NJ Lawsuit: Lawyer blasts voting machines

Judges hear argument on their unreliability
By Robert Schwaneberg / Star-Ledger Staff / May 25, 2006
Go to original

A state appeals court yesterday heard arguments that electronic voting machines used in 20 of the state's 21 counties are so unreliable the constitutional rights of voters are violated. Since the votes are tallied by computer without producing a paper record that can be audited, some 10,000 machines used throughout the state are "mystery boxes" that cannot be trusted, ar gued Penny Venetis, a lawyer with the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic.

She told the three judges those machines are vulnerable to computer glitches and intentional tampering that could change the outcome of an election without ever being detected. "The right to vote is the most fundamental right we hold," Vene tis said. "It is in jeopardy by the continuing use of these machines." Venetis said only Warren County uses electronic voting machines that produce a paper record that voters can view to ensure their ballots are accurately recorded.

Deputy Attorney General Karen DuMars countered that electronic voting machines "have been used for many years without problems." Fears of miscounted votes, she said, are "all hypothetical and speculative." Venetis said New Jersey lawmakers announced their distrust of electronic voting machines when they passed a law last summer re quiring all machines to print a paper record by Jan. 1, 2008. DuMars said the Attorney General's Office, which supervises elections, plans to meet that deadline by working with suppliers of exist ing machines to retrofit them with external printers.

"There's every reason to believe they are going to be able to stay on track," DuMars said. Last month, after taking testi mony from representatives of the manufacturers, Mercer County Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg found it is "questionable" whether they can meet the 2008 deadline. Venetis argued yesterday the deadline cannot be met. She asked the appeals court to immediately bar the use of paperless electronic voting machines in future elections.

During 90 minutes of arguments in Morristown, the three judges repeatedly asked whether they have the power to intervene. Appellate Division Judge Lor raine Parker asked how many times courts can order lawmakers to spend money. She alluded to a long-running lawsuit, now in its 25th year, in which the New Jersey Supreme Court has ordered the state to send billions of dollars to the poorest school districts.

"You would have to have your head in the sand not to realize the state is in a serious fiscal crisis," Parker added. Venetis replied it would not take "hundreds of millions of dollars." She said additional optical scanners, which are already used to read emergency and absentee paper ballots, could be purchased for less than the $21 million earmarked to retrofit electronic voting machines.

DuMars said optical scanners have had problems of their own. Appellate Division Judge Edwin Stern asked, "Isn't it still premature for a court to act?" He inquired whether the case should be sent back for further hearings by a trial court. Venetis, noting there is a primary election next month, urged the appeals court not to do that. As usual, the court reserved judgment. "We will give this a very thorough review as expeditiously as we can," said Stern, the presiding judge.

Robert Schwaneberg covers legal issues. He may be reached at rschwa neberg@starledger.com or (609) 989-0324.
© 2006 The Star Ledger