Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition Favors Optical Scan Voting Machines, Makes Position Public

by Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition

Michael Vu, Director
Cuyahoga County Board of Elections
2925 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115

We understand that the BOE will soon have to decide on which type of voting machine to adopt for Cuyahoga County, using Help America Vote Act funds supplied through Secretary of State Blackwell. We agree with the BOE that it is unfortunate this decision has been demanded with so little time for investigation. Nonetheless, we have done our own investigations on the relative merits and disadvantages of the two major type of contending machines – Precinct level optical scan (PC-OS) vs. Direct recording Electronic machines with Voter Verified Paper Trail (DRE-VVPAT). For more detail, please see the attached report.

A letter similar to this has been sent to the Cuyahoga County Commissioners.

We have concluded that for the benefit of the voter, the optical scan system is clearly preferable. We address considerations of cost at the end of the memo.

The key advantages of PC-OS over DRE-VVPAT are:

• Shorter lines on crowded voting days. The majority of the voter’s time is spent at a table and chair filling out the ballot; only a few seconds are required for ballot entry into the checking and counting scanning machine.
  
  
• Fewer votes lost due to omissions. The overvote error rate (“spoiled ballot”) rate of both systems are far better than punch cards, but in the one large Ohio County that used PC-OS (Lucas), the error rate was even better than those large counties that used electronic machines (Franklin, Mahoning).
  
  
• Absentee Optical Scan ballots are easier to fill out, less subject to error, and identical to polling place ballots. In fact, many counties which use DRE-VVPAT’s use optical scan ballots for absentee voting, so they have two different types of votes to count, and therefore still have to prepare and print ballots for all precincts with rotations of candidate order.
  
  
• Faster, easier recount, if necessary. A highly inspected and secure high speed scanner in the central office can rapidly re-check votes, either routinely or if there is any question.  Hand recounts are also relatively easy. The paper trail generated by DRE-VVPAT’s can be up to 3-4 feet long per ballot.
  
  
• PC-OS machines have been used for many years in the United States: there is no experience with Diebold or ES&S DRE’s upgraded with VVPAT. The Lucas County Director was very pleased with their use of PC-OS in the last election.
  
  
• PC-OS Machines are fully certified in Ohio and ready to purchase: DRE-VVPAT’s (because of the paper trail requirement) have yet to go through the certification process followed by manufacture, which could easily take 18 months or more.
  
  
• Optical Scan ballot marking machines suitable for people with disabilities are much closer to certification than DRE-VVPAT’s with paper trails, and produce a standard Optical Scan ballot. Both types of machines can guide and assist voters with visual or hearing impairments, but the Optical Scan ballot-marking machine is currently undergoing certification at the federal level and could be ready for state certification shortly, whereas the DRE-VVPAT would be greatly delayed (see above). Also, the Optical Scan ballot-marking machine produces a standard ballot which can be counted and recounted like that of all other voters, whereas the DRE-VVPAT produces an electronic tabulation and a paper trail difficult to recount.
  
  

As far as cost is concerned, the initial capital cost of PC-OS is much lower (estimated as a difference of $7.8 million for Cuyahoga County in a recent PD article) but costs of ballots and operating/maintenance in subsequent years will probably be higher than with DRE-VVPAT. On the other hand, labor costs of any recount are likely to be much higher for electronic machine paper trails than for Optical Scan. Also, if the 7.8 million dollar difference were invested at 4% interest, it would yield $312,000 per year, which would cover some of the extra ballot and operating costs of Optical Scan machines.

Neither the Sec. of State’s office nor the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has answered our question as to whether and by how much statewide use and negotiation could lower the costs of purchasing and printing optical scan ballots or that of machine maintenance after a 5 year warranty. Nationally, 32% of voters used Optical Scan ballots in 2004, including some large counties, so that cost is not prohibitive.

The issue of cost and opportunity for statewide negotiation must be urgently and thoroughly investigated before an “unforced” decision between Optical Scan and Electronic Voting machine can be weighed intelligently. Otherwise, we believe the decision is clearly weighted toward Precinct Level Optical Scan.

With many thanks for your attention,

Yours truly,
Gerardo Colon, Cynthia Samples, Roslyn Talerico
Co-conveners, Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition

Judy Gallo and Norman Robbins,
Members of Executive Committee, Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition