Regarding the letter writer who believes that “opponents of new voting machines will cost us money”: The facts prove just the opposite. Commissioners Martin and Cawley have already cost taxpayers more than was necessary by choos­ing a system that is more expensive to purchase and has heavier ongoing costs than the viable alternative, using optical scanners. Indeed, the report issued by the commissioners misrepresented costs. Based on reports from areas that already use optical scanners, it appears that Bucks’ commissioners doubled the number that would be needed when they compared prices.

 

Optical scanners, known as op scans, are the voting machines which already include voter-verified paper ballots; Danaher machines do not. With 26 states already requiring voter-verifiable paper audit trails, and 13 more, plus the District of Columbia, working toward requir­ing them, such mandates can be expected soon at the federal level. Because of the commissioners’ lack of foresight, we will have to pay more, this time for printers as add-­ons, that is, if Danaher can develop certifiable printers at all. No com­puter system that is 25 years old, Danaher or not, can be considered “state-of-the-art,” so adaptable print­ers may not be forthcoming. If they are, they won’t be cheap.

 

If they aren’t, Bucks could have to buy whole new systems again!  New requirements from the feds could be enacted as soon as 2007. When that happens, it’s likely that it will actually cost less for Bucks to kick out these new-in-2006 machines and buy optical scanners, even accounting for the cost of paper bal­lots. That’s what New Mexico did after using the same models of Danaher machines as the ones which our commissioners have cho­sen, and encountering a multitude of inaccuracies with them.

 

Optical scanners do have some of the same security and reliability issues as other forms of computer­ized machines. The difference is the op scan’s inclusion of voter-verified paper ballots. Also, they have been proven to be simpler to operate as well as less costly.   If they malfunc­tion, the paper ballots can always be recounted. The integrity of comput­erized voting machines needs to be measured against actual ballots, not bytes or some facsimile inside the machine. The best solution is to use something to check against the machines’ totals, such as paper bal­lots. Only a reprint is available with electronic machines, not a recount, regardless of what vendors say.

 

The writer stated that the com­missioners “gave members of the public ample opportunity to express their opinions on this issue.” They did. Commissioners were provided with a documentary DVD in which several computer and voting machine experts from all over the country testified about their unreli­ability. They were given reams of research materials, which should have convinced anyone, had they not been ignored.

 

The commissioners never refut­ed the detailed research data, yet they chose to disregard that docu­mentation and the bipartisan advice of seven former Bucks com­missioners, the Bucks County Association of Township Officials, and 19 Bucks municipalities plus the many voters who signed peti­tions for voter-verified paper bal­lots. If they had truly given “care­ful consideration of the facts,” would this have happened?

 

We opponents of the new voting machines are trying to save Bucks County from making an extraordi­narily expensive mistake. The $3.1 million in federal funds that could be “sacrificed” by not having Danaher machines in time, would be nothing compared to the cost of buying new ones in a couple of years, or even trying to retrofit the Danahers. There are hundreds of certified Danaher machine failures in Philadelphia alone. Unless we can stop them, Bucks County will suffer many of the election day fiascos already validated, with no provision for legitimate recounts or audits, therefore, no way to prove that votes count. Our lawsuit seeks to acquire a dependable system, and more time to obtain it, while still qualifying for federal funds.

 

There is much more to know about the situation with Danaher voting machines. All electronic vot­ing machines should be recertified using much stronger, verifiable stan­dards by truly independent experts who are not paid by those machines’ manufacturers. We can go on and on with documentation of those who have used such machines and are now regretting it.

 

The bottom line is that our sacred right is the vote itself. Being forced to vote on machines that pro­vide no way to prove that our votes really count is to usurp that sacred right.

 

Connie Fewlass, Lower Southampton, is a retired teacher. She has worked with the Coalition for Voting Integrity for a year.