SOURCE: Computerworld.com

Marc L. Songini, June 18, 2007 (Computerworld)

Criticism of proposed legislation requiring that all touch-screen voting machines provide a paper trail is mounting as the bill’s wait for a congressional vote drags on.

The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, which addresses security and reliability flaws in electronic voting machines, has even lost the support of a co-sponsor, presidential hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

In a statement last week, Kucinich described the legislation as “a voter reform bill rapidly losing support.” He said he plans to introduce a separate bill that would require that all ballots in presidential elections be counted by hand.

A spokeswoman for Kucinich declined to provide more details about the reasons for his opposition to the bill.

The bill was approved by the U.S. House Administration Committee in May.

A spokesman for the bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), blamed the debate delay on other congressional priorities, such as supplemental funding for the Iraq war and debate on stem cell research legislation.

He wouldn’t predict when debate on the e-voting bill would commence.

The Holt spokesman added that he doesn’t anticipate that Kucinich’s change of heart will lead to further defections by supporters.

But as the bill has languished, criticism from voter advocacy groups and analysts has risen. Some critics contend that the proposed legislation should ban touch-screen systems outright. Others say it protects e-voting machine vendors at the expense of the public.

“The biggest concern is the fact that it continues to allow the use of DREs,” or direct- recording electronic touch-screen machines, said Brad Friedman, a political blogger and voter activist based in Los Angeles.

“In my opinion, the danger is that it will institutionalize DREs and put some sort of federal blessing on them,” he said. “It will serve to give a false sense of security to the voter.”

And it is not a transparent system, Friedman claims. “It’s a grave danger. I’d be willing to accept a less-than-perfect bill as long as it gets DREs out.” He noted that Florida recently passed legislation banning DREs. His preference is for the use of paper-based machines, such as optical-scan systems.

Holt’s spokesman emphasized that the bill’s intention isn’t about selecting a single e-voting technology.

“It is agnostic on equipment choice, as long as the voting system meets the principles of verifiability and auditability,” the spokesman said.

Ion Sancho, the elections supervisor for Leon County, Fla., said he supports the bill despite fears that it provides too much protection to vendors of e-voting machines.

According to Friedman, the bill would allow only experts to review the source code of machines and forbid them from sharing any information about investigations unless “egregious flaws” were discovered.

“It’s a compromise, that’s true, and it’s upsetting purists on both sides, but that tells you it’s doing what it’s supposed to do,” Sancho said.

Larry Norden, staff counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, said that he also supports the bill despite its flaws. He noted that election districts could face time and financial crunches in attempting to meet the bill’s criteria.

Nevertheless, Norden said, the bill does address a number of DRE security flaws and is worthy of passage — sooner rather than later.