Thank
you for considering my testimony about the importance of protecting
and enhancing Ohio’s
prospective investment in new voting equipment.
I
am executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy, a
non-partisan, non-profit educational organization that studies the
American electoral process. The Center is supported by individuals
and foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Joyce Foundation
and the Open Society Institute. Former Congressman John B. Anderson
is our president. Our advisory committee members include former
Cuyahoga
County
charter commission chairwoman Kathleen Barber, former
Cincinnati
city councilor Marian Spencer, Ohio Representative Tyrone Yates,
former Miami of Ohio professor Philip Macklin, former Ohio Governor
John Gilligan and Joan Lawrence former Ohio Representative and
current director of the Department of Aging.
Your
committee will have an important role in improving
Ohio
elections in many important respects. We have opinions about a range
of issues, but I would like to focus on one particular concern:
ensuring that new voting equipment has the flexibility to allow
Ohio
jurisdictions to consider an electoral system expressly permitted by
Ohio
law and a variation of that system gaining increased attention
around the country. We believe this is both an important issue in
itself and one that is valuable to consider in light of insights it
may provide about other potential equipment standards: in general,
the best time to require standards is before a competitive
bidding process rather than after new voting equipment is
purchased.
Five
Ohio
cities (Ashtabula,
Cincinnati,
Cleveland,
Hamilton
and Toledo)
in the past have used a ranked-choice electoral system called choice
voting, or “the single transferable vote.” Choice voting is used in
at-large elections or in multi-seat districts. In addition, interest
in a similar system for one-seat office elections called instant
runoff voting is growing rapidly, with 20 states now considering
legislation to implement it for some level of election. Recommended
by Robert's Rules of Order, instant runoff voting allows voters to
rank candidates in order of choice, rather than select just
one.
San
Francisco
last year adopted instant runoff voting to replace traditional
runoff elections, which will save the city millions of dollars each
year. Louisiana
uses instant runoff voting for its overseas absentee ballots, while
Utah Republicans nominate congressional candidates at their state
convention with the system.
Choice
voting already is an option to Ohio
cities for city council elections, but it is an option that only
will be available if voting equipment can support its use. The
Republic of Ireland and the Massachusetts city of Cambridge
currently use choice voting on modern voting equipment (the former
with touchscreens, the latter with optical scan), but it is
important to specify to election system vendors that new equipment
come with the capacity to use a ranked-choice system to avoid future
costs.
The Federal
Election Commission’s new Voting System
Standards,
require vendors
to specify whether and how its system can implement ranked order
voting [Volume 1 of the standards, Section 2.2.8.2 (n)]. The
clearest way to ensure equipment compatibility is the following
language:
All new voting systems purchased or
leased shall be able to implement ranked order voting in the first
election in which the equipment is used.
We
believe this language would ensure the vendor would not demand
additional time and money to modify software or hardware if a
jurisdiction sought to use a ranked choice system. We also do not
think it would add anything to the costs of new voting equipment and
software. Among the reasons are:
·
First,
all major vendors report that they are ready to implement instant
runoff voting, if asked. Most have already bid for contracts in
which it was required, such as in the
Republic
of Ireland
and Santa Clara County (CA).
·
Second,
the key
requirement for rank-order voting compatibility is to store “ballot
images” – meaning storing each voter’s individual rankings, rather
than aggregate totals.
Touch screen equipment (DRE's) and most central optical
scanners already store ballot images. Any needed software
modifications to output a file of rankings would be
minor.
·
Third,
when competing for a contract, a vendor has every incentive to avoid
passing onto one jurisdiction the costs for a feature that it can
use elsewhere. With more and more jurisdictions exploring
ranked-choice systems, vendors know that having its equipment and
software be ready to implement these systems could help it compete
for other contracts. An example of this free-market principle is
provided by the February 2003 debate in Santa Clara County (CA),
where the County decided late in the process to require
a
voter-verified paper receipt to its touch screen system. All three
finalist vendors quickly stated that they could add the paper
receipt at no additional cost to the county.
But if a
jurisdiction waits to add provisions until after already investing
heavily in new hardware, it becomes a captive customer, totally
dependent on its vendor for any upgrades of software. In such a
case, we believe vendors will charge the jurisdiction for all costs
associated with adapting its equipment. Requiring flexibility for
ranked-choice systems, and indeed other qualities such as a
voter-verified paper trail, is a classic case of a stitch in time
saving nine – in this case a good deal more.
