronic (DRE) machines would end abruptly orbe phased out.

Six years, dozens of elections and millions ofdollars after adopting new voting systems, themigration back to paper is not yet a full-blownmovement. But high-profile bipartisan action to

scrap expensive and recently purchased votingtechnology could be the leading edge of a nationaleffort to return to paper-based elections. Regardlessof how election officials, advocates and voters standon the issue – many of whom strongly supportDRE voting and report excellent experiences usingthe machines – once the big states have completedthe switch, others are sure to follow.

In this, the 21st Electionline Briefing, thedecisions by five states to adopt DREs only toreverse course are explored. Five states that haveadopted DREs only to reverse course are explored.The case study focuses on California, Colorado,Florida, New Mexico and Ohio, states that have orare in the process of moving away from touch-screen voting and back to paper again, all in arelatively short period of time.

By 2007, a second

overhaul was underway

in some states.The experiment

with direct-recording electronic

machines would end abruptly

or be phased out.

Introduction

Executive Summary

electionline briefing 3

Six years and millions of dollars into a major overhaulof the U.S. election system, a number of states arecontemplating returning to paper-based voting systemsafter failed or troubled experiments with newer votingtechnology.

Electronic voting machines were considered the idealsolution to the problems of punch-card voting shortlyafter the troubled 2000 election. Direct-recordingelectronic (DRE) machines offer accessibility for peoplewith disabilities, prevent over-voting and eliminate thesubjectivity of paper-based balloting that plagued theFlorida recount.

But DREs also began to raise questions shortly aftertheir deployment in major battleground states, includingFlorida, Ohio and California as well as in Colorado andNew Mexico.These questions, along with problems atthe polls, prompted decisions to scrap the recentlypurchased machines.

More states are primed to follow, including Maryland,which was among the first in the country to purchase astatewide DRE voting system, and New York, which willend more than a century of lever machine usage withthe purchase of optical-scan machines and ballot-marking devices in 2009.

Reasons for the return to paper varied in each of thefive states that opted to make the switch, but similaritiesexist as well. In each circumstance, a top-ranking stateofficial – the governor or secretary of state – raisedsecurity and accuracy concerns about DRE systems.Advocates were active as well, questioning the integrityand auditability of DRE voting. Lawmakers from bothparties eventually embraced change, though frequentlyconcerns about the replacement cost of purchasing yetanother voting system came from both sides of the aisle.

New MexicoThe state was the first to go from DREs in somecounties and back to paper in 2006, when Gov. BillRichardson (D) signed a bill to standardize the state’svoting to a uniform optical-scan system.

FloridaMany voters in the state will cast ballots on the thirdvoting system in as many presidential elections inNovember 2008. Again, under votes raised concerns

about DREs, and again, a bipartisan response was theresult led by a governor. After spending more than $30million to replace punch-card voting, another $27.8million would be spent six years later to buy optical-scanmachines for the 15 counties – including the state’s mostpopulous – that purchased touch-screen voting machines.Gov. Charlie Crist (R) led the charge, motivated largelyby more than 18,000 lost votes in Sarasota County in therace for the 13th U.S. House district.

CaliforniaThe verified-voting movement got its start among thestate’s computer scientists, and caught on with twosecretaries of state after a number of countiesexperienced problems with DREs, because both ofhuman and machine errors. A “top-to-bottom” reviewof the state’s voting system in 2007 led to theexpansion of optical-scan voting and the curtailing ofDRE voting, limiting their deployment to one machineper polling place in the vast majority of counties.

OhioWidespread punch-card use might have contributed tothousands of invalid ballots in 2000, but the plannedpurchase of DRE machines led to concerns aboutsecurity and the ability to audit results. As in California,Ohio’s secretary of state conducted a review of votingsystems, determining that not only were DREssusceptible to security flaws, but precinct-count opticalscanners were vulnerable as well. Optical-scan ballots,which will be centrally counted, will be offered as analternative in the 2008 primaries in counties that useelectronic voting systems, with a permanent DRE banlooming as possible for November.

ColoradoWhile a final decision on voting systems is pendingin the state, a troubled roll-out of DREs and alawsuit over how the systems were certifiedled to more stringent testing requirements byincoming Secretary of State Mike Coffman (R)in 2007. A number of votingsystems, including both DREs andoptical-scan systems were decertified,to the chagrin of some local electionofficials who said they would seek an all-mail election in November. A bipartisanbill requiring paper ballots appearsheaded for passage in the legislature.


New Mexico was the first stateto scrap touch-screen votingmachines and move to a uniformpaper-ballot system, a decision thatsome say has made the state apioneer.

Following the contested 2000presidential election, a study by TheWashington Post found that 678voters who cast their ballots early ontouch-screen voting machines in RioArriba County never had their votescounted. Al Gore won New Mexicoby 366 votes.1

Although some jurisdictions inthe state had been using older-generation direct-recordingelectronic (DRE) machines for morethan 15 years, some were skeptical.Santa Fe County Clerk ValerieEspinoza indicated in 2004 that shewould not purchase any votingmachines that did not provide avoter-verifiable paper trail.2

Concerns over New Mexico’svoting systems – a combination ofDREs and optical scanners –increased when the 2004presidential contest had one of thehighest rates in the nation of under-votes and over-votes – nearly 20,000ballots that did not register or hadmore than one vote for president.3

The margin of victory for GeorgeW. Bush was 5,988 votes.

In 2005, Secretary of StateRebecca Vigil-Giron (D), along withseveral voting machine vendors andlocal election officials were sued infederal court (Lopategui, et. al. v. TheState of New Mexico) over the 2004election. That year, Gov. BillRichardson (D) signed legislationrequiring all New Mexico voting

systems to have a voter-verifiedpaper trail. The legislation alsorequired post-election audits.4

Nine months later, in January2006, Richardson announced plansto standardize the voting systemsthroughout New Mexico.5

The plan would require astandardized, paper-based system inall 33 counties.6

At the time, there were sixdifferent voting systems being usedin the state. But promises of statefunding for voting machinepurchases softened the blow.

Less than two months later,Richardson signed the “NewMexico Make Every Vote Count”legislation into law.

“Today we are moving NewMexico from a hodge-podge ofvaried voting systems to one, simple,statewide, all paper-ballot systemusing optical scanners to count thevote – a system that providesuniform accountability and anabsolute paper trail should there beany questions regarding thelegitimacy of our vote,” Richardsonsaid at the signing. “With this stepwe will guarantee fair and accurateelections, insure accessibility forvoters who are disabled and restorefaith in our electoral process.”7

The bipartisan bill includedimproved trainingfor poll workers,established statewidestandards for provisionalballots, and simplified absenteevoting as well as increasedtougher enforcement powers forthe secretary of state.

In addition to the $11

New Mexico: Governor Leads SwiftReturn to Paper Ballots

million appropriated to fund thetransition, the state also used $9million in HAVA funds.

By November 7, 2006, less thana year after requiring paper ballotsin all counties, New Mexico votersheaded to the polls and cast theirballots on ES&S produced optical-scan machines.

A study by researchers from theUniversity of New Mexico, Caltechand University of Utah about NewMexico’s election administrationprocess in 2006 generally lauded thestate, including how it handled theswitch to all paper ballots.

“The reports show a system thatis fundamentally working, wherevoter problems are infrequent, andwhere voter and poll workerconfidence is generally high,” statedthe project’s authors.8


If a Florida governor declaringhis state would have “an electionsystem that is a model for thenation” sounds like déjà vu, it’sbecause it has, in fact, happenedbefore.

Seven years ago, to be exact.Gov. Jeb Bush (R), just months afterthe chaotic recount was ended bythe U.S. Supreme Court and hisbrother was sworn into office,signed the law that would rid thestate of punch-card machines andlead to uniform vote-countingstandards.

New electronic voting machineswithout any paper would have nohanging or pregnant chad. Over-votes would be impossible, ballotswould be accessible to voters with awide array of disabilities andconfusion and subjectivity would berelegated to the 20th century.

Gov. Bush declared a turningpoint in the Sunshine State.

“This measure will restoreconfidence in our election processand will serve as a model for the restof the nation...Floridians have avoting system that will be the envyof the country,” Bush said, standingat a press conference flanked bythen-Secretary of State KatherineHarris (R).9

Things didn’t turn out quite asplanned.

In fact, six years later, Bush’ssuccessor would sign relatedlegislation, this time barring the useof the very same electronic votingmachines that had frustrated pollworkers and voters in their earlyimplementation and later raisedserious concerns about their

reliability and auditability in light ofthousands of unvoted races onballots.

Nearly six years to the day thatBush signed S.B. 1118, Gov. CharlieCrist (R) and U.S. Rep. RobertWexler, D-Fla., stood together asH.B. 537 was enacted, effectivelyending the state’s short and tryingexperiment with touch-screenvoting.10

It marked the third time in asmany presidential elections thatparts of the state changed votingsystems. Since 2000, the state thatinspired and initiated electionreform has gone from paper toelectronic machines and back again.

