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   »  NC: Paper trail on voting devices ...


NC: Paper trail on voting devices a bumpy road

Elections officials contend machines are reliable; critics say jams are proof of flaws


by Mark JohnsonThe Charlotte Observer
January 2nd, 2008

RALEIGH --The future of democracy in North Carolina will hinge on a paper wad fight.
The crumpled paper, in this case, is not the weaponry in the dispute, but the source of it.

North Carolina's elections are running on fresh machinery, 2-year-old voting mechanisms that have yet to be taken out for the performance run of a presidential election. Some of the equipment, including some machines in Mecklenburg County, has run into a jam -- paper jams, to be exact.

Elections officials have made adjustments and are contemplating more to reduce the clogs, but most contend that voters now have a system deserving of their trust. Advocates of a paper ballot say the equipment is fundamentally flawed, and the paper jams provide proof.

An electronic voting machine in Carteret County lost 4,400 votes in 2004, giving North Carolina its share of infamy that year. The disappearing votes prompted cries for a paper ballot that voters can verify, a demand from a public with vivid memories of the vote-counting controversies in Florida after the 2000 presidential election.

Next year's vote will be the first major test of the electioneering system since the disappearing votes of 2004. A presidential election guarantees a larger turnout than in intervening years, and North Carolina's races for governor and the U.S. Senate likely will push participation even higher.

State officials have worked with county leaders for four years to rid the state of a patchwork of voting systems, from electronic touch screens to refrigerator-sized lever machines to no machines in three counties. Voters instead hand-marked a paper ballot.

State elections administrators took bids from manufacturers for new machines and ultimately offered counties the choice of two. Optical scan machines scan ballots that are hand-marked by voters, and touch-screen machines show the results both on the screen and on a printer attached to the machine. The voter can see the printout but can't touch it.

Replacing all of the state's machines cost $65 million, of which federal funds covered $42 million. The additional costs, primarily in counties that chose touch-screen machines, were paid by those counties.

Paper problems

Paper ballot advocates like the optical scan machines but want to eliminate the touch-screen equipment, which is used in Mecklenburg and 20 other counties. Those counties, however, include about 40 percent of the state's voters, according to elections officials.A touch-screen machine prints on a roll of paper, akin to a cash register tape, showing voters' selections as they go through the ballot. On long ballots, that uses a lot of paper -- about 3 feet per voter. The rolls get changed by volunteer poll workers who aren't accustomed to working the machines.

That sometimes causes jams. Guilford County, one of North Carolina's most populous, reported jams in 9 percent of its machines in 2006. Mecklenburg officials estimated they had 50 or 60 jams.

"It's definitely not as reliable as your cash register tape or your ATM machine," said Joyce McCloy, founder of the N.C. Coalition for Verified Voting.

The coalition grew out of the 2004 debacle in Cartaret, and members figured prominently in hearings organized by the General Assembly the following year.

McCloy and other critics say the paper jams on the new machines mean there is no paper trail to verify the electronic recording of some votes on the machines.

"That doesn't mean you lost the votes," said Michael Dickerson. "I still have three flash memories (in the machine) of that vote being cast."

McCloy, however, counters that cases such as Carteret County, though it used a different brand of machine, still demonstrate that touch-screen technology can fail to record votes electronically. The Cartaret machine not only was misprogrammed, but local election officials ignored a warning indicator.

"If we're going to have a hotly contested race and we're going to have to go through the touch-screen counties," McCloy said, "we're going to have a problem."

Seeking votes of confidence

Ohio's secretary of state released a report in December recommending the elimination of touch-screen machines because of concerns about their reliability. Florida is shifting to optical scan machines.

N.C. elections officials caution, though, that paper ballots are easier to damage, incorrectly cast or corrupt.

Gary Bartlett, executive director of the N.C. State Board of Elections, said the state's experience is that optical scan machines indicate more discrepancies between the electronic and paper vote totals than touch-screen machines.

He said board officials believe in independent verification of how a vote is cast on a touch-screen machine and recognize that it's essential to securing voters' faith in the system.

"Today it is paper," Bartlett said. "Hopefully technology will solve issues surrounding paper where an alternative choice could be used, or a better paper solution."

Elections officials also randomly select machines and compare electronic and paper vote counts to ensure accuracy.

Bartlett's staff has worked to reduce the paper jams. The machine's manufacturer has retooled the printing function so it uses less paper per voter. That means fewer roll changes and fewer jams. Counties also are using different paper that is less affected by humidity.

State elections officials are asking the company to revamp the printers further so they show only a summary of the voter's choices at the end instead of each choice as the voter goes through the ballot.

"It's like anything else: The more you work with it, the better you get at it," said Keith Long, voting systems project manager for the state board of elections.

Voting machines

Here's the equipment that some counties in the area use for voting. Counties that use optical scan machines also may use some touch-screen machines for disabled voters and early voting.

TOUCH-SCREEN:

Mecklenburg.

OPTICAL SCAN:

Cabarrus, Catawba, Gaston, Iredell, Union.

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