Electronic voting in the United States#Receiving ballots online

{{main|Election Assistance Commission}}

The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent agency of the United States government which developed the 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). These guidelines address some of the security and accessibility needs of elections. The EAC also accredits three test laboratories which manufacturers hire to review their equipment. Based on reports from these laboratories the EAC certifies when voting equipment complies with the voluntary guidelines.{{Cite web |title=Accredited Laboratories {{!}} U.S. Election Assistance Commission |url=https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/accredited-laboratories |access-date=2023-12-12 |website=www.eac.gov}}

Twelve states require EAC certification for machines used in their states. Seventeen states require testing by an EAC-accredited lab, but not certification. Nine states and DC require testing to federal standards, by any lab. Four other states refer to federal standards but make their own decisions. The remaining eight states do not refer to federal standards.{{Cite web |title=Voting System Standards, Testing and Certification |url=https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voting-system-standards-testing-and-certification.aspx |access-date=July 8, 2020 |website=www.ncsl.org}}

Certification takes two years, costs a million dollars, and is needed again for any equipment update, so election machines are a difficult market.

A revision to the guidelines, known as the VVSG 1.1, was prepared in 2009 and approved in 2015.{{Cite web |title=Voluntary Voting System Guidelines |url=https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voluntary-voting-system-guidelines |access-date=July 9, 2020 |website=U.S. Election Assistance Commission}} Voting machine manufacturers can choose which guidelines they follow.{{Cite web |date=June 7, 2019 |title=Free Speech For People and National Election Defense Coalition to U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Don't Let Voting Machine Vendors Use Obsolete Standards |url=http://freespeechforpeople.org/free-speech-for-people-and-national-election-defense-coalition-to-u-s-election-assistance-commission-dont-let-voting-machine-vendors-use-obsolete-standards/ |access-date=July 9, 2020 |website=Free Speech For People |language=en-US}} A new version has been written known as the VVSG 2.0 or the VVSG Next Iteration, which is being reviewed.

{{further|Optical scan voting system|Vote counting#Optical scan counting}}

File:Black line on scanned ballot.png

In an optical scan voting system, each voter's choices are marked on one or more pieces of paper, which then go through a scanner. The scanner creates an electronic image of each ballot, interprets it, creates a tally for each candidate, and usually stores the image for later review.

The voter may mark the paper directly, usually in a specific location for each candidate, then mail it or put it in a ballot box.

Or the voter may select choices on an electronic screen, which then prints the chosen names, usually with a bar code or QR code summarizing all choices, on a sheet of paper to put in the scanner.{{Cite web |url=https://www.verifiedvoting.org/ballot-marking-devices/ |title=Ballot Marking Devices |website=Verified Voting |language=en-US |access-date=February 28, 2020 |archive-date=August 5, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200805185249/https://www.verifiedvoting.org/ballot-marking-devices/ }} This screen and printer is called an electronic ballot marker (EBM) or ballot marking device (BMD), and voters with disabilities can communicate with it by headphones, large buttons, sip and puff, or paddles, if they cannot interact with the screen or paper directly. Typically the ballot marking device does not store or tally votes. The paper it prints is the official ballot, put into a scanning system which counts the barcodes, or the printed names can be hand-counted, as a check on the machines.{{Cite news |last=Cohn |first=Jennifer |url=https://medium.com/@jennycohn1/what-is-the-latest-threat-to-democracy-ballot-marking-devices-a-k-a-electronic-pencils-16bb44917edd |title=What is the latest threat to democracy? |date=May 5, 2018|work=Medium |access-date=February 28, 2020 |language=en}}

Most voters do not look at the machine-printed paper to ensure it reflects their choices. When there is a mistake, an experiment found that 81% of registered voters do not report errors to poll workers.{{Cite web |url=https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/bmd-verifiability-sp20.pdf |title=Can Voters Detect Malicious Manipulation of Ballot Marking Devices? |last1=Bernhard |first1=Matthew |last2=McDonald |first2=Allison |last3=Meng |first3=Henry |last4=Hwa |first4=Jensen |last5=Bajaj |first5=Nakul |last6=Chang |first6=Kevin |last7=Halderman |first7=J. Alex |date=December 28, 2019 |website=Halderman |access-date=February 28, 2020}} No state requires central reporting of errors reported by voters, so the occasional report cannot lead to software correction. Hand-marked paper ballots more clearly have been reviewed by voters, but some places allow correction fluid and tape so ballots can be changed later.{{Cite web |date=October 1, 2020 |title=2 CCR 20983(c)(6) |url=https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ccrov/pdf/2020/september/20226rb.pdf |access-date=October 5, 2020 |website=California Sec. of State}}

Two companies, Hart and Clear Ballot, have scanners which count the printed names, which voters had a chance to check, rather than bar codes and QR codes, which voters are unable to check.{{Cite web |url=https://trustthevote.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/29Mar19-OSETBriefing_GeorgiaTechAcquisitionAnalysisFinal.pdf |title=Georgia State Election Technology Acquisition, Assessing Recent Legislation in Light of Planned Procurement |last1=Perez |first1=Edward |last2=London |first2=Joy |last3=Miller |first3=Gregory |date=March 2019 |website=OSET Institute |access-date=March 5, 2020}} When scanners use the bar code or QR code, the candidates are represented in the bar code or QR code as numbers, and the scanner counts those codes, not the names. If a bug or hack makes the numbering system in the ballot marking device different from the numbering system in the scanner, votes will be tallied for the wrong candidates. This numbering mismatch has appeared with direct recording electronic machines (below).

Ballot marking devices display contests and candidates on a screen where voters can make, change and check selections before printing the choices on paper to put in a ballot box. The election worker provides a code for each voter, to tell the machine what contests that voter may vote on. Contests presented to voters depend on the district boundaries they live in.

A common concern is picking one candidate and having the machine register another. Staff say that touching the touch screen near a boundary between candidates, or with a tremor can choose the wrong candidate, so voters need to check. If they discover a mistake after printing the ballot, they can spoil that ballot and start over.{{Cite news |last=Scott |first=Lakiya |date=2024-10-18 |title=Election Commission official clears the air on voting irregularity claims |url=https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/election-commission-clears-the-air-on-voting-irregularity-claims/article_d45a9112-8dc7-11ef-acaf-c7f82d05d8e5.html |access-date=2024-12-06 |work=Fox 13 Memphis |language=en}}{{Cite news |last=Ferris |first=Layla |date=2024-10-24 |title=False claims about machines "switching" votes are going viral. Here's what to know. - CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/false-claims-machines-switching-votes-what-to-know/ |access-date=2024-12-06 |work=CBS |language=en-US}} Some places put a privacy screen over the BMD's display, so voters must be "aggressive" when pressing the touchscreen to register a vote.{{Cite news |last=Elias |first=Dave |date=2024-10-22 |title=Claims Florida voting machines not working properly debunked |url=https://www.nbc-2.com/article/claims-florida-voting-machines-not-working-properly-debunked/62685435 |access-date=2024-12-06 |work=NBC 2 |language=en}}

• In a 2023 election in Northampton County, PA, misprogramming switched text on paper between two judge retention contests, so a vote to remove or retain the first was labeled with the name of the second, and vice versa. The county briefly changed to hand-marked paper ballots, but ran out, and went back to the mislabeled BMDs. The county and court changed instructions throughout the day.{{Cite web |last=Skoglund |first=Kevin |date=2023-11-15 |title=Election Problems in Northampton County, PA in November 2023 |url=https://securiosa.com/posts/northampton_problems_2023.html |access-date=2023-11-17 |website=securiosa.com}}
• In a 2022 election in Marietta, GA, up to 157 voters were presented lists of contests which were partly in error, due to recent changes in district boundaries.{{Cite news |last=Riggall |first=Hunter |date=May 10, 2022 |title=Up to 157 incorrect ballots cast on first day of early voting, Cobb elections director says |language=en-US |work=Marrietta Daily Journal |url=https://news.yahoo.com/157-incorrect-ballots-cast-first-092000088.html |access-date=May 11, 2022}}
• In a 2019 election in Philadelphia, PA, 40% of polling locations had problems with BMDs, including "touchscreens that were hypersensitive or that froze; paper voting receipts getting jammed in the machines; and panels opening on some machines to expose the equipment's electronic controls."{{Cite news |last=Harte |first=Julia |date=2020-06-01 |title=Exclusive: Philadelphia's new voting machines under scrutiny in Tuesday's elections |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-pennsylvania-machines-ex-idUSKBN23828J |access-date=2023-07-27}}{{Cite web |date=2020-06-01 |title=PHILADELPHIA COMMISSIONERS HID VOTING MACHINE FAILURES |url=https://docs.google.com/document/d/14uVFGlT7t4bE6dbuwka3KxgIf4UQI6SLHQw1q1bDv4w/edit?usp=embed_facebook |access-date=2023-07-27 |website=Protect Our Vote Philly |language=en}}
• In a 2019 election in Northampton County, PA, BMD screens were hypersensitive or insensitive, from being "configured improperly in the factory" so voters had to keep trying to select their candidates. An instructional message was treated as a Republican candidate, so straight party votes omitted the real candidate.{{Cite news |last=Albiges |first=Marie |date=2020-10-21 |title=A year ago, voting machines malfunctioned in a pivotal Pa. county. Have the problems been fixed? |url=https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2020/10/pa-northampton-county-voting-machines-glitches-presidential-election/ |access-date=2024-03-02 |work=Spotlight PA |language=en-us}}

Some scanners have a row of photo-sensors which the paper ballot passes by, and they record light and dark pixels from the ballot. Other scanners work by scanning the ballot to create an electronic image (i.e. a picture) of the ballot. Then the resulting image (picture) is analyzed by internal software to discern what votes were cast. In these types of vote tabulators, any defect in the scanning apparatus, such as dirt, scratches on the lens, or chads of paper, may mar the image of the ballot. These types of defects may produce long black lines, or white lines in the ballot image, which then may be misread by the software as an undervote (no votes for anyone), or as an overvote (a vote for every candidate).{{Cite web |url=https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/event_document/files/day1-2017-02-13-09_15-03-natasha-Post-Election-Audits-final.pdf |title=2016 Post-Election Audits in Maryland |last=Walker |first=Natasha |date=February 13, 2017 |website=U.S. Election Assistance Commission |access-date=February 27, 2020}}{{Cite web |url=http://www.votersunite.org/info/yakimaproblemreport.asp |title=Hart InterCivic Optical-Scan Has A Weak Spot |last=Gideon |first=John |date=July 5, 2005 |website=www.votersunite.org |access-date=February 15, 2020}}

Some offices blow compressed air over the scanners after every 200 ballots to remove dust.{{Cite web |last1=McKim |first1=Karen |date=February 17, 2015 |title=Unregistered Dust Bunnies May be Voting in Wisconsin Elections: Stoughton Miscount Update |url=https://www.wisconsingrassroots.net/dust_bunnies_may_be_voting |access-date=October 27, 2022 |website=Wisconsin Grassroots Network|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220119051919/https://www.wisconsingrassroots.net/dust_bunnies_may_be_voting |archive-date=January 19, 2022 }}

Software can miscount or fail to count. If it fails or miscounts drastically enough, people notice and check. Errors can happen in the scanner or at the ballot printer. Staff rarely identify the person who caused an error, and assume it was accidental, not a hack.

