Electronic Voting Systems in PA

• Elections
• Electronic Voting Systems in PA

A Primer on Electronic Voting Systems in Pennsylvania

By Jonathan Pron, Drexel Law class of 2010

To understand how elections are conducted in the United States, one must first examine how they are conducted in every voting jurisdiction in the country.  While the federal government has mandated certain requirements that constrain elections (under HAVA or the Voting Rights Act, for example), there is no uniform national method for administering elections.  State law dictates what constitutes a vote and how ballots are designed, and county boards of elections choose voting machines (sometimes more than one in the same county) and make other decisions about the size of districts and the locations of polling places.
 
With respect to voting machines in particular, counties are given latitude to choose a particular system, as long as it conforms to state and federal guidelines. This report briefly describes the voting systems used in the United States through history, then provides a more in depth look at each of the electronic voting systems currently used in Pennsylvania. It concludes with a brief consideration of some of the legal and practical issues that states and counties must consider when choosing a voting system.

I. Voting Systems Used In the United States 

Through history, voting systems in the Untied States have fallen into one of five categories: paper ballots, lever machines, punch card ballots, optical scan machines, and direct record electronic (“DRE”) machines.[1]  This section will provide information about each category and give examples of systems and manufacturers within each.                        

Paper ballots
 
Until as late as 1892, paper ballots were the only voting system used in the United States.[2]  Originally consisting of a “prox” or “ticket” ballot pre-printed with a candidate’s name that voters would obtain and manually insert into a box, this system was updated in 1856 with the invention of the Australian secret ballot.[3]  This system, in which a ballot lists all candidates and proposals and is marked in private by the voter, was not used in a presidential election until Grover Cleveland was elected for the second time in 1892.[4]  In the 2006 general election, only 3.2% of jurisdictions[5] – or 0.19% of voters[6] – nationwide, voted using paper ballots.                        

Lever machines
 
Also in 1892, the “Myers Automatic Booth” - as lever machines were called at the time - was first used in Lockport, New York.[7]  These machines consist of a lever for each candidate and ballot choice.  When a voter pushes down the desired lever, mechanical wheels turn to register the vote, and an internal system of locks prevents the voter from choosing more than the appropriate number of selections for that office or question.[8]  This mechanism effectively eliminates the possibility of overvoting on a lever machine.  By the 1960s, more than half of voters nationwide were using lever machines,[9] but only 6.83% of the population used them in the 2006 general election,[10] and 6.7% in 2008.[11]                        

Punch card ballots 

Punch card ballots come in two varieties: “Votomatic,” in which voters utilize a stylus to punch through perforated ballots, and “Datavote,” in which voters use a mounted hole punch to indicate their choices on non-pre-scored ballots.[12]  The former gained notoriety in Florida during the 2000 presidential contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore, and is largely the impetus behind subsequent federal legislation (HAVA), state and local authorities’ feeling the need to update their systems,[13] countless scholarly articles,[14] and a presumed loss of voter confidence. 
 
In the last three presidential elections, the percentage of the American voters using punch cards has dropped from 30.7% in 2000, to 0.24% in 2006, to 0.1% in 2008.[15]                        

Optical scan ballots
 
After being used for standardized testing for decades, optical scan technology was introduced as a voting system in the 1980s.[16]  Voters mark paper ballots,[17] which are then read by a computerized scanning machine.[18] 
 
There are two general variations of optical scan systems, distinguished by the location of the scanning machine.[19]  Precinct-count systems require that each voter insert his or her marked ballot into the scanner at the polling place, which provides the voter with immediate notification of any undervotes or overvotes.  The voter can then correct any errors by obtaining a new ballot, or submit the ballot as-is if there are no problems.[20]  In a central-count system, the scanner is kept at a central location where marked ballots are sent from each precinct when the polls close.[21] 
 
Both central- and precinct-count systems are used throughout Pennsylvania. In 2006, almost half of voters in America (48.94%) used optical scan ballots,[22] a sharp increase from 27.5% of the electorate in the 2000 general election.[23]                        

Direct record electronic machines
 
Although not so new anymore, the most recently adopted category of voting system is the direct record electronic (“DRE”) machine. Different DRE machines are distinguishable by several variables.  One variable is the method by which a voter makes his or her selections on the machine’s interface.  Touch screens, push buttons, and scroll wheels are all employed by manufacturers of different DRE voting machines.[24] 
 
Another user interface variable is how the voter moves from one screen to the next (when multiple screens are used).  DRE systems with a scroll wheel use that device to move between screens, while most touch screen systems have “next page,” “previous page,” or similar buttons to navigate between screens.  Some touch screen systems move automatically to the next screen when the final selection is made on the previous screen.
 
