Another Aspect of Homeland Security: The Vote

There are many aspects to a secure United States, and one of them is a secure voting system that allows our democracy to fully function. Without a dependable voting system, the nation is prone to chaos and corruption, and the voice of the people is lost.

The 2000 presidential election demonstrated that our voting system was not as accurate as we thought. So, Congress stepped in and legislated voting reform - the 2002 Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA).

HAVA

HAVA is meant to fix the glitches in our voting system; its aim is to prevent the Florida fiasco from ever happening again, in any state.

The bill provides $3.86 billion dollars for election reforms in all 50 states. This money is designated to the replacement of those passé punch card and lever machines, poll workers’ training, and voter databases. The legislation also aims to raise voter confidence and to help states with the organization and implementation of voting system reforms. For more information on HAVA, click here.

A shifting debate

At first, computer technology was considered to be the answer to flawed 40-year-old manual voting machines. But now, there are doubts as to the security of touch-screen voting machines, also known as direct-recording electronic voting machines (DREs).

The debate over DREs is a passionate one. Supporters insist that DREs are accurate and safe and that system testing and encryption ensures a secure paperless vote. Opponents say that without a paper trail, there is no way to guarantee that all votes have been tallied correctly. These folks want voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPATs).

The VVPAT (say that three times fast)

Lawmakers in 20 states have considered bills that mandate VVPATs. Three states - Oregon, Illinois, and New Hampshire - have passed laws that require paper trails for DRE machines. And Missouri, Nevada, and California have taken a different route to the same end - their secretaries of state have mandated VVPATs.

Some states, such as Colorado and Iowa, are waiting for the agency created by HAVA -- the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) -- to determine security standards before making any more rule changes to their states’ voting systems. Although relying on the agency’s federal guidelines is a safe bet, it’s likely that it will be more than a year before the EAC comes up with the regulations. The EAC must draft voting system guidelines and then have them reviewed by two separate boards, and the agency has not yet received enough money from Congress to execute this plan.

Tied up in Congress

Speaking of Congress, there is also a piece of federal legislation, The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, that would require all voting machines purchased with HAVA funds to have VVPATs. This bill, sponsored by Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ), has 132 co-sponsors in the House, but it has not yet gone to committee - a step necessary to the passage of a bill.

The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act is sitting on the shelf because HAVA’s Congressional co-sponsors, Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D- Conn.), sent a letter to members of Congress that requested a halt to voting legislation in order to give the EAC time to work.

Trouble is, the EAC has not yet received much of the funding it was promised by Congress through HAVA, so the agency is working slowly.

Certifying security

Certifying voting machines is an important step to voting system security. Manufacturers of DREs must certify their machines with the state in which they want to sell them and federal regulations must be met as well.

The federal government uses independent testing experts to examine both hardware and software - a procedure that can cost manufacturers around $150,000. And thirty-five states require the state election authority to further test and approve machines before localities are allowed to buy them.

Although this extensive process to certification helps to ensure voting system security, it takes a long time. Often, the certification process takes just as long or longer than it takes to develop new voting software. This means that by the time voting software is approved, it is usually outdated. Even system upgrades and de-buggers are supposed to be approved before they are implemented.

Public perceptions

Perhaps more important than standards for voting systems is the public’s perception of voting systems. Voter confidence is essential to a fair election, because without it, many people may not show up at the polls or trust election results.

An April 2004 briefing by electionline.com reports that voters have mixed responses to touch-screen voting machines. According to a poll taken at the California primary, many voters were pleased by the new machines and considered the technology easy to use. Others were concerned by the lack of a paper trail and some complained of machines breaking down or otherwise malfunctioning.

Overall, new voting technologies have not appeased voters’ concerns about fairness in the upcoming election. And most voters feel that much is at stake in November 2004; the country is almost evenly divided on hot topics such as the war in Iraq and is clearly concerned about the outcome of the election.

Come November, everyone will be watching the election process and looking for flaws. We are likely to see a series of disputes after the vote and may be in for some serious lawsuits before we find out the election results.

Read more, do more

For more information on voting rights, click here. To discuss this issue with other WomenMatter readers, join one of our online forums. You can also sign up for an e alert, and we’ll keep you posted. Inform yourself on this and other issues, then register to vote and contact your representatives, because your voice matters.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To make a donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 7/12/2004