Mail ballots not the answer

Why junk voting machines?

Published November 11, 2006 at midnight

Text size

More Editorials

Denver risks jumping from the frying pan into the fire if it switches from voting centers to an all-mail ballot for May's election.

Election Commissioner Susan Rogers suggested this switch at a special city council meeting Thursday called in the wake of the voting fiasco two days earlier. Fortunately, some council members were openly skeptical.

"We're opposed to an all-mail ballot," councilwoman Jeanne Faatz said, the "we" in this case referring to her constituents.

We hate to remind the public of old bad news, but the Election Commission junked plans for an all-mail ballot as recently as last year because it couldn't get its act together regarding the database that would be used for signature verification (what is it with the commission and technology, anyway?). Signature verification is critical. It is required by state law, and is one of the few barriers against fraud in mail balloting.

Nor does the Election Commission's handling of absentee ballots this week spur confidence in the prospect of an all-mail ballot. Absentee ballots are a form of mail ballots, after all, although they are sent only to voters who request them. Yet as we wrote this editorial Friday afternoon, those ballots were still being scanned at commission offices, three days after the polls closed. They're probably being scanned as you read this.

Yes, long lines at voting centers are unacceptable. But we'd very much like to know an election's results sooner than the weekend after the polls close - thanks very much.

As recently as four years ago, Colorado voters rejected a proposed state law that required all-mail ballots in every election. Mail ballots had been legal for years in nonpartisan elections such as May's municipal contests, but the defeat of that amendment proved that many voters prefer to cast their ballots the traditional way. Or maybe they recognize - with good reason, in our view - that of all possible voting methods, mail ballots carry the greatest risk of fraud.

So what should Denver do? Fix the present system. Take a hard look at Election Commission personnel in charge of planning, training and technology. Reconsider whether the city's comprehensive relationship with Sequoia Voting Systems is beneficial.

Election Commissioner Sandy Adams insists the city cannot return to precinct voting because too many of the locations lack unassisted handicapped access. If that is so, the city has its work cut out for it given the inadequate preparation this time around. Adams tells us, for example, she still has no clear idea what is the proper way for poll workers with laptops to close out a registration check and thus prevent a server overload - as reportedly occurred Tuesday - even though she took the training several times.

Adams is a bright woman. If she was confused, it's no wonder that many other election workers may have been as well. Fortunately, May is still six months away, time enough to work through this week's problems without Denver resorting to what would amount to yet another election experiment.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News