Friday, August 13, 2010

A op-ed column by Joyce McCloy provides useful background on the ballot-price controversy the News & Observer has promoted. North Carolina has tough voting system standards because of federal and state law and experience with thousands of votes being lost by poorly designed machines. Only one company, ES&S, is willing to put up a hefty bond to stand behind its ballot-reading tabulators and pay millions if a new statewide election is required because of its failure. No wonder ES&S is very particular about the kind of paper county election officials buy for their ballots; a fractional difference in thickness, absorbency, moisture tolerance, etc., could cause disaster. It’s disturbing the News & Observer has not made this context clear. Worse, a story on Tuesday incorrectly indicates that county boards of elections must give Printelect first right of refusal before going somewhere else to get their ballots printed. Printelect’s owner is a neighbor and major political donor to Beverly Perdue, which makes the story extra juicy. A memo from state elections director Gary Bartlett to county election officials, which the N&O cites, actually says if you go to ES&S for your ballots, they will give Printelect first right of refusal for the printing job – but the memo makes it clear that you don’t have to go to ES&S at all for ballots. It specifically lists three other options county elections directors have for getting ballots printed and an attachment provides contact info for other printers besides Printelect. So why didn’t the newspaper make this clear? Maybe because the truth would complicate the sell-the-paper storyline of a big political donor ripping off the public with high-priced ballots. Ironically, manipulating evidence to make a case is at the center of the N&O’s series exposing wrongdoing by the SBI.