Voting tool for disabled delayed for primaries
State lags behind federal deadline
State elections officials say specially designed voting machines for people with disabilities might not be available at every polling place in time for the Sept. 19 primary election, despite a federal requirement that the machines be in place this year.
Secretary of State William F. Galvin said he is near the end of a lengthy vetting process and could order the machines within days, depending upon an outside expert's evaluation of three models. He said he hopes to have at least some of the machines for the primary but does not want to rush into purchasing a potentially flawed model.
``I'm more interested in resolving the issue to the satisfaction of the disabled than I am to resolving it to the satisfaction of bureaucrats," Galvin said in an interview last week, adding that the machines would almost certainly be available in time for the Nov. 7 general election.
Some advocates for the disabled, however, say they are disappointed that the state is lagging behind the federal deadline. Joseph M. Collins , chief executive of the Massachusetts Association for the Blind , praised Galvin for embracing the project with enthusiasm but said he had hoped they would be available in time for the primary.
``It is unfortunate because the primary is when you have the most choices," Collins said.
The 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was intended to fix a variety of flaws in the country's election system exposed by the 2000 presidential election. States had until Jan. 1, 2006, to provide disabled voters with the same accessibility and privacy in the voting booth that everyone else enjoys. The federal government, Galvin said, will reimburse the state for the $7 million to $11 million in cost.
Galvin himself is a contender in the primary election. John Bonifaz , who is challenging Galvin in the Democratic primary election for secretary of state, harshly criticized his opponent.
``We're weeks away from the first statewide federal election under HAVA requirements, and we have no plan in place," he said. ``There is no excuse for why it's taken so long. This law has been on the books for some time."
Galvin said the main reason the selection process took so long was because the state was trying to find a single machine for people with a wide array of disabilities. Machines that worked best for the blind were not preferred by people with mobility problems, for example.
``I'm very proud of what we've accomplished here," Galvin said. ``This is the last piece of compliance with HAVA, and we can't lose sight of the fact that it's about helping the disabled."
In an extensive review process, Massachusetts officials held forums around the state to gather information from people with disabilities on what they wanted to see in their new voting booths and to test different machines. Three of the top models were tested in Waltham, Woburn, and Watertown in elections in November.
Galvin hired Michael I. Shamos , a computer science professor and co director of the Institute for eCommerce at Carnegie Mellon University, to test the equipment for security flaws and other potential problems. Shamos has finished his review, and he is expected to report back to the secretary of state's office soon .
Depending on the outcome of that report, Galvin said, the state will probably order the machines as soon as possible. Galvin has asked the manufacturers of the three companies about the timeline on delivery and is awaiting their reply.
The law requires each state to provide at least one machine for disabled voters in every polling place. Massachusetts has 2,100 precincts, but some voting locations include multiple precincts.
The state this month sent a letter to town clerks asking them how many polling places their communities have, but Galvin has not yet determined exactly how many the state would need. Some polling locations might need more than one machine because they have a large number of voters with disabilities, he said, and the state needs a few extra machines in case any break.
Some clerks have expressed concern about whether they will have time to receive training on the machines if they arrive last minute, but Galvin said that should not pose a problem because the machines are relatively easy to use. He added that the state plans to hold a major training session on Oct. 13.
Bonifaz said most states already had the machines in place, an assertion Galvin disputed. The National Association of Secretaries of State did not have any national figures.
The US Justice Department, which is charged with enforcing the law, also had no figures. But Cynthia Magnuson , a spokeswoman for the department, said federal officials are aware that some states are having difficulty meeting the law's requirements, which include several other standards for ballot access and record keeping. So far, the department has sued three states -- New York, Alabama, and Maine -- for falling far behind, and it has a memorandum of agreement with California.
But Magnuson said the department does not intend to take any legal action against states that have a procurement plan in place and appear to be working to meet the deadline.
``Generally speaking, we're finding it more effective for us to work with states and bring them into compliance out of court," she said.
Myra Berloff , director of the Massachusetts Office on Disability , said other states that have rushed the issue have encountered problems with the new technology.
``Am I happy we do not have the machines?" she said. ``Of course not. I represent people with disabilities, and I would like to know the machines are fully in place. But would I be happy if we chose machines that turned out not to be secure?
``I don't think the secretary's office has delayed or not been responsive to getting those implemented," she said. ``I think they've worked more diligently than I've seen in almost every state to do this right and to be inclusive."
But Stanley Eichner , executive director of the Disability Law Center , a non profit law firm that offers legal services to people with disabilities, said there is no reason that finding the right machines and meeting the deadline should be mutually exclusive goals.
``We're pleased it's moving forward but disappointed we're not further along in addressing this important need," he said.
Lisa Wangsness can be reached at lwangsness@globe.com. Cristina Silva of the Globe staff contributed to this report. 