Allegheny County Board of Elections chooses voting system vendor | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Allegheny County Board of Elections chooses voting system vendor

Jamie Martines
1724336_web1_web-vote2

The Allegheny County Board of Elections voted Wednesday to move forward with contract negotiations with the vendor Elections Systems & Software (ES&S) to purchase new voting equipment for the county.

The system will cost about $10.5 million — the cheapest of the four options offered by ES&S. The county is expected to receive state aid to pay for the system.

The decision was already delayed several weeks following an August meeting, when the board decided to first conduct a stress test to determine whether the four vendors under consideration could handle the high volume of complex contests in the county.

ES&S was the only vendor that could immediately meet the county’s needs without jeopardizing the elections, said Tom Baker, R-Ross, chair of the Board of Elections and member of Allegheny County Council.

“At the end of the day, when you’re going to spend $10 million plus on a system, it has to be the one that’s certified now,” Baker said, adding that ES&S is a “known quantity and something we can trust.”

The voting system’s software must be robust enough to handle up to 4,000 separate ballot styles during a municipal primary election, according to a report issued by the Voting Systems Evaluation Committee, which carried out the search for new voting machines and provided feedback to the county Board of Elections.

That means a system must be able to support an election involving as many as 10,000 candidate positions and 7,000 contests across the county’s 130 municipalities and 43 school districts.

The board considered nine systems proposed by four vendors: Clear Ballot, Dominion Voting, Election Systems & Software (ES&S) and Hart InterCivic.

Hart InterCivic was the favorite among some voting advocates, but the system did not perform well during stress tests earlier this month, board members said.

Hand-marked paper ballots — systems that do not use bar codes to tabulate votes — are widely accepted to be the most secure voting option.

The ES&S system selected by the board does make use of hand-marked paper ballots; however, voters may also choose to cast their vote using the system’s ballot marking devices, which do use bar codes to tabulate votes.

For example, voters who have disabilities that prevent them from hand-marking a paper ballot may choose to use the ballot marking device.

Baker estimated that about 2% of voters will use the ballot marking device.

“99% of voters are getting a fine system,” said Ron Bandes, president of the voter advocacy group Vote Allegheny. “So it’s mainly voters with disabilities and others who choose not to hand-mark a ballot who did not do so well today — that should have gotten ballots that don’t have bar codes reflecting their choices, which makes their ballots unverifiable. And that’s really a terrible situation.”

Bar codes would be less of a concern if the state guaranteed that post-election audits would be conducted, Bandes said.

Board Vice Chair Kathryn M. Hens-Greco, an Allegheny County Family Court judge, said she felt comfortable moving forward with the ES&S contract as long as it requires provisions for robust post-election auditing.

Neither the state nor the county has set requirements for post-election auditing. Allegheny County has issued a request for proposals in a search for a vendor to conduct post-election audits.

“I only felt I could, in good conscience, say we’re going to select ES&S if I simultaneously knew we were going to do the post-election auditing,” Hens-Greco said. “They had to come together, and if they weren’t going to come together, then that was really going to be a big problem for me today.”

Jamie Martines is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jamie at 724-850-2867, [email protected] or via Twitter .

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.