Investment repeatedThe move from paper punch

cards to touch-screen direct-recording electronic (DRE) machinesto optical-scan ballots has beenexpensive. Florida invested morethan $30 million after the 2000election to replace punch-card votingsystems in use in much of the statewith touch-screen systems –particularly the populous counties inthe southern part of the peninsula.While some counties had existingoptical-scan systems in place, thestate estimated 65 percent of allvoters cast ballots on new machinesin the September 2002 primaries.11

Less than six years later, thestate will pay another $27.8 millionto change again, this time toprecinct-based optical scanners.12

Statewide, the change only affects15 counties since the majority ofjurisdictions already use the system.Yet, just as in 2000, the change

affects the state’s most populous,including Broward, Miami-Dade,Sarasota and Palm Beach.13

Under the bill (H.B. 537)enacted by lawmakers in May 2007and signed by Crist a few days later,DRE machines will continue to bein use for voters with disabilitiesuntil 2012. But all-DRE precinctsand early vote centers in the 15counties still using touch-screensystems in 2007 have switched overto optical-scan for the vast majorityof voters.14

“Every two years, millions ofAmericans express their opinionwithout fear of consequence,” Cristsaid in a release. “People around theworld yearn for this freedom, andnow Floridians will enjoy thisfreedom with confidence that theirvote is counted.”15

For some, it could mark the firsttime they do that in a long time.

S.B. 1118 represented acomprehensive overhaul of thetroubled procedures and systemsthat led to the historic breakdown in2000. Signed into law less than sixmonths after the Bush v. Goredecision that ended the state’schaotic recounts, it banned the useof punch cards, created uniformballot design and recount standardsand set up rules to determine voterintent.16

Less than a year and a half later,as Florida prepared for its firstmajor election since the 2000Bush/Gore debacle, touch-screenmachines, made by Diebold, ES&Sand Sequoia, were implemented in15 counties for the 2002 primaryelections. At stake were statewide

Florida: Seven Years Later, the ‘Envy of the Country’?

offices, including the governorship,as well as federal offices. FormerU.S. Attorney General Janet Renowas among those vying for theDemocratic nomination for thegovernorship, and public interestand national attention were bothhigh for a mid-term race.

Some were skeptical of Florida’snew paperless system.

“Replacing the punch cardmachines has potentialshortcomings,” stated an August2001 report from the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights. “First,local election officials have a limitedchoice of voting systems certified bythe Division of Elections. Second,there is the possibility that amalfunction or error will not becorrected because there is no paperballot to provide vote verification.”17

‘Hardly state-of-the-art’The 2002 primaries made some

nostalgic for punch cards almostimmediately after polls weresupposed to open.

In Broward and Miami-Dade,polls opened late – some not untilthe early afternoon. Machines brokedown throughout the day, withinexperienced poll workersunfamiliar with troubleshootingprocedures. Hundreds of voterscomplained that they were sent

away without voting becausemachine malfunctions had paralyzedtheir precincts.18

Miami’s Office of the InspectorGeneral (OIG) wrote two reportsabout the September 2002 primary,the first noting that in addition topoll worker training problems andorganizational deficiencies, themachines did not have the ability topresent three distinct languages aspromised in the original contractpurchase.19

A second report from the OIGfurther revealed that the ES&Smachines used in both Miami-Dadeand Broward counties wereequipped with 386 EX processors –technology first marketed in homecomputers in 1986 and by 2002,long since obsolete.

“Including the limited flashmemory internal to the [ES&S]iVotronic, the machines the countypurchased are hardly state-of-the-art-technology,” the report stated.20

Ed Kast, the state’s electiondirector at the time, said theproblems were limited to the twopopulous South Florida counties.“We didn’t see problems in 65 of 67counties…the logistics, planningand training are the issues that needto be focused on.”21

Turns out it was a lot more thanthat, however.

Scattered incidents of DREvoting machine troubles startedbecoming the norm rather than theexception in the state, and sometimesshortcomings in training andplanning could not adequately explainthe problems. (see Timeline, p. 20)

Under-votes doom DREsThe race to represent the 13th

Congressional district in 2006 wasthe galvanizing event.

While previously reportedproblems with machines, poll-worker training and electionadministration could, in the views ofsome, be corrected with bettermanuals, procedures, testing orsoftware upgrades, the results of theSarasota County election proved tobe the final straw.

An estimated 18,000 votes werenot recorded on iVotronicmachines, a number that exceededthe margin of victory for RepublicanVernon Buchanan, who according toofficial results, won with fewer than400 votes in the race to succeedRep. Katherine Harris, theRepublican former Secretary ofState who certified the results of the2000 election.22

Reasons for the huge number ofunder-votes varied. Some suggestedthat poor ballot design on the countymachines – the race was on the samescreen as the six-person governorrace – could have caused some votersto miss the race altogether.23

According to Sarasota CountySupervisor of Elections Kathy Dent,under-votes were intentional. Abitter, divisive campaign turned offvoters in droves.

Fat chance, said Charles

Scattered incidents of DRE voting machinetroubles started becoming the norm ratherthan the exception in the state, and sometimesshortcomings in training and planning could notadequately explain the problems.


Florida

Florida


Stewart, an MIT computer scienceprofessor and member of theCalTech/MIT Voting TechnologyProject.

“…The under-vote rates inSarasota County were substantiallyhigher than in Charlotte [County]for both early voting (by 15.3percentage points) and Election Dayvoting (by 11.5 percentage points).These differences are substantial,both in a substantive sense and astatistical sense. These differencesare so large that there is one chancein 100 million that a difference thislarge in under-vote rates among theearly votes could have happened bychance; there is 1 chance in 5million that a difference this large inunder-vote rates among Election Dayvotes could have happened bychance,” Stewart wrote.24

Buchanan was eventuallydeclared the winner in the race. Butthe questions over what happenedto 18,000 Sarasota County votespersisted.

The U.S. GovernmentAccountability Office becameinvolved in 2007, issuing a report toa Congressional task forceinvestigating the matter in February2008 indicated the machines mostlikely performed as expected. GAOposited that voters skipped the race,either because of poor ballot design,dissatisfaction with both candidatesor some other cause.25

But Sarasota wasn’t the onlycounty having problems withmachines.

Press reports indicated thatthree other counties – Sumter, Leeand Charlotte – had high

percentages of under-votes in theattorney general race. Sumter hadunder-votes in 22 percent of allballots cast in the race; Lee, 18percent; in Charlotte, 21 percent.The counties used the same type ofES&S voting system as Sarasota.26

Placement of the race on theballot was again considered apossible culprit, as the race was lowon the electronic screen, beneaththe governor’s race. One electionsupervisor said she thought voterswere missing the race then failing togo back and make a choice after themachine warned them on the reviewscreen that they had not made aselection.27

The end of an error? Causes aside, Florida politicians

had seen enough. Crist, who came into office in

the same election as the missingSarasota ballots, said a second waveof election reform was in order.Seven years after the Bush-Goredebacle led to a voting overhaul inthe state, the Sunshine State’selection system could hardly beconsidered the “envy of thecountry,” as Gov. Jeb Bush declaredin 2001.

During a February 2007meeting of the Voters’ Coalition inDelray Beach, Crist said he wouldrecommend more than $30 millionfor the purchase of a “verifiablepaper trail of Florida’s votingsystem.”28

Retrofitting touch-screenmachines with printers to providepaper verification was ruled out bythe time the legislature passed a bill

in early May. The budget to replaceDREs was pared down to $28million that would be covered bythe Help America Vote Act.

For the 15 counties still usingDREs, changes would have to bemade before the federal election inNovember 2008. Sarasota County,the primary inspiration for thestate’s second round of electionoverhauls, would make the switchearlier, having optical scans on handfor the January 29 presidentialprimary.29

Touch-screens would continueto be available for voters withdisabilities until 2012, at whichpoint, they too would have to bereplaced. “Ballot-on-demand” –which allows the printing of optical-scan ballots tailored to each voter’sspecific local races – would bedeployed at early-voting sites.30

And Florida voters, at least inthe 15 affected counties, would castballots on the third voting system inas many presidential elections afterthe state decided DREs raised morequestions than they offered answersto the state’s nagging votingtroubles.

The decision was hailed byRepublicans and Democrats, as wellas voting integrity groups, theLeague of Women Voters and hostsof others.

“Governor Crist and the statelegislature have come together anddelivered an election system that is amodel for the nation,” said Wexler.“One person, one vote – guaranteed– with a paper record to prove it.”31

In March 2002 California votersapproved a $200 million bond actallowing counties to update theirvoting systems.32

During the discussions aboutwhat voting systems should beconsidered, some grew concernedthat election officials might selectpaperless DRE voting machines.

“I could not see how it waspossible, given the current state ofcomputer science, to make atrustworthy paperless machine,” saidDavid Dill, a Stanford Universitycomputer science professor. “So, Istarted asking experts, and no onecould explain to me how it wasdone, either.”33

Dill conferred with others in thetechnology field and authored the“Resolution on Electronic Voting.”

“Voting machines should not bepurchased or used unless theyprovide a voter-verifiable audittrail,” the document stated.34

In January 2003, Dill begancollecting petition signatures andwithin a few months had signaturesfrom about 200 prominentcomputer scientists and securityexperts. Concerned citizens in fieldsother than technology wanted toadd their signatures as well so Dillopened up the petition to thegeneral public. Ultimately, morethan 10,000 people signed.35

That February, Santa ClaraCounty became the first in thecountry to buy a touch-screenvoting system that printed a paperrecord of each voter’s ballot.36 Thatsame month, Secretary of StateKevin Shelley (D) announced theformation of a special task force to

study electronic voting37 and thatthe state would receive $195 millionfrom the Help America Vote Act toupdate voting systems.38

Paper trail movement andDRE decertification gainmomentum

A state-sponsored task forcereleased a report in July 2003.While they could not come toconsensus on the need for a voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT),the task force agreed that “thecreation of the permanent paperrecord, if it is not a VVPAT, shouldbe done once all ballots are cast.”39

The findings led Shelley todeclare that, as of July 2005,counties and cities could only buyvoting systems that included aVVPAT. Touch-screen votingsystems without VVPATs could notbe used after July 2006. Shelleyexplained that the lag time wasnecessary to allow for systemcertification, poll worker andelection official training and votereducation.40

“As the state progresses withnew technology, all Californiansmust have confidence that everyvote cast is a vote counted,” Shelleysaid. “These new requirements willprovide this confidence.”41

The March 2004 presidentialpreference primary did not inspireconfidence.

