The Electronic Voting System
Demonstrated
by Mai Thor
The electronic voting system, the Accuvote TS(x) by Diebold, was
used in a demonstration at ACT on January 27, 2006. This demonstration
is another attempt by the four Minnesota counties that are currently
using Diebold machines (Anoka, Dakota, Ramsey and Washington) to
find an alternative from using the AutoMark in order to comply with
the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
The Accuvote TS(x), or simply referred to as the TS(x), is similar
to the AutoMark in the sense that it is an electronic voting machine
with touch screen and audio capability. It comes with standard features
such as large print, a write-in option, and can be programmed in
other languages. It also has a movable keypad that resembles the
dials of a telephone. According to Rachel Smith from Anoka County,
the TS(x) will also allow undervotes but not overvotes.
The controversy with
this machine is that it is considered a Direct Recording Electronic
(DRE). The TS(x) does not create a ballot for the voter to verify.
Instead, it prints out a receipt with a summary of the votes that
the voter can look over to make sure the machine recorded every
choice correctly. The machine can also audibly read back this summary.
Once votes have been verified based on this paper, the voter can
confirm on the machine that everything is correct, thus “casting” the
ballot, or return back to a specific race(s) to make changes. This
element is seen as positive to Rachel and other election officials
from the Diebold counties since the voter will never have to physically
take a ballot to a precinct counter, which is a criticism of the
AutoMark.
Minnesota is known as one of the few states that will not allow
DRE machines to be used in polling places, and because the TS(x)
falls under this category, it will be a struggle for the counties
to get approval for its use. It is not certified by the Secretary
of State and there is little chance that it will be. However, Rachel
stated that the TS(x) is ideal for the counties that are currently
using Diebold tabulators. The main reason for this is because it
would be more compatible with the programming of the existing Diebold
tabulators they own. Using the AutoMark would cause election officials
to put in time that they do not have on tight election schedules
to make sure the equipment works properly together.
“Programming ballots and voting systems is a highly technical
and detail-oriented task and we are concerned about the increased
level of making major mistakes with double programming,” Rachel
said. The TS(x) would also be a less expensive purchase for the counties
than the AutoMark. The TS(x) costs about $3,450, whereas the AutoMark
has a price tag of about $5,000.
Because the Secretary
of State will not approve the TS(x), Washington County plans to
submit an application to the State Auditor in order to waive the
requirements of accessible voting equipment that have been set
forth by the Minnesota legislature. Specifically, the application
would waive the following provisions from MN § 206.80 subpart
b:
b) An electronic voting system
purchased on or after June 4, 2005, may not be employed unless it:
(1) accepts and tabulates,
in the polling place or at a counting center, a marked optical scan
ballot;
(2) creates a marked optical
scan ballot that can be tabulated in the polling place or at a counting
center by automatic tabulating equipment certified for use in this
state; or
(3) securely transmits a ballot
electronically to automatic tabulating equipment in the polling place
while creating an individual, discrete, permanent paper record of
each vote on the ballot.
The waiver, which would
expire in 2007, would allow Washington County (and possibly any
other county that may follow suit) to use the TS(x) temporarily
until a permanent solution can be found. In the meantime, Washington
County expects to persuade the legislature and the Secretary of
State to approve this equipment. According to Kevin Corbid, Director
of Assessment, Taxpayer Services and Elections Department, the decision
to waive the current requirements in statute is made by the State
Auditor’s Office and would not need approval from the Secretary
of State.
