Contacto:

Christy Setzer, New Heights Communications, christy@newheightscommunications.com, (202) 724-6380

Mary Boyle, Causa Común, mboyle@commoncause.org, (202) 736-5770

Report says there’s still time to make needed changes by Nov. 6

WASHINGTON – In what could be the most fiercely-contested election in U.S. history, Ohio officials are well-prepared to deal with voting machine malfunctions and breakdowns but could beef up their procedures for ballot accounting and reconciliation, a new, national voting study suggests.

The report, “Counting Votes 2012: A State by State Look at Voting Technology Preparedness,” puts Ohio in the top tier of states on its overall readiness to run an efficient election and report votes accurately.

The report notes that in Ohio and other “swing” states, where neither presidential candidate is expected to roll up a substantial majority, strong procedures for auditing are critical because even a small error in vote counting could be decisive.

“High-profile elections in the past decade have been decided by razor thin margins,” the report notes. “The 2000 presidential race was decided by 537 votes in Florida; the Washington State gubernatorial race in 2004 by 129 votes, and a Minnesota Senate race in 2008 by just 312. Every national election sees voting system failures stem from machines that won’t start, memory cards that can’t be read, mis-tallied votes, lost votes and more. Under the U.S. Constitution and every state constitution, as well as by statute throughout the country, every vote must be counted as cast.”

The report emphasizes that state election officials still have time before the election to make some kinds of changes that would protect the integrity of the vote. The study was released Wednesday by three non-partisan organizations focused on voting – the Verified Voting Foundation, the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic, and Common Cause.

“Ohio’s audit provision is improved – though is still not codified into law. A requirement in statute for audits would net the Buckeye State an even higher grade, but we’re appreciative of its efforts to strengthen this practice for the upcoming election,” said Pamela Smith, president of Verified Voting. “No election system is perfect, and ensuring fair, accurate elections is a national effort. Our elections are complex – we have so many jurisdictions and varying technologies. Everyone from election officials to citizens should be involved to make sure this process at the very heart of our democracy is healthy.”

The report noted that voting systems routinely fail. In 2008 – the last presidential election year – more than 1,800 problems were reported nationally.

“If history is any indication, machines this November will fail in the U.S. and votes will be lost,” said Susannah Goodman of Common Cause. “Backup systems like paper ballots need to be put in place in every state to help to verify results.”

The report places rates Ohio as “good” in comparing its voting and vote-counting practices to those of other states and examining its performance in each of five areas:

¿El estado exige papeletas o registros de cada voto emitido? (Cuando fallas informáticas o errores humanos causan conteos erróneos, los funcionarios electorales pueden usar las papeletas originales para determinar los totales correctos. Además, las papeletas pueden usarse para auditar los conteos de las máquinas).

– ¿El Estado cuenta con planes de contingencia adecuados en cada centro de votación en caso de falla de las máquinas?

– ¿El Estado protege a los votantes militares y en el extranjero y sus votos contra alteraciones, manipulaciones y violaciones de la privacidad, garantizando que los votos marcados no se emitan en línea?

– ¿Ha realizado el estado una auditoría posterior a las elecciones para determinar si los resultados informados electrónicamente son correctos?

– ¿El estado utiliza prácticas sólidas de conciliación y tabulación de votos para ayudar a garantizar que no se pierdan ni se agreguen votos a medida que se cuentan y agregan los votos desde el nivel local al estatal?

Other top-rated states overall were Minnesota, New Hampshire, Vermont and Wisconsin, while South Carolina, Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana and Mississippi — were ranked near the bottom.

“Ningún voto debería perderse en 2012”, declaró Penny Venetis, codirectora de la Clínica de Litigios Constitucionales de la Facultad de Derecho de Rutgers. “Existe tecnología para verificar los votos, y se podrían implementar procedimientos en todo el país para garantizar que cada voto se cuente como emitido, tal como lo exige la Constitución”.