Associated Press

April 30, 2004

Secretary of State Kevin Shelley called for a criminal investigation of a leading electronic voting company Friday as he banned touch screen voting in four California counties in the November election and threatened to block computerized balloting statewide.

Saying the lack of a paper trail makes e-voting unreliable, Shelley said he had concerns about the security of machines manufactured by Texas-based Diebold Election Systems, many of them used for the first time in the March election. Shelley asked the attorney general's office to investigate allegations of fraud, saying Diebold had lied and that its actions in California were "absolutely reprehensible." A spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer said prosecutors would review Shelley's claims. Diebold issued a statement saying it was confident in its systems and planned to work with election officials in California and throughout the nation to run a smooth election this fall. The action represents a major setback for Diebold, a national leader in electronic voting machine technology, and could have a wider impact as counties gear up to spend billions of dollars to modernize the way Americans vote. "Voters and voting officials across the country are watching California closely now," said Kim Alexander, director of the California Voter Foundation. "California is turning away from e-voting equipment and other states are sure to follow." The decision will have an immediate impact on as many as 2 million voters in San Diego, Solano, San Joaquin and Kern counties who will take a step back from the future and return to using paper ballots. Registrars in counties that made the switch to paperless voting said the move spelled chaos after making the difficult transition to the computer age. "There just isn't time to bring this system up before November," Kern County Registrar Ann Barnett said. "It's absurd." Shelley also said he would make Diebold pay for the disruption of idling 14,000 of its AccuVote-TSx machines in the four counties. The fate of other electronic voting equipment was less certain. Ten counties could use their machines in November if they meet 23 conditions that include making alternative paper ballots available to voters, Shelley said.

Those include an earlier generation of 4,000 Diebold electronic voting machines in Alameda and Plumas counties, and approximately 24,000 machines manufactured by three other companies for use in eight other counties.

Shelley also banned any new electronic voting machines in the state for the November election unless they produce a simultaneous paper record of the voe that voters can verify as correct. California counties with
6.5 million registered voters have been at the forefront of touch screen voting, installing more than 40 percent of the 100,000-plus machines believed to be in use nationally.

The decision six months before a presidential election reflected the growing concern about paperless voting inside the secretary of state's office and among many voting activists and computer programmers. Many believe a paper printout of voter choices -- required in California by
2006 -- will protect against fraud, computer hacking and electronic errors. Diebold has been a frequent target of such groups, though most California county election officials say problems have been overstated and that voters like the touch screen systems first installed four years ago. A state advisory panel conducted three days of hearings on touch screen voting before recommending that Shelley ban the Diebold machines in four counties and only allow it elsewhere if voters could opt to use a paper ballot. A state investigation released this month said Diebold jeopardized the outcome of the March election in California with computer glitches, last minute changes to its systems and installations of uncertified software in its machines in 17 counties. It specifically cited San Diego County, where 573 of 1,611 polling places failed to open on time because low battery power caused machines to malfunction. Diebold officials, in a 28-page report rebutting many of the accusations about its performance, said the company had been unfairly singled out for problems with electronic voting and maintained its machines are safe, secure and demonstrated 100 percent accuracy in the March election.

But Diebold acknowledged it had "alienated" the secretary of state's office and promised to redouble efforts to improve relations with counties and the state. The company, based in McKinney, Texas, is a two-year-old subsidiary of automatic teller machine maker Diebold, Inc., of North Canton, Ohio, and represents about five percent of its business. Last week, Diebold Chairman and CEO Walden W. O'Dell downplayed the significance of California's moves and said the company planned to stay in the elections business. Diebold also has extensive touch screen business in Maryland and Georgia. California lawmakers, meanwhile, still plan a hearing Wednesday on a bill that would ban all touch screen voting in the November election. The bill is sponsored by lawmakers in Orange County, where some touch screen voters in March received the wrong electronic ballots and Alameda County, where some machines malfunctioned and forced voters to use paper ballots. Thad Hall, a political scientist and program officer with The Century Foundation in Washington, D.C., said that Shelley's decision could eliminate new technology. "I'm concerned that this ruling will cause some states to step back," Hall said. "That would be a bad thing because it would only serve to hurt voters who have been marginalized in the past."

Copyright 2004, Associated Press