Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder-Elections
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 28, 2006
Contact:
Warren Slocum
Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder
Phone: (650) 363-4988 Fax: (650) 363-1903 E-mail: wslocum@smcare.org
Web: www.shapethefuture.org www.smcare.org
Alternate: David Tom, Phone: 650.312.5222 E-mail: dtom@smcare.org
June 2006 Election Plan
San Mateo County Takes a Proactive, Phased Approach
REDWOOD CITY, CA— Today, Warren Slocum, Chief Elections Officer for San Mateo County unveiled his election plans for the June 2006 Primary. “The best way to describe the June 2006 election plan for San Mateo County is that it’s a proactive, phased approach,” explained Slocum.
As this year’s election draws near, a bafflingly complex situation has developed not just in San Mateo County, not just in California, but across the entire nation. Each state primary marks the date in time when the intersection of federal mandates, new state laws, new voting systems, last minute equipment certifications, lawsuits challenging the certifications and the desires of a community of disabled voters all enjoin. “The drama is unfolding before our eyes,” said Slocum.
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires that one accessible voting device be available at every polling place for the June 2006 election. “San Mateo County will not be able to meet this requirement because the preferred vendor cannot deliver the equipment in time, largely due to the eleventh hour certification of the HAVA-compliant eSlate voting machine. This is not unique to San Mateo County. Newspaper accounts from counties across the country are appearing daily as election vendors break the news to county registrars that they won’t be able to deliver the machines or the number of machines that they originally projected. It’s not solely their fault, either,” Slocum said.
“There has been slippage at every juncture in the certification process. It began with the late issuance of new standards, and was compounded by late vendor submittals, late federal certifications and a late state certification process. Counties contract for certified equipment in order to be eligible for HAVA and Prop 41 funding. The wait for certification has jeopardized our county’s ability to be fully compliant with the Help America Vote Act. This was a known, potential risk all along, not just for San Mateo County, but for many counties in California. Registrars in California sounded the alarm over a year ago calling for a speedy, efficient certification process,” Slocum recollected.
Since it is impossible to be totally compliant with HAVA, the County will rent approximately 10 eSlate HAVA-compliant accessible voting devices manufactured by Hart InterCivic and set up at least five early voting centers – one in every Supervisorial district for up to 29 days preceding Election Day.
“At present, we are working directly with members of the Commission on Disabilities and others to obtain locations that are both secure and accessible by the communities they are intended to serve. When completed, the Early Voting Center plan will be publicized. In addition, we are planning to showcase these voting machines at voter registration/voter education community conversations,” said Carol Marks, Director of Communications for the Chief Elections Officer.
Adding to the uncertainty of acquiring a new voting system – and paying millions for it - this week a lawsuit was filed against the Secretary of State’s Office for certifying voting equipment manufactured by Diebold. One of the complaints in the lawsuit states that that the AccuVote-TSx does not meet state law. While all of the certified voting systems in California produce a voter verified paper audit trail that can be read by sighted people, visually impaired voters confirm their ballot by listening to their voted choices through headphones. The problem is that the confirmation of their vote is read from the electronic record, not the paper record. State law appears to require something different. (Election Code Sections 19250 and 19251).
“The reality is this—none of the certified electronic voting systems may have been designed and manufactured to this standard. The courts will have to decide the matter,” said Slocum. Depending on the outcome of this lawsuit, California counties may face millions of dollars in the retrofit of brand new voting systems in order to comply with state law.
We are watching as each state faces their Election Day primary with new equipment. We’re listening to the experiences of voters, candidates, election staff and voter activists. We’re reading the accounts in the newspaper, on the Internet, we’re calling election officials, and we’re making visits to see for ourselves what works and what doesn’t.
“The delay in certification may be the silver-lining for San Mateo County. To date, no contract has been brought to the Board of Supervisors for approval; no money has been spent. To buy HAVA-compliant voting devices will eventually cost the county approximately $3.5 million. Other counties, like Alameda, who bought an electronic voting system before the voter verifiable paper audit trail became state law and are in the process of a retrofit of all their equipment, may face the prospect of a third retrofit before this is all said and done,” remarked Slocum.
“As the County’s Chief Elections Officer, my mission has always been to guarantee the integrity of our elections process and spend the taxpayer’s dollars wisely. I won’t recommend spending public money on voting devices that may not be compliant with state law. We’re taking this proactive, phased approach to preserve the integrity of the votes cast in our County, preserve our resources and provide for voters with disabilities to the best of our ability,” concluded Slocum.
Printer friendly version. 
|
