Comments regarding potential decertification of WinVote equipment from Cameron Quinn, former Secretary, Virginia State Board of Elections, and current local election official

These comments are made in my personal capacity, informed by over a dozen years as an elections professional in several state, federal and local capacities.  While not professionally affected by this decision, due to the perspicacity of my Board of Supervisors and county officials in allowing the Office of Elections to already replace the WinVote equipment, I write in support of my colleagues who are not so fortunate.

Comments filed to date largely focus on whether DREs, or the WinVote, are good, in comparison to optical scan or other paper trail systems.  This decision (to decertify touchscreens that have no paper trail) has already been made by the legislature in 2007; the current decision is about timing of the phase out.  While I presume, knowing the staff at ELECT that ELECT acted in good faith and with good intentions, the Department of Elections has nonetheless forced an unexpected and avertible crisis on localities.

As someone titled their comments, “integrity of our vote is essential;”  I totally agree.  Where I disagree with most commenters is that by embracing the timing of immediate decertification of the WinVote the Board will increase integrity of voting, particularly in June, but potentially in some localities, even in November 2015. 

As those who know me are aware, I have had a solid commitment to elections integrity, as well as accessibility for voters, during my elections administration career.  Even given my personal distrust of DRE equipment, in general, and of the WinVote machine in particular, however, I have seen no information that mandates immediate decertification of this equipment. 

Point 1: Elections integrity can be compromised not just by faulty equipment, but also by changes to elections procedures without sufficient time or resources to properly manage the change process.  To make this decertification in an emergency manner is likely to do a disservice to the voters of the Commonwealth.

I urge the State Board of Elections to carefully consider that by decertifying this equipment AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN THE ELECTION CYCLE with June primaries exactly 8 weeks away, and absentee voting beginning in days, the Board is setting up almost certain failure at some of the affected jurisdictions.  Those failures, even more than the reported WinVote irregularities, are likely to negatively affect voters’ ability to effectuate their intentions in the voting process. 

Unless there is a non-public version of the report that prompted the actions of the Department of Elections (or “ELECT”), the problems cited in the report are additional evidence of further deterioration of a flawed voting system, not sudden, new information that mandates immediate decertification.  While the WinVote system, and other DRE systems, should be replaced, and soon, since most are principally 10+ old computers, the generally positive experiences of many Virginia localities with this system, while not perfect, do not justify the recently proposed drastic action.  I submit that such immediate decertification, undertaken to address long-acknowledged weaknesses in the WinVote system is inappropriate.  There are steps that can be mandated while the equipment is still in use to mitigate the problems highlighted in the recent audit. 

If the reported irregularities of the WinVote in the November 2014 elections were sufficiently troubling to decertify the system, then this decision should have been made within two months after the election, not two months before the next election. 

Point 2: Since there does not appear to be any sudden, new problem with the WinVote equipment, localities should be able to determine when, within a reasonable window, to acquire new equipment, particularly when this is an unfunded mandate.

It is my understanding that the affected localities understand the need to replace the equipment soon, but are almost universal in their desire that this not be in less than two months.  Speaking from recent personal experience trying to replace voting equipment, this is a totally unrealistic timeline for most localities, even with strong support from local budget and procurement officials, ELECT and vendors.  (And given the current funding and experienced personnel levels at ELECT, it will be difficult for them to provide strong support for the 29 affected localities and also to the other 104 localities that need ELECT’s guidance and direction before June. )

And while many localities had not planned to replace the equipment before November 2016, given the very public talk of decertification, which likely has undermined some voters’ confidence in the system, there is likely universal recognition that at this point replacement is needed before November 2016. 

Whether the reasonable window for replacement should be after June 2015 and before November 2015, or before May or November 2016, I do not specifically address.  The affected localities know better than I what they can best handle, given local circumstances.  Calibration issues can negatively impact voter confidence, but so can other local elections or local government failures that are a direct result of this unexpected, unfunded mandate.

While an immediate crisis is avoided if the State Board chooses to wait until after June before any decertification, nonetheless, affected localities will still face an overwhelming set of hoops and obstacles to select and use new voting systems for the November election.  With all the resources available to Fairfax County, it still took six months between the end of the recount (so efforts could turn to beginning new voting system acquisition) and deployment of the new equipment in a small special election in August 2014.  It would have been impossible to deploy in six months for a regular November election. 

Most local governments have now faced at least a decade of challenging budgets, which makes decisions more acute.  Most localities’ budgets for FY16 are finished, or about to be, leaving no time to make this kind of significant change immediately, or even in the next few months.  Most elections offices do not get funding now that can guarantee error-free elections; this kind of additional burden makes errors even more likely.    Allow the localities to determine, based on local circumstances, when best before November 2016 to make the transition to new voting equipment.