Just weeks before the November elections, a group of citizens and state election officials will battle in a Denver courtroom over whether four brands of electronic voting machines were illegally approved for use.
The trial, scheduled for today and Thursday, could determine whether Coloradans return to the paper ballot or stick with electronic machines this Nov. 7.
The voting machines at issue – made by Diebold Election Systems Inc., Sequoia Voting Systems Inc., Elections Systems & Software Inc. and Hart InterCivic Inc. – are vulnerable to fraud and error, the plaintiffs argue.
The state’s certification process was illegal and couldn’t catch serious problems that might disrupt elections, according to Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP, the firm representing the 13 citizen plaintiffs.
In a brief released Tuesday, the plaintiffs asked the judge to consider three possible remedies:
Decertify the machines
Use only one per polling place for use by voters with disabilities.
Improve polling security with locks, seals, surveillance, training and other methods.
Secretary of State Gigi Dennis’ office declined to comment because of the pending case, but several county clerks said the machines, which have been in use since 2002, worked fine during as many as five elections.
If the machines are decertified, said Adams County Clerk and Recorder Carol Snyder, “I’m in a world of hurt.”
Adams County ordered a few thousand paper ballots from an Oklahoma printer for absentee voting, she said.
“If I had to tell the printer OK, instead of a few thousand, I need 200,000 more, I don’t know if they can handle that,” Snyder said.
By Colorado law, paper ballots must be in hand 32 days before an election, meaning two weeks from now, she said.
Earlier this year, Adams County officials ran extensive testing of 700 new Diebold machines beyond state requirements, Snyder said.
In a fake ballot, election volunteers used scripts to vote for one color or flower over others, she said, and the machines “worked perfectly.”
Colorado Common Cause executive director Jenny Rose Flanagan praised the Adams County protocols.
“That should be the model,” she said “We should test and test and test until any question is resolved.”
Common Cause does not defend or oppose the electronic machines, Flanagan said.
Flanagan expressed concern about the state’s certification process and also about access to people with disabilities, some of whom rely on the electronic machines.
Depositions released this week outlined security and documentation problems with each of the machines, apparent flaws in the state’s certification process and information that the ES&S machines used by Jefferson and Mesa counties do not meet state standards for access by people with disabilities.
Staff writer Katy Human can be reached at 303-954-1910 or khuman@denverpost.com.
