1/5 Boulder Weekly voting article: Does your vote count?

[Doug Grinbergs <saule@xxxxxxxxx>]

The cover story of this week's Boulder Weekly: Making Every Vote 
Count. I'm taking the liberty of forwarding the entire piece.

Boulder County elections: Does your vote count?
Critics say Boulder County is poised to waste millions on new voting equipment
Grace Hood (editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Boulder Weekly
2006-01-05
http://www.boulderweekly.com/coverstory.html (this URL will only be 
good for the next week)

Cash-strapped Boulder County is poised to spend millions on 
electronic voting machines that some activists claim are unnecessary 
and costly, as well as potentially inaccurate. The machines are 
intended to keep the county in alignment with federal voting laws by 
making it easier for handicapped people to vote.

However, activists say the electronic system falls short of county 
voters' wish for a system that includes verifiable paper ballots. 
They also say the county has alternatives it hasn't explored, but 
which could save taxpayers millions. The county says the entire 
system will cost up to $3.6 million, while some activists have 
repeated a figure of $5.5 million.

The current debate marks the latest chapter in a continuing 
controversy for the Boulder County Elections office. After purchasing 
new paper-ballot scanning equipment to the tune of $1.5 million from 
Hart InterCivic, the county experienced a three-day delay in vote 
tabulation during the '04 election. Then, in November 2005 the county 
had to visually inspect all 86,000 ballots cast in the election 
because folds in some ballots complicated tabulation.

County officials say they are only trying to adhere to requirements 
in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), a federal law that mandates 
changes for handicapped voters and which goes into effect this year. 
The current proposal acts directly on recommendations from the 
secretary of state's office, which has advised all counties in 
Colorado as to which voting systems meet the specifications of HAVA.

But activists are concerned that the county hasn't tried to challenge 
the law or the state's interpretation of the requirements. Not only 
do they believe the county can avoid using electronic voting 
machines, but they believe the county could comply with the law 
without buying hundreds of handicapped-accessible machines.

"We're about to spend $5.5 million on a pig in the poke that is 
incompatible with the needs of Boulder County," says Al Kolwicz, 
Boulder County resident and voting accuracy activist. "What we're 
going to do is spend $5.5 million that could be spent on any number 
of other projects, and we're just going to burn it. Literally."

A hybrid voting system

According to Josh Liss, coordinator of Boulder County elections, 
county officials across the state are scrambling to meet the demands 
of HAVA, which requires counties to have handicapped-accessible 
voting in every polling place in addition to "second-chance voting," 
which allows a voter to verify the choices on his or her ballot prior 
to submitting the final results.

The county has been weighing its options, while keeping an eye on the 
looming deadline of this summer's primary election, and recently 
issued a request for proposals (RFP), soliciting bids from the 
companies that manufacture voting equipment. The county also opened 
the door to public feedback, encouraging voters to express their 
concerns about the proposed plan.

"Boulder County is a unique situation, and certainly this RFP is a 
unique situation," says Liss. "Many of the other counties across the 
state that are purchasing new equipment are simply going with the 
venders they already have. They are not doing RFPs, and they are not 
making it as open a process as we are-which is not to criticize them, 
they just don't have the level of public participation that has 
become so ingrained in Boulder County."

Boulder County residents have been very vocal about their preference 
for paper ballots, citing potential inaccuracy and election fraud. 
Recent national reports issued by the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) and others point to concerns with the engineering in 
some electronic voting systems, raising questions about the accuracy 
of the 2004 presidential election.

County officials say they're trying to be responsive to these 
concerns. They hope to create a hybrid voting system that would 
include both electronic voting machines and paper ballots.

"We don't want to get rid of paper ballots no matter what we're 
accused of," Liss says. "Some people are adamant that they want to 
keep paper ballots. Having the system in place would allow them to do 
so and not use an electronic voting machine if they do not wish to."

The county also hopes to install optical scanning equipment in each 
precinct in order to avoid delays like that of the 2004 election.

"The biggest issue that came out of the 2004 election [for Boulder 
County] was the amount of time it took," Liss says. "The decision to 
go with polling-place optical or digital scanners will increase the 
speed with which the ballots are counted."

The scanning equipment will also serve as a final check for voters to 
ensure that they marked their ballots in the way they intended.

While the county commissioners have not approved it, the RFP also 
mentions the creation of voting centers to replace precinct polling 
places. However, this does not mean the county is headed toward the 
elimination of precinct voting.

"I certainly think that in asking vendors to bid for either a 
polling-place solution or a vote-center solution gives us better 
analysis of what the costs would be," says Liss.

Combined, the county expects the new equipment to cost about $3.6 
million, of which about $1 million will come from federal HAVA funds. 
The new system would have to be functioning and in place by the 
August 2006 primaries. Because of the deadline, county officials hope 
to make a decision by the end of March and have the new system in 
place by the end of April to allow for testing and demonstrations.

"Once we receive the equipment, we have to have the staff trained on 
this and get our election judges trained," Liss says. "We'd also like 
to take it around the county and demonstrate it to the voters so that 
when they walk into the polling place for the first time it's not the 
first time they've seen the equipment."

Asleep at the wheel?

Al Kolwicz, an activist who has been involved with county voting 
issues for several years, says the system under consideration fails 
to meet four criteria he believes are essential: security, accuracy, 
verifiability and transparency. But Kolwicz's first concern is that 
having an electronic system for handicapped voters flies in the face 
of what voters in Boulder County want.

"I cannot help but to think this was done insensitively, ignoring all 
the work that's been done by the public and all the preferences and 
priorities of the public," he says. "They're basically saying they 
don't have to listen to people. I don't believe in that kind of 
government."

Even machines with paper trails are flawed, Kolwicz says. Sometimes 
the paper trail doesn't accurately reflect what's recorded inside the 
machine, he says.

Instead, the county could go with ballot-marking devices for the 
disabled. These devices would permit disabled voters to vote on an 
electronic screen, but the machine would immediately produce a 
verifiable paper ballot from which the votes would be recorded.

Kolwicz also says it's unnecessary for the county to buy hundreds of 
these machines, because handicapped voters could be funneled into a 
few locations.

"I believe we could do that by setting up a small number of voting 
centers or adding the handicapped equipment to the early voting 
locations," Kolwicz says. "And they would be in a good environment 
that would allow someone to easily come in with a wheelchair."

However, Kolwicz is opposed to the idea of replacing precinct-polling 
places with larger voting centers in general.

"On a bigger level, it destroys the bedrock of our democracy," he says.

Kolwicz says he also opposes having scanning equipment in each 
polling place. Not only is it expensive, but it does nothing to 
enhance the security, verifiability, accuracy or transparency of the 
election process, he says.

"What they really want to do is get the votes into the computer 
quickly so that they can control what's going on in the counting 
process. Because once its recorded on disk, we can't see it, we can't 
touch it, we can't count it, we can't verify it, and it's all 
mysterious."

Kolwicz also questions the county's requirement in the RFP that the 
voting equipment possess wireless technology to transmit the voting 
results.

"This is all nonsense, and there's no way to certify anything," he says.

From Kolwicz's perspective, the entire county proposal amounts to an 
extremely complex voting system, one that requires months for design 
and execution, in addition to demanding technological expertise that 
Boulder County Election officials do not possess.

"It's outrageous. If it sounds like people are asleep at the wheel, 
well they are. We have people in the Boulder County Clerk's office 
making decisions that they are not prepared to make," he says.

Member of the Elections Review Committee (ERC) might well agree.

The committee concluded that county officials ought to hire a 
consultant to help them understand and sort the technological details 
of complicated voting systems. However, the county rejected that 
recommendation, leading Kolwicz and committee members to conclude 
that county officials were ignoring them. In their feedback to the 
county's RFP, the ERC wrote:

"We believe that the pattern of ill-conceived ideas may well 
continue, as it is evident that Ms. Salas was not impressed by the 
work of the ERC to sufficiently address our concerns and that of the 
interested and knowledgeable persons involved."

Frustrated over what he says is disinterest among Boulder County's 
officials to include citizen feedback, Kolwicz filed a Colorado Open 
Records Request late last week.

"We want to know who contributed to this RFP. Were the venders 
involved, and was Hart particularly involved? We want to know what of 
our input that we've been feeding them over the past couple years 
they've been looking at."

Foundation of democracy

Liss agrees that he has more elections experience than technological 
expertise, but he says the decision not to hire a consultant had 
nothing to do with a desire to ignore the recommendations of the 
committee, but rather concerns about meeting the deadline. It would 
take a long time to bring someone up to speed on county processes, he 
says.

"If the county is going to bring in an outside consultant, [the 
consultant] really needs to see the entire process, and that's not 
something they want to rush into," says Liss.

To span the technological gap, Liss says that election officials will 
incorporate the county IT division into the process.

In terms of purchasing ballot-marking devices in lieu of electronic 
voting machines, Liss says the machines will not fulfill HAVA 
requirements.

"For us to use any voting system in the state of Colorado, it must 
first be certified by the secretary of state. That particular system 
is not certified and to my knowledge has not applied for 
certification in the state," he says.

Liss says that the county is required by HAVA to supply a 
handicapped-accessible voting machine in every polling place.

"I don't know if they chose not to read that part of HAVA or if [the 
activists] just want what they want so firmly that they're willing to 
ignore it," he says. "HAVA does require one accessible voting machine 
per polling location for any elections conducted after Jan. 1 of this 
year."

If, however, the county consolidated precincts into voting centers, 
there could be a cost savings with the change, Liss says.

"The HAVA requirement is one accessible voting machine per polling 
location. It doesn't say 'precinct,' it says 'per polling location.' 
So looking at 20 to 40 voting centers as compared to 235 precincts, 
that could be a huge cost savings there," he says.

The optical or digital scan equipment could utilize other 
technologies than that of wireless to transmit votes back to a 
central ballot box, says Liss.

