When Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002, the law was well-intentioned but not well thought out. As the 2006 deadline for implementation of electronic voting machines looms, election officials in many counties in Pennsylvania, as well as officials in other states, are struggling with what is clearly an unrealistic timetable.

The HAVA act was a knee-jerk reaction to the election chaos in Florida in the 2000 presidential election, which introduced the nation to "hanging chads."

But in trying to avoid a repeat of the Florida election mess, Congress has fueled even more confusion in many states across the nation. The best solution to minimize the damage caused by HAVA is to extend the deadline by passing legislation introduced on Jan. 31 by U.S. Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.

As a former county commissioner from Bucks County, Fitzpatrick has a better understanding and appreciation of the confusion surrounding the purchase of new electronic voting technologies than most of his colleagues in Congress.

As with too many other issues, with HAVA it looks as though Congress felt pressure after the controversial 2000 president elections and quickly passed a law in order to appear to be solving the problem. But, in reality, while it might make sense to re-examine voting technologies in use today, the HAVA federal mandate is promoting unproven technologies while at the same imposing an unrealistic deadline in terms of fully evaluating various technologies from different vendors.

Much of the early buzz in computer-based voting technologies focused touch screen voting systems. But some of these do not provide a paper backup of votes for verification purposes. They are also seen as being vulnerable to malfunction or manipulation by computer hackers.

With Pennsylvania's primary election just over two months away, many counties, including Butler, have not purchased new voting machines and will be hard pressed to have a new system in place with adequate support and training by the May 16 primary election.

Counties are being pressured to move ahead with a purchase of new, electronic voting machines by the HAVA timetable and by the millions of federal tax dollars available to help local officials buy the machines.

But a decision to adopt new voting technology should not be made under such pressure and without adequate research and testing. Even with federal tax dollars helping to pay for the machines, choosing a flawed system could mean massive, and expensive, headaches for local election officials for years — or decades — to come.

The touch screen machines, which received most of the attention for their high-tech appeal might still turn out to be problematic. Some versions of the touch screen machines provide a paper backup, others do not. For many people, a paper backup for verification is essential for a reliable voting system.

In Miami-Dade County, Fla., where touch-screen voting machines (also known as DREs, direct recording electronic voting machines) were purchased to replace the much-maligned punch-card systems of the 2000 presidential election, the results are troubling. A task force in Miami-Dade County examined election results, compared technologies and found much to dislike about the touch screen machines.

The group's recommendation was to scrap touch-screen machines and purchase optical scanner systems in which a paper ballot is marked, then recorded by a computerized scanner, which provides the voter with a verification of his or her vote before recording the scanned ballot. The marked paper ballot is then kept in a secure box in the event that a recount is required or computerized results are suspect.

As an alternative to DREs, momentum appears to be building for the scanner system as a sort of hybrid that includes marked paper ballots, and computerized tabulation.

There are simply too many questions about reliability, maintenance costs and security against electronic tampering to move forward at this time.

States, including Pennsylvania, have added to the confusion created by HAVA, but the solution rests with Congress to approve an extension of the HAVA deadline to the November general election — or, better yet, the next primary election.

— J.L.W.III