Since the late 1800s, the decision of whether to use voting machines to help tabulate votes, and which machine to use, has traditionally been left up to local jurisdictions. As different technology was introduced, legislatures passed requirements on what voting machines had to do. However, within those parameters it was still usually up to localities to choose (and purchase) the equipment itself. As a result, voting equipment used in the country looked like a crazy quilt. Then the year 2000 became the year of the “hanging chad” when a punch card voting system used in Florida came under scrutiny and the whole landscape began to change. Congress soon passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 that required phasing out old lever and punch card voting machines and provided a big chunk of change ($3 billion) to states to do so. The money was funneled through the state election office, rather than directly to localities, and states had to submit plans detailing how the funds would be used. As a result, some states decided that it made sense to purchase the same type of voting equipment for every jurisdiction in the state. A patchwork is still the norm in the majority of states—counties are still the deciders of what voting equipment to use, as long as they meet state standards. But since HAVA passed, 18 states have adopted the same type of voting equipment for every jurisdiction in the state: Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah and Vermont. Colorado is moving in that direction as well, having selected a voting system and vendor in 2015. Counties are providing the funds for the purchase of the new system and will be buying it in waves over the next several years.
These states have the same vendor and the same equipment statewide, but variations still exist on the role of the state in assisting its jurisdictions with purchasing, maintaining and implementing the systems, as well as putting statewide procedures in place on how to use the voting equipment. Even the 18 states listed above fall somewhere on a spectrum of uniformity.
In a truly uniform system, each jurisdiction in the state uses the exact same equipment for elections, and also uses the technology in the same way. The state may dictate procedures and train election officials as well so there is consistency from county to county. Oklahoma’s entirely uniform system predates HAVA; it was established in the 1990s. The system is highly centralized—the state appoints and pays the salary and benefits of chief election officials in each county, and the state provides training for local election officials. The election management and voter registration systems are also housed at the state level.
“All voters are treated the same—from the smallest precinct in the smallest county to the largest precinct in the largest county,” according to Secretary of the State Election Board Paul Ziriax. “Every voter marks the ballot the same way and inserts it into the same type of machine, and the voted is counted in the same way everywhere. It creates certainty and confidence in the voting process.”
Full Article: The Canvass | June 2016.