Another variable is the way in which the ballot is presented to the voter.  “Full face” DRE systems present the entire ballot to the voter at one time, while other DRE systems (usually with much smaller screens) present only a portion of the ballot at one time and the voter must use the navigation device associated with that system, like the ones listed above, to move between screens.[25]
 
The method for transferring election data to a centralized location is another point of distinction between DRE systems.  Data identifying the number of votes cast for each candidate and ballot question are stored within each DRE unit itself.  At the end of each Election Day, some systems require that memory cards be removed and physically taken to the centralized location,[26] some allow for transmission over a modem,[27] and still others have wireless components.[28]
 
Yet another variable among DRE systems is the method used for allowing voters access to the appropriate ballot options, once they are cleared to vote by the election officials working at the polling place.  For some systems, during a closed primary, an election official presses a button behind the machine to permit the voter to only choose from candidates in his or her party.  For others, an access card identifying the voter’s party is inserted by the voter into the machine to access the appropriate ballot.  For other systems, election officials give each voter a unique four-digit number to type into the machine before ballot choices appear.                        

2008 statistics on voting system usage
 
According to a study published by Election Data Services, the voting systems described above were used by the following estimated percentages of US voters in the 2008 General Election:[29]

• 0.17% of voters used hand-counted paper ballots
• 6.72% of voters used lever machines
• 0.10% of voters used punch cards
• 56.17% of voters used optical scan ballots
• 32.63% of voters used DREs
• 4.22% of voters lived in counties where more than one system was used

II. Voting Systems Used in Pennsylvania

The Board of Elections in each of Pennsylvania’s sixty-seven counties can choose which system voters in the county will use. There are currently ten different systems or combinations of systems in use throughout the Commonwealth:[30]

• Twenty-five counties use the ES&S iVotronic, a paperless touch screen DRE system
• Fifteen counties use the Diebold AccuVote TSX, a paperless touch screen DRE system
• Eleven counties use the ES&S 100 with AutoMARK, a precinct-count optical scan system
• Six counties use the Danaher ELECTronic 1242, a full-face paperless push button DRE system
• Three counties use the Hart InterCivic eScan – a precinct-count optical scan system – along with the Hart InterCivic eSlate, a paperless scroll wheel DRE system
• Two counties use the Sequoia Advantage, a full-face paperless push button DRE system
• Two counties use the ES&S 650 with AutoMARK, a central-count optical scan system
• One county uses the Hart InterCivic eSlate, a paperless scroll wheel DRE system
• One county uses the ES&S 100, a precinct-count optical scan system – along with the ES&S iVotronic, a paperless touch screen DRE system
• One county uses the Sequoia Edge, a paperless touch screen DRE system

 
Philadelphia County uses the Danaher ELECTronic 1242[31] as do Bucks[32] and Delaware Counties.[33]  Chester County uses the ES&S 100 with iVotronic.[34]  Montgomery County uses the Sequoia Advantage.[35]

ES&S iVotronic
 
The iVotronic is a touch screen DRE, created by ES&S (Election Systems & Software, Inc.) that is activated when a voter inserts a Personal Electronic Ballot (“PEB”) obtained from a poll worker immediately before voting.[36]  The voter then indicates her candidate choices and ballot question responses by touching the screen next to each option.[37]  To change a vote, the voter must first deselect the chosen candidate or question response, then make another choice.[38]  After making all choices on a particular screen, the voter will click the “Next Page” button at the bottom-right corner of the screen, and can use “Previous Page” at the bottom-left to return to the previous screen.[39]  At the last screen of candidates and questions, “Next Page” is replaced by “Review Ballot,” a screen that presents the voter with all of the selections that she made.[40]  To change a selection, the voter can scroll through the screens in reverse order by choosing “Previous Page,” or click on the choice itself to be taken to that particular race.[41]  Undervotes are indicated by a red message that reads “No Selection Made” for a particular race.[42]  Overvotes are not possible with the iVotronic.[43]                        

AccuVote TSX
 
The AccuVote TSX was developed by Diebold and sold through its subsidiary, Premier Election
Solutions.[44]  This system is a touch screen DRE that is activated by inserting a card given to the voter immediately before voting.[45]  A voter indicates his or her choices for candidates and ballot questions by touching the selection.[46]  To change a vote, the voter would have to first touch the chosen candidate or question response again to de-select it, then make another choice.[47]  The voter can navigate between screens using the “Back” and “Next” buttons on the lower-left and lower-right corners of the screen, respectively.[48]  After the last screen of candidates and ballot questions, the voter is presented with a review screen, listing his or her choices for each office.[49]  A scroll bar on the left allows the voter to see races that do not fit on one screen.[50]  Undervotes are indicated by the race being shaded red on the review screen, while overvotes are not possible.[51]
  
ES&S 100 with AutoMARK
 
ES&S’s Model 100 is a “precinct-based voter-activated paper ballot counter and vote tabulator.”[52]  The voter receives a blank paper ballot from an election official at the polling place and fills in circles next to his or her selections at a private table or booth.  When all selections are made, the voter inserts the paper ballot into the Model 100 scanner, and an LCD display will indicate any overvotes or undervotes and the particular races or ballot questions that are affected.[53]  The voter can then push a button on the machine to either accept the ballot, or return it to the voter to correct any undervotes.[54]  Because erasing a mark completely would be difficult if the mark is dark enough for the scanner to recognize the choice, if the voter wishes to fix an overvote, he or she should obtain a new paper ballot from an election official.
 
In January 2008, ES&S bought AutoMARK Technical Systems, Inc., the developer of the AutoMARK accessible ballot marking device.[55]  This system allows voters with disabilities to insert their blank paper ballots into the AutoMARK machine and make their selections on a touch screen, much like a DRE.[56]  At the conclusion of making all selections, a review screen will appear, and if the voter is satisfied with the choices made, he or she can choose “Mark Ballot.”[57]  The ballot will be returned to the voter with his or her selections printed on it, and can be then inserted into the Model 100 scanner in the same manner as if the ballot had been marked by hand.[58]  In addition, the AutoMARK includes sip-and-puff technology for voters with mobility or dexterity impairments. 

Danaher ELECTronic 1242
 
The ELECTronic 1242 is a full-face DRE, which means that the full ballot is presented to the voter at one time.  It is distinguishable from DRE systems such as the iVotronic and the AccuVote TSX, which only present one or a handful of races to the voter at one time.  The ballot is laid on a large screen on top of a series of buttons so that candidates and ballot choice responses correspond with individual buttons.  When the voter enters the voting booth, a red light blinks next to each race that has not been voted for, and a steady red light will appear next to all candidates and responses that have been chosen.[59]  To change a selection, the voter must re-select a choice to extinguish that light, then make another selection for that race.  The machine will not allow an overvote to be cast.[60]  When all races have been voted for, the voter presses a green “Vote” button at the bottom of the machine to cast all votes.[61]                        

ES&S 650 with AutoMARK
 
ES&S’s Model 650 is an optical scanner similar to the Model 100, with the main distinction being that it resides in a central location, instead of at each polling place.[62]  Voters mark their paper ballots by hand or by using the AutoMARK accessible voting device, place them in “secrecy folders,” and return them to an election official at the polling place.  Election officials at each polling place send the paper ballots to a central location, where they are loaded into the Model 650.  According to ES&S, this machine can support up to 1,640 precincts[63] and can scan up to 300 ballots per minute.[64]                        

