News Release

For Immediate Release

Contact: Helen Sims  (919) 781-5916  helen_sims@infosentry.com

 

InfoSENTRY’s President Addresses Virginia Voter Registrars at the Local Government Officials Conference (LGOC)

 

Charlottesville, VA. August 12, 2002.  “You have heard of the word, Florida?”  According to Glenn Newkirk, President of InfoSENTRY Services, “That’s the word, along with all the political radiation attached to it, that has driven the efforts by the US Congress to send the states preemptive mandates for statewide registration systems and new voter tabulation systems.”

 

The result?

 

Elections officials and elections vendors are waiting for the US House and Senate Conference Committees to send final Federal election reform legislation to the House and Senate for a vote.  However, Congress is not due back until after Labor Day.  Requirements and money for implementation of new statewide voter registration and voter tabulation systems are stalled.  One question Newkirk posed to Virginia’s Election Registrars at the Local Government Officials Conference at the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, “What will states do if the Federal mandates for new systems surpass the funding necessary for states to implement them?” 

 

Newkirk noted that a very significant amount of the potential $3.5 billion in Federal funds to the states could be eaten up by funding requirements for just several election jurisdictions: the City of Chicago, Cook County Illinois, Los Angeles California, and the State of New York. These jurisdictions preponderantly use lever or punch card voting machines and will be urged to convert to newer, much more expensive technology.

 

Newkirk also delivered research to Virginia’s registrars indicating that most states have a long way to go to meet possible new Federal mandates for statewide voter registration systems. He pointed out that Virginia is one of the states that has made substantial strides to develop a statewide network that is interactive and uses unique voter identification data.

 

Waiting for the federal legislation has resulted in few states changing a great deal about their elections.  Few are ordering new vote tabulation systems.  Few are taking concrete steps to prepare statewide voter registration systems. 

 

So when the bill is passed, will everything be pleasant and rosy?’

 

Newkirk warned that the flood of requests to vendors might drown some of them.  The drought of orders in 2001 and 2002 might mean that many vendors will face difficulties building their staffs and supply chains.  And, a flood of orders after Federal legislation passage might mean that vendors will not be able to get the equipment, systems, and staff in time to meet demands.

 

Even those who get orders will probably have some unexpected problems.  Industry statistics indicate that from 1% – 3% of computers fail right out of the box. Given that the new voting equipment will be computerized systems, is everyone ready to deal with this failure rate by replacing or repairing defective equipment immediately?

 

Even if all the new systems work right out of the box and have been certified by national testing authorities, Newkirk notes that the situation is like the Underwriter Laboratories giving a certification for a new toaster.  “It does not mean that you can make good toast,” Newkirk said.  He noted that “If the equipment does not work well or if people have a difficult time using the equipment, the elections officials will be highlighted in the news, not the vendor.”  Newkirk noted how important user acceptance testing is to this process and provided the group with a set of “lessons learned” to help ensure the voting systems and voter registration systems meet the election officials’ requirements.

 

Newkirk mentioned another phrase that might have elections officials start counting their days before retirement.  The phrase was “Internet voting.”  Newkirk referred to the successful Internet pilots in the United Kingdom in May 2002. In addition to the Internet, voters could use cell phones, kiosks, and postal voting (called “vote by mail” in the US) to cast their votes. The British government’s post election research showed that voters liked the ability to use these multi-mode voting processes.

 

According to Newkirk, “The British experiment’s biggest finding came from the substantial success of postal voting.  In some cases, voter turnout in the jurisdictions using all postal voting was 100% higher that it was for comparable elections in 1998. It is a voting technique that must recognized because of its lower expense and the dramatically higher turnout potential it offers.”

 

 

###