In response to Neil Samuels’ guest column of December 20, “Bucks official compounds mistake made with voting machines,” I feel compelled to correct Mr. Samuels’ multiple inaccuracies and misconceptions with plan and accurate statements of fact.

When the Bucks County Board of Commissioners passed its March 15, 2006, resolution to purchase Danaher ELECTronic 1242 full-face voting machines, it did so after months of careful study and very public consideration of the various options that would bring Bucks County into federally mandated compliance with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002.

For months leading up to the decision to contract with a local Danaher vendor, the commissioners diligently and patiently fielded the “pleas of hundreds of concerned and educated citizens” during public and private meetings.  Mr. Samuels himself participated in several of these, registering his concerns with the board for the record. 

From the moment the commissioners began to analyze HAVA-compliant voting systems almost two years ago, the three criteria, in order of importance, were accuracy, user-friendliness and cost efficiency.  Before making their decision, they authorized the Bucks County Voting Machines Work Group Assessment, and interdepartmental, interdisciplinary group formed by the county Board of Elections, to examine in depth proposals from three voting machine companies.  (Why do the members of this group remain unidentified?  Why was this “study” conducted out of the public eye, especially given the controversy surrounding the various choices?  Why was no feedback or research given to the commissioners by persons well-versed in this subject incorporated into this assessment?) The work group found that projected 10-year operating costs for the Danaher system, which it recommended, were almost $600,000 lower than those of optical scan company ES&s.

(Ms. Dean makes these claims about costs without any corresponding data to back them up.  The report had no breakdown of the cost figures for the voting systems, for their acquisition, use, and maintenance.   Much of the data in the report seems incomplete, not compared fairly, at odds with well-documented costs around the country, or just plain confusing.  We need to examine the raw cost and other data used in making such claims to the citizens).

Contrary to Mr. Samuels’ insistence that Bucks County officials purchased “expensive touch-screen voting equipment with no paper ballot component,” the Danaher machine does have a paper trail that can be used in the event of any recount. If former Congressman Michael G. Fitzpatrick had requested a recount following the general election of Nov. 7, the Danaher’s paper audit trail would have been accessed by officials.  The mechanism for a recount is required in the state code.  Mr. Samuels’ assertion than an audit would not have been possible is erroneous.  (Once again, we have Bucks County Election Board officials trying to pass off the “paper audit trail” in the Danaher as a valid, independent paper ballot.  It is nothing of the kind.  There is an unseen paper roll inside the machine (it is NOT voter-verified) that allegedly records the voter’s intent; it is recorded by hidden software and NOT an independent hard copy of the citizen’s vote.  Any alleged “audit” or recount conducted using the information from this paper would not be meaningful—it would simply regurgitate what the software originally tallied.  In other words, Mr. Samuels described this exactly right).

If and when the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania approves a voter-verified paper trail component, the county’s voting machine contract allows for that addition.  To reiterate, the availability of a voter-verified paper ballot is a federal or state decision, not one that can be made by the county commissioners. (This statement is untrue.  There was a voter-verified paper ballot system meeting federal requirements and state certifications that the commissioners could have chosen:  the precinct-based optical scan system). All along, the commissioners have said they will comply with the inclusion of such a component—provided its cost is funded by federal and state monies rather than the Bucks County taxpayers. (The commissioners are now putting conditions to following a possible state mandate to require VVPAT components.  They will comply only if it is paid for by someone else?  The costs written into the contract with the Danaher vendor for a future printer component—which has never been used in an election-- will be astronomical--$2495 per machine, which translates to roughly $1,856,280 just to purchase.  Serious concerns about the real security and usability of these printers aside, the cost was not factored into their original “study.”) 

After weighing concerns like those of Mr. Samuels and the hundreds of concerned and educated citizens to whom he refers, the commissioners also chose to purchase 450 reconditioned Danaher machines at a savings of $1 million to the taxpayer. (We are perplexed at how purchasing used Danahers was the result of weighing citizens’ concerns.  We wanted nothing to do with these machines, let alone buying used ones!) These units were completely overhauled with brand new internal parts and mechanisms.  The only remaining portions of the previous machines were the hard-plastic casing, the carrying handle and the wheels.  It is the commissioners’ responsibility to safeguard the best interests of the taxpayers of Bucks County at all times. (We totally agree with that last statement!  We only wish their actions had reflected their alleged intent).  Through this purchase of reconditioned machines, which carry the exact same warranty as the new machines, they achieved a savings of over $1 million. (This is being presented as a “cost savings,” when in reality, it is a costly mistake). 

As for Mr. Samuels’ statement that “voters must have faith that the votes are counted as they were cast,” 57 percent of the county’s electorate, or almost 237,000 citizens, showed up at the polls last Nov. 7 for a midterm election.  Such a large turnout was, by its very breadth and volume, a statement of faith. (To view the large turnout of voters this past election to be a reflection of “faith” in the new system is absurd).

As the county Board of Elections certified the results during the following week, not one allegation of impropriety arose.   The machines, in bold, empirical support of the commissioners’ careful selection criteria, had provided accuracy with user-friendliness at a cost favorable to Bucks County citizens. (Unfortunately, Ms. Dean’s sweeping glowing conclusions about the accuracy and security of the Danahers are unfounded.  It is impossible to state than ANY software- based voting system that has no voter-verifiable, independent back-up is secure.  It is impossible to challenge the results.  It is impossible to prove they are accurate!) Then again, before the commissioners selected the Danaher system, they were fully aware that it had proven its reliability over a decade of successful elections that surrounding Pennsylvania counties, such as Philadelphia, Monroe, Berks and Dauphin, have enjoyed with the same machines. (The commissioners have ignored the reports of over 400 machine breakdowns in Philadelphia’s 2004 election alone.  There are thousands of election incidents related to the Danahers all across the country.  It is impossible to prove that election results on them have been accurate…see above).

In Bucks County voting, we have rich history of integrity and fairness.  We will continue to uphold that tradition in the many elections to come.

See also "Bucks County Voting Machine Assessment Rebuttal" by CVI Volunteers Janis Hobbs-Pellechio et al., March 29, 2006