Telephone Voting Catching On

Written by: Pam Paul on Aug 25, 2006 9:52 AM EDT

Linked to groups: DFA Election Rescue Strategy Team

Telephone Voting Catching On
Low-cost accessible systems are popular in New England


By Dan Seligson
electionline.org


States and localities seeking to avoid the high cost - and controversy - that often comes with purchasing touch-screen voting machines to meet accessible voting requirements are increasingly reaching for one of the most ubiquitous devices in America - the telephone.


Earlier this month, Connecticut announced it would purchase the vote-by-phone system for $1 million to fulfill the Help America Vote Act requirement for accessible voting systems. Elsewhere in New England, the system - considered technically to be a ballot marking device - is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to polling-place e-voting. Officials in New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine selected touch tones rather than touch-screens to allow for independent and secret voting by people with disabilities. Oregon and Oklahoma adopted the system as well.


The system, produced by Kentucky-based IVS, uses a voice prompt and telephone keypad responses. It also produces a voter-verified paper audit trail, which can be read back to the voter.


Since the system relies on remote access, it requires minimal set up other than a land line (cell phones will not work with the system). Using a phone number, identification number and PIN number, assigned by the local election division, voters can use the system which is then printed with a bar code for scanning or faxing. Rather than using the full complement of digits, the IVS system employs the '5' key, which on virtually all recently-produced phones has a raised bump, making it identifiable to people with visual disabilities. (To cast a sample ballot on the system, call (888) 661-6366, use poll worker ID "1234," and use "101" for the ballot access ID).


In an election, the system only accepts phone calls from a limited number of phone lines - those at polling places - and denies access to any unknown phone numbers.


Responses to the system have been mostly favorable, with advocates including VerifiedVoting.org praising it for being a ballot-marking device, rather than the direct-recording electronic systems which they contend are more prone to fraud, error, and manipulation. The Hartford Courant, in an editorial, praised the vote-by-phone system as "well-established, user-friendly, affordable and pretty secure." The National Federation for the Blind similarly endorsed Connecticut's purchase, sharing space in Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz's press release announcing the purchase.


Some voters with disabilities surveyed in Oregon after using the system said instructions "were difficult to understand," while one said it was "incomprehensible with my disability."


In Connecticut, Bill Bunnell, a retired engineer who founded True VoteCT, an organization pushing for verified voting in the state, said there are some reservations with the system, stemming from the way the state approved it and in its somewhat limited accessibility.


"All of the states using the system except Connecticut had done a lot of public demonstrations of competitive devices, ran full-fledged RFPs and in New York's case, had testing procedures," Bunnell said. "In Connecticut, there was no testing, no focus groups made up of the disabled, no real exposure that we could find prior to the contract being awarded. Our argument is with the process...the magic that happens with this system is behind the curtain which no one in Connecticut has yet seen. That's all in the server."


The computer which accepts the votes prints them on to paper, which in most states is then faxed to the polls for counting.


The problem for some, including Bunnell, is that many people with other types of disabilities use the machine.


"When compared with five other types of systems in New York, the vote-by-phone system offered capabilities for the fewest number of disabilities," he said. "But there is no question this is going to serve the sight impaired very well."


Those with disabilities requiring the use of sip/puff tubes or other means to cast ballots are encouraged to bring equipment with them to polling places, said Kathy DeWolfe, Vermont's election director.


She added while no system can be 100 percent accessible to every voter, the vote-by-phone system is "the best of what we think is available right now in 2006."


"What we think makes it far superior is the fact that you can practice and preview at home," she said. "Anybody can get a sample ballot, and see how straightforward the instructions are."


She also pointed to a significant cost savings over electronic touch-screen voting systems. A four-year contract for the IVS system, phones, headsets, and ballot set-up and support cost Vermont $910,000. DeWolfe said a similar DRE system would cost the state between $3 million and $4 million for the same time frame.


While the Sept. 12 primary marks the first major test for the IVS system in Vermont - a federal election - Oklahoma held its primary in July using vote-by-phone and a run-off vote on Tuesday.


According to Michael Clingman, the secretary of Oklahoma's Election Board, the system worked "absolutely perfectly." It was hardly tested, however. In the 2,200 polling places statewide with available phones for voting, only 21 votes were cast. That number dropped to 13 during the run-off.


While Clingman said the state is satisfied with the system, Oklahoma could seek an eventual integration of accessible optical scan machines.


"It would be preferable to have one unit," he said. "I think in the future we are going to see manufacturers accommodate that need and have accessibility and optical scan in the same unit."


For Connecticut, the IVS system appears to be temporary as well. With a one year contract covering only 2006, Bunnell referred to the vote-by-phone system as "a large demo program."

Tags: