Last year Washington state experienced what State Elections Director Nick Handy termed "the mother of all recounts," during the closest governor's race in U.S. history. "2.8 million people voted and we counted the ballots three times," he said. Thirty-eight of the state's 39 counties had been tallied, and the state waited, electrified, for the final county's results. The reason? The candidates were only eight votes apart.

Nick Handy

While such a narrow margin between candidates may be unusual, it points out the importance of accuracy in the process and confidence by the public that voting -- the very heart of any democracy -- works as it is intended. That confidence was severely tested in the 2000 presidential election which came down to a few hundred votes in Florida amid charges of irregularities in vote counting. Finally, the Supreme Court stopped the recounts and George W. Bush was declared president. In an essentially adversarial political environment, that is a complete recipe for discontent and suspicion.

This coming January, as the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) goes into effect, and states and counties transition to computerized voting systems, the need for absolute accuracy is paramount to regain the public's trust and confidence.

Handy, however, is more concerned about human error than voting system glitches or fraud. As he explained in Sacramento earlier this week at the Voting Systems Testing Summit, about 80 percent of Washington's voters vote by mail, and the voting systems are selected by the counties and certified by the state. The state has "a very active recount process," said Handy. Machine and manual recounts are done randomly in the state's six yearly elections, and there is a state requirement that allows any political party to request a manual recount of a certain number of precincts.

"These recounts were 99.99 percent accurate," said Handy. The inaccuracies, he said, were due to human error in interpreting the voter's intent: "instead of filling in the oval, they put a little note that says 'I like this guy here,' or put a circle around the oval, or an X in the oval." Also, he said, election workers in the past have sometimes failed to account for all the ballots.

As a result, said Handy, he would suggest putting more attention on training of voters and poll workers, "and not as much energy on the actual voting system devices and workings of hardware and software."

California's Best Practices Blueprint

Bruce McPherson

"We are entering a new era of voting systems technology," said California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson in his introductory remarks at his summit in Sacramento. Among the challenges facing voting officials, he explained are the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) as well as building voter confidence and accessibility.

HAVA, said McPherson, requires voting systems that are free of "hanging chads" and that remove barriers of disability and language. HAVA came into being because of "conditions that raised questions" in voting, and now, the voting process is on everyone's radar. This is not a bad thing, said McPherson, as states are now beginning to share experiences and pool resources. Conference attendees included representatives from 23 states and 18 California counties and showed the extent of interest in collaboration.

The conference is part of a process to develop a "Best Practices Blueprint for state testing of voting systems," said McPherson. Last month, the Secretary of State's Office created the