View Point

Friday, February 12, 1999

Ballot recount is
vital to restoring
public trust

Need to preserve 'sacred' right
to vote demands resolution
of ballot irregularities

By Colleen Hanabusa

Itake exception to the Star-Bulletin's Feb. 4 editorial, "Full election recount may not be necessary," for its failure to understand the sacred right to vote. I am most troubled by your conclusion that the efforts of the state Senate are an overreaction to "nothing more than a few minor problems."

It is our reaction that will determine the public's confidence in the system.

First, let's agree on what the "system" is. I do not define the right to vote as a "system." I would agree that the "system" is what the Office of Elections had implemented for the voters to cast their ballots in the 1998 elections. That being the case, no one should defend what has failed so miserably in meeting its mandate.

Your editorial assessed this to be a "small-scale problem," and you willingly accept an election official's position that only a "spot check" is necessary.

Your editorial was printed on Feb. 4. As of that date, we knew that the vendor, Elections Systems & Software, and the Office of Elections had stated in November 1998 that there was no hardware, software or ballot problem in the general election.

Then, in January, they collectively stated that only one machine malfunctioned. Subsequently, early this month, that number increased by six more machines.

One of the six machines was part of the "validity" check on the night of the election and was "passed" by the office. If you were to ask how that occurred, you would learn that -- in the 10 percent check of the machines conducted on the night of the election -- this check was on one of only 30 of the 350 machines. Of the 30 machines, only one race within the precinct was counted. These are lousy statistics.

You should also ask how it is that the Office of Elections came to count the ballots in the additional six machines in the last two weeks. You would learn that the office looked to precincts that had a high percentage of overvotes.

ES&S initially told me that overvotes were not an indicator that a machine had malfunctioned. Yet now they are using overvotes as an indicator, and have subsequently told me that they always look to overvotes.

That being the case, why was nothing said immediately after the general election? What kind of obligation does the Office of Elections and its vendors owe to the state and its electorate?

What should be the most troubling to everyone is that a malfunctioning machine votes for you.

ES&S told me that the machine voted when it malfunctioned. The proof is also in the fact that, in one precinct in my race, the "blank votes" went from 50 to 53. This means that, for three people who chose not to vote, the machine took it upon itself to cast their votes for them.

As for the spot check that we had in the general election, it shows that because the tabulation of the ballots is done by each machine, if you fail to check each machine, then what occurred at District 44, precinct 1 can happen again. In this case, the machine at District 44, precinct 2, was checked and was found to be fine. But its neighbor, 44-01, was not checked and it was not fine.

If each machine is checked (meaning a test of every precinct), then the spot check proposed will be of a specific race within each precinct. What we learned with the recent six machines is that a malfunction can affect one race and not another.

Again, one of the six precincts is also in my district, in this case, Nanakuli Elementary (44-03). There, I am told that my race was fine but OHA's was not.

I have my doubts. Depending upon how one's ballot was inserted into the counter, my race could have fallen within the "streak" being read by the scanner. Yet the Office of Elections did not recount my race, only OHA's.

The bottom line is this: The Senate is not using public funds in the ballot recount, so why object to a check that we hope will restore the public's trust?

Finally, your editorial mentioned State Democratic Party Chairman Walter Heen's position. The media have always commented about how lawyers (and I am one) play semantic games to define the issue as they wish. I find that you are doing the same thing.

As you have reported in the past, there is technically no reference to a right to a recount in the law. The decision in the challenge filed by the Democratic Party against the Office of Elections, which resulted in the "manual count (tally)" of 44-01, did not use the word "recount."

Heen states that the Supreme Court is the only entity that can conduct a recount.

With all due respect, I disagree. Any voter can now review the ballots and count them at this time, because the election challenge period has lapsed.

If it is true -- that only the Supreme Court can order a recount -- then I ask by what authority is Dwayne Yoshina doing his random recounts. There is a legal difference between a recount and some action that can affect the outcome of the election.

The Star-Bulletin has reported on these events. Therefore, I find it disconcerting that your editorial board would place such little importance on the public's trust and confidence in the exercise of a right over for which we have fought wars, lost lives and spent trillions of dollars protecting.

It is also troubling when it is your conscientious reporters who have exposed the questionable manner in which we have come to utilize the services of ES&S. Therefore, I ask that you reconsider your position on the full recount of the 1998 general election.

---

Colleen Hanabusa is a Democratic senator representing
the 21st District of Waianae, Maili and Makaha.