Poll workers at 20 percent ofthe polls in Alameda County haddifficulties with vote-card encodersand voters were told to use paperballots, go to a different pollingplace or return later.42 Similarly,

encoders failed in San Diego. Back-up paper ballots were not available.43

In Orange County, poll workererror led to as many as 7,000 voterscasting the wrong ballots.44

Counting software in San Diegogave several thousand of Sen. JohnKerry’s votes in the Democraticpresidential primary to Rep. DickGephardt, who had already droppedout of the race.45

Following the primary, a stateadvisory committee recommendedthat the 10 counties using touch-screens continue using them only inconjunction with paper ballots.46

Shelley then banned the use of alltouch-screen voting systems unlesselection officials either added apaper trail or met 23 additionalsecurity measures for re-certification.47

On June 4, Shelley announcedthe first set of standards for papertrails in the country and called onthe U.S. Election AssistanceCommission to establish nationwidestandards.48

“These standards will be usedby voting system manufacturers todevelop the next generation ofCalifornia’s electronic votingmachines,” Shelley said. “These willalso establish the baseline for testingthose systems to determine if theyshould be state certified.”49

Shelley’s move to decertifyangered some county electionofficials. Conny McCormack, LosAngeles County registrar said, “Heput out a report saying that touchscreens were 100 percent accurate.And then two days later hedecertified them.’’50

California:A Pioneer in Adopting,Questioning and Banning Machines


California

Indeed, Shelley’s office foundthat touch screens were precise inrandom tests during the primary.51

His decision to decertify led tolawsuits but Shelley quicklyrecertified systems in Merced,Orange, Santa Clara, Shasta,Tehama, and Napa counties oncethey complied with new securityprecautions.52 On August 24, Shelleyannounced that electronic votingsystems in all other counties hadbeen recertified.53 Gov. ArnoldSchwarzenegger (R) signedlegislation in September thatrequired all e-voting machinesinclude a paper record by 2006.54

Meanwhile, Bill Lockyer, theDemocratic state attorney generalprepared a lawsuit against Dieboldfor defrauding the state by makingfalse claims about its products.Shelley said that Diebold’saggressive marketing drove electionofficials to purchase voting

equipment that had not been testedor certified.55 The suit was settled inDecember 2004.

In January 2005, Shelley certifiedthe first voting system with VVPAT,the AVC Edge with VeriVote printerby Sequoia Voting Systems.56

Bowen brings top-to-bottom review

Election reform slowed downsignificantly in the state whenShelley’s tenure was cut short byscandal. Schwarzenegger appointedBruce McPherson, a Republicanstate legislator to replace Shelley inMarch 2005. Debra Bowen, aformer Democratic state senatorbecame secretary of state after shenarrowly won the election overMcPherson in November 2006.57

During her campaign, Bowenpromised to scrutinize electronicvoting machines.58

“California counties have spent

hundreds of millions of dollars onnew voting equipment but there arereports questioning theiraccessibility, questions about thereliability of electronic votingsystems, questions about thetraining poll workers get to managethe high-tech equipment,” shesaid.”59

Bowen appointed Lowell Finley,an attorney who had previously suedvoting machine manufacturers, to bedeputy secretary of state. Finley leda group that sued McPherson toblock his approval of a Dieboldvoting system.60

In March, Bowen’s office issueddraft criteria of a top-to-bottomreview of voting systems focusing onsecurity concerns, accessibility forminority language voters and voterswith disabilities and usability forboth poll workers and electionofficials.61

However, concerns about the


Shelley said that Diebold’s

aggressive marketing drove

election officials to

purchase voting

equipment that had not

been tested or certified.


California

review’s timing arose whenSchwarzenegger and the statelegislature moved the 2008presidential primary to February.County election officials warnedBowen that major changes inelections in a short time span couldpotentially destabilize elections.62

State officials in May said theywould be working with theUniversity of California to bringtogether three different teams tostudy the systems’ documents,source code and performpenetration attacks. A separate teamwould assess the systems’accessibility. Bowen’s office expectedthe review to cost $1.8 million andplanned to fund it with money fromHAVA and voting system vendors.63

Preliminary review results camein July when the teams releasedtheir report noting experts wereable to break into every votingmachine being tested. Matt Bishop,the University of California–Daviscomputer science professor who ledthe team assessing vulnerability saidthat he was surprised by how easy itwas to break into the machines,adding that his team would havebeen able to find more problems ifthey had had more time.64

Steve Weir, Contra CostaCounty registrar and head of theCalifornia Association of Clerks andElection Officials, challenged therelevance of the review. Reviewteam members had operatingmanuals, source code and softwarefor the machines, as well asunlimited access to them, whichWeir said “is like giving a burglarthe keys to your house.”

The reviewers did not make anyjudgments about the feasibility ofany attacks.65

“This was not a security-riskevaluation but an unrealistic, worst-case scenario evaluation,” StevenBennett, Sequoia Voting Systems’spokesman said at a public hearing.

“We’re concerned aboutextreme actions being taken. Weurge the secretary to ... refrain fromprecipitous action until all therelevant information is in,” addedDeborah Seiler, San Diego County’sregistrar.66

In August, six months untilCalifornia’s February 2008presidential primary, Bowendecertified then conditionallyrecertified the systems evaluated bythe review.67 While Bowen allowedthe continued use of e-votingmachines, she limited them to oneper polling place for voters withdisabilities and all votes cast ontouch-screens must be recounted byhand after the election.68 One type ofsystem employed in the counties, theeSlate, could still be used as theprimary voting system.

Bowen also received criticismfrom election reform advocates whooppose all electronic voting.

Alan Dechert, Open VotingConsortium president said thatBowen was caving to pressure fromvoting machine vendors and electionofficials in allowing some machinesto still be used.

“She is not requiring anychanges in the software or hardwareused. This is not why we electedher,” he said.69

“When the government finds a

car is unsafe, it orders a recall. Herewe’re talking about systems used tocast and tally votes, the most basictool of democracy,” Bowen said at aDecember conference sponsored byelectionline.org.70

Since the top-to-bottom review,San Diego, San Bernardino andSanta Clara Counties have all putthousands of voting machines instorage. In Riverside County, 3,000electronic voting machines that costabout $25 million have been placedin storage as well. During aNovember test run of paper ballotsthrough scanners in San Bernardino,election officials found they couldhandle 10,000 voters per hour, so itmay take as long as 17 hours,starting at 10 p.m. on election night,to scan the anticipated 175,000ballots, Kari Verjil, registrar said.71

“It seems like every time we geta new secretary of state there is anew voting system. Who’s to saywhat will happen in four years if weget another secretary of state,” Verjilsaid.72

“I am committed to helpingOhio deliver its electoral votes tothe president next year.’’73

These words, written by then-Diebold Inc. CEO Walden O’Dellin a 2003 fundraising letter to like-minded supporters of PresidentGeorge W. Bush marked a seismicshift in the debate over electronicvoting machines in Ohio and acrossthe country.

Existing skepticism about thesecurity and reliability of directrecording electronic (DRE) votingsystems crystallized and technologythat some saw as the solution to thetroubles of the 2000 electionbecame the growing focus ofpotential problems for future votes.

More than four years, twotroubled elections and several votingsystem risk assessment reports later,Ohio Secretary of State JenniferBrunner (D) recommended the statescrap both DREs and precinct-count optical scanners (PCOS) thattally paper ballots by November2008.74 In the meantime, for theMarch 2008 primary, counties stillusing electronic voting machineswith voter-verified paper audit trails(VVPATs) are required to providevoters the option of casting theirballots on paper.75

For several Ohio counties thiswill be the third type of votingsystem in place since 2004. Andmany of these counties are less thanfour years removed from the days ofpunch-card ballots.

Punch cards out, DREsdeployed after delays

While Florida withered underthe glare of the national spotlight in2000 with its hanging, dangling andpregnant chad further north, Ohioalso had thousands of punch-cardballots that could not be counted,though without much public notice.

With a much larger margin ofvictory – 165,019 votes – by GeorgeW. Bush than in Florida the statedid not face the scrutiny theSunshine State did. However, there

were 93,991 ballots cast that wereinvalid, according to the Ohiosecretary of state’s office, and manyof those were punch cards.76

In October 2002 the AmericanCivil Liberties Union (ACLU) ofOhio filed a lawsuit against the statefor using punch cards, arguing thatthe use of the ballots in somecounties and not in others violatedthe Equal Protection Clause of the14th Amendment.77

The state did not wait for theoutcome of the lawsuit, which the


Ohio: Moving Back to Paper,Facing Resistance

While Florida withered

under the glare of the

national spotlight in 2000

with its hanging, dangling and pregnant

chad, further north, Ohio also quietly

had thousands of punch-card ballots

that could not be counted.

