Contact:

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

Susan Greenhalgh, Common Cause, segreenhalgh@gmail.com, (917)-796-8782

Mary Boyle, Common Cause, mboyle@commoncause.org, (202) 736-5770

La préparation des machines à voter « doit être améliorée », mais des changements peuvent être apportés d’ici le 6 novembre

WASHINGTON – A lack of effective voter protection measures places South Carolina near the bottom of a ranking of states based upon its preparedness to successfully manage voting machine failures on Election Day, a new, national voting report finds.

The report, “Counting Votes 2012: A State by State Look at Voting Technology Preparedness,” 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. Despite South Carolina’s low rating, the report emphasizes that election officials still have time to make changes in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 6 election.

“After thorny technology issues in recent elections, South Carolina is on the cusp of transitioning into a more resilient voting system. In the meantime, there are actions that can be taken to prepare for the upcoming election,” said Pamela Smith, president of Verified Voting. “For example, we recommend an update to the current rules that restrict the quantity of emergency ballots at the polling place to ten percent of registered voters or less. Past experience, and the age of the current voting systems, would indicate more emergency ballots may be needed on Election Day to ensure voters are not disenfranchised.”

South Carolina can improve its election procedures before Nov. 6 by doing things like: upgrading its ballot accounting and reconciliation practices, which would be able to catch any machine errors; encouraging overseas and military voters to cast ballots by mail even if they have the option to vote via e-mail or fax; and ensuring that comprehensive contingency plans are in place (re-enforcing best practices from the secretary of state on down, for example).

Many states have neglected to address or prepare for voting machine malfunction, and in every national election in the past decade, voting systems have failed. In 2008 – the last presidential election year – more than 1,800 problems were reported nationally.

« Si l’histoire nous donne une idée, les machines ne fonctionneront pas aux États-Unis en novembre et des votes seront perdus », a déclaré Susannah Goodman de Common Cause. « Des systèmes de secours tels que les bulletins de vote papier, les audits et les bonnes pratiques de rapprochement des bulletins doivent être mis en place pour garantir l’exactitude des résultats. »

South Carolina received an overall rating of “Needs Improvement” based on its performance in 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 ?

In addition to South Carolina, five other states were ranked near the bottom of the list – Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana and Mississippi – while five states were ranked near the top – Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Vermont and Wisconsin.

“No vote should be lost in 2012,” said Penny Venetis, co-director of the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic. “Technology exists to verify votes, and procedures could be in place around the country to make sure that every vote is counted, as the constitution requires.”

Election Day is more than three months away, and that leaves time for states like South Carolina to make simple changes in some of the categories ranked by the study.