County leaders across the state will watch with interest this week as the state Board of Elections reconvenes in Raleigh. Counties, many of which only recently bought voting machines to meet federal law, have been scrambling to meet the board’s order to buy new voting machines from the state’s lone approved vendor.
“What we’ve been hearing primarily is that because of the way the federal and state laws played out, there was a tremendous time crunch created,” Paul Meyer of the N.C. Association of County Commissioners said.
The elections board is scheduled to meet Thursday — a week after canceling an earlier meeting. The new meeting is also scheduled six days after an elections board deadline for counties to choose new voting equipment for the May primaries.
Counties will need to have new machines in place even earlier. One-stop voting starts in April. “Counties had literally four-and-a-half months to obtain new equipment, train everybody, get it set up, and be ready for the May primary,” Meyer said. “And that’s just really hard for local governments that are already stretched with minimal resources.”
Local governments have been dealing with voting machine mandates since 2002, when the federal government approved new guidelines. The General Assembly entered the process with the Public Confidence in Elections Act. Legislators agreed unanimously last summer that the state should exercise more control over the types of voting machines counties could use.
“There are a number of counties who believe the equipment they recently purchased was going to comply with the [federal] Help America Vote Act,” Meyer said. “They didn’t anticipate the passage of an additional state law that would add an additional mandate.
“So they were sort of caught midstream with equipment they thought would meet those requirements,” he said. “Then you add that additional layer of requirements, and suddenly they’re in the market to buy new equipment or retrofit old equipment.”
Counties have been tallying the possible expenses. Buncombe County Elections Director Trena Parker estimates her county would need $600,000 to $1 million to meet new requirements. According to the Center for Local Innovation, a grant will cover about half of Haywood County’s $700,000 bill for new machines.
“The state handled this poorly,” said Steve Wyatt, Moore County manager. “This is a prime example of top-down bureaucracy. It’s distasteful, but you hold your nose and vote for it. You take your medicine. It’s a mandate.”
Wyatt sees a silver lining for his county. Changes in Moore County should not exceed the $350,000 in available grant funds. Others might not be so lucky.
With the new rules, voting machine companies sign contracts with the state. Counties choose machines from a state-approved list, clear those selections with the state board, then buy their new machines.
The five-member elections board adopted its list Dec. 1. At that time, state elections officials estimated as many as 96 of the state’s 100 counties might be forced to replace existing voting equipment. The board called on counties to make their selections by Jan. 20.
Counties have reacted in different ways, Meyer said. “There are a handful of counties that are worried about this time crunch,” he said. “They will likely run paper ballots in May, so that they know that they will have a successful election.
“Probably 75 of our counties will be purchasing equipment over the next few weeks,” Meyer said. “They’re hopeful that they’ll receive the equipment in time to be able to train everybody and be ready to go.”
The issue of voting machines drew legislators’ interest after the 2004 election. Machine problems in a handful of counties jeopardized the outcome of the statewide agriculture commissioner’s race. In the most highly publicized case, a voting machine in Carteret County threw out 4,400 votes on Election Day.
As part of the new state law, counties must use voting machines that include a “paper trail.” The machines must record selections on paper that voters can check. For some counties, that means a minor upgrade of existing equipment. For many, it means brand-new machines — even if the county just bought new machines to comply with changes in federal voting laws.
State funds are covering much of the cost linked to the change, but some county leaders have said they’ll be forced to dip into county budgets to make up the difference.
The county commissioners association complained last year about the level of state funding. The group pursued the possibility of a special legislative session to tweak the law.
“Primarily we’ve asked the legislature and the governor to help us — to help counties get more time to comply with this,” Meyer said. “The biggest fear that counties have is that whether they acquire new equipment or whether they use a paper ballot, that they’ll be pushed and will not be able to hold a successful, error-free primary.”
Along with concerns about time and money, some election activists have raised questions about competition. By late December, just one company, Election Systems & Software of Omaha, Neb., met the state’s standards to sell voting machines in North Carolina.
Another company, Diebold Election Systems, dropped out of the process in the week before Christmas. Texas-based Diebold told election officials it could not comply with a portion of the new state law requiring companies to disclose details about their machines’ software.
A third company is still trying to win the right to sell voting machines in North Carolina. Sequoia Voting Systems of Oakland, Calif., has hired a Raleigh lobbyist to help its cause. The state had given Sequoia tentative approval last year to sell voting machines to North Carolina counties. That certification was withdrawn because Sequoia machines did not have a state-required federal testing agency stamp.
Mitch Kokai is associate editor of Carolina Journal. Associate editor Donna Martinez also contributed to this report.