Running head: SECURITY OF STATES’ VOTING SYSTEM 1

Analytical Paper: Security of States’ Voting System

Erica Hutapea
IT.486: Critical Issues in Information Technology
Dan Smelser
Central Washington University
June 06, 2022
SECURITY OF STATES’ VOTING SYSTEM 2

Contents
Abstract 3
Introduction 4
Current State Election Methods 4
Identifying the Different Types of Voting Technologies Used 6
Issues behind the Security Voting Technologies 7
Security Threats to Bad-Fed Optical Scanner 8
Security Threats to DREs machines 8
Solutions 9
Completion of Challenges Facing Electronic Voting System 9
Conclusions 10
SECURITY OF STATES’ VOTING SYSTEM 3

Abstract

This analytical paper will discuss the various election methods and types of equipment in the
United States and the main security problems of an electronic voting system. As technology
grows rapidly, secure voting systems will also be impacted and changed therefore security
problems will be described in detail. This analytical paper will discuss the various electoral
methods and tools in the United States and their major security concerns on the part of the
electronic voting system. Along with the rapid development of technology, the secure voting
system will also be affected and changed so the security issues will be explained in detail. The
analysis will be divided into four main topics, including an explanation of the current state
election methods, identifying the several types of voting technology used in the United States,
the issues behind security voting technology focusing on key security issues in optical scanners,
and DRE machines. In the end, the author will provide the following solution with a conclusion
at the end of the paper.
Keywords: Electronic Voting System, Software Security, Voting System
SECURITY OF STATES’ VOTING SYSTEM 4

Introduction

The security voting system has become a big problem due to the development of

technology. Many countries have progressively replaced the use of technological interventions in

the voting process, especially in the United States. Furthermore, with the advent of COVID-19,

we have been forced to introduce new technological updates such as electronic voting systems so

that voters can safely participate remotely wherever they are. This system becomes an important

part of the electoral process and plays a decisive role because there is no other choice. Related to

this situation, additional problems arise in the voting system without regard to reliability,

security, or transparency. In addition to electronic voting systems, there are various forms of

voting equipment and methods that the United States has used, including Signed Ballots,

Electronic Live Recording (DRE), and Voting Marking Devices and Systems (BMD). Each

cutting tool system has advantages and disadvantages in how to record ballots.

Current State Election Methods

The types of voting equipment used in the United States vary from state to state and the

use of technologies ranges from hand-counted paper ballots to electronic voting. Some

jurisdictions use electronic devices to record votes while others use paper ballots. The election

methods are divided into two methods are Ballot Marking Method, including (Verifier, 2021):

- Paper Ballot: voting that uses pieces of paper marked and supplied by a voter.

- Electronic Ballot: voting using electronic means either to assist or administer the giving

and counting of votes.

SECURITY OF STATES’ VOTING SYSTEM 5

- Paper and Electronic Ballot: voting that utilizes the combination of paper ballot method

and electronic ballot devices to assist or count the votes.

And Tabulation Method used to cast and tabulate votes, includes (Verifier, 2021):

- Optical scan paper ballot systems: The use of an optical scanner to tabulate paper

ballots and tally the results in an electronic voting system.

- Ballot Marking Device (BMD): The use of a device to mark the votes that will appear

on the screen, and then the barcode will appear in the printed ballot.

- Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) systems: The use of a device to record the votes

directly into the memory of the machines.

Figure.1 Voting Methods and Equipment by State

As shown in Figure.1, most US Territories voters prefer using Hand Marked Paper

Ballots up to 68.9% of users marked the ballots by hand that is occupied with BMDs, and DREs

for accessibility. On the other hand, the least used method is a direct recording electronic (DRE)

for 7.8% of voters like to use the method allows voters able to record their selections directly
SECURITY OF STATES’ VOTING SYSTEM 6

into computer memory. Followed by about 20.8% of voters relying on ballot marking devices

(BMD) that use the touchscreen voting machines while also providing the security of a paper

ballot.

Identifying the Different Types of Voting Technologies Used

As automation begins to be used in the electoral process to cast and count ballots, there

are many developments of voting technology features that can increase accessibility for voters

with disabilities and promise safety or security to record the votes. Since the Help America Vote

Act (HAVA) allowed the replacement of voting machines using federal funds, the voting

machine technologies have been developing the use of paper ballots is decreasing rapidly. Some

areas of the US still use paper ballots but are counted using computer-aided technology. To

compare the technological transitions of voting machines, Figure 2 shows how drastic the

changes were when mechanical lever machines and hand-counted ballots began to decline

gradually in favor of the growth of optical scanners and DREs (MIT, 2021).

Figure. 2 Reformation Voting Technology in the U.S 1980-2016

SECURITY OF STATES’ VOTING SYSTEM 7

In 1980, ballot paper was the most widely used in the United States, followed by the use

of lever machines with sizable fractions using punch cards. Paper ballots and the Punch card

voting device were developed in the 1960s to record votes by punching holes in the card

associated with the candidate's number. Then the lever machines were introduced in the early

1980 operated by the voter to indicate their choice by depressing a lever next to the preferred

candidate. Many downsides from the machines made the developer create an electrical version of

it, called Direct-Recording Electronic (DRE) machines that are still being used these days. In the

next step of voting technology development, the optical scanner machines launched first came

into widespread use in the late 1980s. The use of the scanner machines was to help count the

votes faster and more reliable by allowing a voter to put their ballots into the polling place

location, and the scanner will read the ballots to give the vote right away into the polling system.

However, there was a chance for machine error to accumulate the vote using this technology.

Issues behind the Security Voting Technologies

The main topic of policy debate is the security of voting machines which has been the

role of technology in vote recording and tabulation since 2000. The use of electronic voting

machines that rely solely on electronics to record votes, without paper backup records, is highly

controversial due to the problems it causes. Moreover, the US laws and Voting rules have been

changed drastically in terms of protecting the voting results and monitoring the use of technology

for voting machines. Based on The Supreme Court overturns Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights

Act, no longer requiring states and local governments to notify the Attorney General of changes

to local voting laws (NTU, 2022). This means that there will be another layer to consider when
SECURITY OF STATES’ VOTING SYSTEM 8

planning technology-standard operating procedures, policies, or processes and how compliance

is maintained.

Despite the fact that the wisdom of using the paperless system before 2000 made the use

of electronic security led to a corresponding controversy (Norden, 2021). There is a perception,

particularly in the United States, that electronic voting machines can facilitate electoral fraud,

and may not be fully auditable, so it is no guarantee that results are collected and reported

accurately. Several security threats have emerged in automated voting machines that allow the

absence of proper safeguards to ensure attacks on voter registration databases, including:

Security Threats to Bad-Fed Optical Scanner

Problems with the machine have found some serious security flaws in the system

regarding how the Diebold Bad-Fed Optical Scanner in type TS6 and TSx on the machine vote.

The machine could be compromised by taking advantage of a backdoor feature designed to allow

new software to be installed on the system that creates falsified election results in the system.

The back door feature caused the engine to be pulled in and replaced along with an optical

scanner that suffered from the same vulnerability (McMillan, 2006). Meanwhile, other security

problems have been discovered in another bad-fed optical scanner named Sequoia Quality

Control Optical Scan which successfully replaced punch-card voting systems. However, engine

failures on some equipment exacerbated problems that drew criticism for not being able to

produce backup ballots and cannot count the number of people who participated in the massive

vote.
SECURITY OF STATES’ VOTING SYSTEM 9

Security Threats to DREs machines

Several DREs machines have been known to have some problems with security

vulnerabilities, including the DRE-Touchscreen machines and DRE-Dial machines that caused a

problem recording voting data and ballots. In the type of DRE-Touchscreen named Sequoia

AVC Edge and Premier Election Solutions (Diebold) AccuVote TSX suffered from software

programming errors and has a high potential to exacerbate security weaknesses. Moreover, it

does not have effective protection against corrupted or malicious data injected via removable

media which results in ballots and paper trails not being recorded properly, security records

being damaged, or ballots not being issued to voters. Another DRE-Dial device was found to

have similar security issues that have not protected against the direct attacks and have unsecured

network interfaces that made it vulnerable to malicious inputs (Zetter, 2008).