Hart InterCivic eSlate
 
The eSlate is a DRE voting system developed by Hart InterCivic.  Distinguishable from other DRE systems, which use a push button or touch screen user interface, the eSlate utilizes a scroll wheel to navigate between races, among options within a race, and between screens.[65]  The voter activates the system by using the scroll wheel and an “Enter” button to enter a four-digit access code which is printed out by an election official and given to the voter immediately before voting.[66]  After the last screen of voting is completed, the voter is shown a review screen of the selections made.[67]  On this screen, undervotes are displayed as a red message appearing next to the appropriate race; overvotes are not possible.[68]  When the voter is satisfied with the selections shown on the review screen, he or she can press the “Cast Ballot” button at the bottom-left of the machine to record the choices.[69]                        

Hart InterCivic eScan
 
The eScan is an optical scanner located at the polling place.[70]  A voter obtains a blank ballot from an election official and marks it at a private table or booth.  When all selections are made, the voter inserts the paper ballot into the eScan machine, where a summary screen will indicate if there are any overvotes, undervotes, or if the ballot is blank.[71]  If the ballot is rejected for any reason, the voter will be given the opportunity to amend the ballot or obtain a new one before reinserting it into the machine.[72]                        

Sequoia Advantage
 
The Advantage by Sequoia is a full-face DRE that utilizes push buttons as a user interface.[73]  A voter makes a selection by pressing the square next to the candidate or ballot question, at which time a green light will appear to indicate the choice.[74]  To change a vote, the voter must re-select the choice to extinguish that light, then make another selection for that race.[75]  Overvotes are not possible on this machine.  At the conclusion of voting, the voter presses a “Cast Ballot” button at the bottom of the machine to cast all votes.[76]                        

Sequoia Edge
 
The Edge by Sequoia is a touch screen DRE that is activated when the voter inserts a Voter Access Card into the yellow slot at the bottom of the machine.[77]  After touching the names of candidates or ballot question responses on each screen, the voter presses the “Next” arrow at the bottom of the machine to move to the next screen.[78]  After the last screen of choices has been completed, a review screen indicates the selections that have been made; a red message indicating “No Votes Cast” accompanies any undervotes, while overvotes are not possible.[79]  If a change is necessary, the voter can click the race on the review screen to return to that race.[80]  It is not necessary to de-select a candidate or ballot question response before selecting another.[81]  To indicate that the voter has completed voting and is ready to cast the votes, he or she presses the “Touch Here to Cast Your Ballot” button on the touch screen.[82]

III. Legal Issues Affecting Choice of Voting Machine

Before a county board of elections may choose a specific voting system, the system must be certified as compliant with state and federal laws.

The requirements for electronic voting systems in Pennsylvania
 
Electronic voting systems must meet several guidelines before they can be certified by the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[83]  The most significant of these requirements are:

• The system must provide absolute secrecy so that no one other than the voter can know how he or she voted;[84]
• The system must allow a voter, other than in a primary election, to vote for all the candidates from one party (a “straight party ticket” option) with one action;[85]
• The system must allow the voter to write-in one or more candidates;[86]
• The system must prevent the voter from overvoting;[87]
• The system must only allow voters to vote for members of their own party during Primary elections (a “closed primary”);[88] and
• The system must allow the voter to change his or her choices at any time before submitting his or her ballot finally.[89]

 
These provision outlining requirements for electronic voting systems reflect and comport with other sections of the Pennsylvania Election Code (Pennsylvania holds “closed primaries,” for example).

The Help America Vote Act of 2002[90]
 
In an attempt to “prevent a recurrence of difficulties experienced during the Presidential Election of 2000,” Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”).[91]  HAVA was generally intended to:[92]

• Provide money to states to replace punch card and lever voting systems,
• Establish the Election Assistance Commission, and
• Establish minimum standards for state and local governments for the administration of federal elections, including ensuring that voters with disabilities or limited English proficiency have access to the ballot.  

