Pubdate: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 Source: Contra Costa Times (CA) Copyright: 2007 Knight Ridder Contact: http://www.contracostatimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/96 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal) ELECTION BUMBLING ALAMEDA COUNTY ELECTION officials got what they deserved recently when Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith voided a 2004 vote on a Berkeley medical marijuana measure and ordered it returned to the ballot next year. Smith did so because of the county's refusal and inability to provide data from electronic voting machines that would have enabled challengers of the outcome to get a definitive recount on Measure R, which failed by a mere 191 votes out of more than 50,000 cast. If approved, it would have allowed medical marijuana clubs to move into retail areas of the city. Americans for Safe Access sought a recount as well as access to the electronic ballots, internal logs and other records of the electronic machines to make sure ballots had not been tampered with after votes were cast. Then-Registrar of Voters Bradley Clark charged the group $22,600 for a limited recount of ballots cast on controversial touch-screen voting machines provided by Diebold Election Systems Inc. The county has since dumped the machines. A state appeals court sided with the plaintiff's pursuit of the electronic system's internal records. Earlier this year, however, Smith found out that the county had returned the machines to Diebold and scolded officials about the lack of wisdom in doing so prematurely. A visit to a warehouse in Texas found that only 20 of the 482 returned machines still contained information from the 2004 election, and that 96 percent of the data needed or a valid recount had been destroyed. Smith, finding that "information on those machines is lost completely," ordered a new vote on the same measure next year. She also ordered the county to pay attorneys' fees and reimburse plaintiffs for the earlier recount conducted without the disputed voting machine data. County officials are pondering whether to appeal Smith's ruling. We suggest that they drop the matter. It could be a further waste of money and time. The county doesn't need to dig itself a deeper hole. It mishandled its quest to adopt an electronic voting system from its inception. The muffed Measure R recount is an example of the consequences. To discard hardware and software necessary for a recount is an unfathomable mistake. It resulted in election information being destroyed while the vote was being challenged in court. That raises questions about whether it was done purposely. Gregory Luke, an attorney for Americans for Safe Access, says: "Now we see that not only are the machines vulnerable, but some election officials cannot be counted on to protect the vote." This case further increases skepticism about the efficacy of touch-screen voting. Doubts about its accuracy and the ease with which hackers might manipulate internal programs, data and outcomes have prompted California to minimize their use in future elections. It's a matter best left at that. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake