Verified Voting Logo
Edit Your PreferencesContact VerifiedVoting.orgAbout VerifiedVoting.org
Verified Voting HomeJoin - Help us do this work!Donate - Help us do this work!Take Action Today!Endorse the resolution!
Printer Friendly Version
Site Map

See information for:

VerifiedVoting.org engages in lobbying activities permitted by IRC Section 501(c)(4). Please visit the Verified Voting Foundation for info about 501(c)(3) educational activities. You can also visit Vote Trust USA, a project of the Verified Voting Foundation.

E-Mail This Page

Home   »  News  »  Breaking News  »  June 16, 2004


June 16, 2004


State approves paper records for e-voting

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

California approved the nation's first standards Tuesday for a paper record to be produced by electronic voting machines and verified by voters.

Congress and at least 20 states are debating laws requiring that electronic voting machines produce a "voter-verified paper trail" so voters can be sure their electronic vote was properly recorded and so local officials would have something to recount.

But no one is certain what such a paper trail would look like, although about a half-dozen voting-system vendors have developed or are working on e-voting machines that generate a printout.

California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley ordered all e-voting machines in the state to offer the paper trail by July 2006 and had promised to define it by May.

"California is at the forefront of the movement toward a paper trail, and these standards help lead the way," said Kim Alexander, a paper-trail advocate and president of the Davis-based California Voter Foundation.

The state's seven-page specifications are sparse on some details, such as the level of reliability for printers to produce the paper trail. But the standards mandate printouts in both English and the voter's own foreign language, if needed, and production of a simultaneous audio signal for visually handicapped voters.

The paper trail would be displayed under glass or plastic and could not be touched by the voter. Voters would be able to void or reject up to two printed ballots.

In an ordinary election, the electronic ballot would still serve as the record of a voter's intent. But in the event of a recount, the paper record, having been verified personally by the voter, would become the ballot and resolve election challenges "unless there is clear evidence that the paper record copy is inaccurate, incomplete or unreadable."

Clearing up the language, handicapped accessibility and legal role of the new paper records were among the largest unknowns of a paper trail.

Manufacturers and some elections officials say the paper trail adds an unnecessary and costly element to e-voting machines that generally are more accurate than other voting methods, except hand-marked and counted ballots.

But Shelley and other California officials say instability and lax security of the current generation of e-voting machines have made a paper trail inescapable.

"We're putting it out there and we believe it's necessary and critical for ensuring the security and accuracy of voting," said Undersecretary of State Mark Kyle. "This helps put some meat on the bones, to make it more real. It gives guidance to the vendors and the elections officials know how it would work."

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission still is studying the idea of a paper trail and specifications for e-voting machines to produce one. If those specifications vary widely from California's or if new and better verification technologies than the paper trail come alone, Kyle said, the state will make changes.

"We'll modify the standards," he said. "It's not a static world, It's changing rapidly."

Report:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ks_dre_papers/avvpat_standards_6_15_04.pdf

_______________________________________________
The Verifier Map

How do Americans cast their ballots? See the Verifier Map for detailed information on voting systems used in each state and county in recent elections.

voting equipment used in earlier elections (2004/2006)


Get E-Mail Alerts




Announcements

February 3, 2010
NJ Judge Issues Mixed Order on Use of E-voting Machines
February 1, 2010
Ruling Issued in Rutgers–Newark Law School’s Constitutional Litigation Clinic Challenge to NJ's Electronic Voting Machines
February 1, 2010
Holt Statement on NJ Court Decision on Paper Ballots
January 28, 2010
Internet Voting, Still in Beta
January 28, 2010
MD: State elections head says new voting system costly, not effective
January 26, 2010
Coalition Supports Improvements for Troop Voting; Rejects Risky Internet Ballot Proposals
January 21, 2010
WV: The Internet is not a secure-enough platform for overseas voters
January 15, 2010
Maryland needs secure, verifiable voting system
December 5, 2009
TN: Voters need confidence in electoral process
December 1, 2009
Election Technology Leaders Launch "The Power To MOVE"
November 12, 2009
Patrick OKs expanded benefits for veterans
November 6, 2009
Plaintiffs Comment on Court Order regarding TN Voter Confidence Act
November 4, 2009
Security expert: no way to secure Internet voting
November 3, 2009
E-voting system lets voters verify their ballots are counted
November 3, 2009
Justice Department Probing Diebold Sale
October 27, 2009
In Industry First, Voting Machine Company to Publish Source Code
October 9, 2009
TN: State Division Of Elections Hosts Meeting On Optical Scan Voting
October 6, 2009
Verified Voting Statement on the Acquisition of Premier Election Solutions
October 1, 2009
Common Cause Tennessee Takes Legal Action to Protect Voters
October 1, 2009
Advocates warn of voting-machine 'monopoly'

Important Links

  • Election Workers: Take our 2008 Election Worker Survey
  • Election Day Problems?
    Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE
  • Find Your Polling Place: Vote411.org
  • Questions? Contact Us
  • Vote Trust USA - national resource for state-based organizations supporting verifiable elections, a Verified Voting Foundation project



  • "The core of our American democracy is the right to vote. Implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. And I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all of that is being called into question." (more here)

    Kevin Shelley, former
    California Sec. of State





    VerifiedVoting.org, Inc., is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation.

    © Copyright 2008, VerifiedVoting.org, Inc. All rights reserved, although reprint permission granted for nonprofit purposes with attribution to VerifiedVoting.org.


    Privacy    Site Map