Ohio

electionline briefing12 electionline briefing12

ACLU eventually won in 2006. InMay 2003 the state issued a requestfor proposal (RFP) for vendors tosupply the state with DRE votingsystems with the goal of replacingpunch cards by March 2004.78

However, after qualifyingvendors in July 2003, the end of themonth saw the first of several delaysin the final selection anddeployment of any new DREsbecause the state wanted to performmore in-depth security reviews ofthe voting systems.79

In late 2003, two state-sponsored reports were issued, oneof which cited 57 potential securityrisks with the technology. Thefindings delayed deployment of thesystems until August 2004.80 By themiddle of 2004 a follow-up reportwas issued and plans to have allcounties switch to touch-screenvoting systems even by November2004 were delayed. At the sametime, a state law was enactedrequiring DRE voting systems toinclude VVPATs.81

The enactment left 69 of Ohio’s88 counties using punch-card ballotsin 2004.82

The first half of 2005 saw moredelays, as well as legal action from avendor over the selection process.83

By the November election, 44counties had touch-screen votingsystems in place with paper trails.That number increased to 57 sixmonths later.84 Their debut inCuyahoga County during the 2006primary did nothing to instillconfidence in the new systems.While the county experiencednumerous election administration

problems, one of the most startlingwas with the Diebold voting systemand its VVPATs.

One study found that 10percent of the VVPATs were notusable or readable due to printerjams or other problems.85 It wasparticularly problematic because inOhio, like in most states thatrequire VVPATs, the VVPAT is theofficial ballot of record.86

A new secretary of state, afresh look at voting systems

Secretary of State JenniferBrunner (D), assumed office afterthe November 2006 election. Aformer election lawyer and judge,Brunner replaced J. KennethBlackwell (R) who left office in anunsuccessful bid to becomegovernor.

In June 2007, Brunner issued anRFP for outside consultants toperform a risk assessment study ofOhio’s voting systems. Afterselecting the consultants, the testingwas performed from October toearly December.87

During the testing period,November elections took place andagain Cuyahoga County hadproblems, this time tallying thevotes. The server that wasperforming the ballot count crashedseveral times as the night wore on.And when 10 racesneeded to be recounted, itwas discovered that 20 percentof the machines with these racesdid not have VVPATs for some ofthe votes due to paper jams.88

In December 2007, Brunnerreleased the report of the risk

assessment titled Evaluation andValidation of Election RelatedEquipment, Standards and Testing,or EVEREST. The report found“critical security failures” in thevoting systems. Brunnerrecommended eliminating DREsand precinct-count optical scansystems by November 2008 andmoving to central-count optical scan(CCOS) voting technology. Soonafter she directed all counties usingDREs to offer optically scannedpaper ballots for the March 2008primary.89

Less than two weeks after thereport’s release, Brunner cast a tie-breaking vote for the CuyahogaCounty Board of Elections to havethat jurisdiction move to CCOSvoting technology by the Marchprimary.90

Central count technologyraises concerns

Election officials and observersexpressed concerns about the moveto a CCOS system – where thepaper ballots are not counted at the


polls and stored on memory cardslike with a PCOS system, but rathertransported to a central location andcounted there. The PCOS systemand DREs can alert voters to overand under-votes. Centrally-countedballots do not afford voters the sameopportunity.

The EVEREST report offeredthe state’s justification: “…Theelimination from polling locationsof vote recording and tabulationmachines such as DREs andprecinct-based optical scanmachines (except to use optical-scanmachines for determining over-votes and under-votes to satisfyHAVA ‘second chance’requirements) and instead migratingto central counting of ballots,ensures greater stability to thecomputer-based voting systems,because it eliminates multiple pointsof entry to a system not adequatelysecured.”91

Larry Norden, the director ofthe Voting Technology AssessmentProject at the Brennan Center forJustice at New York UniversitySchool of Law, praised the reportfor its focus on the security andreliability flaws of DREs but raisedseveral points of concern aboutBrunner’s plan.

“The exclusive use of centralcount optical scanners to countvotes is likely to cause thedisenfranchisement of thousands ofvoters, and in particular low-incomeand minority voters. Central countoptical scanners do not give votersthe notice and opportunity tocorrect errors. In-precinct DRE andPCOS voting systems have

dramatically decreased the numberof uncounted votes, previouslycaused when voters made errors byinadvertently overvoting inelections. Second, counting all votesin a central location without thebenefit of precinct totals is a recipefor massive error, particularly ifthere is no post-election audit of thecentral count optical scanner (whichis not part of the Secretary’srecommendations).”92

After hearing similar concernsfrom voter advocates and electionofficials, Brunner backed off thecentral count requirement byNovember 2008. However, thatrequirement is still in place inCuyahoga County.93

Cuyahoga County faceschallenging timeline

The county, with more than 1million registered voters, has hadless than three months to lease anew central count system, train pollworkers, and then educate votersabout the system, among othertasks. For the March election, thecounty is estimating it will haveabout 60 PCOS systems placedrandomly at polling places for votersto check for over and undervotes -not at all polling places.94

The ACLU filed suit inCuyahoga over this issue citing theaforementioned concerns of theBrennan Center and stating, “Everyvoting system – paper ballot or not– must give voters a chance to fix amistake. Many votes will gouncounted if voters cannot verifythat their ballots have been filledout correctly.”95

Brunner criticized the ACLU’saction.

“They’re a bit tardy in filingthis lawsuit. The closer we get tothe election the tougher it’s going tobe for a judge to deny the voters ofCleveland the right to vote in apresidential primary,” she said.96

A judge agreed, denying theACLU’s motion.

Candice Hoke of ClevelandState’s Center for Election Integrity,which has been the public monitorof Cuyahoga County election reformsince 2006, stated that thecompressed timeframe forimplementing the change is notideal.

“It’s going to be problematicbecause you can’t anticipateeverything in this short time. Thereare still many, many details to beworked out,” Hoke said.97

Questions about cost, electionresults and poll workers

Some of these details includecost, reporting election results andtraining poll workers.

Estimates put the price tag at$31 million statewide for thetransition to the new system. Somehave suggested using the state’srainy day fund, which has more than$1 billion, but Gov. Ted Strickland(D) has objected. Another possibilityis money that will be allocated tostates this year through HAVA.98

County election officials alsosaid they worry about the cost ofadding paper ballots as an option forMarch.

The 50-plus counties that haveDREs will need to have a minimum


Ohio


number of paper ballots amountingto 10 percent of the ballots cast inprevious presidential primaries.99

Matt Damschroder (R),Franklin County election directorstated, though, that he received alegal opinion from the countyprosecutor saying state law requiresmore paper ballots at the polls –enough for all registered voters ineach precinct plus one percent.Secretary Brunner disagrees withthis position. Damschroder said thiscould cost his county $200,000.100

Potential delays in countingvotes if large numbers of voters usepaper ballots are also a concern. Ifsome portion of the ballots are notcorrectly filled out and cannot beread by the scanners, county boardswill have to examine them anddecide if the ballots should beremade and scanned.101

And of course all changes insystems and procedures have to belearned by those on the front linesof election day - the poll workers. “I think you’re adding a whole newlevel of confusion for the pollworkers. These people are maxedout,’’ said Portage County ElectionsDirector Lois Enlow (R). “Theyhave so many responsibilities. Overthe last several years since 2002, it’sbeen major, major changes at everyelection.’’102

Supporters acknowledge thenew system might not be ideal, butsee it as more transparent than thetouch-screen technology.

“All of these systems areflawed,” Cuyahoga CountyCommissioner Tim Hagan said. “Allof these new technologies arequestionable, as is the one we aregoing to adopt. There’s no questionabout that. I think it’s less

questionable. It’s not a perfectsystem.”103

A majority of county electionofficials, though, don’t haveconcerns about their current votingsystems and don’t want to change,according to a survey conducted bythe secretary of state’s office.104

Brunner has stated she is willingto work with election officials, butstands firm on getting rid of touchscreens in Ohio.

“While the state’s electionsofficials have important views toconsider, the bottom line is that wemust do what is best for the votersin this state to ensure that anyonewho is eligible and wants to votemay do so without having to wait inlong lines to vote on machines thathave been shown to be substandardand vulnerable to performance andsecurity problems.”105


Ohio

“I think you’re adding a whole new level

of confusion for the poll workers.These

people are maxed out,’’ said Portage County

Elections Director Lois Enlow (R). “They have

so many responsibilities. Over the last several years since

2002, it’s been major, major changes at every election.’’

Colorado:A Rocky Road to Paper


To say Colorado’s voting systemsituation was in a state of flux in thefirst quarter of 2008 would be amonumental understatement.

By the beginning of February,Secretary of State Mike Coffman(R) had decertified the majority ofthe voting systems used inColorado, county clerks weredemanding an all vote-by-mailelection in November 2008, thestate legislature was consideringlegislation to allow Coffman to testand recertify the machines and thegovernor and legislators werehoping to fast-track legislation thatwould bring paper ballots statewidein time for the November election.

But before the state got to thispoint, there was a lot of historysurrounding Colorado’s votingsystem tug-of-war.

Shortly after the 2000presidential election, then-Secretaryof State Donetta Davidson formed atask force to review the state’selection laws.106

By the time the 2004 electionseason rolled around, a number ofjurisdictions were using new votingsystems including optical-scanmachines and DRE machines.

However, all was not well inColorado.

A post-election audit of localelections by the Secretary of State’soffice found that ballots were notcounted in some jurisdictions,including Garfield County, where aschool levy and district council racewere both won by 10 votes or less.107

As problems persisted, the statelegislature took up a bill in Marchof 2005 that would require all

voting systems approved inColorado to provide a voter-verifiedpaper trail. The legislation wasapproved by both bodies in May2005 and signed by the governor inJune.108

In early 2006, then-Secretary ofState Gigi Dennis (D) certifiedseveral different voting systemsincluding those manufactured byHart InterCivic, Diebold (nowPremier) and Sequoia.109

A troubled roll outBy November of that year, a

majority of Colorado voters usedelectronic voting machines for thefirst time. Problems large and smallwere reported in a number ofcounties.

In Douglas County, electronicvoting machines crashed at votecenters when voters tried to producehard copies of their completedballots.110 The crashes, andinadequate supply of votingmachines, had some DouglasCounty residents waiting in line forup to four hours to cast a ballot.

While the finger-pointing andcalls for firings came from all areas,Douglas County Clerk andRecorder Carole Murray was one ofthe few to shoulder some of theblame.

“There are a lot of angry peopleout there and I don’t blame them. Iwould be angry too because thevoting process is sacred,” Murraysaid. “I offer my apologies and Iwant you to know I didn’t measureup the way I needed to.”111

In early 2007, Coffman beganhis tenure as secretary of state and

immediately set to work on comingup with new testing requirementsfor electronic voting machines. Heheld public hearings to discuss thematter and worked with advocates,citizens and technology experts.

The new testing procedureswere adopted under the secretary’srulemaking authority and are knownas Rule 45. The rule is comprised of46 pages of requirements for votingsystems certification, includingdetailed security standards for allvoting systems. The rule wasadopted by the secretary of state inresponse to a court order, Conroy v.Dennis.112

Under the new testingprocedures, the certification processinvolves 437 functional tests that avoting system will need to pass inorder to be certified for use inColorado. During the recertificationprocess, the secretary of state’s officeproduced almost 2,000 pages ofdocumentation in the evaluation ofeach voting system.113

“The recertification process willbe tough, but fair,” Coffman said atthe time. “My focus is on ensuringthat the electronic machines used inour elections are secure, are able toaccurately count every vote, and thatthe results can be verified.Electronic voting machines thatmeet this threshold will berecertified for use in Colorado’selections.”114

In December 2007, Coffmanannounced that as a result of vote-system testing he was decertifyingSequoia Edge II and Edge II Plusvoting machines as well as theoptical-scan devices eScan and

Colorado


BallotNow, manufactured by Hartand ES&S as well as the iVotronicelectronic-voting machine.115

“I had to strictly follow the lawalong with the court order,” saidCoffman. “If I’m too lenient indetermining what passes then I riskhaving the state taken to court byactivists groups who will ask for aninjunction on the use of electronicvoting machines for the 2008election, and if I exceed therequirements of state law and thecourt order, then I will be sued bythe vendors who manufacture andsell the equipment.”116

Coffman’s decertification, notonly of electronic voting machines,but also of certain scanners used tocount optical-scan ballots, set off amaelstrom in Colorado.

County clerks statewide criedfoul and joined forces to petition

Coffman to allow an all vote-by-mail election for the November2008 general election. The statelegislature took up a measure thatwould allow Coffman to retest andpossibly recertify the machines inenough time so that they might beused in November.

And less than 10 days afterdecertifying the machines Coffmanhimself publicly made an appeal tothe state legislature to move to allpaper ballots.

“I have more confidence inhaving votes cast on paper ballots atthe polls rather than relyingexclusively on electronic votingmachines or in voting by mail. IfDouglas County had paper ballotsavailable for voters at their votecenters in the 2006 mid-termelection they would not have thedistinction of having the last vote

cast in the country sometime after 1 a.m. on the following day.” saidCoffman.117

In late January, bipartisanlegislation was introduced thatwould bring paper ballots to allcounties in Colorado.

“Paper ballots are a tried-and-true election method that hasworked for decades. They ensure averifiable paper trail and minimizethe possibility of technology failuresthat have caused Election Dayproblems in the past,” Gov. BillRitter (D) said, in support of thelegislation. “Our democracydepends not only on the people’sability to vote, but also on theirconfidence that every votecounts.”118

At press time, some machineswere undergoing testing that couldlead to re-certification.

Coffman’s decertification,

not only of electronic voting

machines, but also

of certain scanners

used to count optical-scan

ballots, set off a

maelstrom in Colorado.

Requirements for Paper Usage in VotingSystems – January 2008


This map details usage of paper as a voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) for use with direct-recording electronic(DRE) voting systems and requirements for paper-based balloting. The map does not intend to show prevalence ofvoting systems, but rather state requirements concerning verification.

Notes:Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland and South Carolina use DRE systems statewide for all polling place voters. All otherstates with DREs use them in some, not all jurisdictions.Arkansas: Uses DREs both with and without VVPATs.Florida: State law allows voters with disabilities to use touch-screen systems until 2012.Idaho: Some counties use punch-card voting systems.Iowa: Some jurisdictions employ DREs without VVPATs. State lawmakers are debating how to meet the paper trail requirement.Maryland: State law requires voter-verifiable paper records by 2010.New Jersey: The state’s initial deadline for DREs to have VVPATs by January 1, 2008 has been delayed by six months.New York: The state has a VVPAT requirement but lever voting machines are still in place. Almost all counties plan to adoptpaper-based voting systems by 2009.Oregon: Holds all vote-by-mail elections.Washington: 37 of 39 counties hold all vote-by-mail elections.

DENJ

MD

DCVA

CT RI

MA

VTNH

ME

PA

WV

NC

SC

OH

MI

IN

KY

TN

FL

GAMS

LA

AR

MO

IA

MN

NDMT

WY

CO

NMAZ

AK

HI

UT

NV

CA

OR

ID

WA

SD

NE

KS

OK

TX

AL

WI

IL

NY

DRE voting systems [15 states]; VVPATs required

DRE voting systems [3 states]; VVPATs employed but not required

DRE voting systems [14 states; District of Columbia]; VVPATs neither required nor employed

Paper-based voting systems [17 states]; primarily optical-scan systems

Lever voting system [1 state]


Back to the (Paper) Future: More StatesLook Ahead to Changes


Now that five states, includingtwo of the nation’s most populous,have moved from paper toelectronic machines and back again,where will the other dominoes fall?The question of whether the days ofpaperless voting are ending soon hasnot definitively been answered.

Plenty of determination, nota lot of cash in Maryland

Maryland, among the first ofthree states to scrap punch cards infavor of DRE systems after the 2000vote (Florida and Georgia were theothers), could scrap the state’s $55million Diebold AccuVote TSvoting system in time for the 2010gubernatorial election.119 SB 392/HB18 was approved by lawmakers andsigned in April.120

Financial concerns havehampered attempts to meet thattime table, however. Budget cutsproposed in late 2007 includedhacking more than $3.3 millionfrom the State Board of Elections.121

“It would mean no new votingsystem would be implemented,” saidLinda Lamone, the state’s electiondirector, in a news report.122

Not that it would necessarilytrouble Lamone or other electionofficials in the state. Lamone hasconsistently supported the paperlesssystem at home and on the nationalstage for the National Association ofState Election Directors.

“I think the system is fabulous,”Lamone told The Washington Post.“It’s probably the most securesystem in the country.”123

She even took on former Gov.Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R), who

despite agreeing to purchase theDiebold DREs early in his term,said they presented “a lot to beconcerned about,” adding, “we wantto make sure this new technology isnot used to undermine fairness.”124

But her support was matched byskepticism and sharp criticism of thesystem.

A coalition of Marylandorganizations pushing for voter-verified paper ballots – including theACLU, NAACP, the League ofWomen Voters and others – said thestate had “the least secure and leasttransparent” election system in thecountry.125

At press time, the fate ofMaryland’s optical scan purchasewas not yet settled. Voter integritygroups, including TrueVoteMD andother grassroots organizations werelobbying Gov. Martin O’Malley (D)to leave the funding in place for theoptical-scan machines. The BaltimoreSun chimed in as well, urging thatthe $3.3 million needed for theswitch be retained in the budget.

O’Malley left money in his 2009budget, but the fate of the plan wasstill unclear at press time.

A long goodbye in VirginiaVirginia has banned the future

purchases of touch-screen DREmachines as part of plan to phaseout the system, now in use as theexclusive system in more than two-thirds of the state’s votingjurisdictions.126

S.B. 840, introduced in the2007 legislative session, requires thereplacement of DRE systems “as thedevices in operation wear out.”127

According to estimates from somelocal election officials it could bemore than 10 years before thecurrent batch needs to be retired.128

The plan has its critics,particularly from the ranks of thestate’s electoral board and fromregistrars from across the state.Organizations representing bothurged Gov. Timothy Kaine (D) todelay endorsing S.B. 840 until itbecame clearer what members ofCongress would do withoutstanding legislation on voter-verified paper audit trails.129

A move toward paper inNew York

After flirting with choosing anumber of different voting systemsto replace aged lever machines inuse statewide, New York officialsannounced in January 2008 thatthey would implement new votingsystems in 2009.

New York differs substantiallyfrom the other states in the casestudy, as piecemeal reform in thestate – and non-compliance withfederal law – has meant the statewas the last to make federally-mandated changes to elections.

Further, New York’s movemight not be considered a move“back to paper.” But historians dorecall that the state used paperballots before the phase-in of levermachines in the late 19th century.130

County officials will have achoice of one of a number ofmodels of optical scan machines/ballot-marking devices for voterswith disabilities this fall. All arepaper-based, and, in the words of


Back to the (Paper) Future


There is momentum in some

states to go back to paper…there’s

also an emerging consensus that the

current generation of toilet-paper

paper trails with DRE systems

don’t work well.

– Dan Tokaji, associate professor of law,

The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

one advocate, “a low-techsolution.”131 A decision on votingsystems for the rest of the stateshould be announced in lateFebruary or March.

Momentum building?New Jersey is working on

retrofitting existing DRE machinesby the middle of this year. Iowalawmakes are debating whether toretrofit DRE machines or move topaper-based systems. Otherlegislatures will almost certainlydebate paper trail or paper-basedvoting systems during this year’ssessions.

But not everyone agrees thatthe dominoes will continue to fall.

Bills to move Georgia from its

paperless DRE system to optical-scan or a paper-trail retrofit havebeen unsuccessful in the past fewyears. Seven bills that would haverequired voter-verified paper audittrails (VVPATs) with the state’sDREs were left sitting in legislativelimbo in the state since 2005.132

Advocates for voters withdisabilities and elections officials findplenty to like about paperlesssystems. Paper, they contend,increases the possibility of error.Paperless machines allow voters withdisabilities to vote in the samemanner as everyone else. They allowfor multiple languages and eliminateover-votes (while, some mightcontend, increasing under-votes).

“There is momentum in some

states to go back to paper…there’salso an emerging consensus that thecurrent generation of toilet-paperpaper trails with DRE systems don’twork well,” said Dan Tokaji, anassociate professor of law at TheOhio State University MoritzCollege of Law. “On the otherhand, electronic voting is popularwith many election officials, not tomention voters. DREs allow foreasier access for disabled and non-English proficient voters. They’realso a more attractive option for in-person early voting and votecenters. So I don’t think we’ve seenthe death of DREs, though I don’texpect we’ll see too many placesmoving to the current DRE withVVPAT systems.”133

January: Gov. JebBush (R) signs “FloridaElection Reform Act,”ridding the state ofpunch-card votingsystems by 2002.Uniform ballot designand recount standardsalso included.

September: Counties deployDRE machines for the firsttime. Significant problems –including widespread machineand human error – plaguethe vote in South Floridacounties, including Miami-Dade and Broward.November: Exhaustivepreparations for the generalelection yield a smootherelection.

November: Disputedrecount begins. Punch-card counting standardsvary by county.December: SupremeCourt offers opinion inBush v. Gore, endingFlorida recount; GeorgeW. Bush wins withFlorida’s electoral votes.

November: Under-votes inthe presidential election droppedto 0.4 percent. Over-votes andunder-votes in the stateaccounted for 3 percent of allcast in the 2000 presidentialelection.

FL

OR

IDA

November: AssemblySpeaker Robert Hertzberg(D) proposes a $300million plan to updatevoting technology.Secretary of State BillJones (R) presents a$230 million plan toreplace punch-cards withtouch screen votingmachines.

April: Gov. Bill Richardson (D) signs legislationrequiring all voting systems in the state toprint a voter-verified paper trail. The legislationalso requires post-election audits.November: Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron (D), several voting machine vendors andsome local elections officials are sued in federalcourt (Lopategui et al v. the State of NewMexico) over the use of electronic votingmachines in the November 2004 presidential race.

June: Colorado General Assembly passeslegislation requiring that all voting systems inthe state print a voter-verified paper trail.

November: Mostvoters cast punch-cardballots in thepresidential election.

October: ACLU of Ohiosues the state for continueduse of punch cards, arguingtheir use in some countiesand not in others violatesthe Equal Protection Clauseof the 14th Amendment.

May: The state solicits bids for DRE votingsystems to replace punch cards by March 2004.August: Vendor selection delayed for in-depthsecurity reviews of voting systems.December: State releases full findings ofsecurity review performed by Compuware citing 57potential security concerns. Deployment of newsystems is delayed.

May: Gov.Robert Taft (R) signsbill requiring DRE systems haveVVPATs.July: Last counties consideringusing DRE systems for 2004general election are blocked fromdoing so.November: Voters in amajority of counties again castpunch-card ballots.

April: ACLU sues Jonesfor using ''flawed anddiscriminatory votingsystems,” alleging punch-card voting systemsinaccurately tally votesand are used in countiesdisproportionatelypopulated by minorities,violating their civilrights.September: Statelawmakers approve a$200 million matchinggrant program to assistcounties with thepurchase of new votingsystems. Jones ordersnine counties, includingLos Angeles, to upgradetheir voting systems by2006.

March: California votersapprove the VotingModernization Bond Act,allowing counties to spend$200 million upgrading theirvoting equipment.September: Gov. GrayDavis (R) approves AB 2525,requiring every polling placeto have at least one votingmachine completely accessibleto blind and visually-impaired voters.

January: Santa Clara County Board ofSupervisors Finance and Government Committeemeets to discuss plans to buy a paperlesselectronic voting system from Sequoia. David Dill,computer science professor from StanfordUniversity and Kim Alexander from the CaliforniaVoter Foundation both testify about securityconcerns and the need for a paper trail. Thecommittee postpones their voting-system decision.February: Secretary of State Kevin Shelley (D),in response to concerns aired at the hearing inSanta Clara County, creates the Ad Hoc TouchScreen Voting Task Force. Santa Clara Countybecame first in the country to buy VVPAT-equippedtouch screens.May: More than 100 computer scientists sign apetition circulated by Dill calling for strongersecurity measures for electronic voting and avoter-verifiable audit trail.July: Shelley releases Ad Hoc Touch-screen TaskForce Report.November: Shelley halts certification ofDiebold’s latest touch-screen machines. He alsoannounces no voting machines may be purchasedafter July 2005 without a voter-verifiable paperaudit trail (VVPAT) and all voting machines byJuly 2006 must have a VVPAT.

March: More than half of SanDiego’s polling places failed toopen on time because ofproblems with Diebold votingmachines.April: A report released byShelley’s office states that Dieboldsold counties new votingequipment before it was federallyor state approved and installeduncertified software in votingmachines. Shelley bans the use ofmore than 14,000 Dieboldelectronic voting machines anddecertifies more than 28,000other voting machines unlessthey are used with extra securityprecautions.June: Shelley issues standardsfor voting machine vendorsdeveloping systems with papertrails, including accessibility andalternate language requirements.September: Gov. ArnoldSchwarzenegger (R) signs a lawrequiring that all voting machinesproduce a VVPAT by 2006.

Timeline of Major Events


CA

LIF

OR

NIA

OH

ION

EW

ME

XIC

OC

OL

OR

AD

O

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

January: Secretary of State J. KennethBlackwell (R) issues directive ordering countiesto select on optical scan voting system.April: Blackwell issues new directiveallowing counties to select a DRE with VVPATvoting system as well.May: ES&S sues state over deadlines andsystem selection process.September: Counties select votingsystems from state list.November: 44 counties use new DREvoting systems with VVPATs.

March: A group of 24 state voters sue Secretary of StateBruce McPherson (R) and county election officials to preventthe purchase of Diebold voting equipment.

July: Computer scientists hired by the state hack into voting systemsin use in California and around the country, demonstrating that theycould alter vote totals, according to a report.August: California Secretary of State Debra Bowen (D) issues “Top-to-Bottom Review” of voting systems. Some are decertified but theircontinued use is allowed for the February primary with extra securityprecautions.November: Bowen files a lawsuit against Election Systems andSoftware for selling uncertified voting machines to five counties innorthern California.

November: More than 18,000 under-votes were recordedin Sarasota County in the race to replace Rep. Katherine Harris(R) in the U.S. House of Representatives’ 13th CongressionalDistrict. Other counties report similar under-vote problems onthe same voting system (ES&S iVotronic).

January: Fourteen Florida counties hold their final primaries using DRE systems.Sarasota County uses optical-scan systems, marking the third voting system in as manypresidential cycles.

January: In response to problems in Sarasota, Gov. Charlie Crist (R)announces his intention to add paper to Florida elections.May: Crist signs H.B. 537 into law, effectively ending the use of DREsin the state as of November 2008. The remaining 15 counties usingthe voting system – including some of the state’s most populous –will move to optical-scan systems for the next presidential election.DREs will continue to be available for voters with disabilities until2012.

2006 2007 2008

June: Bids solicited by Brunner to perform risk analysis of votingsystems.November: Cuyahoga County experiences problems with votetabulation and with VVPATs.December: Brunner releases report on voting systems andrecommends all counties move to central count optical-scan systems byNovember 2008.December: Brunner casts the tie-breaking vote in Cuyahoga Countyto mandate that county move to a central count optical-scan system intime for the March 2008 primary.

January: Secretary of State Mike Coffman (R) is sworn in.March: Coffman adopts new testing requirements for electronicvoting machines.December: Coffman decertifies Sequoia Edge II and Edge II Plusvoting machines as well as the optical-scan devices eScan andBallotNow, manufactured by Hart and ES&S optical-scan devices as wellas the ES&S iVotronic electronic-voting machine. Coffman recommends tothe state legislature that the 2008 election should be conducted onpaper ballots.

April: Appeals court rules Ohio’s use of punch-card ballots insome counties but not others violates the Equal ProtectionClause of the Fourteenth Amendment.May: 57 counties use DRE voting systems with VVPATs;Cuyahoga County has a number of election administrationproblems including with its new voting system.August: Election Science Institute releases DRE analysis forCuyahoga County’s May primary.November: Jennifer Brunner (D) elected secretary of state.

