On May 5 the U.S. Election Assistance Commission held its first public
hearing on the use, security, and reliability of electronic voting
systems. The Commission heard from witnesses representing technology,
vendor, election administration, research/human interaction factors,
and advocacy organizations who related their interests and concerns
about the use of electronic voting technology.
During the hearing, Chairman DeForest B. Soaries, Jr., stated that the
Commission would probably not recommend requiring paper receipts when
it makes preliminary recommendations, which may be made public within
the next week. Further, he said that states would be allowed to set
their priorities pertaining to the use of voting technology in the
election year. It is estimated that about 20 states are considering
legislation that would require a paper record of each vote cast on
direct recording electronic voting machines, also known as touchscreen
voting machines.
The five participants on the vendors panel represented the largest of
the electronic voting technology companies: Hart Intercivic, Diebold,
Avante, Election Systems & Software, and Sequoia. Each representative
except Avante's Founder and CEO spoke against the inclusion of paper
ballots with DRE voting technology. However, most made it clear to
the Commission that they were prepared to add the feature if it became
a requirement. Although California recently decertified Diebold's
voting technology from use in the November 4, 2004, general election,
Diebold's director of marketing referenced Diebold equipments'
performance in that state's recent elections as an example of how well
the company's technology performs.
California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley offered testimony before
the Commission on the election administrator panel in which he stated
concerns regarding the certification process currently in place for
electronic voting technology. Shelley reported that the State of
California was denied access to status information regarding the
certification of Diebold voting machines and was directed to seek
answers to its questions from the company. State elections
administration panelists were supportive of current electronic voting
equipment design and opposed the inclusion of printers to produce a
voter verified paper ballot.
The work of the Commission has been greatly curtailed by a lack of
funding. It received only $1.2 million of the $10 million authorized
for its use in the Help America Vote Act. On May 12, the Commission
went before Hill appropriators to request funding for the next fiscal
year, scheduled to begin October 1, 2004. Chairman Soaries, appearing
before the House Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on
Transportation, Treasure, and Independent Agencies Committee,
requested an extra $10 million for research so that the Commission
could gather necessary data in order to assist the Commission in
formulating recommendations on the administration of public elections.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission:
U.S. Election Assistance Commission Hearing:
http://www.eac.gov/ann_050504.asp
National Committee for Voting Integrity:
http://www.votingintegrity.org
For more information about electronic voting, see the EPIC Voting
Page: