County voting machines under review by state
State election officials said Wednesday they will conduct their own review of claims that Allegheny County used uncertified voting equipment and software in the May 16 primary.
Voting rights advocates from the Allegheny County chapter of VotePA told County Council on Tuesday that elections officials used voting machines that didn't have the state's approval. Some data-collection equipment and machines had outdated versions of software. And a version of the machine that did not comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act was never reviewed by the state, the group said.
The Pennsylvania Department of State's review of Allegheny County's vote is similar to checks being conducted in all 67 counties, agency spokeswoman Leslie Amoros said. It will not affect voting results or federal funding to pay for the machines, she said.
"Elections Code doesn't work in terms of penalties," Amoros said. "It provides a method for remediation. It's not penalty driven. We have to make sure that their systems are in compliance with the standards."
As required by federal law, Allegheny County switched from lever-style to electronic voting machines in the May primary.
Elections Systems & Software's iVotronic touch-screen machines were picked just weeks before the primary after county Chief Executive Dan Onorato backed off two earlier companies. Pressed for time, Nebraska-based ES&S was able to deliver half of the county's order in time for the primary, along with optical scan machines that were used as backups.
Company spokesman Ken Fields insisted that both versions of the touch-screen voting machines ES&S provided had been approved by the state. "All the equipment that was used -- both types of machines -- were used as part of the certification process in Pennsylvania," he said.
ES&S was still checking the software yesterday, Fields said. The company is working with the county to resolve any problems with the equipment and will provide information on its findings at Monday's Board of Elections meeting, he said.
The county Elections Department's report to the board will include final voting results for certification, its findings on the equipment dispute and suggestions for improvements in November's general election, Onorato spokesman Kevin Evanto said.
Evanto cautioned that the county's review does not mean it is lending credence to the allegations made by VotePA.
"These are people who wanted optical scan machines," Evanto said. "We didn't do that and they are determined to discredit the touch-screen machines. But we believe the vote is sacred as well, and that's one of the reasons we're taking a look at these things. There would be a review either way."
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.