Ohio: Electronic Voting Back On
It looks like electronic voting machines may be used in Ohio after all. Secretary of State Ken Blackwell issued a new directive, which reversed course by allowing counties to choose electronic voting systems, with certain conditions. The Cleveland Plain-Dealer has this report.

Ohio has been one of the last bastions of the "hanging chad" punch card ballot, with about 70% using that system in 2004. Back in January, Blackwell issued a directive that required counties to adopt precinct-count optical scan ballots. That decision was ostensibly based on the higher up-front costs of electronic voting technology. The State Attorney General's office later said that Blackwell was without the authority to issue that directive. Blackwell's January directive also raised consternation among some local election officials who preferred Direct Record Electronic ("DRE") voting machines to optical scan ballots.

A complicating factor is the requirements imposed by the Help America Vote Act. Because Ohio accepted federal funds under HAVA's Title I, it must replace its punch card and lever voting machines by the first federal elections in 2006. In addition, under Title III, it must have at least one voting unit accessible to people with disabilities in place by 2006. At present, electronic voting machines are the only certified systems that are accessible.

Now, with the 2006 deadline for elimination of punch cards fast approaching, Blackwell has again reversed course with a new directive. Directive 2005-07, issued April 14, would allow counties to choose a certified DRE system, if it has the contemporaneous paper record (aka, "voter verified paper audit trail" or "VVPAT") mandated by an Ohio law passed last year.

A cover letter to the memorandum explains that:

On January 12, 2005, Secretary Blackwell issued Directive 2005-1, announcing that paper-based precinct count optical scan (PCOS) voting systems would be offered to county boards of elections as the state's primary voting system. Based on the information in our possession at the time, it was apparent that deployment of PCOS voting systems was the only means then available that would have provided Ohioans with a uniform statewide voting system for future elections that was also in compliance with federal and state law and could be purchased within our existing budget.

The memorandum also explains why the Secretary of State changed his mind. It notes that there's one electronic system, manufactured by Diebold, that meets the VVPAT requirement, with two additional VVPAT systems (made by ES&S and Hart Intercivic) seeking certification. In addition, the memo states that negotiations with vendors have lowered the costs of these "DRE/VVPAT" systems -- one of Blackwell's original justifications for mandating precinct-count optical scans in January.

Under the new directive, Ohio counties have until May 24, 2005 to choose a new voting system. A DRE chosen must not only meet the VVPAT requirement, but be approved by a federal Independent Testing Agency, the Ohio Board of Voting Machine Examiners and Compuware, by May 13, 2005.

The decision is a major victory for some counties, including Franklin (Columbus area) and Cuyahoga (Cleveland area), which had gone to court to stop Blackwell's earlier directive. They're among the counties that would prefer to use electronic voting technology. This is an understandable preference on the counties' part, given the likely complications that would ensue if counties are required to have two different types of voting equipment at each polling place -- an electronic system for disabled voters and a precinct-count optical scan system for everyone else. In addition, electronic voting is a more sensible choice for counties that have substantial non-English speaking populations.

As things stand now, it looks like those counties will now be able to go to electronic voting, though their only choice may be the DRE/VVPAT system made by Diebold. For those of us who've been following the electronic voting wars in Ohio and elsewhere, there's considerable irony here. Diebold has long been the whipping boy of electronic voting critics. Some of those critics have insisted on the VVPAT, arguing that it's the only way to ensure security -- an argument that I think to be wrong. In any event, it now appears that the likely consequence of the VVPAT advocates' work will be to deliver Ohio's new voting machine business to none other than (yup, you guessed it) Diebold.

In my view, this is preferable to what would have occurred had Blackwell's January directive remained in effect -- namely, that they would have been left with no choice but to use precinct-count optical scan technology. It would be nice, however, if counties had some choice among electronic voting systems. That's particularly true given that, as far as I can tell, the Diebold DRE/VVPAT system has yet to be used in any real election. - posted by Dan Tokaji @ 11:46 PM