E-voting veto makes mess

Decision to decertify electronic systems sends counties scrambling

By Myung Oak Kim, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Originally published 12:30 a.m., December 18, 2007
Updated 07:40 a.m., December 18, 2007

Photo by Ellen Jaskol

Photo by Ellen Jaskol

Gene Brown, of Denver, contemplates his vote while using the "Edge" voting machine at a polling center last November. A significant number of electronic voting machines like this one will be banned for the upcoming presidential election because they are unreliable and unsecure, Secretary of State Mike Coffman announced today.

Photo by Ahmad Terry

Mike Coffman talks to the media during his announcement to decertify some electronic voting machines in Denver today.

Preparations for the 2008 presidential election were thrown into disarray Monday when Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman announced that thousands of electronic voting machines used in most counties across the state can't be used because they are inaccurate and insecure.

The decision to decertify voting and counting machines forces election officials in nearly all the largest voting areas in the state - including Denver, Jefferson, Boulder, Arapahoe, Douglas and Pueblo counties - to scramble to come up with a new voting system in less than a year.

Coffman's decision presents a fresh challenge for election officials already anxious about a new statewide voter registration database to be rolled out for the first time next year, just months before the election.

Election planning also could be stalled by legal action. Coffman said he expects his decisions on the machines to be fought out in court by advocacy groups who don't think he went far enough in banning equipment or by vendors who claim the testing process was flawed.

The announcement leaves many unanswered questions and opens the door to large-scale use of paper ballot voting that could delay results for days or weeks after votes are cast. It also could cost counties millions of dollars to purchase new equipment.

"We have to re-evaluate how we run elections in Colorado," said Jenny Flanagan, executive director of Colorado Common Cause, an advocacy group that wants accurate and verifiable elections. "It does mean right now that everything is on the table."

Voter skepticism

Coffman's announcement comes amid growing distrust across the nation of electronic voting systems. Officials in California and Ohio recently found serious flaws in the same electronic voting equipment used in Colorado and are moving to severely restrict its use in future elections.

Computer experts have found that the machines are extremely easy to hack and are prone to error.

Claudia Kuhns, executive director of the Voter Integrity Project, a state advocacy group, said Coffman's study justifies the skepticism among a growing number of voters across the country.

She said electronic voting machines are "junk" and "not to be trusted."

"The message is that we really need to pay very close attention to how our elections are conducted and not trust that they're conducted in the way we would like."

Machine makers insist that their equipment is reliable and said they would work with Coffman to find ways to allow their machines to be used.

Coffman inherited the voting machine issue from predecessor Gigi Dennis. A judge ordered Dennis last year to redo her certification process because of a lawsuit filed by a group of citizens who claim voting machines are flawed and untrustworthy. Coffman's review was extensively delayed (because vendors took months to provide documents, according to Coffman), which angered county election officials eager to complete plans for the presidential elections.

Many county election officials like the electronic equipment and want to continue using it. Anticipating the decertification, a group of county clerks has been pushing Coffman and lawmakers to allow an all-mail-ballot election next year.

The machines are made by four companies: Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold), Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic. Each company currently handles about a quarter of the state population, said Coffman's spokesman, Rich Coolidge.

Mixed results

The results of the equipment review were mixed.

Coffman decided to certify all equipment made by Premier as long as the company meets certain conditions. Premier provides machines to 12 counties, including Adams, Broomfield and Weld.

He decertified all ES&S equipment used in Jefferson and Mesa counties. Jefferson - the third- largest voting county in the state - purchased 1,840 ES&S iVotronic touch screen machines in 2002 for about $9.2 million, said Josh Liss, the county deputy elections director.

Liss has said that the ES&S machines have worked well in past elections.

Coffman decertified certain Sequoia machines that are used in Arapahoe, Denver, Elbert and Pueblo counties.

Coffman also decertified certain Hart machines, including the paper scanning equipment Boulder County uses as its primary system.

The Texas company provides machines to more than 40 counties, but only about 18 of them are significantly affected, according to spokesman Peter Lichtenheld.

Lichtenheld said those 18 counties - including Boulder, Douglas and Garfield - saw their primary voting systems decertified. The other counties use the decertified machines on a limited basis.

Lichtenheld contends that the testing process was flawed and said his company will contest the results.

