LIBERADIO(!)

A rep from Common Cause, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed to compel Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett to follow the law and implement the Tennessee Voter Confidence Act, responds to a letter written to the editor of The Leaf Chronicle and in doing so refutes every one of Mr. Hargett’s excuses for not following the law.

Paper ensures ballot integrity (By Dick Williams)

In response to the Oct. 4 editorial, “Ensure ballot integrity,” I would like to briefly explain why Common Cause Tennessee and others concerned about ballot integrity believe the Tennessee Voter Confidence Act must, and can be, implemented for the 2010 election.

As the opinion piece states, 93 of the 95 counties use paperless voting systems.

The TVCA, after years of testimony and study by the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs, was adopted nearly unanimously by the legislature and enthusiastically signed by Gov. Phil Bredesen.

The strongest argument for adoption was that paperless systems are subject to unintended errors and possible hacking and that votes might not be recorded as intended by the voter.

Without a paper ballot that the voter fills out and available for an audit or contested election, there is no way to tell if the voter’s intent is recorded.

Contrary to the piece referenced above, the machines purchased in 2006 do not have an adequate audit capability, except to verify that the number of ballots cast is the same as the number of voters. The perfect world referenced in the piece does not exist, but voting machines meeting the TVCA requirements do exist and are vastly more reliable than those in use in 93 counties today.

There is no specific language in the TVCA referring to 2005 standards, and such standards were not discussed in committee or on the floor of either house. The act did state that the paper ballot voting systems shall be certified to the “applicable voluntary voting systems guidelines” of the federal government. Significant discussion was held about the fact that over 30 states and Tennessee counties Hamilton and Pickett had systems like those mandated by the act.

In June of this year, as the Legislature was considering delay of the Act to 2012, the General Assembly’s Office of Legal Services issued a memorandum with the opinion that the language in the Act “refers to the 2005 Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines.” That opinion was apparently based only on a search of the Election Assistance Commission Web site.

However, the Help America Vote Act which created the EAC in 2002 specifically states that the federal guidelines in effect at that time are the “first set of voluntary voting system guidelines adopted under this part.” — HAVA Section 222(e).

Clearly, the Legislature in 2008 and certainly the supporters of the TVCA did not mean the “applicable” standards, after the examples of machines currently in use, to refer to guidelines to which no machines could comply before 2010.

The purpose of the complaint filed by Common Cause Tennessee and others is to clarify the language of the Act, so that the secretary of state and election officials can implement the act, which they have said they want to do. We are asking that the court be given the “elbow room” to make the determination, but to make it in time for the 2010 elections.