CERTIFICATION
DOUBTFUL FOR HUMBOLDT COUNTY'S CHOSEN HAVA VOTING SYSTEM
By Ellen Komp,
CLMP
August 7, 2006
The California
Secretary of State's office has
issued a staff report recommending that VotePad, Humboldt county's preferred
means of complying with the federal Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA), not be
certified for use in elections in the state. VotePad has asked for a re-test.
At the
Humboldt County Election Advisory Committee meeting on August 3, County
Clerk-Recorder Carolyn Crnich gave a report about the testing performed on
VotePad equipment in Sacramento by the Secretary of State on July 19 and 20.
Paul Kraft and
Kate McGregor were hired to monitor the testing, and Crnich reported that
neither of them had listened to the entire audiotape that guides disabled
voters through the VotePad ballot before performing the test. Volunteer testers
mainly had dexterity problems and at least one was found to be fraudulent.
Monitors gave
instructions to the 31 volunteers that were inconsistent with VotePad's
protocol, according to Crnich, and the differences between the less-private
testing procedures and actual voting procedures were not clarified when exit
interviews were conducted. One volunteer using a mouth stick successfully
completed the ballot in 20 minutes; the average time for completion was one
hour with one subject taking three hours.
An error rate
of 2.6 errors/ballot on the VotePad/Diebold system was found, and on both that
combination and the VotePad/Hart combination tested, more than half of the
errors were related to write-in voting. The staff is recommending against
certification because of the error rate, the inability of blind people to
vote/verify on the system, and the length of time it takes to vote on the
system.
In
a July 31 letter to McPherson, Ellen Theisen and Dianna Smith of VotePad
wrote, "'We believe that the data from the valid portions of the examination
warrant conditional certification of the two tested systems for the November
2006 election. Finally, we believe that your office should immediately schedule
a more valid re-test of the blended systems so that these systems may be unconditionally
certified for use in future elections in California."
Crnich will
attend a certification hearing in Sacramento on August 9, after which public
comment will be taken for five business days. Secretary of State Bruce McPherson
will then determine whether or not to certify VotePad.
Humboldt
county was set to implement a test of VotePad technology for the June 2006
election and Yolo county was ready to roll it out in every polling place when
McPherson's office informed the two counties they could not use the uncertified
equipment.
HAVA requires
that all polling places allow disabled citizens to vote in an unassisted
fashion. Committee member Kevin Collins pointed out that other voting methods
had not been tested by disabled voters.
Election
officials from Yolo and four other Northern California counties were named in a
lawsuit filed in federal court on August 2 that also names McPherson. The
plaintiffs include the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the California Council of
the Blind; the American Association of People With Disabilities (AAPD); and 6
disabled voters.
The case says
that in San Francisco, Marin, and Sonoma Counties, voters with manual
disabilities were unable to use the AutoMARK machine (made by Election Systems
& Software). In Alameda County, the lawsuit claims that the Diebold
touchscreen machines for disabled voters used in June would have been fine,
except that they were modified to produce a paper record on which a blind voter
would not be able to verify his or her vote. By California law, all touchscreen
voting machines must have a voter-verified paper trail. The VotePad
verification wand is the only known method by which a blind voter can verify a
paper ballot (it can also be used by the deaf).
In Yolo
County, the lawsuit claims there were no disabled accessible voting machines at
all on June 6, and the attorney for the lawsuit's plaintiffs say the VotePad
device Yolo was testing still would not have worked for disabled voters who
can't use their hands.
The AAPD
listed Sequoia Voting Systems as a major donor on their website and have
reportedly receive contributions from ES&S, and Diebold gave The National
Federation of the Blind (NFB) $1 million in donations through its ATM business
branch. VotePad has made no known contribution to disabled advocacy groups.
In order to
comply with HAVA requirements by the November election, Humboldt county must
act immediately upon VotePad certification or denial of certification from the
Secretary of State's office, expected around August 16. Two unsigned contracts
from Diebold and Hart Intercivic are back-up plans should VotePad fail
certification. The Hart option would cost nearly half a million dollars.
Elections
manager Lindsay McWilliams said at the meeting that San Luis Obispo county,
which has around 175,000 voters, only had 11 voters using HAVA equipment in
June. Another pending lawsuit challenges Diebold's touchscreen system, and
Crnich expressed reluctance to enter that fray, even though the county uses
Diebold optical-scanning equipment and software for the majority of its voters.
It was noted
at the meeting that in Oregon, which has statewide mail-in voting, is required
to have only a few HAVA machines in each county, rather than one in each
precinct. McWilliams said his office is sending 17,000 invitations to Humboldt
county voters to become permanent absentee voters and expects a 20% return
rate. Mendocino county was eager to move to an all-mail voting system before a
state bill allowing such a system died last session.
"No one
system will meet all the needs of every disabled voter," Crnich
emphasized, "but we need every tool we can get in our toolbox."