|
New York Newsday, March 28, 2006
Mad Rush For New
Voting Machines Is Mad Indeed
By John Nonna And
David Kogelman
John Nonna is co-chairman of the steering
committee and David Kogelman is chairman of the Help America Vote Act committee of the New York Democratic
Lawyers Council.
On March 1, just as New York State was on the brink of
finalizing the implementation regulations needed to buy the voting machines
that will be used by New Yorkers for the foreseeable future, the Department
of Justice sued the state. Its suit seeks to force New
York to comply with the Help America Vote Act's timetable, even
though it had been clear for more than a year that New York would not have the new voting
machines in place in time for the 2006 elections.
Justice's complaint that the state has failed to comply
with the act comes at the worst possible time. Albany is finally on the right path to
adopting regulations that will provide a reliable, trustworthy and secure
voting system. Now is not the time to derail the substantial progress that
the state has made and start over.
After the electoral disaster in Florida in 2000, Congress enacted the Help
America Vote Act in 2002. It provides for funding for every state to
modernize its voting system and requires them to acquire new machines that
make it easier for the disabled to vote. These new systems were to be in
place for the 2006 federal elections.
Last July, New
York passed the Election Reform Act of 2005 with
bipartisan support. Since then, the State Board of Elections has published
two drafts of implementing regulations. These regulations are crucial to
protect the accuracy, trustworthiness and security of voting in any system
that might be adopted by county boards of election.
The timing of this lawsuit was suspicious. It came just
two days after the review of the second draft by the state board and receipt
of the final suggestions for changes to the regulations. It also came just as
the board was preparing to seek suitable voting systems to comply with both
federal and New York
law. Why is Justice suddenly in such a big hurry? Where is the fire?
Justice also has been overly aggressive in its response to
a motion to intervene in this lawsuit by individuals and voter-rights
advocacy groups, including the League of Women Voters and New Yorkers for Verified
Voting. Unfortunately, last Thursday, a federal district court in Albany sided with
Justice and ruled against intervention by these representatives of the public
and local boards of election. This Thursday, the court will hear arguments on
a motion by Justice seeking a preliminary injunction to obtain the ultimate
relief in the case. This is an outrageous attempt to force the court to
decide the case before it has all the facts and before the public can be
heard.
With barely five months to go to primary day, it is
nothing short of fantasy for Justice to contend that an orderly process could
be successfully completed by then. Thousands of voting machines would have to
be purchased. Training materials and seminars would be needed for tens of
thousands of election workers. Political parties and the general public would
need to be educated in using a new system. These involve staggering
logistics. No responsible person would advocate doing all of this in such a
short time.
If successful, Justice's action would force New York to recklessly
purchase voting systems that have inadequate security standards. The state
would quickly have to buy machines, some of which do not even exist as
working prototypes, and not test for flaws until later. The U.S. Election
Assistance Commission's testing and security standards were enacted only
three months ago, and no lab is yet set up to certify machines according to
them.
New York
legislators on both sides of the aisle recognize that it is in voters' best
interests to have a trustworthy election system, not one vulnerable to
computer hackers and corrupt insiders. The state has wisely adopted laws
requiring a permanent verifiable paper record of every vote cast. The state
should never surrender the protections afforded by this law to an arbitrary
calendar set in Washington.
The press is full of reports of disastrous results in other states including,
as recently as this month, Texas and Illinois.
Litigation is not the proper means to choose a voting
system. Too much is at stake to allow Washington
attorneys to substitute their judgment for ours. New York is being careful and responsible
in making its choices. It is in position to set the example and lead the
nation in requiring secure, reliable and trustworthy voting systems.
Essential to any democracy is the knowledge that each vote
counts and will be counted accurately. In defending or settling the
precipitous Justice lawsuit, New
York State
should not compromise this hard-won right. It is unworthy of a great
democracy.
|
