SC Officials on the machines

SC’s Voting Machines Must be Updated

In the words of South Carolina officials

State Election Commission, September 2016

“With the useful life of the State’s current voting system being 12 to 15 years, … [e]quipment issues and breakdowns are becoming more frequent. As a result, carrying out our mission and reflect the will of the electorate has become complicated and challenging.”

Joint Voting System Research Committee, South Carolina General Assembly, March 2016

“South Carolina’s next voting system must be secure, and instill confidence in the citizens that their votes will be counted, as they intended for them to be cast. A new voting system must include some type of audit function, or “paper trail,” that would allow the voter to confirm his or her ballot, as it will be tabulated by the SEC. When required, this paper trail could be utilized by the SEC for audit purposes and ensure the accuracy of the election results.”

Marci Andino, Executive Director, State Election Commission (in testimony before the Joint Voting System Research Committee), November 2015

“The statewide voting system currently used in SC was implemented in 2004 and the system has been used in more than a thousand elections. Across the state, there are more than 13,000 voting machines. With a life expectancy of approximately 12 to 15 years, the system is approaching end of life. With the age of the voting system, we are beginning to see more voting machine performance issues resulting in an increase in maintenance calls. We also have been told by our vendor that availability of replacement parts will become a problem at some time in the future. To put the age of our voting system into perspective, the voting machine is a special purpose computer with a motherboard that has a 386 processor. This processor was commonly used in PC's during the early 1990s.”

Legislative Audit Council, South Carolina General Assembly, March 2013

“There is no voter verifiable paper audit trail that allows anyone to compare the votes as recorded by the voting machine with an independent record of each vote cast using that machine. Therefore, notwithstanding the use of the term ‘audit,’ the post-election process to which our iVotronic machines are subjected does not conform to the requirements of a comprehensive, compliance, investigative, or materiality election audit.”