In a written statement, ES&S said its technology has worked well in Colorado elections and "has been tested and proven for accuracy, reliability and security at the national and state levels . . . Voters in Colorado can be assured that such technology accurately records their votes."

A spokeswoman for Sequoia also said its machines are proven to be accurate and trustworthy and that the company will communicate with Coffman's office to mitigate some of the issues identified in the review.

Christopher Riggall, spokesman for Premier, said he's pleased with the results. He said Premier provides 1,613 touchscreen terminals and 1,200 optical scan units in 13 counties serving about 1 million voters.

Accuracy and security

Coffman said he worked hard to strengthen the certification process and make sure his decisions follow the law and can be defended in court. He said the four- person testing board conducted more than 3,000 tests and studied more than 40,000 pages of documents for each company's machines. He said the process is one of the most thorough of any done in the country.

Coffman said a widely used optical scan machine made by Hart - which takes pictures of ballots and reads the results - had a 1 percent error rate. A machine made by ES&S could be shut down by a voter who waved a magnet over it, he said.

Coffman said he will discuss options for counties affected by his review during a legislative hearing today. That hearing will be led by Sen. Ken Gordon, D-Denver.

Coffman said counties might be able to recover money spent on the machines, if their contracts with vendors permit.

Gordon said he's not concerned about whether the problems identified in the review call into question results from past elections.

"We're going to move forward to make sure the elections are done accurately," Gordon said. "We're not looking back. I'm not."

Kuhns, who worked on the lawsuit that led to the certification process, said Coffman should have decertified all the electronic equipment.

Coffman is bracing for lawsuits. He consulted extensively with the attorney general's office during the review to make sure the results could be defended in court. Coffman said the local advocacy groups involved in last year's lawsuit already have been filing open-records requests for documents used in his review.

Kuhns said there's a "strong possibility" of another lawsuit.

In the meantime, Coffman said he'll lay out the options for election officials and lawmakers during today's hearing starting at 9 a.m. at the state Capitol.

He said state lawmakers could pass legislation to make it easier for election officials to plan for next year's elections.

Coffman also said he wants to move quickly to work with vendors to see if any measures can be taken to certify their machines. He said he hopes that process could be complete before the legislature convenes next month.

• December 18, 2007

  2:50 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Daivd_Anderson writes:

  So now:

  1) human error means the election process requires automation

  2) paper ballots may not be counted accurately or in some cases the reading of the pallots damages the documents for recounts

  3) people can mess with the equipment in the privacy of the voting booth

  4) who knows who actually completes a mail in ballot

  The answer is simple. Use the state lottery system to randomly sellect a small set of electors and good-bye democracy.

  Seriously, most of our problems are the result of desiring instant tallies and instant certification. The electronic and computer screen systems have inherant problems and always will.

  Most mechanical/paper systems will work just fine if balloting takes place over a week and the results are released several days after the election.

• December 18, 2007

  5:08 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  TeresaBinstock writes:

  Phony vote tallies due to e-voting machines have become the American way. As long as certain groups' favored candidates win, what's the problem? Need a fix, hire Diebold.

• December 18, 2007

  11:47 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jbhelfrich writes:

  I saw the headline, and I was ecstatic! But the devil, as usual, is in the details.

  Everything electronic in the state has been decertified, including Boulder's workhorse optical scan machines...but only Diebold/Premier has a path to getting their machines "fixed" and certified. I'd love to know what that path is, but my searches of the SoS website don't turn anything up, despite the letter to Premier saying that it will be available yesterday.

  This isn't about fixing problems. This is about getting everyone on Diebold's machines.

• December 18, 2007

  11:51 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Diff writes:

  I am VERY Thankful that this is happening! Our voting and the accuracy of counting and recording that vote should be beyond any question. Each Vote should have a hard,touchable, record and paper trail and be easily retrievable for a recount should it be needed. This most important right should be fully protected and closely watched for perversion to help insure a free democratic society! I say we need to go back to a voter making a mark nest to a name. Simple and easy to count recount and record. So what if it takes more man hours, work and a day or two longer to get the final and accurate result.
  Lets leave the computer 0s and 1s out of it, to many ways to potentialy manipulate it and it leaves too many questions that can never be resolved!