- The Washington Times - Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Sometimes it pays to be poky. Going slow has paid the state of New York about $27 million and counting. New Hampshire and Oklahoma also are sitting on a pile of federal money.

How did it happen? After the contested 2000 presidential recount, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, giving about $3 billion to states to replace old punch-card and lever voting machines.

A lot of states, including California, Ohio and Florida, plunked down vast sums of money to buy shiny new machines, many of which quickly were deemed unreliable and mothballed.

Other states - New York among them - were slow to adopt that new technology and are crowing that they made the best choice after all, although federal authorities are skeptical that states can improve voting systems without spending much money.

“New York is not in last place, but rather we’re in first place. We’re the first state to actually get it right,” said Douglas Kellner, co-chairman of the State Board of Elections.

That’s a bit like claiming to win a foot race by not running. In fact, New York still depends on antiquated voting machines, which don’t leave a paper trail. State officials insist that’s better than paying hundreds of millions of dollars for new machines that also don’t work very well.

According to a recent government report, 80 percent of states have spent more than half the money they received under the Help America Vote Act to upgrade their voting machines and systems.

New York, New Hampshire and Oklahoma, however, have spent only about 10 percent of their federal dollars, either by dithering or by design.

New York’s notoriously dysfunctional State Assembly delayed so long that the Justice Department sued the state, and a federal judge gets weekly updates as he oversees its slow progress.

State officials are still sitting on a pile of cash that could be used to buy new equipment [-] once they decide which machines should replace the state’s clunky old lever machines.

The Empire State received about $220 million in federal assistance under the Help America Vote Act, according to a report from the federal Election Assistance Commission. By the end of 2007, the state had spent slightly more than $16 million, or 7.4 percent, to upgrade its voting system. Over that time, however, it earned much more money in interest, $27 million.

Mr. Kellner, the New York state elections official, said time and others’ bad experiences have shown there’s a lot more work to do before pulling out the government credit card.

“Right now, there is not a single voting system on the market or in use anywhere in the country that meets current federal voting standards, and very few people realize it,” he said. For this year’s election, most New York voters will still use lever machines, and Mr. Kellner said he increasingly doubts new machines will be in place in time for the 2009 elections.

Oklahoma, another penny-pinching state, has spent little money because it began using optical scanning machines in 1992 and therefore doesn’t need as many upgrades as other states, officials said.

Michael Clingman, secretary of the State Election Board in Oklahoma, said they are waiting for a particular type of voting technology to be built and don’t want to buy expensive gear they don’t need.

“We don’t want to have to buy a $6,000 magic marker [Note] cq lc [/NOTE] ,” he said.

New Hampshire also has spent just a fraction of its money, and officials in the Granite State insist that’s by design: to spend only the interest earned on the federal money so state taxpayers don’t have to pick up the tab when the federal dollars run out.

David Scanlan, New Hampshire’s deputy secretary of state, said that even as the state limits expenditures, it already has optical scan machines for about three of every four ballots in the state. Getting that number higher may not be practical in small towns with just 100 or so voters, he said.

Election Assistance Commission Chairwoman Rosemary Rodriguez said New Hampshire officials would have to be “miracle workers” to meet all the law’s requirements while spending only the interest earned on their funds.

She also noted that New York’s ancient lever machines may be comforting to those used to the clanking sound of casting a ballot, but such machines produce no paper trail and often break down.

Whatever glitches may be happening with new voting machines, Miss Rodriguez said, the overall effect of the law has been to improve voting systems.

“We believe that the equipment, properly managed, will be accurate,” she said.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide