More thoughts on new voting machines

As I wrote in my column in the Jan. 14 issue of the News Journal, I agree that having a paper trail with our voting machines is a good idea. However, I don’t think the mere presence of a paper trail is enough to ensure that voting machines are working properly.

Some have argued in recent years that voting machines in Whitley County have been rigged. The allegations even sparked a lawsuit to protest the outcome of some races in the May 2006 primary election. The lawsuit was ultimately thrown out of court.

I was talking with one of the candidates that filed the lawsuit about it a year or so ago. This candidate pointed out that they weren’t saying the machines were rigged so much as complaints they received made them wonder if the machines were working properly.

Quite frankly, the reality is that we are just assuming that our electronic machines are working properly. To my knowledge, no controlled tests have been done since we got the machines to verify that the choices put in will add up to the choices the machines total up at the end of the day.

With the new E-scan voting machines being touted by many that use paper ballots, we will still be making the same assumption without actually checking to see that the names marked on the paper ballots are added up correctly by the machine, even though we would now have the means to go back and do so.
I suspect that in order to go back through and hand count the paper ballots a recount would be required.
A recount involves filing a lawsuit in circuit court, and normally costs the person filing it about $10,000 if they lose the recount.

Quite frankly, I don’t foresee too many candidates after spending thousands of dollars already in an election being willing to put up another $10,000 on the off chance that the machine count totals are wrong.
What I think should be done to prevent machine tampering is probably outside the control of the Whitley County Board of Elections. It would probably require action by the state legislature or even Congress, but here is my plan.

I think paper backups should be installed on the electronic machines we currently have that stay with the machine like the paper tapes on cash registers. Based upon what I have learned during fiscal court meetings, there isn’t such a system now, but if the demand is there then I’m sure the system can be developed.

Once technicians set the current machines, I think the board of elections should randomly selected 10 percent of the machines and test vote them under controlled circumstances to verify that they are working properly and then reset the machines. The test vote would be open to the public to observe.

We modify the existing machines so that once someone makes a choice, a paper printout appears at the side of the machine. We program the machine to then have the voter look over that printout, and press another button if that is whom they selected. If it isn’t, that total is voided and the machine resets so the person can change their vote.

After the election, the board of elections goes back through and randomly selects 10 percent of the machines. They hand count the paper back up ballots by each voter to ensure that they match the machine totals. The board should also have the option of selecting a few more machines to hand count if complaints have been filed about some not working properly or irregularities have come up.
This way we verify that the machines are in fact working properly, and it would make it difficult to rig them without a strong likelihood that you would be caught.