New voting system could cost $6 million
By: CHRIS BAGLEY - Staff Writer | ∞
New state mandates for February's presidential primary election will prompt Riverside County either to adopt a $6 million system of paper ballots or to file a lawsuit to retain its existing system of touch-screen terminals, county officials said Monday.
After teams of computer scientists described security gaps in most counties' voting systems late last month, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen ordered a wide range of new security measures for touch-screen systems used in 22 counties and for the systems of scanned paper ballots used in most other counties. Bowen also sharply curtailed the use of touch-screens, a move that virtually assures that those counties will have to buy and install entirely new systems.
In Riverside County, where 200,000 voters could vote at polls in February, the most promising option is a ballot that a voter marks with ink or pencil and then feeds into a scanner, Registrar of Voters Barbara Dunmore said. Outfitting each of the county's 605 voting precincts with one of the Sequoia Insight scanners could cost as much as $5 million, according to a preliminary estimate by Dunmore. That figure doesn't include the 3,000-plus voting booths that voters would need.
Several companies make and service such optical-scan systems, which were used last November by some 60 percent of the state's poll voters, according to the California Voter Foundation. The Insight, which is already used in the counties of Tulare, Ventura and Alameda, would probably fit most smoothly with Riverside County's other equipment, most of which is made by Sequoia Voting Systems, Dunmore said. Dunmore said she expects to have a better idea after meeting with Supervisors John Tavaglione and Marion Ashley later this week.
The county is already negotiating with Sequoia to replace 20-year-old scanners used to count absentee ballots. A new set of Sequoia scanners is estimated at $700,000.
Of the 39 security requirements Bowen laid out for using Sequoia systems, many apply to its optical scanners. During a conference call Monday morning, Sequoia representatives assured clients that the company would be able to bring its equipment into compliance by February, Dunmore said.
The orders don't apply to the local elections that most counties will hold in November 2006.
Less certain is how Dunmore and other registrars will continue to use touch-screens. Bowen is allowing one per polling place, in keeping with a federal requirement that blind, illiterate and other disabled voters be fully accommodated, but she isn't limiting their use to disabled voters.
Another Bowen requirement mandates a 100 percent manual recount of the spooled paper printouts to double-check each machine's accuracy. In Riverside County, that could require recounts of more than 30,000 ballots, compared to 15,000 or fewer in several recent elections. Bowen ordered that additional workers be recruited and trained by counties and that manufacturers cover the costs.
"Of course, it is causing us concern," Dunmore said. "It is a very tedious and boring and laborious process."
Kim Alexander, president of the voter foundation, said precincts could vary widely in terms of how many voters use the touch-screens. While avoiding direct criticism of touch-screen terminals, Alexander has said counties may have adopted them hastily without considering how state and federal regulators would evaluate their security. Local elections officials up and down the state have complained that Bowen's orders could cause even greater haste as counties supplant their touch-screen systems for the February elections.
"It may be hard for the counties to make the transfer for this election, but they're going to save a lot of money in the long run," Alexander said.
In Riverside County, which has spent some $30 million on Sequoia touch-screens since 2000, Supervisor Jeff Stone didn't see it that way. Like registrars and manufacturers, Stone has frequently criticized the computer scientists' review as far removed from the conditions in which the voting terminals are used and stored. And the cure Bowen has proposed could be worse than the perceived ills, Stone said.
"We have a political zealot in Sacramento," he said. "The secretary of state has been very shortsighted in coming up with the decision she did so close to the February primary."
Stone said he asked the county's attorneys Monday morning to evaluate potential legal action. Riverside and other counties using touch-screens could ask a judge to block Bowen's orders or, if that fails, to force the state to reimburse them for money they have spent on systems that were cleared for use.
An attempt to block Bowen's orders could face a couple of hurdles. For one, an advisory panel created by the Board of Supervisors earlier this year came back last month with a recommendation that the county replace most of its 3,700 touch-screens "as quickly as possible." The panel didn't have the power to mandate a timetable, nor did it suggest one.
And such an attempt failed in 2004. After Secretary of State Kevin Shelley ordered touch-screen terminals to produce paper receipts by that year's general election, Riverside County asked a federal judge to block the order. The judge refused.
