NYT editorial: Put protections in place, protect the integrity of voting

[G_j]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/23/opinion/23fri1.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=



July 23, 2004
Insurance for Electronic Votes

This November, millions of voters will use electronic voting machines of questionable reliability. The election is by now too near for the sort of major overhaul that electronic voting requires. But there is still time for states and localities to protect the integrity of the voting and build public confidence in the results. The public should insist that election officials put these protections in place right away.

There has been extensive documentation of the problems with electronic voting. Several studies have found that it is vulnerable to vote theft and to inadvertent errors that can alter the outcome of an election. These inherent flaws are made worse by the reckless, and possibly illegal, actions of voting machine companies. This spring, California banned 14,000 Diebold voting machines because of allegations of "fraudulent actions" by the manufacturer.

In a well-run election system, electronic voting machines costing millions of dollars would not have been purchased before there were adequate standards for ensuring that they work properly. But given that nearly one-third of voters may be voting electronically this fall, it is fortunate that a number of private groups - including the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School and the Caltech/M.I.T. Voting Technology Project - have stepped forward with ideas for how election officials can minimize the risks. Kevin Shelley, the California secretary of state and a pioneer in the field, has also issued useful directives, many of which are on his official Web site.

Here are some things voters should demand:

Physical security for electronic systems Electronic voting machines must be kept secure at all times. It seems like an obvious point, but it's been ignored too often. In Georgia's March primary, voting machines were reported to have been delivered early to a polling place in a university student center, and left unattended. Some places start up machines the night before the election, a clear security risk. ......

..more..