Dear Mr. Cawley (and Ms. Miller and Mr. Martin),

I was at the press conference last week in front of the courthouse with Michael Fitzpatrick, when you and Ms. Miller expressed support for more time to study the voting systems so you may make an informed, deliberate choice for our county.  I applaud your stand, but also want to address some concerns of mine.

That morning, your frustration was evident at the whole process of trying to satisfy federal and state regulations, while simultaneously being stymied by those same agencies.  We understand how difficult your position must be.  We are also outraged at the Catch-22 and lack of insight by officials forcing unreasonable deadlines on local governments to comply, and believe it can only produce total chaos at election time. That is why we are trying to fight for the best election system at every level--local, state, and federal.

On the other hand, I was still alarmed at what I believe I heard you say that reflected some inaccurate information about an essential component of certain voting systems.  My recollection is you were frustrated because the state would not certify paper receipts in the touchscreens (DRE’s), which could serve as a paper trail. You are correct that Pennsylvania has declared that paper receipts in DRE’s that “spit out” so voters can allegedly verify their votes are not eligible to be certified, because generating receipts that could be taken outside the precinct is against Pennsylvania law.  The other kind of paper receipts that remain in the DRE’s (and what you seem to be advocating as a paper trail) are NOT what is meant by voter-verifiable paper ballots.  What a touchscreen machine prints out on a paper is NOT proof, or secure, or voter-verified.  It is merely what the machine has decided to print on paper.  It is also a system that will not be certified in Pennsylvania because allegedly one’s vote would not be completely secret.

What I, as well as other members of the Coalition for Voting Integrity, am extremely concerned about is that you three Commissioners, having the sole responsibility for making a huge decision for our county that will affect us for many years, and cost millions of dollars, seem to be harboring terribly incorrect information.  We hear you make statements like “DRE’s can give us a verifiable paper trail” or “Paper ballots are too expensive,” (patently false) or “Montgomery County loves their touchscreens,” (immaterial to discussion) or “Touchscreens are easy and reliable to use” (totally immaterial AND false).   We hear other statements made at meetings and in discussions with the public that are, at best, misleading and at worst, outright fabrications or totally wrong.  Either way, it is very frustrating to us that you are not availing yourselves of the reams of information we have about this issue.  We have no confidence that you are actually trying to compare, at every level, all the voting systems.  It appears to us that you are relying solely on information given to you by the vendors of the machines, which is surely the most irresponsible way to make a decision of such magnitude. The fact that you allegedly are going to use public input about the machines, based on vendor (mis)information and demonstrations, is also a big red flag.  How can you base decisions on what a public similarly mislead about voting system facts says they want?  During a 2-hour demonstration where those “facts” were never challenged?  Where the sole criterion seems to be “how easy they are to use?”  We were specifically shut out of those arenas, which should have been a perfect opportunity for debate on this! 

Either way, it is very alarming to us, as citizens who have exhaustively researched this issue from every side, when we see your extreme resistance to availing yourselves of our extensive knowledge. We get eye-rolling and dismissive gestures when we point out inaccuracies, instead of a willingness to learn about the issue. We know you are very busy individuals, and have many other issues to deal with.  However, getting the voting system that citizens of Bucks County will have to pay for, live with, and need to feel confident their votes will be accurately, reliably, and verifiably counted is of paramount importance.

Our opinion, based on verifiable facts:  if we must give up our lever machines, the optical scan voting system (the state has certified at least two so far, and more may be announced soon) meets all of our criteria.  It would be the least expensive to purchase, use (for citizens and poll workers), and maintain--this is in direct contradiction to what you commissioners have claimed may be the reason you’ll pick an electronic system.  It is very easy and reliable to use, for all citizens and poll workers.  It’s like a standardized test where you fill in little circles with pencil on a ballot, put it in the optical scanner, which just counts the votes.  And the most important part is the actual voter-marked ballots are retained in the machine, which are available should any election irregularities arise and a recount or audit need to be done.  This is NOT possible with an electronic machine voting system.  For this reason alone, we would back the optical scanners.  Another concern we have heard expressed by a commissioner is that, if we have paper ballots, then we’d be hassled with recounts and audits for every election.  That is also false.  But to give up any ability to have a recount at all because you feel it would be too much trouble surely speaks volumes about your seriously misplaced priorities.

I have hard evidence to back up all these claims.  I feel it is imperative if, before you decide on a voting system (and it appears you are leaning toward an electronic one), that you have the correct facts on hand to defend your choice.  For such a critical decision to be made on the basis of faulty information, and based on priorities not in the full interest of all citizens, would be a crime.  Here is what we expect in our voting system, in order of importance: