The Case for a Revote
ACLU sees clear case for a revote in disputed District 13 election
Howard Simon is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida . Peter Tannen is chairman of ACLU's Sarasota-Manatee- DeSoto Chapter.
_____
Some voters have protested the 13th Congressional District election because they are unhappy with the (tentative) results; others have remained silent, perhaps pleased with the results. We hope more are concerned not with the results but the disfranchisement of thousands of voters that made this failed election an affront to democracy.
Elections in a democracy are not simply a matter of who wins or loses; winners must win legitimately.
That is why no one should walk away from this failed election hoping that the next one goes better, and why Jennings and Buchanan supporters (and supporters of "none of the above") should join the fight for a revote. Only a revote (with a paper trail) will ensure a legitimate election.
The lawsuit seeking a revote, filed on behalf of voters by the American Civil Liberties Union and other voting-rights organizations, addresses the disfranchisement of what could be as many as 18,000 voters, not the outcome. The suit would have been filed if the tentative results were different: These paperless electronic touch-screen voting machines were not ready for prime time.
If we are to have a democracy in reality, and not in name only, voting systems must be:
Easy to use and accurately count, tabulate and report votes;
Subject to independent testing, certification and verification of their operational soundness;
Designed to prevent negligent programming, operational errors or malicious tampering;
Immune from unintended undervotes;
Fully accessible to every eligible voter and not compromise the right to vote with anonymity;
Capable of meaningfully recounting votes to verify their accuracy.
The defective election occurred because voting equipment did not meet all of these standards.
A revote is necessary because the extraordinarily high number of undervotes casts reasonable doubt on whether the election results, as certified, express the will of the voters. It is simply not credible to maintain that all of the undervotes were attributable to voters "turned off" by the contentious congressional election, especially compared to the 2.5 percent undervote rate of those casting paper absentee ballots in the same race.
The Herald-Tribune has reported that ballot design was a significant factor, but it was not the only factor in accounting for 18,000 undervotes (approximately 15 percent of those casting ballots on the iVotronic touch-screen machines on Election Day). While the ballot was poorly designed by the Supervisor of Elections, no one knows the precise interplay between a poorly designed ballot, a voter's decision to abstain and machine malfunction.
In addition to the SOE, there are others to blame for the failed election. The Jeb Bush administration, including several secretaries of state, has dismissed the need for a meaningful recount, charging that critics like the ACLU are seeking to undermine voter confidence. And they are dragging their heels on certifying more reliable voting equipment.
They tell us to trust the machines and blame the voter.
But times they are a' changing. Paperless electronic touch-screen voting machines that do not meet minimal standards should soon be on the scrap heap of history.
In a startling development this month, the National Institute of Standards and Technology recommended that, because touch-screen voting machines are not secure from tampering and lack independent audit capability, only optical-scan or touch-screen systems with a voter-verified paper audit trail should be used.
Proposed legislation to require paper trails and other safeguards will get serious consideration in the next Congress, and similar legislation may also get an airing in the Florida Legislature.
This is important for the future of our democracy, but for the failed congressional election: A revote is necessary to ensure a legitimate election and an untainted winner.
Whether it's badly designed voting machines miscounting votes or a badly designed ballot that misleads voters, up to 18,000 voters must not be deprived of the right to have their votes counted.
_____
Some voters have protested the 13th Congressional District election because they are unhappy with the (tentative) results; others have remained silent, perhaps pleased with the results. We hope more are concerned not with the results but the disfranchisement of thousands of voters that made this failed election an affront to democracy.
Elections in a democracy are not simply a matter of who wins or loses; winners must win legitimately.
That is why no one should walk away from this failed election hoping that the next one goes better, and why Jennings and Buchanan supporters (and supporters of "none of the above") should join the fight for a revote. Only a revote (with a paper trail) will ensure a legitimate election.
The lawsuit seeking a revote, filed on behalf of voters by the American Civil Liberties Union and other voting-rights organizations, addresses the disfranchisement of what could be as many as 18,000 voters, not the outcome. The suit would have been filed if the tentative results were different: These paperless electronic touch-screen voting machines were not ready for prime time.
If we are to have a democracy in reality, and not in name only, voting systems must be:
Easy to use and accurately count, tabulate and report votes;Subject to independent testing, certification and verification of their operational soundness;Designed to prevent negligent programming, operational errors or malicious tampering;Immune from unintended undervotes;Fully accessible to every eligible voter and not compromise the right to vote with anonymity;Capable of meaningfully recounting votes to verify their accuracy.The defective election occurred because voting equipment did not meet all of these standards.
A revote is necessary because the extraordinarily high number of undervotes casts reasonable doubt on whether the election results, as certified, express the will of the voters. It is simply not credible to maintain that all of the undervotes were attributable to voters "turned off" by the contentious congressional election, especially compared to the 2.5 percent undervote rate of those casting paper absentee ballots in the same race.
The Herald-Tribune has reported that ballot design was a significant factor, but it was not the only factor in accounting for 18,000 undervotes (approximately 15 percent of those casting ballots on the iVotronic touch-screen machines on Election Day). While the ballot was poorly designed by the Supervisor of Elections, no one knows the precise interplay between a poorly designed ballot, a voter's decision to abstain and machine malfunction.
In addition to the SOE, there are others to blame for the failed election. The Jeb Bush administration, including several secretaries of state, has dismissed the need for a meaningful recount, charging that critics like the ACLU are seeking to undermine voter confidence. And they are dragging their heels on certifying more reliable voting equipment.
They tell us to trust the machines and blame the voter.
But times they are a' changing. Paperless electronic touch-screen voting machines that do not meet minimal standards should soon be on the scrap heap of history.
In a startling development this month, the National Institute of Standards and Technology recommended that, because touch-screen voting machines are not secure from tampering and lack independent audit capability, only optical-scan or touch-screen systems with a voter-verified paper audit trail should be used.
Proposed legislation to require paper trails and other safeguards will get serious consideration in the next Congress, and similar legislation may also get an airing in the Florida Legislature.
This is important for the future of our democracy, but for the failed congressional election: A revote is necessary to ensure a legitimate election and an untainted winner.
Whether it's badly designed voting machines miscounting votes or a badly designed ballot that misleads voters, up to 18,000 voters must not be deprived of the right to have their votes counted.
CD: 13 - Jennings V.S.
|
READ ONLINE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)