by Eric Jaffa, Tuesday, January 18, 2005

The AutoMARK Voting Machine

I attended a voting machine demonstration on Friday in St. Paul, Minnesota.

I'm not blind, but some of the people in attendance were, including officers in the National Federation of the Blind Minnesota .

The machine demonstrated, the AutoMARK, is to let blind voters use optical-scan (SAT-style) ballots. They put the ballot into the machine and put on headphones, and it helps them mark the ballot. Afterwards, they can put the ballot into the same tabulator (counting and storing machine) as other voters.

Minnesota uses optical-scan ballots statewide, and I hope we maintain that system.

By adding one AutoMARK machine to each polling place, we can keep our system fundamentally the same, since we will be meeting accessibility requirements of the federal Help America Vote Act.

Mary Kiffmeyer

Since I'm a Democrat, the following may be surprising:: I will consider voting for Republican Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer in the 2006 election. She scheduled the demonstration of the AutoMARK.

Mary Kiffmeyer doesn't have an opponent yet, and so I haven't decided, but it will depend on whether the Democratic candidate shows the same support as Kiffmeyer for keeping the optical-scan ballots which we currently use in Minnesota.

I consider optical-scan ballots the second best system. I consider hand-counted paper ballots like Canada uses in federal elections to be the best, but I'm not aware of any US state considering the latter.

The system I consider the worst is electronic voting machines which are DREs (Direct Recording Electronic), commonly touchscreens.

DREs make fraud easy, because it just takes a few lines of programming code to steal votes.

Even DREs which print paper ballots have the following problems which I wrote about on Dec. 28 (slight changes to text):

DREs may not display all the races.

They may record touching the screen for one candidate as a vote for another.

While voters can check how their vote was recorded on a review screen, and (for ones which print paper ballots) also on the printout, many voters don't check. If some voters check a review screen or printout and fix their choices but others don't, the election result can be different than the will of the voters.

The expense of DREs means fewer polling booths and longer lines than with plain paper ballots or optical-scan paper ballots.

So what the makers of expensive DREs now argue is that their machines are handicapped-accessible, and that the Help America Vote Act requires handicapped-accessible voting, and so they are worth the great expense.

But the voting machine I saw demonstrated on Friday destroys that argument.

The AutoMARK machine makes optical-scan ballots handicapped-accessible. It is manufactured by AutoMARK Technical Systems (formerly Vogue Election Systems) , and distributed exclusively by E S & S.

When it's in place, most voters use optical-scan ballots exactly the same as they did in previous elections. Most voters don't touch the AutoMARK.

Blind voters wearing headphones use the AutoMARK to help them to mark their choices on the same type of optical-scan ballots as the other voters use.

After finishing marking their choices with the AutoMARK, the blind voters deposit their ballots into the same tabulator (machine which counts and stores ballots) as other voters use.

The state only has to buy one AutoMARK machine per polling place, and so this is a less-expensive approach than buying touchscreens for every voter to use.

Citizens who like using optical-scan ballots, including myself, don't have to change anything.

At the demonstration on Friday, Judy Sanders, Secretary of the National Federation of the Blind Minnesota, said, "This machine seems to do everything it needs to do for blind people-for the first time in our lives-to have private voting."

"And it meets the Minnesota requirement of a paper trail. So I have a very favorable reaction."

Jennifer Dunnam, Vice President of the National Federation of the Blind Minnesota, had tested the AutoMARK machine that evening. She said afterwards that it's "easy to use; exciting that I don't have to tell someone how I have to vote next time."

I suggested to Judy Sanders that their organization take a stand against DREs, since the AutoMARK makes DREs obsolete.

Judy Sanders said that won't happen as criticizing DREs would be outside the scope of their organization's mission; they are advocates for private, non-visual access.

On the issue of fraud, Judy Sanders said that fraud can happen with any system.

When I said that it's at least MORE difficult to commit fraud when there is a paper audit trail, she maintained that other groups should address the fraud issue.

We didn't argue further, but if it were up to me, every single organization in America would take a stand against DREs, no matter how close or remote the primary mission of the organization is to the issue of voting fraud.

Minnesota Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer entered the room, and I thanked her for considering the AutoMARK.

Mary Kiffmeyer indicated that no decision has been made, saying, "This a looking time, not a choosing time."

I asked her about Jim Dickson, a blind attorney who wants everyone to vote on DREs which don’t print paper ballots. I had read reports that this leader of "the American Association of Disabled People fiercely opposes all e-voting machines that produce a voter-verified paper ballot." ("Voting Blind" by Tara Treasurefield, North Bay Bohemian, Jan. 22, 2004).

Mary Kiffmeyer indicated that she's spoken to Jim Dickson several times. But she wouldn't tell me what he's said about the AutoMARK. Apparently, she considers her conversations with Jim Dickson to be private.

About Jim Dickson, Mary Kiffmeyer just said that he's aware of all the latest voting technology, and "he has his opinion, and you have yours, and yours is more important since you live in Minnesota."

I left the demonstration still wondering how Jim Dickson would argue against the AutoMARK. Later, I found this ("Disabled Are Pleased With E-Voting," AP, Oct. 4, 2004)::

The machines, which cost at least $4,000 each, are not perfect, though: Dickson points out that voters still have to feed ballots into the optical scanner, so those with motor skill problems would likely need assistance.

My response to that argument of Jim Dickson is that millions of voters who want to use optical-scan ballots shouldn't be prevented because there are a small number of voters with motor skill problems who have to hand the completed ballots to a poll worker. Voters who don't have motor skills problems hand things to poll workers, and that isn't an issue.

The AutoMARK is a brilliant invention.

Next for the AutoMARK

I spoke with Michael, Haversten, the demonstrator from E S & S, the company which will distribute the AutoMARK, about the next steps.

He said that a federally-licensed company is currently testing the AutoMARK.

When they're done, they will send a report to the Federal Election Commission. Then the FEC needs to give it federal certification. Then it needs state certification in certain states, including Minnesota.

Other states considering the AutoMARK include Wisconsin and Ohio.

More Information

You can learn more about the AutoMARK, including how it meets HAVA requirements by addressing the needs of both blind voters and limited-mobility voters, at:
http://www.essvote.com/HTML/products/automark.html

Take Action

Please contact your state's Secretary of State office and your state representatives and urge them to choose an otpical-scan system supplemented with the AutoMARK.

You can find contact information for your public officials through www.vote-smart.org

Also, if you read an article in your local paper about voting machine choices which doesn't include the AutoMARK as an option, please email the journalist to let him or her know that optical-scan ballots supplemented with the AutoMARK make for a much better system than DREs.