March 20, 2006

Privatized democracy

"Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho's failure to reach an accord with any of the three voting equipment companies that Florida now certifies has served the important purpose of shining a klieg light on a significant weakness in state elections law.

Why on earth do private companies hold so much sway - with relatively little oversight - in a process so central to democracy?

State governments have long recognized that regulation of private utilities is necessary to protect consumers from unfair practices. Is it not similarly important to hold more accountable companies that provide the technology used to cast and count ballots?

The answer is obvious: Yes.

Yet, the same state government that certifies three companies doesn't require as a condition for their doing business in Florida that no county supervisor be left high and dry. Whatever their problems with any supervisor - in this case, the one who administers elections in the state capital, no less - private companies should not be permitted to potentially undermine the voting process and the rights of citizens.
The business of voting

Fundamentally, administering an election is not like producing widgets.

The headaches that the elections supervisor has endured since last year are well documented. Diebold Election Systems, Election Systems and Software, and Sequoia Voting Systems all have chosen not to do business with Mr. Sancho, a nationally known elections expert and outspoken equipment security advocate. (The supervisor is currently trying to do business with a fourth firm, which he hopes the state will certify quickly.)

Because of the three companies' posture, Leon County is not in compliance for operating voting equipment for disabled people, as required by federal law. Mr. Sancho's failure to meet a compliance deadline has cost the county more than $564,000 in grant money, which might not be recouped."

You can read the editorial here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at March 20, 2006 09:29 AM