Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Election‑security advocates and residents urge Legislature to scrutinize $34M voting‑machine plan
Summary
Multiple public commenters urged the Legislature to pause a $34 million plan to buy new touchscreen voting machines, citing security, barcode‑auditability and cost concerns; election‑security advocates recommended hand‑marked ballots or additional vendor review.
Residents and election‑integrity advocates used the public comment period to urge the Suffolk County Legislature to reconsider a proposed $34 million purchase of ES&S/ExpressVote XL voting machines and to require independent cost audits before proceeding.
‘‘I am here to speak in opposition to the capital budget item 1451,’’ said Susan Greenhalgh of Free Speech For People, who argued that the machines ‘‘record and count the vote in a barcode’’ that voters cannot verify and that the systems can tether counties to vendors through licensing and service fees. Several other speakers — including representatives from SMART Elections and election‑security groups — emphasized the national consensus among many computer scientists and administrators that hand‑marked paper ballots with robust post‑vote audits are the most secure, auditable option for elections.
Key technical points and responses: Testimony cited examples from other jurisdictions where touchscreen systems malfunctioned and questioned vendor claims about capacity for long ballots. Lulu Friesdat of SMART Elections warned that the ExpressVote XL summary card may not accommodate New York’s longest ballots and noted that some counties that adopt touchscreen summary devices must buy many more units because of lower per‑unit throughput compared with existing equipment. Advocates urged the Legislature and Board of Elections to solicit demonstrations from other certified vendors and to commission an independent cost projection comparing touchscreen systems and hand‑marked paper ballots.
Process implications: Speakers asked that the county delay any contract authorization until the Board of Elections publicly addresses these technical and cost questions and invites independent audits; some warned that rushed procurement could expose the county to legal and operational risk. The Legislature recorded the public comments; the approval or timing of a machine purchase was not acted on at this meeting.