February/March: Secretary of State Gigi Dennis (D)certifies direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting systems.June: Colorado voter group files lawsuit challenging theDennis’ certification of certain DRE voting systems.September: Denver District Court orders Dennis to enactsecurity standards for electronic voting machines and to retestthe four systems certified by the Secretary of State.November: For the first time, a majority of Coloradovoters use electronic voting machines.

January: Richardson announces a plan to standardize votingsystems that will include paper ballots for optical-scanmachines.March: Richardson signs legislation requiring uniform votingsystems by May.November: State has one of the nation’s highest under-and over-vote rates in the general election.

January: Brunner issues directive mandating all counties using DRE systems offeroptically-scanned paper ballots for the March 2008 primary. ACLU sues the state andCuyahoga County to block county from switching to central count optical scan system.Brunner waives requirement for states to use central count systems in November 2008— requirement remains in place for Cuyahoga County for the March primary.February: ACLU motion denied.

January 3: County clerks testify at public hearing and call for all vote-by-mail forthe November 2008 election.January 10: Coffman tells lawmakers that a fix may be possible that would allowhim to re-certify voting machines.January 15: Legislation is introduced in Colorado House that would allow Coffmanto retest decertified machines.January 16: Jefferson County joins several other counties in filing a formal requestto Coffman to reconsider the decertification of the county’s voting system.January 17: Coffman tells county clerks that he will support their push for an all-mail election in November 2008.January 18 — Colorado House gives preliminary approval to legislation that wouldallow Coffman to retest the decertified machines.

Timeline of Major Events


FL

OR

IDA

CA

LIF

OR

NIA

OH

ION

EW

ME

XIC

OC

OL

OR

AD

O


Methodology/Endnotes

Research was compiled through the use of primary and secondary sources including data derived from state law,state election Web sites, news accounts and reports from government and non-governmental organizations.

All sources are cited below in the endnotes. The opinions expressed by election officials, lawmakers and other interested parties in this document do not

reflect the views of nonpartisan, non-advocacy electionline.org or The Pew Charitable Trusts. All questions concerning research should be directed to Sean Greene, project manager, research at

[email protected].

1 Keating, Dan. “Lost votes in N.M. acautionary tale,” The Washington Post, Aug. 22,2004.

2 Grimm, Julie Ann. “S.F. holds off on touch-screen voting,” The New Mexican, Aug. 1,2004.

3 Bronsan, James. “In 2004, New Mexico worstat counting votes,” Scripps Howard NewsService, Dec. 22, 2004.

4 Richardson, The Hon. Bill. Press release:“New Mexico Governor Signs SweepingElection Reform Package,” Office of Gov. BillRichardson, April 6, 2005

5 Richardson, The Hon. Bill. Press release.“Gov. Bill Richardson pledges $11 million forvoting machines, urges standard system for allcounties,” Office of Gov. Bill Richardson, Jan.12, 2006.

6 Ibid.7 Richardson, The Hon. Bill. Press release:

“Governor Richardson signs legislation toensure that every vote is counted,” Office ofGov. Bill Richardson, March 2, 2006.

8 Alvarez, R. Michael, Atkeson, Lonna Rae andHall, Thad E. “The New Mexico ElectionAdministration Report: The 2006 NovemberGeneral Election,” Aug. 2, 2007.

9 Seligson, Dan. “Florida adopts sweepingvoting reforms,” Stateline.org, May 4, 2001.

10 Crist, The Honorable Charlie. Press release:“Governor Crist Signs Legislation CreatingPaper Trail for Florida Votes,” May 21, 2007.

11 Election Reform Information Project,“What’s Changed, What Hasn’t and Why:Election Reform Since November 2001,”electionline.org, October 2002.

12 Ibid. 13 Decamp, David. “Paper ballots to cost

county,” St. Petersburg Times, May 13, 2007. 14 Op.-Cit, Crist. 15 Ibid.16 “2001 Overview of Election Reform Activity

in the States,” National Conference of StateLegislatures,” May 9, 2001.

17 “Voting Rights in Florida 2002: BriefingSummary,” United States Commission on CivilRights, August 2002.

18 Op.-Cit., Election Reform InformationProject.

19 Mazzella, Christopher. “Office of theInspector General Inquiry into CircumstancesSurrounding the Sept. 10, 2002 Election inMiami-Dade County, Office of the InspectorGeneral, Miami-Dade County, Sept. 20, 2002.

20 Mazzella, Christopher. “OIG Final Report:Miami-Dade County Voting Systems,Contract No. 326, Office of the InspectorGeneral of Miami Dade County, May 20, 2003.

21 Ibid.22 “Barkakati, Dr. Nabajyoti. “Further Testing

Could Provide Increased but Not AbsoluteAssurance That Voting Systems Did NotCause Undervotes in Florida’s 13thCongressional District,” U.S. GovernmentAccountability Office, Oct. 2, 2007.

23 Tamman, Maurice and Matthew Doig.“Analysis suggests undervote caused by ballotdesign,” Herald Tribune, Nov. 16, 2006.

24 Stewart, Charles III. “Declaration of CharlesStewart III on Excess Undervotes Cast inSarasota County, Florida for the 13thCongressional District Race,”www.electionupdates.caltech.edu, Nov. 20, 2006.

25 Stacey, Mitch. “Panel Votes to End Fla.Election Probe, The Associated Press, Feb. 8,2008.

26 Stratton, Jim, Mark K. Matthews and RogerRoy. “Voting problems hit four counties,” The Sun-Sentinel, Nov. 10, 2006.

27 Ibid.28 “Florida to replace touch-screen machines

with optical-scan equipment in all precinctsstatewide,” GovTech.com, Feb. 4, 2007.

29 “Vote Sarasota County: 2008 Voter Guide,”Office of the Supervisor of Elections ofSarasota County, www.srqelections.com, lastvisited Jan. 15, 2008.

30 Crist, The Honorable Charlie. “Testimony ofCharlie Crist, Governor of Florida, before theCommittee on House AdministrationSubcommittee on Elections,” U.S. House ofRepresentatives, Committee on HouseAdministration, Subcommittee on Elections,March 23, 2007.

31 Op.-Cit., Crist press release. 32 The Voting Modernization Bond Act of 2002

(Shelley-Hertzberg Act) in “OfficialDeclaration of the Result of the GeneralElection Held on Tuesday, March 5, 2002,throughout the State of California onStatewide Measures Submitted to a Vote ofElectors,” California Secretary of State.

33 Via email, Jan. 22, 2008. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Gathright, Alan. “Santa Clara County OK’s

touch-screen voting,” San Francisco Chronicle,Feb. 26, 2003.

37 Shelley, The Hon. Kevin. Press release:“Secretary of State Kevin Shelley CreatesSpecial Task Force to Review Paper Trailsand New Electronic Voting Systems,”California Secretary of State, Feb. 19, 2003.

38 Shelley, The Hon. Kevin. Press release:“Secretary of State Kevin Shelley OutlinesObjectives for California’s Share of FederalElection Reform Funding,” CaliforniaSecretary of State, Feb. 21, 2003.

39 Ad Hoc Touch Screen Task Force Report –Section 4, California Secretary of State.

40 Shelley, The Hon. Kevin. Press release:“Secretary of State Kevin Shelley AnnouncesDirectives to Ensure Voter Confidence inElectronic Systems,” California Secretary ofState, Nov. 21, 2003.

41 Ibid. 42 Feist, Paul. “Bi-partisan call to scrap voting

by touch-screen,” San Francisco Chronicle,March 12, 2004.

43 Lucas, Greg. “Electronic voting machinesdealt blow,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 23,2004.

44 Op. Cit. Feist. 45 Wildermuth, John. “’Touch’ voting a worry,”

San Francisco Chronicle, April 26, 2004. 46 “National Briefing: West: California: Paper

Ballots Recommended,” The New York Times,April 29, 2004.

47 Shelley, The Hon. Kevin. Press release:“Secretary of State Kevin Shelley BansDiebold TSx for Use in November 2004General Election,” California Secretary ofState, April 30, 2004.

48 Shelley, The Hon. Kevin. Press release:“Secretary of State Kevin Shelley UnveilsHistoric Paper Audit Trail Standards for E-Voting Machines,” California Secretary ofState, June 15, 2004.

49 Ibid. 50

51 Seelye, Katharine Q. “He Pushed the Hot-Button of Touch Screen Voting,” The NewYork Times, June 15, 2004.

52 2004 News Releases, California Secretary ofState.

53 Shelley, The Hon. Kevin. Press release:“Secretary of State Kevin Shelley AnnouncesAll Remaining E-Voting Counties Have MetStandards for Recertification,” CaliforniaSecretary of State, Aug. 24, 2004.

54 Murphy, Dean E. “National Briefing: West:California: Governor Approves ElectionChanges,” The New York Times, Sept. 29,2004.


Methodology/Endnotes


55 “National Briefing: West: California: SuitThreat on Voting Machines,” The New YorkTimes, Sept. 8, 2004.

56 Shelley, The Hon. Kevin. Press release:“Secretary of State Kevin Shelley CertifiesVoting System with Paper Audit Trail,”California Secretary of State, Jan. 21, 2005.

57 Doyle, Jim. “Bowen beats McPherson insecretary of state race,” San FranciscoChronicle, Nov. 8, 2006.

58 Ibid. 59 Wildermuth, John. “Election issues beset new

secretary of state,” San Francisco Chronicle,Jan. 29, 2007.

60 Wildermuth, John. “New Secretary of Statetaps voting machine foe as deputy,” SanFrancisco Chronicle, Politics Blog, Jan. 9, 2007.

