RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
Ruling means Kern likely to vote old-fashioned way
| Saturday, Aug 4 2007 11:20 PM
Last Updated: Saturday, Aug 4 2007 11:23 PM
Break out the pens and paper. Kern County voters, once again, will likely cast paper ballots in the next election.
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:
Loading Stories
Advertisement
Graphics:
A decision late Friday by the Secretary of State Debra Bowen has severely limited the use of the Diebold electronic, touch-screen voting systems used in Kern County. The decision came following a security review ordered by Bowen that showed the machines could be hacked.
The decision is the latest twist in a troubled history surrounding Diebold machines in Kern County. The county bought 1,350 of the machines in 2003 for $5 million. But due to nationwide controversy about the security of the machines -- and a local voting snarl in the 2006 primaries -- the machines have been used in only three of the six major elections since then. Paper ballots have been used in the other three.
Under the decision by Bowen, no more than one Diebold touch-screen machine will be allowed at each poll location. The county has about 150 poll locations.One machine is allowed in order to accommodate disabled voters, Bowen said.
The decision means most Kern County voters will have to use paper ballots in February's primary election, said Sandy Brockman, head of the county's elections division.
"We're taking a step back in time here," Brockman said.
Diebold optical scan machines that tally votes cast on paper ballots also underwent the security review. The machines were approved with additional security conditions, but details on those measures were not provided late Friday.
Kern County has just six optical scan machines for counting absentee ballots. Brockman said the county expects Diebold will provide additional scanning machines.
Under normal circumstances, Kern County poll centers have between four and 40 Diebold touchscreen machines on hand, depending on the number of voters who report to that location, Brockman said.
In addition to limiting the number of Diebold machines that can be used, Bowen's decision also requires election officials to apply strict security measures to the machines, such as reinstalling software, resetting encryption keys and ensuring someone can't physically tamper with them.
Diebold wasn't the only machine involved in the security review. Four electronic systems used statewide were impacted by Bowen's decision. Machines by Sequoia Voting Systems face the same restrictions as the Diebolds. A third model, made by Hart InterCivic, will also be subject to the new security precautions but will not be limited to the single-machine restriction. A fourth e-voting brand, the ES&S InkaVote Plus system, was decertified altogether because its makers failed to provide access to the equipment on time.
The use of paper ballots is expected to create delays in election results, Brockman said.
To avoid long lines at the polls, Kern voters should sign up for absentee voting, she said.
The cost of elections will also increase. A normal election runs about $1.5 million, Brockman said, but the price will probably increase by at least $250,000 to pay for printing paper ballots.
When Diebold machines were banned in a previous election, the company paid Kern County for the added expense of using paper ballots. But it was unclear to Brockman on Saturday if that would be the case this election.
The future of the voting machines in Kern County was also unknown.
Kern's contract with the Diebold company includes a requirement that the touch-screen system be OK'd by the state. Diebold previously covered the cost of upgrading the county's equipment to meet a new requirement several years ago that electronic voting systems produce a paper audit trail.
But Bowen's decision technically certified machines with severe restrictions and put the onus of added security on elections officials. And Brockman didn't know if Diebold would be on the hook for making upgrades to the system so the full inventory of machines owned by the county could be used in the future.
The secretary of state ordered the security review of voting machines to ensure that California would not face the same doubts about the accuracy of its voting systems that hit Florida after the 2000 election and Ohio in 2004.
Diebold and makers of the other affected machines downplayed the results of Bowen's review, saying they reflected unrealistic, worst-case scenarios that would be counteracted by security measures taken by the companies and local election officials.
In a statement, Diebold Elections Systems President Dave Byrd said the review "was designed to ignore security procedures and protocols that are used during every election."
The company also complained that the examiners had access to computer coding, manuals and other information that is not available to the public.