Salt Lake County Council votes on Diebold TODAY

[helderheid]

As you know, the Salt Lake County Council met on Tuesday August 30 to vote on the Diebold voting machines. After hearing from concerned voters, they took the unusual step of delaying their vote by one week. The new meeting is tomorrow and as many of us need to be there as possible.

Tuesday the 6th at 3 PM

3:00 pm at the SL County Council chambers on 2100 South and State Street

Points we would like to bring up:



*DREs have an extremely high and proven failure rate.
*Our current system has been proven extremely reliable.
*HAVA does not require we change our system - if the State chose to accept HAVA section 102 funding to replace our punchcard system, it was their choice to do so - it was not mandated federally.
*The vote on record with a DRE voting machine is electronic. The paper trail is useless without proper auditing in place. An optical scan machine would give each voter a VERIFIABLE PAPER BALLOT.
*How can the State force the counties to choose from only one machine vendor? Is that legal? If so, why are they bothering to have the counties vote on approving these machines?
*DREs are the most expensive choice.

Since presenting this to SL County, our County Clerk Sherrie Swensen has informed me that we cannot purchase an optical scan machine (which would give each voter a verifiable PAPER ballot) because Diebold, whom the State apparently has a purchase contract with, does not provide an optical scan machine that is compatible with disabled voters (there are other voting machine vendors that do offer this type of machine, specifically Populex, ES&S, and Avante) which we would prefer if they insist on making a total switch - they have been told they must despite the fact that HAVA doesn't require they do so. This was the State's decision). So the question we have is how can the State make a decision to go with a particular vendor without the counties' consent?

Below is the letter I sent to the County Council. Here is a link to a pdf file with cost comparisons:

http://www.votersunite.org/info/CostHandout.pdf

Thank you!

Dear Salt Lake County Council Member:

Utah Voters for Open and Transparent Elections (U-VOTE) appreciates your willingness to take the time to carefully consider the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 Voting System Agreement prior to offering your approval. As stated in our comments to the Council on August 30 th , we believe the significant changes to Salt Lake County's voting procedures required by this agreement has significant implications for the integrity of the election process.

There were several important questions raised at the August 30 th council meeting U-VOTE would like to address. First, the question of HAVA compliance should Salt Lake County decide not to change from punch card to direct recording electronic (DRE) equipment as recommended by the Lt. Governor's office is in dispute.

HAVA funding for election related activities is dealt with under Title 1 of the Act. Section 101 (b) states quite explicitly states can receive HAVA funds for a variety of election related purposes which need not include replacement of election equipment. It reads:

(b) Use of Payment.--
(1) In general.--A State shall use the funds provided under a payment made under this section to carry out one or more of the following activities:
(A) Complying with the requirements under title III.
(B) Improving the administration of elections for Federal office .
(C) Educating voters concerning voting procedures, voting rights, and voting technology.
(D) Training election officials, poll workers, and election volunteers.
(E) Developing the State plan for requirements payments to be submitted under part 1 of subtitle D of title II.
(F) Improving , acquiring, leasing, modifying , or replacing voting systems and technology and methods for casting and counting votes.
(G) Improving the accessibility and quantity of polling places, including providing physical access for individuals with disabilities, providing nonvisual access for individuals with visual impairments, and providing assistance to Native Americans, Alaska Native citizens, and to individuals with limited proficiency in the English language.
(H) Establishing toll-free telephone hotlines that voters may use to report possible voting fraud and voting rights violations, to obtain general election information, and to access detailed automated
information on their own voter registration status,
specific polling place locations, and other relevant
information. (Emphasis added)

Clearly under Section 101 of Title 1 HAVA does not require a state to use funds to replace its election equipment. U-VOTE interprets references to “improving” or “modifying” election systems together with the reference to “improving the administration of elections for federal office” to mean Section 101 money could be used to upgrade existing systems.

Federal moneys acquired under Section 102 of Title 1 must be used to replace punch card, lever, and other specified voting systems. However, the state was not forced by HAVA to seek Section 102 funds and is clearly promoting the replacement of existing election systems by choice, not federal mandate.

That said, the Salt Lake County Council has made it clear the existing technology employed by the elections office is badly in need of updating. It currently uses a system that is reliant upon Windows 95, and the county rightly is seeking opportunities to at least upgrade, if not actually replace, its elections system. To this end, U-VOTE offers the county two alternatives to continuing with the current election system.

First, assuming the state is receiving money under Title 1, Section 101 of HAVA, it is clear one option is the use of this money to “improve” or “modify” the existing system. U-VOTE does not believe upgrading existing technology to something compatible with a later version of Windows or other operating system is precluded by HAVA under this section of Title 1.

Second, if the council and clerk's office is convinced replacement of existing systems is necessary, we believe optical scan technology offers far greater advantages over the DRE machines currently being promoted by the state. While these systems have also had their share of documented problems, they offer voters with a verifiable paper ballot and provide local election officials with the paper ballots necessary to conduct audits of the system and conduct accurate recounts when necessary. In addition, optical machines offer Salt Lake County with the means to provide opportunities for the disabled to cast secret ballots without the assistance of election workers or others should they choose. The optical scan option also represents the solution most similar to the current voting system, thus minimizing the amount of voter education and election worker training necessary to facilitate the transition to the new voting system.

Finally, the question of early voting has been raised as an issue of concern to some members of the Salt Lake County Council. To our knowledge HAVA says nothing about early voting. However, U-VOTE wishes to reiterate voter confidence in the DRE voting machines is extremely weak. We have heard from a number of voters they will seek opportunities to cast an absentee ballot via mail before they will risk having their vote recorded falsely or not at all by a DRE machine. The type of change being contemplated in this case will do nothing to reduce early voting and will likely increase it. Should any of the types of problems already documented around the country take place here, future elections will likely see even further increases in absentee ballots cast.

A copy of a summary of problems with DRE machines already documented throughout the nation can be viewed at:
http://www.votersunite.org/info/ElectronicVotingInBrief.pdf for your review. If you have any questions for us regarding our position on this important issue, please do not hesitate to contact us. We thank you again for taking more time to carefully consider this important issue and for listening to our concerns.

Sincerely,


Clarity Sanderson
Executive Director, U-VOTE



Clarity Sanderson, UDPC Internet Outreach
Utah Democratic Progressive Caucus
Office: 801 485-4076
[e-mail]
http://www.udpc.org
Democratic Action Through Individual Participation