61 Bowen, The Hon. Debra. Press release:“Secretary of State Debra Bowen ReleasesDraft Criteria for Top-to-Bottom VotingMachine Review,” Secretary of State DebraBowen, March 22, 2007.

62 Wildermuth, John. “Early primary squeezesreview of voting systems,” San FranciscoChronicle, March 30, 2007.

63 “Secretary of State Debra Bowen UnveilsDetails on Top-to-Bottom Review ofCalifornia’s Voting Systems Scheduled toBegin Next Week,” Secretary of State DebraBowen, May 9, 2007.

64 Wildermuth, John. “State Vote MachinesLose Test to Hackers,” San Francisco Chronicle,July 28, 2007.

65 Ibid. 66 Wildermuth, John. “Makers of voting

machines battle critics over UC study,” SanFrancisco Chronicle, July 31, 2007.

67 Wildermuth, John. “Elections chief gives OKto vote machines,” San Francisco Chronicle,Aug. 4, 2007.

68 Wildermuth, John. “Touch vote machine banhurts counties,” San Francisco Chronicle, Aug.5, 2007.

69 Ibid. 70 Wildermuth, John. “Secretary of state casts

doubt on future of electronic voting,” SanFrancisco Chronicle, Dec. 2, 2007.

71 Op. Cit., Vartabedian, Ralph and Richard C.Paddock.

72 Ibid. 73 Warner, Melanie. “Machine Politics in a

Digital Age,” The New York Times, Nov. 9,2003.

74 “Risk Assessment Study of Ohio VotingSystems,” Project EVEREST (Evaluation &Validation of Election-Related Equipment,Standards, & Testing), Dec. 14, 2007.

75 Brunner, The Hon. Jennifer. “Directive 2008-1: Optical-Scan Ballots for Voters in Countiesusing DREs,” The Office of the OhioSecretary of State, Jan. 2, 2008.

76 Andrews, Cindi. “Punch-card ballots raisenew worries,” The Enquirer, Aug. 14, 2004.

77 Press release: “ACLU Victorious inChallenge to Ohio’s Punch-Card Ballots,”The American Civil Liberties Union, April21, 2006.

78 “RFP # SOS0428365: State of Ohio Requestfor Proposal on Behalf of the Office of J.Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of Statefor Statewide Voting Systems,” The Office ofthe Ohio Secretary of State, May 23, 2003.

79 Welsh, William. “Ohio holds on votingmachine purchase,” Washington Technology,Aug. 15, 2003.

80 Blackwell, The Hon. J. Kenneth. Pressrelease: “Blackwell Seeks Improvements andAdditional Security Assurances fromElectronic Voting Machine Vendors,” TheOffice of the Ohio Secretary of State, Dec. 2,2003.

81 Carr Smyth, Julie. “Blackwell blocks use ofnew voting machines,” The Plain Dealer, July17, 2004.

82 “Electronic voting machines nixed,” theLorain County Morning Journal, July 17, 2004.

83 Tokaji, Dan. “Voting Machine Vendor SuesOhio Secretary of State,” Equal Vote Blog, May3, 2005.

84 “Election Administration Preview, OhioPrimary Election,” electionline.org, May 2,2006.

85 “DRE Analysis for May 2006 Primary,Cuyahoga County, Ohio,” Election ScienceInstitute, Aug. 2006.

86 Ohio Revised Code 3506.18.87 Op. cit. “Risk Assessment Study of Ohio

Voting Systems.”88 Thompson, Clive. “Can You Count on Voting

Machines?” The New York Times, Jan. 6, 2008. 89 Op. cit. “Risk Assessment Study of Ohio

Voting Systems.”90 Guillen, Joe. “Cuyahoga County’s return to

paper ballots still a mystery to some,” PlainDealer, Dec. 26, 2007.

91 Op. cit. “Risk Assessment Study of OhioVoting Systems.”

92 Norden, Lawrence. “Comment of LawrenceD. Norden, Director of the VotingTechnology Assessment Project at theBrennan Center for Justice at New YorkUniversity School of Law,” Hearing on theEVEREST Review of Ohio’s Voting Systemsand Secretary of State Brunner’s RelatedRecommendations for Cuyahoga County,Dec. 17, 2007.

93 McCarthy, John. “State elections boss backsoff centralized vote-counting plan,” TheAssociated Press as published in The Examiner,Jan. 18, 2008.

94 Ibid.95 Niquette, Mark. “ACLU sues to block switch

to paper ballots,” The Columbus Dispatch, Jan.17, 2008.

96 Kropko, M.R. “ACLU Challenges New OhioVoting System,” The Associated Press, Jan. 18,2008.

97 Guillen, Joe. “Cuyahoga elections directorPlatten racing toward March primary,” PlainDealer, Jan. 13, 2008.

98 Milica, Joe. “State Mulls Options to Pay for$31M Elections System,” The AssociatedPress, Jan. 9, 2008.

99 Op. cit. “Directive 2008-1.”100 Niquette, Mark. “Price tag for ballot directive

may rise,” The Columbus Dispatch, Jan. 9,2008.

101 Higgins, John. “Paper ballot rule may delaycount,” Akron Beacon Journal, Jan. 5, 2008.

102 Op. cit. Higgins.103 “Cuyanoga County Hurriedly Switching to

New Voting System,” The Examiner, Jan. 11,2008.

104 Brunner, The Hon. Jennifer. Press release:“Many Ohio Elections Officials’ ViewsInconsistent with Voters’ Concerns,” TheOffice of the Ohio Secretary of State, Jan. 24,2008.

105 Ibid.106 Staff Reports. “Secretary of State to form task

force,” Rocky Mountain News, Dec. 22, 2000.107 McKibben, Mike. “Election investigation

uncovers many miscalculations,” GrandJunction Sentinel, April 27, 2004

108 S.B. 198, Colorado State Legislature, 2009.109 Dennis, The Hon. Gigi. Press release:

Secretary of State Dennis announcescertification of a third voting system,” March10, 2006.

110 Staff Reports. “Denver Auditor wants peoplefired over election snafu,” The DenverChannel, Nov. 8, 2006.

111 Ibid.112 Coffman, The Hon. Mike. “Coffman

strengthens testing requirements forelectronic voting machines,” Office of theColorado Secretary of State, March 20, 2007

113 Ibid.114 Op. Cit. Coffman.115 Colorado Secretary of State’s Web site

www.elections.colo.gov.116 Coffman, The Hon. Mike. Press release:

“Coffman completes electronic votingequipment tests,” Office of the ColoradoSecretary of State, Dec. 17, 2007.

117 Coffman, The Hon. Mike Press release:“Coffman supports paper ballots at polls for’08 election,” Office of the ColoradoSecretary of State, Dec. 26, 2007.

118 Staff Reports. “Paper ballots will be used inthis year’s election,” The Denver Channel,Jan 23, 2008.

119 “Overview of Maryland’s Voting System,”Maryland State Board of Elections,www.elections.state.md.us, last visited Jan. 17,2008.

120 House Bill 18/State Senate Bill 392(Maryland 2007).

121 Wyatt, Kristen. “Budget cuts put new votingsystem for Maryland in question,” TheAssociated Press, Nov. 6, 2007.

122 Ibid.123 Vogel, Steve. “Touch-screen machines stir

election anxiety in Maryland,” TheWashington Post, Aug. 19, 2006.

124 Ibid.125 Press release: “Maryland moving toward

reliable voting system; Caolition for paperballot increases to 23 statewideorganizations,” TrueVoteMD, Feb. 8, 2006.

126 “Voting Systems Used in Virginia as of Jan. 3,2008,” Commonwealth of Virginia StateBoard of Elections, www.sbe.state.va.us, lastvisited Jan. 17, 2008.

127 State Senate Bill 840 (Virginia 2007). 128 Whitley, Tyler. “Voter groups ask Kaine to

delay signing of bill,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, March 8, 2007.

129 Ibid.130 Matthews, Cara. “Back to the future for N.Y.

voters,” The Ithaca Journal, Jan. 26, 2008.131 Ibid. 132 “Voter-verified paper record legislation,”

VerifiedVoting.org, last visited Jan. 18, 2008. 133 E-mail correspondence with Dan Tokaji, Jan.

16, 2008.

1025 F Street, NW

Suite 900

Washington, DC 20004-1409

tel: 202-552-2000

fax: 202-552-2299

www.electionline.org

The Pew Charitable Trusts applies the power of knowledgeto solve today’s most challenging problems. Our Pew

Center on the States identifies and advances effective policyapproaches to critical issues facing states.

Your first stop for election reform information

BriefingBriefingElectionline.org is the nation’s only nonpartisan, non-

advocacy Web site providing up-to-the-minute news

and analysis on election reform.

A project of The Pew Center on the States,

electionline.org is a forum for learning about, discussing

and analyzing election reform issues. Serving

policymakers, officials, journalists, scholars and

concerned citizens, electionline.org provides a centralized

source of data and information in the face of

decentralized reform efforts.

electionline.org provides research on questions of

interest to the election reform community and

sponsors conferences where policymakers, journalists

and other interested parties can gather to share ideas,

successes and failures.

electionline.org is expanding its reach — continuing its

clearinghouse role while commissioning and evaluating

research aimed at sharpening the key issues in the

field of election reform.

We invite you to contact us with ideas and questions.

Date post:	07-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

FEBRUARY 2008 Briefing/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/… · replaced older voting systems with...

Documents