Monday, February 20, 2006
Voting Machine Replacement Questions
The Susquehanna Count Commissioners voted on 8February 2006 to replace the county's existing optical scanner and add ballot marking machines for the handicaped. At the meeting, it was made clear that the action was needed to comply with the Federal HAVA law and that the $328 thousand cost would be covered by federal funds.
This voting machines newspaper article cites a PA State Court ruling on Monday 13February 2006 which may delay that purchase and raises some questions about exactly what is "Required" by the law. From the article : "A court ruling spawned uncertainty about plans to replace obsolete voting machines in more than half of Pennsylvania counties including Lehigh and Northampton.
........
Pellegrini, the ruling judge, noted the federal law applies only to elections for federal office. In the Westmoreland County opinion, he suggested a combination of paper ballots for federal elections and lever machines for local and state races could be used.
Doug Hill, director of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, said such a scenario would pose 'huge administrative problems' for county election officials.
DePaul said an election using paper ballots would be unfeasible without the use of optical scanners, which fall into the category of banned mechanical systems."
That raises some questions for the Susquehanna action. The first is whether it will proceed. It's not clear that the ruling precludes the county purchase and it seems that delay may result in loss of the federal funding.
The next question revolves around Mr Hill's statement which claims that optical scanners are "banned". We are buying a replacement scanner and the reason is that the existing one does not meet HAVA specifications and the new one will. Hopefully, this is the case and Mr. Hill has mistaken what is "banned".
My impression of the County's planned system is that it is a good one; keeping the paper ballot and optical scanning equipment is a safe and simple way to assure an accurate and recoverable voting process. It's hard to believe that scanners are really banned since they are effective. But, not having read the HAVA rules, I can't comment on that or whether we really need to upgrade our scanner or add the 43 Auto Mark machine for handicaped voters.
I am struck by the fact the HAVA seems to require a small rural county to spend about a third of a million dollars (of federal tax money) to replicate basically the same system it had before. Given our small friendly population, I wonder if the new Auto Mark machines will really provide much practical benefit to our handicaped citizens; and if the Federal rules permit flexibility for rural entities to make simple cost-benefit trade-offs on these issues.
We are a very rural state. If only two thirds of our 67 countys are spending comparable sums, the PA bill is likely to exceed $15 Million for little obvious benefit. Seems like my taxes could be better spent.
This voting machines newspaper article cites a PA State Court ruling on Monday 13February 2006 which may delay that purchase and raises some questions about exactly what is "Required" by the law. From the article : "A court ruling spawned uncertainty about plans to replace obsolete voting machines in more than half of Pennsylvania counties including Lehigh and Northampton.
........
Pellegrini, the ruling judge, noted the federal law applies only to elections for federal office. In the Westmoreland County opinion, he suggested a combination of paper ballots for federal elections and lever machines for local and state races could be used.
Doug Hill, director of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, said such a scenario would pose 'huge administrative problems' for county election officials.
DePaul said an election using paper ballots would be unfeasible without the use of optical scanners, which fall into the category of banned mechanical systems."
That raises some questions for the Susquehanna action. The first is whether it will proceed. It's not clear that the ruling precludes the county purchase and it seems that delay may result in loss of the federal funding.
The next question revolves around Mr Hill's statement which claims that optical scanners are "banned". We are buying a replacement scanner and the reason is that the existing one does not meet HAVA specifications and the new one will. Hopefully, this is the case and Mr. Hill has mistaken what is "banned".
My impression of the County's planned system is that it is a good one; keeping the paper ballot and optical scanning equipment is a safe and simple way to assure an accurate and recoverable voting process. It's hard to believe that scanners are really banned since they are effective. But, not having read the HAVA rules, I can't comment on that or whether we really need to upgrade our scanner or add the 43 Auto Mark machine for handicaped voters.
I am struck by the fact the HAVA seems to require a small rural county to spend about a third of a million dollars (of federal tax money) to replicate basically the same system it had before. Given our small friendly population, I wonder if the new Auto Mark machines will really provide much practical benefit to our handicaped citizens; and if the Federal rules permit flexibility for rural entities to make simple cost-benefit trade-offs on these issues.
We are a very rural state. If only two thirds of our 67 countys are spending comparable sums, the PA bill is likely to exceed $15 Million for little obvious benefit. Seems like my taxes could be better spent.
