Verified Voting Logo
Edit Your PreferencesContact VerifiedVoting.orgAbout VerifiedVoting.org
Verified Voting HomeJoin - Help us do this work!Donate - Help us do this work!Take Action Today!Endorse the resolution!
Printer Friendly Version

See information for:

The Verified Voting Foundation engages in educational activities permitted by IRC Section 501(c)(3). Please visit VerifiedVoting.org for info about 501(c)(4) lobbying activities. You can also visit Vote Trust USA, a project of the Verified Voting Foundation. Also, check out our blog and twitter feed.

E-Mail This Page

Home   »  News  »  E-Voting News  »  Diebold Touch Screens Don't Meet ...


Diebold Touch Screens Don't Meet Disability Requirements

by Susan Pynchonnews-journalonline.com
June 28th, 2005

The Diebold voting machines being proposed for Volusia County don't meet the requirements of the Help America Vote Act. The shocking part is, they don't have to. It's only 2005 and the law doesn't go into effect until Jan. 1, 2006, so vendors are able to sell, this year, whatever type of voting systems they can get away with selling.

As I write this, states and counties across our nation -- including Volusia County -- are being sold a bill of goods with respect to their purchases of new voting-machine systems to meet the requirements of HAVA, which include accessible voting machines for all voters. Voting-machine vendors are having a heyday because they have recognized a loophole in HAVA that is large enough to drive a truck (or push a voting machine) through.

Unwitting states and counties, believing that the systems being presented to them are HAVA-compliant, are being duped. Unless vendors offer a specific guarantee of HAVA compliance, hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers' money may be squandered on equipment that will have to be scrapped or retrofitted at taxpayers' expense after Jan. 1, 2006.

While the proposed Diebold touch screens may provide accessibility for the blind, they are impossible to use for people with many other types of disabilities, including quadriplegics or those with severe manual impairments. Where is the sip/puff feature, the foot pedal or the joy stick offered by the competing AutoMark Voter Assist Terminal that Volusia County, with due diligence, had originally contracted to buy?

The AutoMark, developed in concert with the disabled community, offers a full guarantee of HAVA compliance that can be incorporated into a contract with the county, thereby indemnifying the county and assuring compliance.

In a blatant display of preferential treatment, the state required that the AutoMark receive federal certification (which it now has) before the state would begin the state certification process. However, the state did not require the same of Diebold. The Diebold system being proposed to Volusia County is not federally certified. State law does not require federal certification. Furthermore, state certification is not a guarantee of HAVA compliance since the state's standards for error rates and accessibility requirements are less stringent than those found in Section 301 of HAVA. Section 301, which is only 3 pages long, is the sole standard for HAVA compliance for the current round of voting machine purchases, as confirmed by Peggy Sims, National HAVA Coordinator. (Federal certification does not mean HAVA compliance either; it simply sets minimum performance standards.)

The board of directors of Florida Fair Elections Coalition supports purchase of the AutoMark. If the state were operating with due diligence, it could have the AutoMark certified within a matter of weeks, in plenty of time for Volusia County's fall elections. There would be no need for all the extra training of poll workers that would be required with the Diebold touch screens. The AutoMark works in conjunction with the county's current optical scan machines and would provide a fully accessible, verifiable election.

Add Diebold's lack of HAVA compliance to the fact that the Diebold "paperless" touch-screen machines do not provide a verifiable election; take longer to use than the AutoMark (31 minutes on Diebold vs. 9 minutes on AutoMark in a recent comparison); will keep the disabled waiting, possibly for hours, to be able to vote at a precinct; and are more expensive to maintain, as delineated in the recent Miami-Dade report; who would purchase these machines?

The Volusia County Council should be joined by the entire community of persons with disabilities, as happened in California recently, to reject these Diebold voting machines that do not meet the needs of all voters and do not provide verifiable elections. We urge concerned residents of Volusia County to show up at the special County Council meeting, held strictly on the subject of voting machines, at 9 a.m., Wednesday at the County Administration Building at 123 W. Indiana Ave. in DeLand. The Council is planning to vote, one last time, on whether to accept the Diebold machines.

Pynchon is executive director of Florida Fair Elections Coalition, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to fair, transparent, accessible, reliable, verifiable and secure elections. She does not have any interest, financial or otherwise, in any voting machine company nor do any members of the FFEC staff or board.

Announcements

August 26, 2010
On India’s Electronic Voting Controversy
August 25, 2010
Pac-Man for president: Hack highlights e-voting flaws
August 6, 2010
Voting Technology Research Gets In-Depth
July 27, 2010
State Election Officials: Recountable Process A Must for Overseas Voters
July 20, 2010
Online Voting: All That Glitters Is Not Gold (Unless You're a Vendor)
June 21, 2010
Voting Without A Net In South Carolina
June 17, 2010
Voting results in New Jersey should not be mysterious
June 16, 2010
Verified Voting Calls for Recountable, Auditable Voting Systems Following South Carolina Primary
June 16, 2010
Voting integrity groups call for investigation of South Carolina voting systems in wake of unexpected primary results in Democratic US Senate race
June 15, 2010
On the South Carolina Primary
May 23, 2010
Benefits, risks of e-mail ballots weighed
May 4, 2010
PA - Team 4: Security Concerns About Voting Machines Remain
April 26, 2010
California Assembly committee endorses UC Berkeley statistician's election auditing method
March 8, 2010
Feds Move to Break Voting-Machine Monopoly
March 2, 2010
Is the Internet the Right Place for Our Ballots? Election Administration and Voting Rights Thought Leaders Weigh in on the Future of Overseas Voting at Summit 2010
February 25, 2010
Minnesota Civic Groups Refute Recount Claims
February 17, 2010
Groups and Election Officials Warn Department of Justice that Voting Machine Vendor Merger will Inflate Costs to Taxpayers, Threaten Election Accuracy and National Security
February 11, 2010
Fla. justices uphold local election law
February 3, 2010
NJ Judge Issues Mixed Order on Use of E-voting Machines
February 1, 2010
Ruling Issued in Rutgers–Newark Law School’s Constitutional Litigation Clinic Challenge to NJ's Electronic Voting Machines

Get E-Mail Alerts




Important Links

  • VVBlog: Check out the latest news and commentary at our blog.
  • Election Day Problems?
    Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE
  • Find Your Polling Place: Vote411.org
  • Questions? Contact Us
  • Vote Trust USA - national resource for state-based organizations supporting verifiable elections, a Verified Voting Foundation project


  • "The core of our American democracy is the right to vote. Implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. And I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all of that is being called into question." (more here)

    Kevin Shelley, former
    California Sec. of State





    Verified Voting Foundation, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.

    © Copyright 2008, Verified Voting Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved, although reprint permission granted for nonprofit purposes with attribution to Verified Voting Foundation, Inc.


    Privacy    Site Map