Coalition for Voting Integrity

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial, August 21, 2006

Home
Pollwatcher Guidelines
SaveOurVote.com
Join Us!
Donate
Voice of the Voters! Internet/Radio
Voice of the Voters! Radio Archives
Your Questions & Comments
Voting News
2008 Municipal Resolutions
Holt's HR 5036
HR 811
S 1487
Redistricting
Reports
*GAO Reports*
Take Action!
Legislative Efforts
Letters
Editorials
Videos
"If You Want to Be a Voter (The Ballad of Sarasota)"
Voting Principles
Vision and Principles
Facts & FAQs
Rebuttal re Danaher
Blogs, Groups
Cost Comparisons
2005 Municipal Resolutions
Lou Dobbs
Slideshow
Chester County
Lehigh & Northampton County
Facts about HAVA
Vote-PAD
New York Times
Contact Us
Contact Your PA Legislators
Links
Supportive Candidates
Re-examination Request
Songs
Voting Forum October 2005
Voting Integrity Forum, June 2005


Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial
 
August 21, 2006
 
Trust but verify: Voter advocate suit has some merit
 
At first blush, the lawsuit filed in Commonwealth Court by a group of Pennsylvania voters last week is a potential wrecking ball. If the suit succeeds in winning a preliminary injunction, the voting machines used in 57 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties -- including Allegheny County and its neighbors -- would be decertified.

After all the time, trouble and expense taken to make voting machines comply with a federal law, this seems to invite chaos before the November election. While we don't want that, there is an important point here that needs to be addressed somehow and sometime.

Supported by the group Voter Action, the plaintiffs want paperless voting machines replaced with ones in which voters mark cards that are counted in optical scanning machines and could be checked if any dispute ensues.

The Post-Gazette has not favored such optical scanner voting machines -- they seem to us a retreat from the potential of the computer age, one that also conjures up memories of Florida and the notorious hanging chads. That said, the lack of verification associated with many touchscreen voting machines is a problem -- and not just in Pennsylvania. Similar suits have been filed across the country to address it.

It was the Florida debacle in the 2000 presidential election that moved Congress to pass the Help America Vote Act in 2002. This held the promise that modern, computerized voting systems would become uniform across the country and prevent future problems.

But the good intentions have exceeded the technology, and the legislation had the perverse effect of making redundant voting machines proved by the test of time -- such as the mechanical ones in Allegheny County. Moreover, computerized machines are potentially targets of software mischief.

Short of having voters mark cards to be scanned, touchscreen machines could be rigged to produce a verifiable paper trail. That would be a good solution, but such machines are not allowed in Pennsylvania because of concerns that the privacy of voters would be compromised, contrary to the Pennsylvania Constitution and state electoral law.

Ironically, the suit filed in Commonwealth Court argues that unreliable machines that have the potential to be rigged also offend the Constitution and electoral law. Most people would agree that such concerns are more fundamental than theoretical fears about a loss of privacy.

Those who think that this is all about paranoia or partisan sour grapes need to consider a recent report by the nonpartisan organization, Common Cause, which found that electronic voting machines had "serious security and reliability concerns." They also should remember the wisdom of Ronald Reagan in his dealing with the Soviets -- trust, but verify, he insisted. That's exactly what we can't do now with electronic voting machines.

It is a tragedy that the very legislation that was supposed to give Americans confidence in the election system has instead made a sizable number fearful about the future of American democracy. They are resorting to the courts because Congress and the state Legislature have failed to fix the problem.