Statement by
Civil Rights
Groups
on Voting Equipment Flexibility
Initially Released
June
2001
Several civil
rights groups have signed a letter prepared by The Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and The Center for Voting and
Democracy. The letter discusses the importance of flexibility
in voting equipment. Following the letter is a more detailed description of voting equipment
flexibility.
To whom it may
concern:
The
controversial presidential elections in Florida in 2000 demonstrated
that many American counties use antiquated voting equipment. There
is a consensus among election administrators, elected officials,
civic leaders and the public at-large that many jurisdictions should
modernize their equipment to ensure that voter intentions are
accurately recorded and counted.
As a whole,
we believe that much more needs to be done to improve our electoral
process than purchasing new voting equipment and software. At the
same time, we believe that such new equipment, when made equally
available in all precincts, is an essential building block to a fair
and just representative democracy. But it is critically important
new voting mechanics expand democracy rather than put any
unnecessary limitations upon it. For that reason, we support federal
and state requirements that all new voting equipment and software
have the following features:
-
Have a
precinct-based, error-correcting capacity to ensure that voters
have the opportunity to correct or avoid any errors, such as
over-votes and under-votes
-
Be flexible
enough to handle
ballot types necessary for all election systems currently used in the
United States, including cumulative voting and ranked choice
ballots
-
Provide
full accessibility to people with
disabilities
-
Ensure
ballots can be read and understood with minimal assistance by
people whose level of literacy is low and by people whose primary
language is other than English.
Sincerely,
Asian
American Legal Defense and Education Fund Brennan Center for
Justice Center for
Voting and Democracy Committee for the Study of the American
Electorate
Demos: A Network for
Ideas &
Action Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law National Asian Pacific American
Legal Consortium Puerto Rican Legal Defense and
Education Fund U.S.
Public Interest Research Group
Voting
Equipment and the Benefits of Flexibility The Center for Voting and
Democracy
There are several important criteria that
counties and states should satisfy in purchasing new equipment and
software. One particularly important criterion is flexibility. The
principle of flexibility in voting equipment includes several
components:
A.
Precinct-Based, Error-Correcting Capacity: Research
in the wake of the 2000 elections demonstrates that perhaps the most
straightforward way to reduce invalid votes is to ensure that voters
have the opportunity to correct any over-votes and under-votes or
avoid them altogether. The capacity for precinct-based error
correction can be built into all current voting
technologies.
B.
Capacity to Handle All Ballot Types: There
are currently four ballot types used individually and in combination
in public elections in the U.S. They are:
-
Voters
vote for one candidate only in a given level of election
-
Voters
vote for more than one candidate in a given
election
-
Voters
can allocate more than one vote to a single candidate (cumulative
voting)
-
Voters
can rank candidates in order of choice (choice voting and instant
runoff voting)
Jurisdictions
acquiring new voting equipment can generally ensure compatibility
with all ballots types at no additional cost. Voting technologies
include: 1) electronic Direct Recording Equipment (DRE), often
referred to as ATM- or touchouch-screen style equipment, 2)
optical
scanning equipment; and 3) modern punch card equipment. Some
equipment provides ballot type flexibility more easily than others,
with DRE's likely have the potential for the easiest designs. Most
equipment and technologies, such as lever and push-button machines,
are generally incompatible with all ballot types. Some relatively
modern equipment is incompatible without software adjustments. The
counties of Santa Clara (CA), Alameda (CA) and Travis (TX) are among
those that have included in their request for proposals requirements
that their new DRE's be able to handle ranked-ballots, and all major
DRE vendors now have ranked ballots as a standard available feature.
Three major companies which produce optical scan equipment,
ES&S, Global and Sequoia, can handle ranked-choice ballots with
their latest precinct scanners.
C.
Accessibility for People with Disabilities: The
federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the National Voter
Registration Act (NVRA or "Motor Voter") guarantee access to polling
sites and voting equipment for people with disabilities of sight and
mobility. However, interpretation of this law has not satisfied
advocates of people with disabilities, as it has allowed
jurisdictions to purchase new equipment that does not provide the
levels of accessibility these advocates seek. There is a developing
consensus among election administration reformers that greater
accessibility is of fundamental concern, which raises particular
questions about voting equipment -- like optical scan
technology -- that makes it impossible or difficult for those
who are visually impaired to cast a secret
ballot.
D.
Recognition of Differences in Language and Literacy
Level: The
federal Voting Rights Act requires that under certain conditions
election materials must be provided in languages other than English.
Voting equipment and materials also should be useable by voters who
have low levels of literacy. All modern voting equipment can be
designed for multiple languages, although some can do so with less
strain on election administrators than others. For example,
electronic DRE's can allow voters to indicate their language of
choice without requiring election administrators to print and
distribute ballots in those languages. Particular voting equipment
and ballot designs vary greatly in terms of their ease of use by
people with low levels of literacy. Although machines currently used
in many places are not accessible to people who do not read English,
experience from around the world shows that it is possible to design
fully accessible materials for any voting equipment or technology.
The key is to use simple, clear language along with pictures,
symbols and/or numbers. |