"There's a great deal of administrative discretion on this," said Henry Brady, a political scientist at UC Berkeley.
The matter at hand is somewhat different from Riverside County's earlier case, since Bowen's order does not provide any conditions that would allow Riverside, San Bernardino and 13 other counties to continue using all their Sequoia touch-screens. A similar order applies to San Diego and three other counties that use touch-screen terminals made by Diebold Election Systems.
Brady said he faults most of the voting-machine manufacturers for imperfect security, but he also questioned Bowen's decision to single out Sequoia and Diebold touch-screen systems while imposing new but less stringent conditions on a third. Hart-InterCivic's electronic voting systems are similar in concept to Sequoia's and Diebold's, but users make their choices with a device similar to a computer mouse. All three are known in elections lingo as "direct-recording electronic" terminals, or "DREs."
And the UC computer scientists' July 27 reports don't argue that optical scanners, which are subject to new security measures, are any better than touch-screen terminals, which are all but banned outright, Brady said. In focusing on protection from rogue computer hackers, Bowen ignored the various systems to record voters' intentions accurately, Brady added.
"It's very mystifying why she came to the decision she came to," Brady said.
Tom Courbat, a Murrieta activist, said he expects counties that use touch-screens to take legal action whether or not Riverside is among them.
"Expect this to be a continuing melodrama for months," said Courbat, a leader of the Southwest County group SAVE R VOTE, which initially advocated increased security for the Sequoia touch-screen machines, but later urged county officials to drop touch-screens altogether.
Since 174,000 voters went to the polls in the last presidential primary elections, in March 2004, the county's population has increased by about 16 percent, though more voters also tend to vote by absentee ballot. It remains to be seen whether California's splitting of this year's primaries will hurt voter turnout. While the presidential nominating contests and two or more referenda are expected on the ballot in February, state primary elections will be held in June. On the other hand, both major parties' presidential nominations are up for grabs next year, in contrast to 2004, when incumbent George W. Bush faced no opposition from within the Republican Party.
Courbat said he believes local officials in Riverside County and elsewhere are exaggerating the difficulties of making changes before the February elections.
"They say the timing couldn't be worse," Courbat wrote in an e-mail. "I say the timing couldn't be better! Even if they have to hand-count every ballot, three items to count is way easier than counting the typical 30 or so."
-- Contact staff writer Chris Bagley at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2615, or cbagley@californian.com.
On the Net:
Restrictions set for voting machines (Aug. 5, 2007)
Elections officials await orders (Aug. 4, 2007)
Security experts warn of hacked votes (July 28, 2007)
Voting machines may be on way out (July 18, 2007)
County panel urges scrapping e-voting (July 13, 2007)
County eyes new absentee ballots (May 2, 2007)
Registrar pledges new elections security (April 25, 2007)
Voter activist struggles against the machines (April 22, 2007)
Hacker addresses voting panel (March 31, 2007)
State elections review prompts concern, optimism (March 27, 2007)
County supervisors review election report (Jan. 24, 2007)
State official petitioned on e-voting challenge (Jan. 5, 2007)
Riverside County taps elections panel (Dec. 13, 2006)
Supervisors give OK on election (Dec. 6, 2006)
Panel to examine elections following complaints from voters, candidates (Nov. 30, 2006)
Ballot shortages concern officials (Nov. 19, 2006)
In Riverside County, 31 percent of ballots remain uncounted (Nov. 15, 2006)
Locks demanded for vote machines; critics say 'sleepovers' are an unnecessary risk (Nov. 07, 2006)
E-voting safer -- but safe enough? (Nov. 4, 2006)
Elections officials to post results at polls (Oct. 10, 2006)
County to video-record ballot counting (Oct. 4, 2006)
Reports paint an election in contrast (Sept. 13, 2006)
Voter group: Clean up election processes (July 12, 2006)
Absentee votes rejected in large numbers (July 11, 2006)
Riverside County voting systems seem free of problems (June 8, 2006)
Registrar, voter groups agree on posting results (June 2, 2006)
County in good (and bad) company (May 31, 2006)
Ballot delays rile candidates (May 28, 2006)
Absentee ballots stack up (May 27, 2006)
Volunteer watchdogs join election fray (May 21, 2006)
Bills seek to open voting software (May 14, 2006)
Elections watchdogs eye new safeguards (May 7, 2006)
More Stories
Advertisement
Modern wrote on Aug 6, 2007 10:33 PM:Bring back the chad. It's so much accurate and less expensive.
