Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Did rush to e-vote backfire on state?

Early edition: Counties embraced touch-screen machines after the 2000 problems. Now, most voters use the machines — but it hasn’t fixed the problems.

By ADAM C. SMITH and TAMARA LUSH
Published November 25, 2006

After Florida’s hanging chad fiasco of 2000, a bipartisan task force set to work on how to make the recount state a national model for elections.

Among the recommendations: Counties should not rush into buying largely unproven touch screen voting machines, and instead use time-tested “optical scan” systems in which voters mark their choice on a paper ballot by filling in a bubble much like a standardized test.

Touch screens lack a paper trail for effective recounts of close races, the governor’s committee noted, and they have a record of producing more “undervotes” — where voters cast no vote — than other technology.

County leaders brushed off the report, saying touch screens were reliable and voter-friendly and would save money on paper ballot printing. In a bonanza for some high-powered lobbyists and voting machine corporations, local governments spent tens of millions of dollars on touch screen systems.

Five years later, most Florida voters use ATM-like touch screens, but nobody calls Florida the national model for elections. In fact, a growing chorus of skeptics say Florida blew it by so quickly embracing touch screen technology.

“I was quite concerned there was such a rush to go to touch screen, but the counties were heavily lobbied,’’ said former Secretary of State Jim Smith, a Republican who co-chaired the 2000 elections task force “If I could push a button I would say we ought to go back to the optical scan, which has proven it works and is very voter friendly. I want a system where the average voter is absolutely confident that their vote will count.’’

New doubts about touch screens arose this month in Sarasota County, where it appeared 15 percent of touch screen voters did not vote in the high-profile dead heat congressional race between Republican Vern Buchanan and Democrat Christine Jennings.

Elections officials insisted most voters must have intentionally skipped that nasty race, but among absentee voters just 2.5 percent failed to record a vote for either Buchanan or Jennings. Some voters said the ballot design made it easy to overlook that race. Others said they cast their vote only to have the machine indicate they had made no choice in the congressional race.

Buchanan won by 369 votes, Jennings is contesting the election in court, and even Republican leaders say Sarasota’s 18,000 touch screen “undervotes” raise alarm bells.

“I’ve always been a fan of the optical machines,’’ said Republican state House Speaker Marco Rubio of Miami. “I’m concerned about the 18,000 votes in Sarasota and what that means. That certainly doesn’t inspire confidence in our election system.’’

Ironically, just as Sarasota became ground zero for election controversy this year, residents there voted to scrap their $4.5-million touch screen system in favor of an optical scan paper ballot system.

“If this had been an optical scan election we clearly would not be sitting where we’re sitting today,’’ said Kendall Coffey, an attorney representing Jennings in contesting the Congressional District 13 election. “Optical scans are not 100 percent perfect but there are fewer concerns with them and wherever there are concerns you can resolve it because you’ve got ballots, you’ve got the so-called paper trail to review.’’

Even as elections supervisors stand by touch screen machines, many say Florida is inevitably heading toward requiring more of a paper trail than the simple vote summaries that touch screens produce.

“I think that looking toward a paper trail is something we ought to do,’’ Gov.-elect Charlie Crist told the St. Petersburg Times. “You go to your ATM, you get a receipt. I go to get gas, I get a receipt, and I kind of like that. I want people to have confidence in the democratic process. That’s the bottom line to me and whatever it takes to get there I have no objection to, so long as it’s reasonable and we can afford it.’’

One option, not yet certified in Florida nor consistently embraced by election system watchdogs, would be retrofitting touch screens with devices that would print out a summary as each voter makes their selection. The voter could double check the printout as it rolls into a clear, secure box.

“I expect that we will end up with an authorization or a directive that there be some type of paper product associated with the touch screens,’’ said Ron Labasky, an attorney and lobbyist for Florida State Supervisors of Elections Association. “Our recommendation has consistently been we don’t think it’s necessary and the equipment works with integrity and the manner in which it was intended, but if the Legislature deems it’s an appropriate thing because that’s how the people they represent feel, we’ll implement it.’’

It could be costly. In Pinellas, one of 15 touch screen counties, elections supervisor Deborah Clark said it could cost at least $2.7-million to add printers to roughly 3,400 machines. In Pasco, elections chief Kurt Browning said it would cost at least $2-million to change to a new system.

Browning called Sarasota’s move away from touch screens a “horrible mistake” and said in that county’s congressional election people should have caught that they didn’t vote in that race during the review screen at the end of the process.

“Where does the responsibility come in on the part of the voter?” Browning said.

Responded Kindra Muntz of the Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections: “The responsibility can’t rest with the voter if they voted, they saw their vote marked and 12 pages later on the review screen that vote was gone,’’ she said. “That shows something is wrong with that machine.’’

Former Secretary of State Smith questioned whether more state control over local elections offices is inevitable.

“The supervisors have tenaciously wanted to hold onto their independence, but I think we’re going to see such a concern about the integrity of the voting process that there will be by necessity more and more oversight by the state,’’ Smith said.

After the 2000 election debacle, Florida moved fast — too fast, some say — to revamp the way votes are cast in Florida. With millions of dollars at stake, corporations spent lavishly to win over local governments.

ES&S hired former Secretary of State Sandy Mortham, who also represented the Florida Association of Counties, to push ES&S machines. The former Pinellas legislator received an undisclosed commission for every county buying ES&S machines, and the Association of Counties also received a commission from the 32 counties that paid $67-million of ES&S machines.

Leon County supervisor of elections Ion Sancho, who says he is skeptical of voting machine vendors’ assurances, uses and prefers the optical scan system, but said he sees no perfect system yet.

“We’ve given $2-billion dollars to private entities with public money, just to buy our way out of a problem,” he said.
Pinellas elections supervisor Clarke said Florida stands by touch screens but said she hopes the state moves cautiously as it looks for improvements.

“There was such a rush to make a change after 2000,’’ she said. “I hope this time we take the time to be deliberative, study all the systems, and find people who are truly impartial to do the cost-analysis.’’

Adam C. Smith can be reached at asmith@sptimes.com or (727)893-8241. Tamara Lush can be reached at lush@sptimes.com or (727) 893-8612.

[Last modified November 25, 2006, 17:03:27]