|
TRENTON
– Attorney General Anne Milgram today
advised a Superior Court judge that the
state should extend the Jan. 1, 2008 statutory
deadline to implement the legislation that
requires voter verified paper record systems
to be used with electronic voting machines.
Responding
to a request from Superior Court Judge Linda
Feinberg to detail alternatives if voter
verified paper record systems would not
be available by January 1, Milgram said
the best course of action would be to keep
the status quo in place for the scheduled
Feb. 5, 2008 presidential primary in order
to ensure the integrity, reliability and
accuracy of the election.
“Ensuring
the integrity of the upcoming election is
of the utmost importance,’’
Milgram said. “The state is committed
to a plan of action for an orderly election
in February 2008 and beyond. It is more
important to get this done right than to
get it done quickly. The state developed
stringent criteria for voter verified paper
record systems, and we need to let the process
play out.’’
Milgram
said she consulted with legislative leaders
in the State Senate and Assembly to postpone
until the regular June 2008 state primary
election the deadline for implementing the
law requiring voter paper trails, and they
had agreed to support such legislation.
The Attorney General also consulted with
county superintendents of elections, the
county boards of election, the county clerks,
the public advocate, the voting machine
vendors, and members of the advocacy and
disability communities, as well as attorneys
for the Democratic and Republican state
committees.
Milgram
said if an amendment to the law was not
passed by the Legislature before the end
of the year, she retained the ability to
invoke a section of the existing statute
to postpone implementation because no state-certified
electronic voting machines with voter verified
paper record systems were commercially available.
In
a memorandum prepared for Judge Feinberg,
the Attorney General rejected several other
options, including an entirely new voting
system depending on optical scanners because
such machines have not been certified by
the state, either.
A
switch to a new technology was not the answer,
Milgram concluded. “The widespread
confusion that would likely result from
implementing a new technology in so short
a time would invite voter confusion and
pose too great a risk of error on election
day,’’ she said.
Milgram
also rejected switching to an all paper
ballot system, which would include a manual
count of the votes cast. Paper ballots raise
security concerns relating to storage and
chain of custody. The ballots are also more
vulnerable to being mislaid or mishandled.
“The only way to ensure the integrity
of the February 2008 election is to maintain
our current, long-functioning machines while
awaiting final certification of direct electronic
voting machines paired with voter verified
paper record systems,’’ Milgram
said.
Milgram
noted that no election in New Jersey has
been overturned on the basis of an electronic
voting machine malfunction. “To abandon
these machines without evidence that they
are unreliable, in favor of a rushed overhaul
of our voting system would be unnecessarily
disruptive and create an unwarranted risk
to the election process,’’ Milgram
stated.
She said the state was in danger of missing
the statutory deadline because testing and
evaluation of new voter verified paper record
systems were not complete. Once certified,
the voting machine companies would need
time to manufacture, deliver and install
the new system and county election officials
would need time to train poll workers.
The
voter verified paper record systems currently
being tested pair printers with direct electronic
voting machines. There is a display unit
that allows voters to view their votes on
a printed record before recording their
electronic ballots. No vote will be recorded
until the paper record is viewed and approved
by the voter. If a voter rejects the contents
of the paper record, he or she may recast
a ballot up to two additional times.
The
paper receipts are stored in the machine.
Voters do not leave the voting booths with
copies of their votes, and the paper receipts
will not identify voters. The paper ballots
would be used as the official tally in the
event of a recount.
The
state took an unprecedented step this year
of entering into an agreement with the New
Jersey Institute of Technology to independently
test the voter verified paper record system
after the state drafted specific criteria
for the systems.
Earlier
this summer, NJIT concluded its first round
of testing three machines that are used
in 20 of the state’s 21 counties,
and found that the machines met the significant
core requirement of electronic records in
the machine matching the paper records,
and said the machines, in general, are suitable
for use in elections. The committee found
the electronic vote, the paper ballot, a
bar code and internal memory were in sync.
But the scientists also identified areas
of concern which are now being addressed
by the voting machine companies. Those concerns
included locking mechanisms on the printers,
vague mechanical error messages, the amount
of time allowed to view the paper ballot,
and power cables that could be subject to
tampering, and seals on printer cartridges.
Following
recommendations of the State Voting Machine
Examination Committee, the Attorney General
refused to certify the voting systems until
the issues raised were corrected and retested.
A second round of testing is not due to
start until later this month.
#
# #
>
Memorandum
of Options (1.1MB pdf)
|
