brennan center for justice

Despite this long history of failures with the same equipment, state election officials said in 2007 thatthey were previously unaware of the problem. 87By 2007, nearly 25,000 Diebold optical scans machines were in use nationwide. The News-Journalreported that the manufacturer conducted a survey of its customers to determine the frequency of suchfailures, but refused to release results from the study, calling it proprietary information. 88 According tothe News-Journal, officials at the Election Assistance Commission told the paper that they could notcompel distribution of this information unless an official government agency requested the action. 89Many saw this as an argument for the EAC to bolster its clearinghouse function. “[T]he federal agencyrequired by law to act as a clearinghouse on voting system problems – the U.S. Election AssistanceCommission – has been slow to develop a place where such information can be shared,” the News-Journal reported in 2007, “The [election] supervisors are left largely on their own.” 906. Broward County, Florida, November 2004• • •Two days after Election Day in November 2004, Broward County election officials double-checked electionresults and discovered that tens of thousands of votes on certain state amendments were not counted.The problem: a “software glitch” in the system usedto count the county’s absentee ballots. 91 Accordingto the Palm Beach Post, the software started countingthe news-journal reported thatbackward after it logged 32,000 votes in a race. 92Once officials identified the problem and obtained diebold conducted a survey of itscorrect vote totals, the newfound votes contributed toa changed result for a statewide gambling amendment customers to determine the frequencyand sparked angry calls for a recount. 93of such failures, but refused to releaseSeveral newspapers reported that ES&S, the voting the results, calling them proprietary.system vendor, claimed to have noticed the problemin 2002, and said it notified the Secretary of State’soffice of the issue after that election. 94 It isn’t clear from news accounts why Broward County did notadopt procedures to safeguard against this glitch once it was discovered. Broward County officials toldthe Palm Beach Post that the manufacturer claimed its upgrades were rejected by the Secretary of State’soffice in 2002; the state contested this claim. 95 One reason officials in 2004 may have been unaware ofthe problem: there was turnover in the offices of chief election officials in both Broward County andthe State of Florida between 2002, when the software glitch was originally discovered, and 2004, whenthe unaddressed problem caused Broward County to miscount the votes.Regardless of who was to blame for Broward County’s failure to address the problem ahead of time, acentralized database could have prevented it, by allowing Broward County officials in 2004 to reviewreported problems for their systems, including necessary workaround procedures, and avoid thecontroversy that followed the well-publicized tallying problems.Brennan Center for Justice | 15