Escondeeter wrote on Aug 7, 2007 12:28 AM:Modern's absolutely right. Unlike Florida, California had codified rules for how to interpret hanging chads. The punch card system worked dependably and well here for many, many years. By an interesting coincidence, the lone incident of alleged 'chad problems' in California occurred in a Los Angeles election where the candidate making the claim was a client of a certain 'campaign consultant'. Several years later, that same 'consultant' turned up in 2000 in Florida, working for Al Gore.
A Tree wrote on Aug 7, 2007 1:52 AM:Why does Dunmore assume the county must buy from Sequoia? Is Riverside a sole-source county? Did voters sell their soul to Sequoia? This is upside down! Why are politicians and appointed election officials telling people to blindly trust voting machine manufacturers?
herewegoagain wrote on Aug 7, 2007 5:17 AM:Accurate? Do you remember the pictures of election officials with magnifying glasses trying to detemine the intent of voters in Florida?
Tree top says wrote on Aug 7, 2007 8:33 AM:Opinion is Barbara Dunmore should be removed from office......
toldyaso wrote on Aug 7, 2007 8:58 AM:if the 'decision makers' had listen to all the common sense telling them these machines were a bad idea we would not be dealing with this problem or the great expense it is costing the taxpayer. do we hear greed and payoff here,?
Doug wrote on Aug 7, 2007 9:03 AM:I suggest Riverside ask to make the primary a mail only election. That way no Touch screen machines would be used. Small elections have been done this way in Riverside County before.
Sparkplug wrote on Aug 7, 2007 9:17 AM:If the registrar of our county is going to push for "more absentee ballots" for all sakes of accountability make sure there is a check list mailed with the ballots of all contents intended to be in the envelope! I will not be DISENFRANCHISED again! Nor, will my friends and family by not recieving the entire ballot package from the registrar. Make sure the proper United States Postal Service postmark date is included on the checklist as well. Thank you Stone for speaking up for us residents in regards to Debra Bowen's lack of "Collaborative Policy"
This quote from July 28th, 2007 wrote on Aug 7, 2007 9:38 AM:No Way! wrote on Jul 28, 2007 8:51 AM: " I'm not in favor of Barbara Dunsmore "disenfranchising" me, and many of my neighbors AGAIN by not mailing the absentee ballots ON TIME, and picking & choosing which ballots she wants her crew to deliver to us. I'd rather take the extra time to volunteer at the polls than be cheated again on my voting priveleges! "
This quote from July 12th, 2006 wrote on Aug 7, 2007 9:54 AM:Stewart wrote on Jul 12, 2006 7:26 AM: " We have the original envelopes that our "absentee ballots" were mailed in. One is postmarked 5/20/06 and the other is postmarked 5/22/06. We were DISENFRANCHISED! Niether of them included half of the ballots for the Republican Party measures (Parts A & B) We were only delivered (Parts C & D) for the Nonpartison ballot. I agree that there is some "nuttiness" in this county at several levels. "
This quote from July 11th, 2006 wrote on Aug 7, 2007 10:04 AM:Stewart wrote on Jul 11, 2006 8:19 AM: " Forgive my interaction for being blunt. Barbara Dunmore is not qualified by reputation for her job. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Her gall to blame a federal agency is flamboyant to her lack of character and understanding of any job description. This article only scratches the surface of unwanted GOP headaches. #1. DISENFRANCHISED! Barb's dept. is guilty of not mailing the entire ballot (Part A, B, particurily C, & D) to the voluntary voters. Q: What does this mean? Her dept. did not give us the full right to vote! Without a complete ballot, we are quote, "disenfranchised". #2. My absentee ballot was postmarked "May 22'06". I was the first in our family to recieve. Surprise! I only recieved half the absentee ballot! I call my elected officials. Answer? "Get to the polls on 6/6/06." #3. While at the poll on voting day the volunteers did not know how to handle my unfortunate disenfracnchisement. While expalining the reprocessing proceedures, the liberal citizens in line behind me scoffed, and choked when I took the time to educate the volunteers. #4. While on this experience I witnessed 4 accounts of "poll assistance". Each voter had a "coach" telling them in english (and a foreign language) how to vote. This activity is illegal. Yet, our GOP doesn't train it's volunteers to recognize this? Dunmore. HOPING you can work out a new distribution system by the 2008 primary elections doesn't hold water for the citizens of Riverside County. Get a job at the DMV. "
GUISEPPI .. wrote on Aug 7, 2007 10:16 AM:... $6 million dollars for 3 million people in the county? That $2 per person in the County. That's little more than the cost of postage for a couple of elections. Small price to pay to protect our most valuable democratic institution, the VOTE!
Voter .. wrote on Aug 7, 2007 10:21 AM:... Dunmore said. "It is a very tedious and boring and laborious process" counting all those paper ballots. Hey! If she is bored with her job, QUIT!
Sandy wrote on Aug 7, 2007 10:26 AM:tedious and boring and laborious". Whoever said democracy was easy! We have to do whatever it takes to make sure every vote is cast and counted as the citizen wants--no matter the cost or time. Democracy is worth every cent we need to put out to achieve it.
Concerned-1 wrote on Aug 7, 2007 10:34 AM:Our buraracy, I mean government, is not ready for anything more high tech than a pencil. As if voting means anything now days anyway...
Sparkplug wrote on Aug 7, 2007 10:45 AM:Chris Bagley has done a really good job on this "Series" of articles by providing us the transparency to research the overall issues. I recommend linking to the (provided) May 27th, 2006 headline, "Ballot delays rile candidates." & the July 11th, 2006 headline, "Absentee votes rejected in large numbers." I'll say two things more, #1"People get paid to do a job, but the job doesn't get done." #2 I have no health condition that may limit the flow of blood to my brain!
Fire Dunmore! wrote on Aug 7, 2007 11:44 AM:She's proven her loyalty. Sequoia will hire her in a heartbeat. She is the monkey to Sequia's organ grinding. Voters deserve a registrar that works for them.
Concerned-1 wrote on Aug 7, 2007 12:44 PM:Bureaucracy is what I meant, sorry about that. Anyway, the government bureaucracy we currently have is not capable of managing anything more complicated than paper and pencil. Our current Registrar is an embarrassment and Sequoia has been gaining notoriety for years. We are asleep, as a county, as a nation and as a people. What will it take to wake us up?
Vista Resident wrote on Aug 7, 2007 12:48 PM:I am extremely grateful that Debra Bowen had the spine, steel, and awesome courage to stand up to some very powerful people with this decision. Do you remember what happened to former elected Secretary of State Kevin Shelley when he had the temerity to hold Diebold to account for not getting their voting software certified at the federal level in compliance with federal laws? Shelley disallowed Diebold machines to be used here in San Diego County. Shelley also insisted on a paper trail for voting machines. Then Shelley was harrassed with lawsuits and ridiculous character assassination until he finally quit his post as Secretary of State. What happened next? Our governor appointed a Secretary of State who reinstated Diebold machines for use down here in San Diego County. What then does our Registrar of Voters do in San Diego? Wants to buy more Diebold machines!!!! These folks feel just fine with e-voting because if the vote gets stolen in that fashion, it's almost impossible to tell that fraud occurred. Huge numbers of votes can be flipped in seconds electronically with no trail. We need to go back to paper ballots, count by hand locally with all parties observing the count, and then post local results on a website so that the result is completely transparent to everyone. I'm a programmer. Anyone who know anything about computers and the online environment knows that these systems ARE NEVER SECURE. Period. We are constantly getting news of new security threats -- especially to the Windows operating system. And, Windows is the operating system that the Diebold GEMS election management system runs under. In the recent California tests, university testers were able to avoid audit logs and directly access data on the Diebold machine. E-voting is just BAD news for democracy.
