Changing how we vote
Officials are hesitant to buy the required new polling machines.
By TOM JOYCE
Daily Record staff
Monday, March 22, 2004

Like a grandfather clock or a grand piano, a device can be low-tech, yet elegant and functional.

So it is with the old, lever-activated voting machines that York County currently relies on. They’re bulky, yet reassuring in their very solidity. Cast your ballot and hear a metallic “thunk,” like the mechanisms of democracy kicking into gear. And the technology dates back about 100 years, according to York County Elections Director John Scott. Their most high-tech component is a light bulb.

But the federal government says those machines have to go. With their inaccessibility to people with disabilities, their inability to communicate in different languages and their incapacity for notifying voters when they’ve made a mistake, the machines don’t meet the criteria specified under the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

“They’ve done a fine job for 50 years,” Scott said, but there are new expectations now of what the machines must do.

The problem is, the federal government hasn’t been very forthcoming about what those expectations are. And while federal officials are still working out specific standards for complying with the 2002 law, local and state elections officials are waiting in limbo.

The Help America Vote Act passed in reaction to the messy election impasse in Florida during the 2000 election. It’s designed to enhance both the ability of citizens to cast their votes and the accountability of election officials.

But the portion dealing with new voting machines has run into a few snags. Pennsylvania, like many states, has taken out a waiver delaying compliance from 2004 to Jan. 1, 2006.

Brian McDonald, a Pennsylvania State Department spokesman, said the state government is supposed to advise local elections officials about how to implement the new voting standards. And both the state and federal governments are eventually supposed to certify voting systems to make sure they comply with the laws.

But the federal government is still working out the details. And nobody wants to buy a bunch of new voting machines that may end up flunking federal certification somewhere down the road.

“We’re stuck in a gray area,” McDonald said. “We don’t know what to tell the counties in terms of what to do with their machines.”

As proposed under the new law, voting systems would be required to:

· Allow voters to review their votes before casting the ballot, and correct them if they wish.

· Warn voters if they’ve “over-voted,” or cast votes for more candidates than allowed, thus invalidating their vote for that office.

· Have at least one machine at each polling place that’s accessible to voters with disabilities. That includes voters who are vision- or hearing-impaired.

· Provide options for voters who speak languages other than English.

· Produce a paper record with an “audit capacity.” Basically, this means that anybody doing a subsequent audit of the polls would be able to double-check how many votes were cast, but would not be able to tell how individual people voted.

Scott said the county will probably rely on computerized, touch-screen machines eventually. It now has 335 of the old machines. But between growing districts and the disability access requirement at each polling place, the county will probably need about 800 new ones.

The federal and state governments are supposed to fund the transitions. But just in case, the county commissioners last year approved a potential bond issue that would provide up to $4 million for the new voting system if necessary, Scott said.

And what about the old machines?

“We’ll probably call a scrap dealer,” said Howard Clarke, assistant director of elections.