Times Union (Op-Ed): New voting machines would be a step backward

Times Union (Op-Ed): New voting machines would be a step backward

Hacked machines. Undercounted elections. Broken touchscreens. Impatient voters. Sound like a nightmare? It could be a reality for millions of New York voters as early as April. For years, the voting machine company ES&S has spent more than $600,000 lobbying New York officials to purchase certain machines, including ExpressVote XL, and soon they might get the green light. The machine provides a touchscreen allowing voters to mark their ballot electronically instead of on the traditional paper ballots. It then tabulates votes.

Hacked machines. Undercounted elections. Broken touchscreens. Impatient voters. Sound like a nightmare? It could be a reality for millions of New York voters as early as April.

For years, the voting machine company ES&S has spent more than $600,000 lobbying New York officials to purchase certain machines, including ExpressVote XL, and soon they might get the green light. The machine provides a touchscreen allowing voters to mark their ballot electronically instead of on the traditional paper ballots. It then tabulates votes.

Sound like a smoother, shinier approach to our democracy? It’s not.

Touchscreens are way more likely to malfunction than filling out a ballot by hand. For example, during an election in Pennsylvania, roughly 30 percent of the machines allowed voters to select only some candidates’ names and not others. Screens freeze. And when machines freeze, voters pay the price. Lines grow longer; voters become frustrated. Just look at Maryland, where every county except one transitioned back from touchscreens to voter-marked paper ballots in 2016, because it saves time and money.

It’s also about ensuring the security of our elections from cyber attacks.

The system we have is already the gold standard in safety. Touchscreens are easily hackable. According to a recent study about ballot marking devices, only 40 percent of voters reviewed their ballot for accuracy after submission and only 7 percent informed a poll worker if something went wrong. The study concludes that a hacker could easily change the results of 1 or 2 percent of votes, drastically altering results in a close election.

We saw it happen in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, where on election night one candidate had only 164 votes — a number so startlingly low that it caused election officials to do a manual count of paper ballots. Hours later, that same candidate was declared the winner with more than 26,000 votes.

These voting machines — which would cost taxpayers $8,000 per unit — cannot accurately tally and record votes.

New York has made significant gains toward modernizing antiquated election laws. Certifying the ExpressVote XL would be a serious step back.

Susan Lerner is the executive director of Common Cause NY.