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.