|
|
|
2 NY Times letters support the accuracy of DRE’s
NY Times, December 15, 2003
To the Editor:
In our view, a system requiring a voter-verified paper trail will fail to add significantly to security while adding costs and complications to the voting process and undermining disability and language access (editorial, Dec. 8).
A federal law passed in 2002 requires electronic machines to retain a paper record of every vote cast; voters must have the opportunity to review their votes before that permanent ballot is produced.
Instead of a voter-verified paper trail, there are safeguards that should be put in place now to improve security for the 2004 election. Among these are a prohibition on wireless and Internet connections and the development and enforcement of statewide security plans for voting machines.
KAY J. MAXWELL
President, League of Women Voters of the United States
Washington, Dec. 9, 2003
NY Times, December 15, 2003
To the Editor:
Re "A Paper Trail for Voters" (editorial, Dec. 8):
My 1998 Senate campaign against Harry Reid, the Democratic incumbent, was the closest federal election that year. A mere 428 votes separated us after all votes had been counted. When I requested a recount in Clark County, the only Nevada county at the time that used electronic voting machines, there was nothing to recount: the computer simply spit out the same tally as before.
I conceded to Senator Reid and won the other Senate seat in 2000, but I was troubled by the fact that the voters of Clark County had no assurance that their votes counted.
That is why I introduced an amendment requiring that voters using electronic voting systems be able to review their ballots before casting them to confirm and, if necessary, change their votes. A paper ballot would then be set aside as a permanent record. My amendment is now part of the law President Bush signed in 2002.
JOHN ENSIGN
U.S. Senator from Nevada
Las Vegas, Dec. 9, 2003Member Benefits | About AAPD | Join | Disability Resources | News | Contact Us | Calendar | Home