The Montgomery County Election Board decided to buy seventy-five more voting machines at its September 18 meeting – the same direct recording electronic machines that we’ve been working to get rid of since 2005. About ten of us were there to speak and monitor the proceedings – not a bad turnout for 24 hours notice of the meeting.

While buying additional machines does nothing to enhance the security and reliability of the elections process in Montco, the truth is that we need them. Montco has been significantly under-served in terms of the number of machines on hand per registered voters at precincts across the county (not even meeting legal requirements), so the fact that the Board took the initiative to increase capacity for election day, which could see a record-turnout, is welcome news. But don’t get carried away with praise just yet.

Montco is buying 75 USED machines. Used – as in somebody else’s problem. Why are these machines even on the market? Where have they been? How old are they? What condition are they in? Have they been tested? If so, by whom (other than the vendor)? What are the standards for the “acceptance testing” that the county will be using? Are they “clean” of old software?

We asked these questions – and more – at the Election Board meeting on Thursday and got few answers. The county did not know where they’re from or their age but is confident that they have been refurbished, and that they are on warranty. We are formally requesting documentation on the condition of the machines, their history and the standards for the testing that the county will be performing.

Plus, the economics of the deal are pretty dismal. Why is the county not renting them, rather than buying them used at a premium price of $4,500 per machine (they go for about $7,500 new)? These machines, the same ones that UCal experts say “have significant security weaknesses throughout the Sequoia system,” are a product of 1980s technology (they were certified in 1987) with an upgrade for the audio component for the disabled tacked on. What’s more, the market for them is falling through the floor. Florida, California, New Mexico, much of Ohio and counties across the country are discarding these electronic “black boxes” of various brands. Given the circumstances, the county should be renting – not buying - them, as is Bucks County with its Danaher DREs – for only $350 per machine. Why invest again in technology that is in disrepute and on its last legs?

The closest we got to an answer was Election Board Chairman Joe Hoeffel saying that the machines will be used, not just for this election, but for “the foreseeable future.” While we don’t know how powerful is Hoeffel’s crystal ball and we hope that it was a slip of the tongue, his statement likely indicates we have a lot more work to do at the Election Board. We made it clear in our public comments that this should be the last presidential election in Montco in which these machines are used. On the one hand, Hoeffel has said a number of times that he is concerned about the security and lack of trust in the machines, but his “foreseeable future” response is worrisome. It is also worth noting that the two other Election Board members, County Commissioners Jim Matthews and Bruce Castor, stayed quiet on the issue, allowing Hoeffel to take the heat. Oh, except for Castor citing his ongoing concern about getting the vote count as soon as possible (no mention of accuracy as a goal), so everyone can get to bed on election night. One thing to be said for Commissioner Castor is his evident enthusiasm for clean living.

The other hot election issue was emergency ballots. These are the paper ballots that can be issued when one or more machines break down. For the first time, the county will produce emergency ballots separately, rather than risking their confusion with provisional ballots. This is good news since provisional and emergency ballots have entirely different rules and procedures.

But again, the County is leaning toward a half-measure that should be an improvement over the past practice of ignoring the issue, but fails to meet the problem head-on.

The Secretary of State, the Commonwealth’s chief elections official, has issued a standard that calls for emergency ballots to be present at all polling places in a quantity equal to 20 percent of all registered voters and that the decision to issue the ballots should be made at the polling place. Instead, the Department of Voter Services wants the emergency ballots held not at the polls, where there would be immediate access to them in case of delays due to machine breakdowns, but by roving machine technicians employed by the county. This would impose the additional steps of calling for the technician and waiting for him/her to arrive to either fix the machine(s) or provide the emergency ballots. Moreover, the question of how many machines have to be down before back-up ballots will be issued did not even come up. The election law is moot on the subject.

During the April primary in Cheltenham two machines in one precinct failed to start-up and because the paper back-ups were not on hand, voters had to wait over an hour to vote – if they stayed at all. Why? The technician got caught in traffic. Is there a lesson here?

The issues of the used machines and the handling of emergency ballots are not over. The Election Reform Network will be working on both and will be asking for your help in specific ways. But if you’d like to register your concerns to the Montco Election Board now, here’s their contact information:

Chairman Joe Hoeffel: 610-278-3031; jhoeffel@montcopa.org

Vice Chairman Bruce Castor: 610-278-3020; bcastor@montcopa.org

Member Jim Matthews (Chairman of the Board of Commissioners): 610-278-3020; jmatthew@montcopa.org