In the case of voting, the emblem of democracy, doubt is cause for alarm and immediate reform. Even for a steep price.
Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s decision to decertify electronic voting machines used throughout California that she labels as security risks will take us back years on the technology front – a reversal to a trend that seemed irreversible.
In this case, that might be a good thing.
Still, with California’s top elections official decertifying many electronic voting machines, the state should pay for any related losses, including the $810,000 spent on the Sequoia equipment by San Benito County. If it doesn’t do so, the decertification would amount to yet another unfunded state mandate, one standing to disproportionately spread the pain in targeting counties that listened to higher authorities lauding the ease-of-use and efficiency – and reliability – of such machines.
It’s understandable that County Clerk Joe Paul Gonzalez expressed doubt about the ruling. Like other local elections officials throughout the state – he contended California registrars were unanimously against the mandate – he criticized Bowen’s decision.
Bowen questioned the “transparency and auditability” of certain machines. Gonzalez argued the study that showed certain flaws – leading to her decision – was unrealistic because traditional security practices had not been in place yet at the time of the examination.
The clerk is elected to look after our interests, too, and one of those happens to be the cost of putting on elections. Falling back on traditional, in this case paper ballots counted by optical scan machines, will cost taxpayers thousands of dollars in additional expenses, on top of the six-figure investment already made on the presumed convenience of electronic voting.
But the very core of democracy is our ability to choose who leads our public agencies, who decides where our tax dollars go, who represents each and every citizen. The most common rallying cry for higher turnout is that each and every vote counts, that the process is reliable. Well if there’s reason to doubt the rallying cry, then there’s yet another reason for marginal voters to stay home on election day, for active voters to wonder whether the numbers add up as they should, for the democratic system to lose credibility.
Bowen’s determination was bold and left her open for criticism. If the state’s top elections official finds potential flaws and a necessity to doubt that our machines bear the most democratic results, then we should allow her to do her job, as long as she is elected to do so, and at least appreciate her concern for the integrity of our most sacred privilege as citizens. The state, meanwhile, should take fiscal responsibility for the decision and pay for what amounts to a bad investment.