"Some of the optical or digital scan systems do have the capability 
of transmitting wirelessly, and we've asked venders to explore that 
option, if they have that capability and what the security issues are 
surrounding it," he says. "That's not saying that we're going to use 
wireless transmitting."

Liss says that another option for transmitting votes from precincts 
to a central location could include portable data-devices, which 
would be returned to the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder at the end 
of the evening.

"Which would be the best and most secure way for Boulder County?" he 
asks. "That's something we would have to look at in evaluating some 
of the different systems and reworking our security plan."

Liss says he understands the concerns of activists about votes being 
verified. In addition to the rules put forth by the secretary of 
state, Liss says that he plans to integrate feedback from local 
activists regarding the audit process for elections.

"I have gotten in touch with local activists who suggested changes to 
the audit processes and asked them to help me come up with some draft 
language so that we can possibly change the secretary of state's 
rules to reflect an audit process they feel is more accurate," he 
says.

When it comes to some of the feedback submitted thus far in response 
to the RFP, Liss says that the county is demonstrating that it has 
learned from the state of Colorado's mistakes, in addition to taking 
a unique approach to bidding out county elections equipment.

"RFPs are typically a rather confidential process. We went the 
opposite direction and tried to think outside the box a bit and say, 
'Hey, how can we get public input, but also no one's perfect, and 
there may be things that we didn't think about,'" he says. "What 
better feedback can you get than from the citizens of the county and 
groups like the ACLU and voters with disabilities?"

At the end of the day, the county commissioners will approve the 
transfer of funds to the Elections Office for the new voting system. 
While he says that electronic voting machines aren't his first 
choice, County Commissioner Tom Mayer says that he plans on 
consulting county attorneys about viable alternatives for the county 
that meet HAVA requirements.

"As an elected official, you need to live by the law. If there's no 
alternatives, then there's no alternatives," he says. "I certainly 
want to understand what our options are."

While it may turn out that the county's options are somewhat limited, 
Mayer points out that voter confidence in Boulder County is his No. 1 
priority.

"To me it's essential we have an election system that has public 
confidence," he says. "That really is the foundation of democracy, 
and that's something that I'm going to be very concerned about."

That said, Mayer points out that all feedback should be weighed with 
the overall goal of meeting HAVA requirements by the election 
primaries in August. And while the commissioners do control the purse 
strings, Mayer issues a reminder that they help-not prevent-the clerk 
and recorder from doing her job.

"People have to remember that they elected the clerk to run the 
clerk's office," he says. "They didn't elect the commissioners to run 
the clerk's office."

Re-interpreting HAVA

As far as Kolwicz is concerned, Boulder County elections could run 
more smoothly if county commissioners got involved in the process.

"In our recommendation that responded to the RFP, one of the items 
that we asked for is that the commissioners instruct the county 
attorney to work on behalf of the people and break through some of 
these apparent legal barriers," he says.

Among the items that Kolwicz would like county attorneys to 
investigate is the secretary of state's interpretation of HAVA with 
regard to handicapped voting machines at every polling location. 
Kolwicz says that the county could satisfy HAVA by putting machines 
in "voting centers" for the disabled in addition to maintaining 
voting at the 235 precincts in Boulder County.

"They're arguing that if you optionally add the precincts, that they 
all have to have this disabled requirement as well," he says. "We're 
saying, 'No, that's not true. That needs to be determined in the 
court of law, not by some arbitrary decision made by an election 
official.'"

While relying on the court system to interpret HAVA may not seem 
realistic due to the 2006 deadline, Kolwicz says that the county does 
have leeway.

"It turns out that at least 17 states are not going to meet the HAVA 
requirements," he says. "The people that are trying to in Colorado 
could also file an exceptional request."

The current conditions surrounding HAVA don't necessarily demand that 
all requirements be met in 2006, he says.

"Basically what we're proposing is that the state put together a plan 
that says, 'Look we can't meet the whole requirement, but let us in 
good faith try to do something, and here's what we'll try to do.'"

Not only would that enable counties like Boulder to save thousands, 
but filing the exception request would give Boulder County time to 
learn who the disabled voters are and what kind of voting equipment 
they prefer, says Kolwicz.

Liss says that, despite what critics like Kolwicz may think, 
gathering feedback from the handicapped and other Boulder citizens 
about what they want in their new voting system was expressly the 
intention of opening the county's RFP to comment.

"Accessibility is at the heart of the issue with this RFP, and we 
really wanted to hear from the voters with disabilities about what 
they wanted."

Now that the Jan. 4 deadline for public comment has passed, Liss says 
that the elections office will review the comments and release the 
final RFP to several voting equipment venders no later than early 
next week. The county expects to review the proposals in March and 
make a recommendation to the county commissioners by the end of that 
month.

When it comes to weighing criticism from activists, Liss asks that 
the public put the criticism in perspective.

"We have had for several years our fair share of citizen activists, 
or watchdogs, who criticize our every move, but I firmly believe that 
many of those citizens help us do our jobs better," he says. "We 
wanted to make this an open process, and we wanted to get the public 
involved. But now it may be inviting activists to take shots at us."

Respond: letters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx