LESSONS IN NEVADA'S PRIMARY VOTE

Our state was a model for the rest of the nation on Tuesday when we
successfully used new touch-screen voting machines for our primary
election. The difference between Nevada and Florida was that our
machines provided a paper backup for the election results. And
besides, our senior citizens are smarter.

I worked from 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Tuesday as an elections
"assistant team leader" at the Carson Mall. By the end of the day, my
old legs were about ready to give out, but I was happy with the new
machines, as were most of the voters in my precincts.

As usual, there weren't enough voters because if less than half of
eligible citizens registered to vote - let's say 40 percent - and if
only 30 percent of those who registered actually went to the polls,
then about 12 percent of us made important decisions for everyone
else. Although those percentages will increase for the Nov. 2 general
election, that's still not my definition of "participatory democracy."

The new touch-screen voting machines passed their first test with
flying colors, and Federal Elections Assistance Commission observers
pronounced themselves pleased with the results. "From what I've seen,
voters seemed to enjoy the experience," Commission Chairman DeForest
Soaries told the Associated Press. "There hasn't been frustration or
confusion."

Nevertheless, there were a few glitches. Washoe County didn't have a
final vote count until Wednesday noon because a few election workers
neglected to remove results cartridges from their machines. And the
vote count was delayed in Nye County because of a damaged cartridge.
Otherwise, the process was relatively smooth throughout the state, and
with no hanging chads to contend with.

This was the first time that a U.S. state used electronic voting
machines with a paper backup. The paper records - which voters can see
through a plastic window but cannot touch or take home - will be kept
in county election offices for 22 months and used in case of recounts.
Nevada law requires county voter registrars to randomly select a small
percentage of machines - from 1 to 3 percent - and to compare the
printed records with results from the machine cartridges.

"It's no panacea, but it's a huge improvement over paperless systems
because there's a paper record of every electronic ballot," said Kim
Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, who observed
the Nevada primary. The only complaint I heard from voters at the mall
was that they were disappointed that they didn't receive a paper
printout from the machine. But then, we didn't receive a paper record
of our vote in the old punch-card system either, so I don't think this
is a valid complaint.

The new machines were developed by Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. of
Oakland, Calif., which closely monitored Tuesday's election. I found
the Sequoia representatives to be both helpful and knowledgeable. They
were able to resolve problems quickly and were extremely cooperative
throughout the day; as we know, computer nerds aren't always equipped
with winning personalities, but these guys (and gals) were. Although I
was suspicious of the new machines going into the election, I became a
believer as the primary proceeded according to plan.

There isn't much to say about Tuesday's results because there weren't
very many exciting races on the primary ballot.

Republicans chose Las Vegas anti-gay marriage crusader Richard Ziser
to face U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate's second-ranking Democrat, in
November. GOP Congressman Jim Gibbons' opponent will be David Bennett,
a virtually unknown Democrat from Pahrump.

In state Legislature primaries, anti-tax candidates defeated at least
three incumbents, including first-term Assemblyman Jason Geddes of
Reno and veteran state senators Ann O'Connell and Ray Rawson of Las
Vegas. And finally, district judges Jim Hardesty of Reno and Ron
Paraguirre of Las Vegas are the clear front-runners for open seats on
the Nevada Supreme Court, but Carson City's own Stacie Wilke lost her
race for the State Board of Education.

In other election news, federal court decisions will keep two
controversial measures off the November ballot. In one decision, the
San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against backers
of a measure that would have required a public vote on the record $833
million tax increase approved by the 2003 Nevada Legislature. The
Court of Appeals also ruled that supporters of a marijuana
legalization petition had failed to obtain enough valid signatures to
qualify for the ballot. Boo hoo! (You know where I stand on that issue.)

In both cases, the court declared that people had to be registered
Nevada voters when they signed the petitions. Although pro-pot lawyers
argued that voter registrations were valid from the moment they were
signed, even though they hadn't been postmarked or delivered to
election officials, judges rejected that argument and decided to
prevent persons not registered to vote in Nevada from changing laws
passed by the State Legislature. In this case, I actually applaud the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most reversed federal court in the
nation.

The General Election promises to be much more exciting because that's
when we'll choose between President Bush and his Democratic
challenger, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. That's the one we've all
been waiting for. Bring it on!