Bryant Richardson is a Republican serving Seaford in the Senate.
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. — James Madison
Over the years, I have spoken to a number of people concerned about the use of computers instead of paper ballots for elections.
I told them my confidence in the process using computers was bolstered by the fact that random audits are being conducted to check the accuracy of the electronic count.
This was being done after elections, by randomly selecting voting machines to audit.
After all, this process would make anyone with the thought of hacking into the computer software for nefarious reasons think about the risk of being caught.
But that has changed.
According to the Delaware Department of Elections, the random selection for the audit must now be done before the election.
The change from making the audit after the election to before the election, we are told, is found in Senate Bill 266.
I’ve searched SB 266 and cannot find the wording that explains when the “random” selections must be made.
Senate Bill 266, with its crossouts and new verbiage, is 9,752 words, not counting the synopsis, which is 1,199 words.
There are a lot of legal rabbit trails to follow. I cannot find the one that leads to the specific language that says when the “random” selections must be made.
Here are two of the provisions for an audit:
The importance of trusting the process for casting and counting votes cannot be overstated.
I do not have reason to believe that any official in the state would be attempting to interfere with the vote count.
That doesn’t mean that someone on the outside would not try to interfere, and, if he or she knows beforehand what polling places will be subject to audits, he or she would obviously try to hack into the polling places not selected for audits.
State election commissioner Anthony Albence said in a letter questioning the change that it is also not clear how the conduct of a random-selection drawing for audits prior to the date of an election “defeats the whole purpose for election audits.”
“The random selection process refers to the method of selection of the subjects of the random audit, not the timing when these selections occur,” Albence wrote.
“Those attending publicly noticed random drawings may view all the items to be placed in the drawing and an attendee would even be welcome to make the selection.
“In fact, attendees at these meetings in the past have drawn such selections.”
Having the process open to the public is respectful. Transparency is what the public deserves.
But there is still the problem of perception.
There should be extraordinary efforts made to give voters confidence that our elections are free from outside interference, especially from hackers.
Changing back to performing the random selection after voting is completed would ease the worry of voters who see the random selection done before the election as a security risk.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
