Mar 2, 2006 By Josh Krysak 5 min read

WAYNESBURG – After recent public debate over electronic voting systems across the state and nation, one area election director spoke out in defense of her office Wednesday, calling out state lawmakers trumpeting the ills of touch-screen voting systems. Frances Pratt, longtime election director in Greene County, said she allowed the criticism to mount against election officials since touch-screen voting machines were decertified in the spring of 2005, but said Wednesday that she couldn’t contain her feelings any longer.

“The debate over the need for paper voting upset me a little bit and I thought to myself that now was the time to finally respond,” Pratt said Wednesday.

Pratt unloaded her concerns at the Greene County Commissioners agenda meeting, during which the commissioners announced the county will be contracting with Election Systems and Software (ES&S) for new, state-certified, touch-screen voting equipment for the county.

She said suggestions by Pennsylvania Secretary of State Pedro Cortes to return to paper voting are ludicrous.

“We don’t want to go back to paper voting. I have a great problem with that,” Pratt said.

Just a month before the primaries in 2005, the state barred three counties, including Greene, from continuing to use a touch-screen voting system, UniLect Patriot Direct Recording Electronic Voting System, after examinations of election results revealed an above-average undercount in last November’s presidential election.

After the de-certification, the Greene County Election Board worked in conjunction with the county commissioners and the state to quickly implement a paper ballot voting system for the primary, with two scanners used to count the penciled ballots.

Wednesday, Pratt attacked the initial desertification, calling claims of an above-average under-vote false.

“That is the way this county votes. It is not unexpected. I do not vote for every office on the ballot. The voters have the right to do the same. They look at an election as an election. That explains the under-votes. Did you see anyone shouting about the under-vote in Greene in 2005? No. But we had a higher undercount in 2005 with paper ballots than we did in the 2004 Presidential Election.”

Pratt said the under-vote in the county was nearly identical to undercounts as far back as 1908, and noted that it shows an intelligent voting populace, not voters simply punching a straight-party ticket.

While some state lawmakers have classified electronic voting systems as unreliable and unverifiable, Pratt said they are in fact both reliable and verifiable.

“The machines are reliable and safe,” Pratt said. “If they weren’t I would not have sent them out the public. Even though they are now decertified by the state, I still stand behind them because I know we did our due diligence.”

Another drawback noted by state lawmakers is the possibility of malfunctions, something Pratt also took issue with.

“It is the same as paper ballots,” Pratt said. “Mistakes are made. Regardless of the system, humans are in charge and we are not infallible.”

Pratt also ripped state officials who are calling for a system of “checks and balances,” noting that is something election officials already do.

“We train our staff each and every election on every aspect of the election,” Pratt said. “Each election we have our staff, other county staffs and 220 people in 44 precincts. We are all responsible. We all take oaths.”

She said the need for a paper trail, another stipulation being volleyed by legislators in Harrisburg, is also in conflict with free elections and that without a secret vote there is no way to ensure an accurate and true vote

“Elections are to ensure the free expression through secret ballot,” Pratt said.

At least 40 million Americans used paperless voting terminals to cast ballots in the 2004 presidential election.

The 67 counties across the state use six voting methods, including two other touch-screen systems made by other manufacturers, lever machines, optical scanners, punch cards and paper ballots.

According to a Grove City College study, the undercount was 7.3 percent in Mercer County, 5.3 percent in Beaver County and 4.5 percent in Greene County.

Pratt said she had worked hard to keep any preliminary plans regarding a new voting system under wraps until the decision was final and was successful, despite media reports that the county had entered a pending contract with Diebold.

Pratt said the new ES&S voting machines – costing about $380,000, which will be reimbursed by a federal grant – are expected to arrive in the county in early April.

She said technicians from the company will train election officers to use the new machines and Pratt said regardless the method, her office will be ready for the May primary.

“People don’t have confidence right now because of everything they read. We struggle with voter apathy. We want all of our registered voters to go to the polls, but we will never see turnout if we keep undermining the election process,” Pratt said.