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, Pennsylvania officials are poorly prepared to audit election results and ensure that reported vote totals match the actual vote, a new, national voting study suggests.

The report, “Counting Votes 2012: A State by State Look at Voting Technology Preparedness,” says that proper audits are possible in only some Pennsylvania counties because most of the state uses electronic voting systems that do not provide a voter-verifiable record. In “swing” states like Pennsylvania, where neither presidential candidate is expected to roll up a substantial majority, 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 since 2000 has seen 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 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.

“Pennsylvania needs to improve its efforts to prepare 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, 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 rates Pennsylvania as “generally good” in comparing its voting and vote-counting practices to those of other states and examining its performance in each of five areas:

– L’État exige-t-il des bulletins de vote papier ou des enregistrements de chaque vote exprimé ? (Lorsque des pannes informatiques ou des erreurs humaines entraînent des erreurs de comptage des machines, les responsables électoraux peuvent utiliser les bulletins de vote originaux pour déterminer les totaux corrects. De plus, les bulletins de vote papier peuvent être utilisés pour vérifier les comptages des machines.)

– L’État dispose-t-il de plans d’urgence adéquats dans chaque bureau de vote en cas de panne d’une machine ?

– L’État protège-t-il les électeurs militaires et étrangers ainsi que leurs bulletins de vote contre toute altération, manipulation et violation de la vie privée en veillant à ce que les bulletins marqués ne soient pas déposés en ligne ?

– L’État a-t-il institué un audit post-électoral pour déterminer si les résultats communiqués électroniquement sont corrects ?

– L’État utilise-t-il des pratiques robustes de réconciliation et de dépouillement des bulletins de vote pour garantir qu’aucun bulletin ne soit perdu ou ajouté lorsque les votes sont comptabilisés et agrégés du niveau local au niveau de l’État ?

The highest rated states overall were Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Vermont and Wisconsin, while South Carolina, Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana and Mississippi were ranked near the bottom.

« Aucun vote ne devrait être perdu en 2012 », a déclaré Penny Venetis, codirectrice de la Clinique de contentieux constitutionnel de la faculté de droit de Rutgers. « Il existe des technologies permettant de vérifier les votes, et des procédures pourraient être mises en place dans tout le pays pour garantir que chaque vote soit comptabilisé comme tel, comme l’exige la constitution. »