|
Date Published: August 8, 2004
All parties should revisit issue of voting machines
Sumter County voters must be puzzled as to why
the Sumter County Election Commission and the local Legislative
Delegation are dead set against using new electronic voting machines
in the Nov. 2 general election.
On July 27 the commission
voted, in executive session (which is illegal under the state's
Freedom of Information Act), to reject the electronic voting
machines after having received a letter from the delegation opposing
use of the machines. The reason given was "due to timing necessary
for training and support," according to Goliath Brunson Jr.,
chairman of the election commission. He further stated that the
commission had concerns about its ability to run a smooth election
with the new machines. The county currently uses a punch card
system.
However, 14 other counties in the state are expected
to convert to the electronic voting machines this year. The machines
are being paid for by the federal government. The cost for Sumter
County's 283 new machines is $1.1 million, but the county would lose
a one-time-only $185,000 incentive from the federal government if it
rejects the machines. That's a bill the county's taxpayers will
eventually have to foot because under the Help America Vote Act of
2002 passed by Congress, the entire country must use electronic
voting machines by 2006.
If the commission's decision holds,
Sumter County will become the only county in the state refusing to
convert.
Marci Andino, executive director of the state
Election Commission, told The Item that setting up the
machines and training poll workers would not take long — no more
than five or six weeks. A training session is scheduled for local
election officials on Aug. 23-24. She contends the electronic
system, which is similar to a touch screen computer, is more
reliable than punch cards and prevents over-voting. Also, voters
will be able to review their ballot on the screen before finally
casting their votes.
State Attorney General Henry McMaster
announced on Thursday his opinion that concerns about the new
machines are unfounded, noting that the machines provide a paper
trail of votes cast but does not print out receipts for voters, like
an ATM confirmation slip. He says such receipts could be misused and
compromise the right to a secret ballot, plus delay the voting
process and add to the cost of elections.
Sen. Phil
Leventis, D-Sumter, in defending the delegation's opposition to the
machines, insists the timing of getting the machines in place and
training the poll workers is his primary concern along with the lack
of a paper trail. As for the $185,000 incentive that Sumter County
would lose (he said if local government has to foot the bill "we'll
just have to cross that bridge when we come to it), he blames that
on the "incompetence" of the state Election Commission for failing
to apply for a waiver from the federal government that would have
allowed the county to use punch card ballots without losing the
funds. The commission denies that allegation and insists there is
still plenty of time to train poll workers.
Further
complicating matters is the action of Sumter County Council, which
on Monday refused to appropriate any funds to buy the machines if
the Sumter County Election Commission upholds its decision not to
put them in place for the November election.
With that as
background, we share the puzzlement Sumter County voters and
taxpayers must feel about looking a gift horse in the mouth. The
arguments against the machines are not persuasive. Local poll
workers have performed admirably in past elections. They are
intelligent, efficient, dedicated and well-organized. They are
perfectly capable, in our view, of learning to operate and monitor
the machines just as effectively as poll workers in the other 14
counties that are on board with the new electronic system.
We
believe this issue, which has become increasingly clouded, should be
revisited by all the parties involved: the Legislative Delegation,
local election commission, state election commission and county
council.
The county election commission's decision is
already tainted by the fact it conducted an illegal vote, plus it is
appointed by the Legislative Delegation and appears to be
rubber-stamping the delegation's position on the machines.
We propose a summit meeting, so to speak, of all four bodies
to carefully review and debate the pros and cons of the new machines
in an atmosphere of calm deliberation, and at the same time receive
input from local citizens, such as Chuck Gibbs, who attended the
public hearing held just before the tainted election commission
meeting on July 27. Gibbs expressed his outrage at the commission's
decision in a letter to the editor in the July 31 edition of The
Item.
In it, he noted that the commission had already
received a July 23 letter from the delegation requesting it use the
current punch card system in the November election, and concluded
that "their (the election commission) decision was made before the
presentation by the S.C. Election Commission last evening (July
27)."
If the delegation truly believes using the old system
"is in the best interests of the voters," as stated in its letter,
then further discussion and explanation should be presented publicly
with all parties present and accounted for so that voters and
taxpayers can be assured their best interests are paramount.
That $185,000 incentive might be chump change in larger
counties, but with the budget squeeze becoming tighter for local
government and taxes continuing to increase, taxpayers might not be
in any mood to "cross that bridge" when it comes time to pay for the
mandated electronic voting system.
E-mail
to a friend Previous
Page |
August 10, 2004 
