But Safeguards Are In Place—

Report: Voting Machines Can Be Compromised

HARTFORD (AP) — The new voting machines that will be used in Newtown and 24 other state municipalities next week are vulnerable to tampering, but state officials are taking steps to prevent that, according to a report released Tuesday by the University of Connecticut.

The optical scan devices, which automatically read paper ballots filled out by voters, can be compromised in a matter of minutes by tactics such as neutralizing one candidate so his or her votes aren’t counted or swapping the votes of two candidates, the report said.

“Such tabulation corruptions can lay dormant until the Election Day, thus avoiding detection through preelection tests,” according to the report.

But the authors of the report credit the secretary of the state’s office for implementing new security procedures to protect the machines.

A team of UConn professors known as the Voting Technology Research Center is advising the secretary of the state’s office. Alex Shvartsman, a computer science and engineering professor who heads up the group, said the state has implemented strict rules for how the machines get from the supplier to polling places, tamper-resistant packaging of the machines and planned postelection audits.

“If nobody touches the devices, if there is an unbroken chain of custody from the supplier to the polling place, then we’re very confident that nothing can go wrong with them — short of a mechanical malfunction,” Mr Shvartsman said.

The optical scan machines are first being tested in 25 towns this election, replacing the old mechanical lever machines. The rest of the state will use the new machines next year. Nearly 330,000 voters will be affected this year.

With the new system, voters fill out a paper ballot similar to a bubble sheet used for a standardized test and then scan it into a machine for verification. The technology also provides a paper trail for every vote cast, which Mr Shvartsman said makes the devices more reliable than touch screen and other electronic voting machines.

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said the report confirms that optical scan machines are the most secure form of voting technology.

“When we considered possible new voting technologies, security was paramount,” she said.

But one of her political opponents, Green Party candidate Mike DeRosa, said the report raises concerns about the manufacturer of the new machines, Diebold Election Systems of Ohio, whose machines have been criticized around the country for various malfunctions. He suggested the state should hire technical experts to service the machines.

“We need to have professionalization of our electoral process in Connecticut,” Mr DeRosa said.

Ms Bysiewicz has said Massachusetts-based LHS Associates Inc, not Diebold, designed the machines. But Diebold acquired LHS and submitted a bid to the state to provide its electronic machines and LHS’s optical scan machines, she said.

The state rejected the Diebold-designed machines, Ms Bysiewicz said.

According to the report, the UConn professors determined that a laptop computer user with a simple computer cable can obtain information from the memory cards of the optical scan machines. They also determined there are ways to feed multiple ballots into the machine when an attendant is not watching.

“Poll workers must not be allowed to take their eyes off the machines, and should be wary of attempts at distraction,” the report reads.

Mr Shvartsman said he believes the local poll workers are ready for the job.

“I’ve seen some of these silver-haired ladies and they’re tough,” he said. “I think we’re in good hands.”

The new voting machines are helping Connecticut meet the requirements of a federal law enacted after the chaotic Florida recount in the presidential election in 2000.