Calif. Tightens Voting Machine Standards

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California's top elections official placed rigorous security conditions on voting equipment used in dozens of counties and limited the use of two of the most widely used machines statewide.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced the measures minutes before midnight Friday, making good on a promise to tell counties at least six months before California's Feb. 5 presidential primary if their voting equipment would be decertified.

The announcement leaves the most affected counties with little time to find alternate equipment in time for the primary. The decision follows an eight-week security review of voting systems used in all but a few of California's 58 counties.

University of California computer experts found that voting machines sold by three companies - Diebold Election Systems, Hart InterCivic and Sequoia Voting Systems - were vulnerable to hackers and that voting results could be altered.

Bowen said she had decertified the machines, then recertified them on the condition they meet her new security standards. She also limited the Diebold and Sequoia machines to one per polling place. That will force some counties to find replacement equipment on a tight schedule.

Bowen ordered the review, which was released last week, to ensure California would not face the same doubts about the accuracy of its voting systems that hit Florida after the 2000 election and Ohio in 2004.

The additional requirements she imposed included banning all modem or wireless connections to the machines to prevent them from being linked to an outside computer or the Internet. She also required a full manual count of all votes cast on Diebold or Sequoia machines to ensure accuracy.

Bowen said the study revealed some vulnerabilities that would allow hackers to manipulate the systems "with little chance of detection and with dire consequences." Her review also found that the machines posed problems for disabled voters.

Company officials have downplayed the results of Bowen's review, saying they reflected unrealistic, worst-case scenarios that would be counteracted by security measures taken by the companies and local election officials........