source: http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/14751040.htm?source=rss&channel=cctimes_politics
Diebold machines pressed into service
By Chris Metinko
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Nearly two years after suing Diebold for faulty, uncertified voting equipment, Alameda County may cast its vote with the Ohio-based company yet again.
County supervisors are scheduled to hold a special meeting Thursday to choose a new voting system expected to be in place for this fall's election. County elections officials are recommending the board choose a "blended" voting system -- consisting of paper ballots with optical scanners, plus a touch screen at each polling place -- made by either Diebold or Oakland-based Sequoia Voting Systems.
Although the new system would be different from the all-touch-screen Diebold system the county embraced five years ago, it could commit the county to contracting with a company that already has left a bad taste in the mouth of voters and county officials alike.
"I am not supportive of Diebold," said Keith Carson, president of the board. "I've said that many times. And at a number of meetings on this topic, the people who speak are in overwhelming opposition to Diebold, too."
The county's relationship with Diebold started in 2001, when the company helped lead a rush to touch-screen voting after the Florida ballot-counting fiasco during the 2000 presidential election.
The county purchased 4,000 Diebold touch-screen machines for $12 million, but the move soon proved troublesome. The equipment had various glitches, including once assigning votes to the wrong candidate.
Diebold agreed in 2004 to pay the state and Alameda County $2.6 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that it made false claims when it sold its equipment to the county. The settlement came after local and state officials found Diebold had installed uncertified software in the county's touch-screen machines and that its system was vulnerable to hackers.
"There certainly is a rocky history with Diebold and Alameda County," said Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Foundation. "That history certainly factors into voters' confidence and how secure the public feels with these machines."
Concerns about Diebold have not kept others from using the company's equipment. Twenty counties will use Diebold systems as the primary voting system for today's election. That includes Alameda County -- the only Bay Area county using Diebold -- which is borrowing 50 touch-screen machines and 60 optical scanners from another county since its old Diebold system did not produce a paper record and was rendered inadequate by the state at the beginning of this year.
Both Solano and Contra Costa counties use Election Systems & Software's optical scanners, an option Alameda County officials looked into, but did not recommend because of complaints about the company's support of its systems and references.
"Is there a negative reaction from some people to the name Diebold?" asked David MacDonald, the county's acting registrar. "Clearly, but people are going to have a concern no matter who the maker is."
Alameda County is anticipating buying 1,000 scanners to put at polling places in November, along with 1,000 touch-screen machines to be used mainly by the disabled. The Diebold system could cost as much as $17 million, while the Sequoia system could run as high as $13.5 million. However, Diebold will give the county a $6.1 million trade-in allowance -- stemming from the county's 2001 purchase -- if the county chooses its system. If the county goes with Sequoia, Diebold will buy back its old machines for just $3 million.
"I would hope any county looking into buying a voting system would concentrate mainly on the technology behind it, not just the past," Diebold spokesman David Bear said. "The fact is our technology is sound."
Henry Brady, professor of political science at UC Berkeley, said though many concentrate on the past problems with Diebold machines, the real problem is the lack of research and development that has gone into developing better voting systems.
"People like to say, 'No, no, the machines are flawed' and 'We need another system,'" Brady said. "But there are no perfect systems. That's the problem. There should be better systems."
Regardless of which system the county chooses, it is up against the clock.
The county can receive nearly $8.7 million in federal grant money for upgrading its system, but those funds must be used before Jan. 1, 2007. After that, federal money from the Help America Vote Act only can be used for equipment accessible to the disabled, and paper ballots and optical scanners don't qualify under such rules.
Reach Chris Metinko at 510-763-5418 or cmetinko@cctimes.com.