EAC - Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

Name : | James B. Reed
Organization : | Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.
Post Date : | 9/28/2005
General Comments
Comment : | Unavailability of electronic voting equipment due to higher-than-anticipated use levels, or malfunctions of the only machine at a large, consolidated polling place, could result in HAVA compliance issues and possible certification challenges. I suggested at the April 11 EAC meeting, that the EAC use a ratio guideline for voting equipment, as opposed to the guideline of one electronic voting machine per polling place. An appropriate ratio might be one electronic voting machine for every nine standard voting booths. Lastly, when considering only standard, non-automated voting machines, I wish to state my preference for ballots using optical scan tabulators. Such ballots appear to be comparatively easy to use, with low rejection rates, and in the event of rejection, provide relatively clear evidence of voter intent. Washington County, Florida, the county to which I was assigned during the 2000 Presidential Election recount, used such optical scan tabulation, with relatively minimal rejections or difficulties associated with their use. I suggest that if each polling place is staffed with a poll worker, who is immediately available to assist a voter with a disability, ballots relying upon optical scan tabulation are very functional, and both relatively reliable and low cost. I do not suggest the use of optical scan ballots in lieu of electronic voting machines, but as an alternative to other forms of non-automated voting equipment. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.