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   »  Voting Machine Support Costly


Voting Machine Support Costly

Elections boards and counties stunned by expense; state aid for training ends after primary
by Mary Beth Lane (mlane@dispatch.com)The Columbus Dispatch
March 5th, 2006

The cost of service contracts for new touchscreen voting machines has left county elections officials across Ohio in sticker shock.

Many say they need the extra — and expensive — technical support to program and run the machines properly and ensure the integrity of elections.

But a spokesman said Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell thinks counties can run the systems themselves after the May 2 primary election, when state-paid training and technical support ends.

Counties are not required to have extra technical support after that. It’s their choice.

The full coverage plan offered by Diebold Election Systems to service its touch-screen voting machines in Fairfield County, for example, would cost $90,000 a year. Partial-coverage options are available at $60,000 and $21,000 a year.

"It just about blew our minds away," said Alice Nicolia, director of the county Board of Elections.

In poorer Perry County, a Diebold service contract is out of the question.

"We just do not have the money," said Janie DePinto, elections board director. Her board is considering hiring a cheaper consultant to provide technical support at election times.

DePinto plans to ask county commissioners for more money.

The Fairfield County elections board already has asked county commissioners for more money for a service contract and other expenses, and got an angry response.

The elections board is scheduled to meet Monday to discuss its budget. The $714,000 that county commissioners gave the board this year is inadequate and they need roughly double, Nicolia has said.

Part of the money sought is to service the county’s 492 touch-screen voting machines and to buy more to meet a new state law requiring one machine per 175 voters. The county has 93,000 registered voters and is growing.

Fairfield is among 47 counties that picked Diebold touch-screens. Costs for service contracts with Diebold were higher than anticipated.

The state has a five-year warranty contract with Diebold and Election Systems & Software, another company that sold voting machines to Ohio counties, for the equipment itself. Under the contract, the state is paying the companies to train and provide technical support to county elections boards through the May primary.

After that, counties are on their own.

Fairfield was among 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties that used new voting machines for the first time in November.

Elsewhere in central Ohio, Franklin, Delaware, Pickaway, Union, Ross and Knox counties will use their Election Systems & Software touch-screens for the first time in the May 2 primary.

Until then, it’s difficult to gauge whether extra technical support will be needed, said Janet Brenneman, director of the Delaware County Board of Elections.

A company spokeswoman declined to discuss the terms of service contracts that Election Systems & Software might offer its customers.

When Diebold began distributing proposals to county elections officials at their conference in January, some were shocked.

So were county commissioners.

"This completely blind-sided the county," said Ray Feikert, a Holmes County commissioner in northeastern Ohio. "It’s kind of a back-door expense that no one saw coming."

Diebold’s service contracts are priced depending on county size, level of support desired and number of elections annually.

For Holmes and Perry counties, the proposals are $16,000, $35,000 or $50,000 annually. Like Perry County, Holmes County might search for a cheaper option, Feikert said.

County elections workers should be able to run the new voting equipment as ably as they did punch-card systems. Blackwell and county officials agree on that much.

They differ on how long it could take to learn.

Until counties go through a few full election cycles, including primary, general and special, it makes sense to have technical support, said Steven Harsman, president of the Ohio Association of Election Officials and director of the Montgomery County Board of Elections.

"I don’t disagree with (Blackwell’s) concept," Harsman said. "But I think it’s too early to let a county be on their own without support. I look on it as an insurance policy."

Diebold’s full coverage would cost $110,000 annually in Montgomery County. Harsman’s board is considering buying partial coverage and using a county information-technology worker for extra technical support.

The Fairfield County elections board has hired its own information-technology worker and plans to buy partial coverage from Diebold.

"The irony is that the small counties will have a bigger need for these contracts, but they won’t have the money to pay for them," Harsman said. "Elections boards are going to county commissioners, and commissioners are kicking and screaming. It’s not a pretty situation at all. But when the dust settles, a high percentage of counties are going to need this, and county commissioners are going to have to find the funding."

Blackwell disagrees. He thinks counties won’t need technical support after May, said spokesman James Lee.

"Certainly there is a learning curve," he said. "We’re confident, though, that the boards of elections, with all the training and assistance we have provided through the May primary, will be well-prepared for the November election."

Ultimately, it’s up to the counties, though.

"They have to assess their needs and decide for themselves, working with their county commissioners," Lee said.

State law allows county boards of elections to seek a court order for funding. Fairfield County board members have told commissioners it might come to that.

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