February 14, 2006 at 17:00:19

Are Chicago and Cook County Wasting $25 Million on Inferior, Non-Compliant Voting Technology?

By Robert A. Wilson, Illinois Ballot Integrity Project, Posted by Joan Brunwasser (about the submitter) Page 2 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com Permalink

So much for �hanging chad.�

McCormick describes the Optech Insight in-precinct scanner capabilities, �The new optical-scan machines will spit out ballots that are "overvoted," meaning more than one candidate has been incorrectly marked. But they will allow "undervotes," where people fail to mark a selection.�

Again, not quite the whole story. Any system should allow for the casting of ballots with intentional undervotes (City and County voters tend to ignore retention of judges, for example). What McCormick doesn't tell us is that the Sequoia Optech Insight precinct scanner doesn't have undervote screening capabilities and can't give the voter a warning for that �second chance� that's so important. While it's certainly true that a paper ballot is easier to review than a punch card, it's still the case that the equipment doesn't help. This means that the Insight optical scanner doesn't meet the RFP specifications and represents a giant step backwards from the punch-card system it's replacing which did have that capability and which Chicago and Cook County wanted to keep.

More importantly, the Sequoia Optech Insight precinct scanner does not comply with 2002 Voting Systems Standards/Guidelines which are given effect by Section 202(e) of HAVA. Specifically, Volume I, Section 2, �Functional Capabilities� provides in Section 2.2.3.2.2, �In addition to the above requirements, all paper-based precinct count systems shall:

(a) Provide feedback to the voter that identifies specific contests or ballot issues for which an overvote or undervote is detected;
(b) Allow the voter, at the voter's choice, to vote a new ballot or submit the ballot 'as is' without correction; and

(c) Allow an authorized election official to turn off the capabilities defined in 'a' and 'b' above.�

Sequoia Optech Insight precinct scanner does not have the capability of turning the function on or off as in para (c), it by definition violates para (a) and (b). and therefore, in its current configuration, the device cannot comply with 2002 HAVA standards.

The Illinois Election Code makes the mandatory (not the voluntary) Voting System Standards applicable to all machines certified for use in the state. Thus, the Sequoia Optech Insight precinct scanner is by operation of law prohibited from being used in Illinois and was improperly certified by the Illinois State Board of Elections.

This becomes even more important when viewed in the context of the contracts of Chicago and Cook County which provide that all equipment delivered by Sequoia �Contract[or] (sic) warrants that any election equipment furnished pursuant to this Contract shall meet the requirements of HAVA.�

The Insight fails City and County voters in yet another way: The Illinois Election Code mandates that ballots and instructions must be in English, Spanish and Chinese. Sequoia says in their response to the RFP that they can't have Spanish available for the March 21st primary (but will for the November elections). But, the Optech Insight has a two-line ASCII (computer code) display for errors and instructions � Chinese isn't an ASCII language, so it appears that you might never see an error message in Chinese on this device.

Also, Cook County Clerk, David Orr, has made no secret of his endorsement of touch-screen voting and would like to implement touch-screens for all voters when funds become available. So what's the point of spending $25.5 million to replace the PBC-2100s with Optech Insights that you plan to toss as soon as more taxpayer dollars can be funneled into this project?

City and County voters ought to be asking their election officials some hard questions about what's going on here. Why are they spending a huge chunk of money on non-compliant optical scanners that don't warn of undervotes like the system they replace did? Granted, according to computer experts we've consulted, it might have cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars to reprogram the PBC-2100, but the City and County would save $25 million that might be better spent on the next generation of technology that doesn't saddle voters with the proposed unreliable, insecure and inaccurate systems.

When Dianne Felts, director of voting systems and standards of the State Board of Elections was quoted in the February 11th Tribune article as saying, "Shortcuts are being taken that shouldn't be taken." She wasn't kidding!

This is the second in a series of articles on electronic voting in Illinois. Watch for the next installment: "Diebold Touch-Sceens Invade Illinois . . . RoboVoters on the March!"

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those the Illinois Ballot Interity Project, VoteTrustUSA or of any other person or entity, public or private.

1 | 2