Ohio Voting Machines Under Fire
By Cara Rinkoff | 11/05/2012 | Ballot Access, Ohio | 11 Comments
Photo: MorningJournal.com
Voting rights activists are concerned about new software installed on Ohio voting machines in 39 of 88 counties in the state. As a swing state that could will determine the election, activists are worried about the features and implications of the software. The precincts using the software cater to an estimated four million potential voters.
According to the Free Press, internal memos from senior staff in the office of Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted confirm the installation of “experimental” software patches. Election Counsel Brandi Laser Seske sent out a memo on Friday, saying the software did not need to be reviewed by the Board of Voting Machine Examiners because it is not “involved in the tabulation or casting of ballots…or a modification to a certified system.”
According to The Cleveland Leader, Matt McClellan, a spokesman for the Secretary of State’s office, said no patches were installed. However, in the statement, McClellan said the installation involved a reporting tool software “meant to assist counties and to help them simplify the process by which they report the results to our system.” He also added the software is only considered “experimental” because “it is a pilot project that we’re doing with about 25 counties or so. So it’s not statewide, but it is a pilot project we’re trying.”
The contract between Hunsted and Election Systems & Software, LLC, obtained by The Columbus Free Press, confirms the update has “not been submitted to a Voting Systems Testing Laboratory (VSTL) because the Secretary of State “is requiring only functional testing” of the system, and it “will not require federal or state certification…for use in any election in Ohio.”
Ohio law allows the experimental use of voting equipment as long as it is restricted to a limited number of precincts. It can be used legally without certification.
Yesterday, a Columbus Dispatch poll reported President Obama leads Mitt Romney in Ohio, 50 to 48 percent, with a margin of error of 2.2 percent. Before the presidential debates, Obama led by nine points, yet Romney has been able to catch up significantly after rigorous campaigning efforts in that state.





Leave Your Comment →
11 Comments
Chad Peace
11.05.2012
@Chad_Peace
I don’t know why there isn’t a better way to audit these machines. And why do they have to be connected? Each machine should print out a hard summary. How hard is it to add those numbers together.
Ian Dawes
11.05.2012
@iandawes
Uh, .xls or .csv would be nice please…no more nightmare .pdf copy paste. I will need glasses soon.
Emma Goda
11.05.2012
@emmagoda
New software roll outs can be scary, hopefully everything works properly.
Lucas Eaves
11.05.2012
@lucaseaves
I think it is weird to try new equipment on such an important election but maybe there is no other time to do so. Still very scary.
Matt Metzner
11.05.2012
@mmetzner
This is an easy target for screaming about a likely conspiracy occurring to fix the election in OH. Regardless, what is the SOS doing putting a new system in place during a presidential election in the most crucial state in the country?
Michael Higham
11.05.2012
@michaelhigham
Ohio seems to have all the voting and ballot counting issues brought up. It’s a critical swing state, but between early election law, counting of early ballots, electronic voting, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ohio comes under ‘strict scrutiny’ if the election is close.
Jane Susskind
11.05.2012
@jsusskind
This, combined with the problems the state of Ohio has with provisional ballots, could lead to some very controversial results. I imagine that the results will be disputed regardless who wins the state, and we might have to wait until after Election Day to know the results.
Cassidy Noblejas Bartolomei
11.05.2012
@cassidynb
I would be upset to find out that the votes I cast were made in an “experimental precinct”
Blaz Gutierrez
11.05.2012
@blazgutierrez
Yeah… that line really didn’t set well with me either. I hope there are some extra levels of scrutiny when it comes to the “experimental” districts.
Terri Harel
11.05.2012
@tlharel
Is new technology really necessary for voting? I’m suspicious.
Alex Gauthier
11.05.2012
@alexg
i hate voting machines, there’s so little transparency and they’ve been nothing but a headache since they were introduced. are scantrons really that difficult to count? just because the results aren’t instantaneous doesn’t mean the system is flawed for counting votes