Concerned-1 wrote on Aug 7, 2007 2:06 PM:Vista Resident is right. I have a close friend who is a programmer and developer. She said the exact same thing: Systems are never secure. There's always a way to hack in. We are in our infancy of computer and internet technology, it will be awhile before we can use them to vote safely. Until then...Count the votes!
Ed wrote on Aug 7, 2007 2:49 PM:Back in the olden days you couldn't vote unless you owned property. That way, property taxes could not be raised to fund social programs on the backs of property owners. Now, seems like some bozos can't even figure out how to vote properly with leaving a hanging chad.
susan wrote on Aug 7, 2007 4:17 PM:I would respectfully request that our County Sups not waste our time and our money with lawsuits. Just get with the program and get us our paper ballots promptly then see that they are counted in a timely manner. Is this too much to ask?
Perspective wrote on Aug 7, 2007 5:17 PM:How many BILLIONS of dollars are we spending in Iraq to give them the freedom to vote. 6 million to fix the voting here is a drop in the bucket. It's a freakin' bargain! Bring democracy home for a change!!!!
John wrote on Aug 7, 2007 5:19 PM:What price democracy? Spend the $ 6 mil and get it done. Quit the foot draggin'.
Let's Clear Up Some Things wrote on Aug 7, 2007 6:05 PM:FACT: The county bought a second set of DRE's just one year ago against the urging of Sav-R-Vote. Jeff Stone needs to be un-elected. He and his 3 pro-DRE supervisor buddies (Not Ashley) will do anything to keep their beloved DRE's. Watch, they will sue and BLOW more of your tax dollars. They did this before when sued by a candidate who simply wanted to have the "back-up menory" compared against the original count (as advertised on the county's website). They will lose their lawsuit. Don't you see, without DRE's some of these guys won't be in office next election. No more behind the curtain political maneuvering. The RoV says there is no proof our machines have ever been hacked. I say, prove to us they have NOT been hacked. Ya can't! We only have the RoV's WORD and on her HONOR that they have not. Well boys and girls, after seeing how they BLOW our money and how they insist the DRE's are flawess after one billion elections, I can't believe this woman. Amazing we even bought into this idea of not know how secure these DRE's were before we bought them. Can you say Mischelle Townsend? Can you say Riverside County touted worldwide "we were the first (big) county to get them." Looks like the pride before the fall. Go get'em Jeff. Get yourself in deep. This will be your first term and your last term.
Dump'em all wrote on Aug 7, 2007 6:16 PM:Well, looks like the "in the know crowd" got the machines dumped. Now we have three more to dump. John, Bob, and Jeff. Marion wants paper back, how 'bout you Roy? On the fence? My hat's off to Marion for having the guts to call it like a sane man. Straight shooting. You must not be running for re-election! C'mon Roy get on board. Don't go down the river with your pals.
Fraud wrote on Aug 7, 2007 10:54 PM:Can't Riv Co sue to get it's money back on these election machines? Didn't the companies like Sequoia promise us these machines were safe, secure from hackers and super duper accurate? They were supposed to be quicker, cost us less (no paper trail handling) over time? They not only didn't deliver on their many promises, but we know found out that those "security" features were pure junk. We were sold a bill of goods (twice). I (as a taxpayer) want my money back. Where's a lawyer when you need one?
Buyer Beware wrote on Aug 7, 2007 11:14 PM:The county volunteered to buy these machines and were warned the second time around that the system was unqualified to voting system standards and HAVA funding requirements. The supervisors voluntarily squandered $30 million tax dollars on this failed experiment. They are to blame.
Stewart wrote on Aug 8, 2007 11:18 AM:Since the registrar's office picks and chooses who gets which ballots and when. The only means of voting that several of us have had is the re-opportunity of e-voting. Obviously by most of the comments, I'm the only one that represents the experience of DISENFRANCHISEMENT. Imagine not having the privelage to vote for your candidate? With no machines around one would not have a chance at that opportunity. Think, think, think...
Voter Fraud wrote on Aug 10, 2007 2:08 PM:Until we know who truly is running the machines, let's go back to using paper. Interesting that Diebold can make an ATM machine with a receipt but can't make a voting machine with one. Diebold and Bush are good old friends, so the machines are dishonesty. Paper or absentee all the way.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement