A month after widespread problems plagued the general election, the Northampton County Election Commission Board voted 4-0 to express no confidence in its new election machines.
At the same meeting Thursday evening, representatives of the county’s Democratic and Republican committees called on the county to move away from the machines and perform an independent analysis of the results.
“We believe the problems the machines exhibited this year will make it virtually impossible to restore voters’ confidence heading into 2020. We’d recommend avoiding that by not using them again,” said Democratic Chair Matthew Munsey.
Despite the bipartisan condemnation of the machines, it’s unclear how county residents will cast their vote in the upcoming presidential elections. Richard Santee, the board’s solicitor, said the decision to reject these machines must be made in conjunction with Northampton County Council and Executive Lamont McClure. Some council members have demanded a refund on the machines, though McClure has continued to stand by them.
Even if there was universal agreement, it would be logistically difficult to swap systems in time for the April 28 primary. The board, council and McClure’s administration would have to reach a consensus on getting rid of the machines, selecting a new system, purchasing it, training staff and delivering the machines to the polls in less than four months.
“I can’t imagine what we are going to do between now and April,” said Council President Ron Heckman, who attended the meeting as a member of the public. “What’s the alternative?”
As many as 30% of Northampton County’s ExpressVote XL voting machines had flawed touch screens that prevented voters from selecting candidates listed on the edge of the ballot. At the same time, machines failed to electronically count any votes for some candidates in cross-filed races. The most prominent example was county judicial candidate Abe Kassis, whose digital votes were undercounted by tens of thousands.
The county wound up relying on paper backups produced by the voting machines to tally the results. An analysis by Election Systems & Software, the machine’s manufacturer, found the paper ballots accurately recorded the votes.
Adam Carbullido, a senior vice president with ES&S, apologized to the members of the commission, saying the company failed to properly configure the touch screens and the ballot. The problems should have been caught during pre-election testing, but company employees failed to provide thorough training to the county and failed to catch the mistake themselves. Carbullido made a similar apology to County Council and the public last week.
That was little consolation to members of the board, which selected the ExpressVote XL by a 3-2 vote in March. Maudeania Hornik, a Republican, said she still likes the concept of the machines but questioned how the county could rely on them now.
“I fought for your machines. Now I’m extremely disappointed. I feel like I’ve been played,” said Hornik, the only member of the board who will be returning next year.
Board member Deb Hunter, a Democrat, challenged Carbullido on the methods used to test the machines before the vote. Under the county’s previous system, someone cast a vote for every candidate on every machine as part of a controlled test before the election. This year, however, ES&S used automated and manual testing; not every candidate’s button on every machine was checked as a result.
“If every machine was tested by hand, I don’t see how this would have happened. It would have set off alarm bells,” she said.
Hunter’s barbs weren’t saved just for Carbullido. She raised old criticisms of the McClure administration, saying it limited the board’s work by narrowing its choices down to two machines. Months before the commission met to review their options, McClure identified the ExpressVote XL as his recommended choice. The board exists so politicians and elected officials do not have too much control in how their constituents cast their votes.
“It was clearly communicated to us that this was the machine. None of the commission members were even informed” they could go to down to Harrisburg to review the various machines on the market, Hunter said.
She sparred throughout the night with Charles Dertinger, the county’s director of administration, who argued the machines worked because of the paper backups, a feature that was unavailable under the old machines. Counties that relied on systems where voters cast paper ballots, including Lehigh County, experienced long lines and privacy issues, he said.
“Had we been one of those counties, we would be on the other side of making this argument. ‘Had we only gone with this other voting system, this wouldn’t have happened,'” Dertinger said.
Some of Dertinger’s comments raised the board’s concerns in basic functions of county operations. Some precincts, he said, could not be informed of the machine problems on Election Day because election workers did not own cellphones or did not answer calls.
“We do not have a phone number for anyone in each polling place,” Dertinger said.
When asked after the meeting if the administration had any comment on the no confidence vote, Dertinger said. “We are going to have to work to restore confidence. That’s it.”