Solutions

Since outdated voting machines can cause security vulnerabilities, and also for technical

glitches can lead to long lines, lost votes, and even pose major security risks. That is why there is

much more we should do to promote the security and accuracy of our voting systems because

older equipment and system can be very insecure. It is also more difficult to maintain, more

likely to fail (even without interference from an attacker), and possibly subject to fraud on

Election Day. Because of that, we must invest in our election infrastructure to protect the

integrity of our elections due to technology advanced that affect voting systems technology,
SECURITY OF STATES’ VOTING SYSTEM 10

developing new architecture voting system design to promote the trustworthy system, and

innovations in voting machines components make voting systems more robust.

Completion of Challenges Facing Electronic Voting System

Two main challenges need to be addressed in our voting systems:

1. Election Security Priorities election security has been characterized as a national security

concern increasingly drawing the involvement of federal government entities such as the

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to prevent that the government needs to take three

actions, including strengthening the physical security of their storage locations and polling

places to ensure that only individuals who need to have access to critical election systems,

such as voting machines or election management systems, are permitted that access (Scytl,

2021). Providing more training for the staff to prevent staff from falling prey, eliminate

phishing attacks, and encourage the adoption of two-factor password authentication, real-

time monitoring of websites for unusual activity, and keeping a log of all changes made in

an online system (Underhill, 2019). Also, adopting the physical asset tracking systems to

eliminate lost votes and manipulated votes by tracking the movement of ballots,

equipment, and materials to and from polling places, and check that all voting equipment

remains in a secure location whenever not in use.

2. A High Initial Investment in upgrading these systems is critical to protecting the integrity

of our elections. However, updating the system requires a high initial investment, so

some governments may not be willing or able to bear the costs, so the actions to be taken

are as follows: congress and state legislatures need to allocate funds for a new, reliable,
SECURITY OF STATES’ VOTING SYSTEM 11

and secure voting system. Grants to fund voting technology improvements can ensure

more secure voting systems for decades to come. Also, implementing Voter Registration

and Election Management System Access Controls to secure accounts for each individual

authorized to access election systems and ensure that each entry into such systems can be

tied to the specifically authorized staff.

Conclusion

Technology will evolve dramatically in the future and is projected to have a potentially

significant impact on future elections. In conclusion, solutions aimed at security in administrative

operations conducted through electronic voting systems assume the importance of providing a

uniform standard procedure for election officials to follow when examining election-related

processes and when processing ballots, including:

 Hardware requirements: process and policy transparency, testing, training, and

compliance audit plans

 Software requirements: process and policy transparency, testing, and training

 Delivery and outreach Methods: process and policy transparency, testing, training, and

compliance audit plans

 Using other technologies: drone technology, secure website, accounting software, data

security and accessibility, process and policy transparency, testing, training, and

compliance audit plans

SECURITY OF STATES’ VOTING SYSTEM 12

References

Norden, L., & McCadney, A. (2019, March 5). Voting Machines at risk: Where we stand Today.
Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved June 6, 2022, from
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-machines-risk-where-we-
stand-today 

NTU. (2022, May 24). Voting and civic engagement: History of voting in America. A Brief
History of Voting in America. Retrieved June 6, 2022, from
https://guides.library.unt.edu/c.php?g=69746&p=7730070

McMillan, R. (2006, May 15). Back-door flaws found in Diebold e-voting machines.
Computerworld. Retrieved June 6, 2022, from
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2549684/back-door-flaws-found-in-diebold-e-
voting-machines.html

MIT. (2021). Voting Technology. Voting technology | MIT Election Lab. Retrieved June 6, 2022,
from https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voting-technology

Scytl. (2021, November 2). Challenges of online voting. Medium. Retrieved June 6, 2022, from
https://medium.com/edge-elections/challenges-of-online-voting-4d5e0e60535e

Underhill, W. (2019, August 2). Election Security: State Policies. Election security: State
policies. Retrieved June 6, 2022, from https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-
campaigns/election-security-state-policies.aspx

Verifier. (2021). The Verifier — Election Day Equipment — November 2022. Verified Voting.
Retrieved June 6, 2022, from
https://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#mode/navigate/map/ppEquip/mapType/normal/year/
2020  

Zetter, K. (2008, July 14). NY: 50 percent of Sequoia Voting Machines flawed. Wired. Retrieved
June 6, 2022, from https://www.wired.com/2008/07/ny-50-percent-o/