When California Secretary of State Debra Bowen decertified the use of several brands of electronic voting machines this past week, she sent election officials in El Dorado, and Placer counties scrambling.

In May 2007, Bowen authorized a top-to-bottom review of electronic voting machines used in elections in 43 of the state's 58 counties. The University of California conducted the review and found the machines are vulnerable to manipulation. The systems tested were Diebold Elections Systems, Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic.

The machines were found to be vulnerable to viruses, malicious software, mischievous insiders and did not protect ballot secrecy, according to the decertification/recertification documents released by Bowen.

El Dorado, Placer and Douglas counties all use one of the above machines in elections.

El Dorado County uses Diebold Systems machines in what is called a "blended system" whereby disabled voters use touch-screen electronic machines and other voters use paper ballots read by optical scanning machines. As required by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), all polling locations must provide at least one touch screen voting machine for disabled voters.

Bowen's decertification order for Diebold machines included a list of 40 conditions under which the machines can be recertified.

Of the 40 conditions, 12 are vendor-related, and of the remaining 28, 22 are already fulfilled by El Dorado County, according to El Dorado County Recorder Clerk Registrar of Voters Bill Schultz. The remaining six conditions will be complied with by the February 2008 presidential primary elections, Schultz said.

Schultz expressed concern with the methods used by Bowen's top-to-bottom review that was conducted by the University of California. All real-time security measures elections officials use during actual elections were ignored, and no election officials were involved in the studies, Schultz said.

Security codes and cards that under real elections would have to be stolen from officials to manipulate an election were provided to the researchers, Schultz said. Also, researchers were allowed physical access to the machines, allowing them to use tools to open the machines, which would not be possible during a real-time election, Schultz said.

"We thought it was an unfair method," Shultz said.

Placer County also uses Diebold Systems machines in its elections.

Placer County Registrar of Voters Jim McCauley made it clear in a press release that there is "no chaos concerning the optical scan voting equipment," which the county uses for the majority of its voters. Tampering with the scanners can be easily detected, he said, and if tampering is detected paper ballots can be hand counted.

Placer County provides at least one touch screen voting machine per polling location, in accordance with the HAVA. According to the same press release, the county already has in place most of the security conditions for recertification and expects to comply with all additional conditions "with minimal procedural additions."

Douglas County, although not affected by Bowen's decision, uses Sequoia Systems machines in its elections.

The county uses optical scanning machines for its absentee ballots, but touch screen machines for all other voters. When contacted for comment, Douglas County Clerk Treasurer Barbara Griffin expressed surprise at Bowen's decision to decertify the electronic voting machines. Douglas County will conduct business as usual in its elections, said Griffin.

"We do a tremendous amount of checking and rechecking of our machines," Griffin said.

Elections officials test the machines prior to and directly after each election, Griffin explained, and also conducts an audit of each election, comparing the tally of electronic votes to their paper trail. The county has never found any variance in vote numbers, Griffin added.

Griffin expressed confidence in Douglas county's voting machines, and does not think Bowen's decision should effect voter confidence. She, like Schultz, cast some doubt on the methods used in the top-to-bottom review.

"There was no controlled environment," Griffin said. "I was surprised at (the methods)."



For more information on Bowen's decision and the findings of UC researchers, visit http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm.