Available alternatives to DRE machines
When a reasonably reliable, accurate, and secure voting technology is already
in use, such as optical scan ballots, acquisition of DRE machines would be a major step backwards. However, many areas urgently
need to upgrade their equipment before the 2004 elections. In these cases there are several acceptable options available now.
At this time, the only tried-and-true technology for providing a voter-verified
audit trail is a paper ballot, where the votes recorded can be easily read and checked by the voter. With appropriate election
administration policies (for example, ensuring the physical security of ballots), voters can be reasonably confident of the
integrity of election results. Two specific alternatives that are available now are:
- Precinct-based optical scan ballots. The CalTech/MIT Voting Technology
Project found them to be the most accurate at recording the voter's intent and not significantly more expensive per vote than
- Touch screen machines that print paper ballots. Such systems would have
many of the advantages of DRE machines, including potentially improved accessibility for voters with disabilities. There is
at least one such machine that is certified in several states, and we hope that all vendors of existing DRE machines could
provide an option to add ballot printers (DRE voting machines in Brazil have been retrofitted with ballot printers, for example).
The paper ballots must be submitted by the voters, to be available for counting or recounting and to avoid vote-selling. The
votes on the paper ballots must be regarded as the definitive legal votes, taking precedence over electronic records or counts.
Committee on House Administration Expo
On May 15 and 16, 2001 the Committee on House Administration
held a voting technology expo in 1310 Longworth, its hearing room.
Among the thirteen companies presenting voting systems
were some of the biggest names in the field, firms with decades of elections experience. Also represented were several
companies prompted to have a shot at building a better voting machine by the historic November 2000 election.
More with links to companies...
...summary of voting machine types, and a discussion of some of the problems that can occur with each of them.
Transcript : March 26, 2001
Federal election commission hearing
Hearing 1 - PANEL 1: Perspectives of Elected Officials
It is uncertain as of June 2003 whether the full cost of replacing each machine the county currently has with some other
type of voting system will be covered by either the federal or state government, or a combination of both.
Here is a Background report from American Council of the Blind on Implementing the Help America Vote Act
On October 29, 2002, the president signed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA)
into law. This act contains several important provisions that are aimed at improving voting access for people with disabilities.
Election Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Provisions in the Help America Vote Act, PL 107-252
The Help America Vote Act establishes federal election standards. The voting system
for federal elections, among other things, shall (A) be accessible for individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual
accessibility for the blind and visually impaired, in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation
(including privacy and independence) as for other voters; (B) satisfy the requirement of subparagraph (A) through the use
of at least one direct recording electronic voting system or other voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities
at each polling place; and(C) if purchased with funds made available under title II on or after January 1, 2007, meet the
voting system standards for disability access (as outlined in this paragraph).
Sacramento County likely to put off touchscreen purchase
But Sacramento, like many communities throughout California, is experiencing
a severe budget shortfall this year and next week will consider cancelling its request for a new voting system and instead
converting its punch card system to an optical scan system until a new voting system is selected, a move that is expected
to cost only $85,000.
Kim Alexander, California Voter Foundation
Caleb Kleppner, Center for Voting
Sequoia markets equipment for precinct scanning -- the Optech Eagle -- and for central
scanning -- the Optech IV-C. The Eagle is manually fed, processes approximately 1,500 ballots per hour, and costs around $5,000
apiece. According to John Homewood, managing engineer at Sequoia, the company is not supporting the use of ranked ballots
with the Eagle. The Eagle can only scan 4 columns of voting marks spaced evenly across the ballot. This leaves only 3 columns
to the right of a list of candidate names, which imposes restrictions on ballot design and the allowable number of rankings.
The Optech IV-C is a central scanning unit with an automatic feeder that scans 20,000
ballots per hour and costs approximately $50,000. The machine, which includes a personal computer and a modem, is fully compatible
with ranked ballots, although like the Eagle, it only reads 4 columns of voting marks. Sequoia bid to supply IV-Cs for London.
Making Optech IV-Cs currently in use compatible with IRV would presumably only require loading the new software developed
for use in London. For jurisdictions counting more than 50,000 ballots on Election Day, the central-scanning system is probably
the option with the lowest capital and operating costs compared to precinct-scanning or touch screen equipment.
Please be aware the federal Help America Vote Act contains provisions for people with disabilities. That may weigh
more in favor of the touch-screen machines which are able to provide innovative features.
See menu "Solutions Here" which references an article on variety of touch-screen machines with the voter-verified paper
trail, and outlines a few websites promoting those machines.
However, keep in mind, these provisions are to-date voluntary requirements upon the states, unless the state chooses
to receive federal monies.
In addition, the lever style machines could be adequate, with an alteration to make them compliant with disability access.
So, it appears our county lever machines could remain adequate until a new system is adequately studied. There
is no rush.
VOTING SYSTEMS STANDARDS
The act does not outlaw or require replacement of mechanical
lever machines. Instead, it specifies:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit
a State or jurisdiction which used a particular type of voting system in the elections for Federal office held in November
2000 from using the same type of system after the effective date of this section, so long as the system meets or is modified
to meet the requirements of this section (§ 301, P. L. 107-252).
But the law does establish a deadline and impose certain
standards that every state's voting machines must meet for elections for federal offices. Beginning January 1, 2006, HAVA
requires all voting systems used in federal elections to:
1. permit the voter to verify his selections on the ballot,
notify him of overvotes, and permit the voter to change his vote or correct an error before casting his ballot;
2. produce a permanent paper record for the voting system
that can be manually audited and is available as an official record for recounts;
3. provide individuals with disabilities, including the
blind and visually impaired, the same accessibility to voting while maintaining voter privacy and ballot confidentiality;
4. provide alternative language accessibility, as required
by the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and
5. comply with the error rate standards in the federal
voting system standards in effect on October 29, 2002.
In addition every state must adopt uniform standards defining
what constitutes a vote and what will be counted as a vote for each certified voting system.
A spokesperson for the Voting Machine Service Center,
Inc. , the company that refurbishes and sells the mechanical lever machines, addressed the new voting systems standards. She
says that the machines have fold-down panels that allow them to be lowered to accommodate people in wheelchairs. There is
no accommodation for people in wheelchairs who cannot use their arms. They would require assistance. To allow the blind or
visually impaired to vote, officials can insert over the ballot label a clear plastic strip that has candidate and office
names imprinted in Braille. The plain plastic strips are part of the ballot label now. The lever machines have no capacity
for an audio feature at this time for use by blind voters who do not read Braille.
The mechanical lever machines can accommodate a ballot
label written in up to three languages.
The mechanical lever machines include a feature that can
provide a paper audit. Using noncarbon (NCR) paper at the back of the AVM printomatic machine, officials make an impression
with the machine set at zero before the election. After the election, they make another impression that shows the vote totals
for that machine. The printomatic accessory can be installed on machines manufactured after 1962.
Kennie Gill, the staff director and chief counsel
of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, who worked on the development of the federal legislation, makes the point
that the disabled accessibility requirements apply to voting by the blind or visually impaired (Braille is not an alternative
solution since not all blind people can read Braille) and to voting by people who do not have the use of their arms or legs.
Currently, such people can vote with assistance on the mechanical lever machines, but are not able to do so in private or
independently. Having at least one DRE or properly equipped voting machine at each polling place meets the act's disabled
accessibility requirement; however, every machine the state or a municipality purchases with federal funds after January 1,
2007, must provide the kind of accessibility required by the new law. Any voter who comes to the polling place must be allowed
to use the DRE machine; it cannot be segregated for use by only the disabled.