The impact of HAVA on Pennsylvania                        

Replacing voting systems
 
HAVA generally required that states receiving federal funds to replace punch card and lever machines must have done so by the November 2004 general election. HAVA also allowed states to postpone complying with this requirement by requesting a waiver, which Pennsylvania did.[93]  Pennsylvania’s December 2003 request for the waiver was granted by the U.S. General Services Administration on February 25, 2004.[94]  The waiver gave Pennsylvania until the first federal election after January 1, 2006 to comply.[95] Since the November 7, 2006 general election, all sixty-seven Pennsylvania counties use either a DRE or optical scan machine.[96]                        

Disability access
 
The Commonwealth maintains that all voting systems used throughout Pennsylvania are accessible to voters with disabilities, and in 2006, the Department of State distributed funds to localities to help ensure polling place accessibility as well.[97]

Multilingual access
 
By 2006, the Department of State translated all of its election-related material into Spanish.[98]  The Commonwealth contends that by providing Spanish-language ballots, all voting systems used in Pennsylvania are compliant with the alternative language provisions of HAVA.[99]

IV. Practical Issues Affecting Choice of Voting Machine

Practical issues, such as the real or perceived vulnerability of a voting system to attack or failure, or a voting system’s cost, are important factors in determining which type of voting system a county chooses.

Voting system vulnerabilities

Vulnerabilities to intentional attacks
 
The alleged vulnerability of voting systems to intentional attacks has received significant attention over the past few years – in scholarly articles, newspapers, magazines, on televised news, talk radio, and, of course, blogs.  But, as Michael Ian Shamos points out in “Voting as an Engineering Problem,” of all the problems encountered in recent years with various voting technologies, “one problem that… has never been encountered is a security incident involving an electronic voting machine.”[100]  While security should be a factor when assessing voting systems, the prominence intentional attacks has been given may not be totally warranted.
 
Even so, important points of distinction between voting systems should be made.  Voting systems with wireless components are “significantly more vulnerable to a wide array of attacks,” but only two states, New York and Minnesota, ban such components on all voting machines.[101]  Cell phones with internet access and personal digital assistants (“PDAs”) – both of which are widely used and their presence is not restricted in polling places, let alone voting booths – are capable of transmitting a software attack program to a voting system.[102]  Since most voting machines run on commercial off-the-shelf software and/or operating systems, “the vulnerabilities of such software and systems are frequently well known.”[103]

Vulnerabilities to unintentional problems

Electronic voting systems are much more likely to fall victim to unintentional problems. This category of issues centers on the likelihood of a voting system not properly or sufficiently capturing the voter’s desired choices.  But this can take several forms: voter confusion (which is often affected by the type of system used), disabled and language access issues (which disenfranchise voters and may cause them to stay home), machine failures or shut downs (which can cause long lines, and therefore, encourage people to leave the line), or lack of voter confidence or sufficient voter education (which may cause people to stay home).[104]
 
This section will discuss several unintentional issues that have a negative impact on voters, and how choice of voting system can exacerbate or mitigate those issues.

Residual vote rates
 
A residual vote occurs when a ballot is cast with no, too few, or too many choices recorded for a particular race. The number and rate of residual votes can be substantial.  In the 2000 general election, approximately two million voters (or about 2%) nationwide failed to record a valid vote for president.[105]  The task of distinguishing between intentional and accidental residual votes (in other words, between a “lack of voter interest” and “voter confusion”[106]) is a daunting one, and with the added variable of a voting system potentially misrepresenting the will of the voter, solutions for reducing unwanted residual votes are not easily found.

Familiarity with technology
 
Even in an increasingly technological age, one should not assume a familiarity with technology when designing a voting system.[107]  In particular, “elderly or marginalized voters” may be unfamiliar with ATMs, computers, or similar technologies, or even SAT-style fill-in ballots that utilize optical scan machines.[108]

Ballot design
 
Ballot design figured prominently in the 2000 Florida general election, when butterfly ballots were made infamous.[109]  But it is not only punch card ballots that are to blame for poor ballot design.  “Banner blindness” has been blamed for voters who use a touch screen DRE missing certain races that are situated above a prominent headline.[110]  Consistency among screens – and adherence to conventions – in bolding, font size, contrast, and color usage also helps clarify a ballot.[111]
 
When it comes to ballot design, familiarity and common sense are key. 

Cost
 
The cost of voting systems varies, not only by the type of system used, but also by vendor, volume, and often by location.
 
Through HAVA, the federal government has awarded over $3.1 billion for states to upgrade voting machine technology and accessibility.[112]  Of that, $147,247,917 has been appropriated to Pennsylvania (with $136,870,820 actually distributed to date).[113] Philadelphia purchased its current machines in 2002 for $21,000,000.[114]

Back to top