County to rent voting machines

"I won’t recommend that your honorable board spend public money on voting devices that may not be compliant with state law. That’s why we’re taking the proactive, phased approach,” Slocum explained in a memo to the Board of Supervisors about the June primary election plan.

Slocum proposed renting the 10 machines manufactured by Hart InterCivic and setting up at least five early voting centers. One center will be in each supervisorial district for up to the 29-day period preceding the June 6 Election Day.

The plan will be announced when finished and Slocum plans to showcase the machines at voter registration/education events.

San Mateo County last bought new voting equipment more than a dozen years ago. The county previously pushed the state to allow all-mail ballots as a way to meet new standards for confidential voting that is accessible to the disabled.

Every state and county in the United States has until the first federal election in June to comply with the Help America Vote Act. The 2002 act emerged from the contentious 2000 presidential election and requires local jurisdictions to replace antiquated machines while guaranteeing the privacy of disabled voters. It requires all counties have at least one voting device accessible to disabled voters in every precinct. Proposition 41 allocated modernization money to offset the cost of buying new equipment but only if it is certified as meeting certain standards.

Slocum’s recommendation comes after months of indecision about which electronic voting equipment to use during the upcoming election and a separate push for an all-mail ballot. Dragging its feet actually worked in the county’s favor, leaving it with unspent funding from Proposition 41 and HAVA. That money can be used to rent the proposed equipment, although officials have not released an estimated cost. Buying HAVA-compliant voting machines will eventually cost the county about $3.5 million, according to Slocum.

Which systems can be used has long been up in the air, but a recent lawsuit against Secretary of State Bruce McPherson has left the situation even more unclear. The lawsuit by United Farmworkers of America co-founder Dolores Huerta claims the AccuVote-TSx system manufactured by Diebold does not meet state law because votes by the visually impaired are read back to them from the electronic rather than paper record.

Counties, such as Alameda, which already bought a system before the voter verifiable paper audit trial became state law are now in the midst of retrofitting the equipment and may face a third retrofit, the memo states.

The lawsuit’s outcome may push even more counties to spend million of dollars in retrofitting to comply with the new state law.

<