• In the 2024 general election in Sandoval County, NM, the memory device from one precinct became unreadable when a worker mishandled it, totals were inconsistent, and two voting machines were used without seals. Officials certified results anyway, and one candidate filed a complaint.{{Cite news |last=Helean |first=Michaela |date=2024-12-18 |title=District 44 candidate files complaint in district court; claims election fraud |url=https://www.rrobserver.com/news/elections/district-44-candidate-files-complaint-in-district-court-claims-election-fraud/article_780c92c2-bd8b-11ef-b90b-039371c93757.html |access-date=2025-01-30 |work=Rio Rancho Observer |language=en}}
• In the 2024 general election in Ashtabula County, OH, scanners mis-counted votes for levies, because the state Supreme Court changed the wording of the first state-wide ballot measure, so other measures shifted from where the scanners expected them on the page. The problem was discovered only when the county hand counted one measure because it was very close. Then the county hand counted other measures. Three measures changed from losing to winning. Other Ohio counties reported some ballots as unreadable, but did not hand count any ballots to check for shifted votes.{{Cite news |last=Gillett |first=Christopher |date=2024-12-12 |title=Two levies pass after hand recount |url=https://www.starbeacon.com/news/two-levies-pass-after-hand-recount/article_f40c04a8-b803-11ef-85be-873758a0649f.html |access-date=2024-12-20 |work=Star Beacon |language=en}}
• In the 2024 general election in Torrington, CT, broken tabulators and coding which did not match the layout of the printed ballots caused errors in counts of absentee and early ballots and ballots of voters who registered the same day they voted. Staff recounted these 7,000 ballots by hand.{{Cite news |last=Gaiss |first=Kevin |date=2024-11-12 |title=Torrington recount draws crowd to watch thousands of ballots get counted again |url=https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/torrington-recount-draws-crowd-ballots-get-counted-again/3431961/ |access-date=2024-12-20 |work=NBC Connecticut |language=en-US}}{{Cite news |last=Sundqvist |first=Viktoria |date=2024-11-13 |title=Canino Wins 65th House District Seat After 7-Hour Recount in Torrington |url=https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2024/11/12/canino-wins-65th-house-district-seat-after-7-hour-recount-in-torrington/ |access-date=2024-12-20 |work=CT News Junkie |language=en-US}}
• In the 2024 general election in Centre County, PA, results from 13,000 scanned ballots did not upload to the central election computers, and were rescanned.{{Cite news |last=Rushton |first=Geoff |date=2024-11-06 |title=Centre County Rescans 13,000 Ballots After Software Issue Delayed Election Results |url=https://onwardstate.com/2024/11/06/centre-county-rescanning-13000-ballots-as-software-issue-delays-election-results/ |access-date=2024-11-08 |work=Onward State (Penn State) |language=en-US}}
• In the 2024 general election in Cambria County, PA, software and printing errors prevented counting votes on election day. Polls stayed open late and ballots were counted later.{{Cite news |last=Staff |date=2024-11-05 |title=SWING STATE ALERT: Ballot printing errors disrupt voting in Pennsylvania county |url=https://www.wjla.com/news/nation-world/software-issue-disrupts-voting-in-pennsylvania-cambria-bedord-county-court-extends-polling-hours-election-day-battleground-states-election-office-ballots-donald-trump-kamala-harris |access-date=2024-12-06 |work=WJLA |language=en}}
• In the 2024 general election in Nevada and Shasta Counties, CA, bar codes on the edges of ballots which tell machines the "style" or contests on the ballot were imprecisely printed ("ink overspray") by Runbeck, the ballot printing company, so scanners could not read them and process the ballots. They were hand-copied onto better ballots.{{Cite news |last=Pierce |first=Annelise |date=2024-10-31 |title=Shasta Registrar of Voters Explains How Ballots Affected by "Ink Overspray" Issue Will Be Processed |url=https://shastascout.org/elections-office-explains/ |access-date=2025-01-15 |work=Shasta Scout |language=en-US}}
• In the 2024 primary in Shasta County, CA, 100 ballots appear in the scanners' audit logs and not in final results, in a district with a contest decided by 14 votes. The logs show 20 manual time changes in 4 machines, half of which were logged exactly 60 seconds after a previous update. Seven were outside working hours, between nine at night and 4 in the morning, when video surveillance showed no one present.{{Cite news |last=Umfleet |first=Steve |date=2024-12-15 |title=Unusual Times in Shasta County |url=https://www.sierrathread.com/thread/unusual-times-in-shasta-county |access-date=2025-01-15 |work=Sierra Thread |language=en-US}} The county asked the US Justice Department to investigate.{{Cite news |last=Battaglia |first=Roman |date=2024-12-10 |title=Shasta County supervisors to ask Department of Justice to investigate election issues |url=https://www.ijpr.org/politics-government/2024-12-09/shasta-county-supervisors-to-ask-department-of-justice-to-investigate-election-issues |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241214164209/https://www.ijpr.org/politics-government/2024-12-09/shasta-county-supervisors-to-ask-department-of-justice-to-investigate-election-issues |url-status=usurped |archive-date=December 14, 2024 |access-date=2025-01-15 |work=Jefferson Public Radio |language=en}}
• In a 2024 primary in Utah, "adjudicated ballots were not reflected in the total results" in at least Tooele and Washington Counties, when more than a few adjudicated ballots were entered at once.{{Cite news |last=Tomco |first=Brigham |date=2024-08-03 |title=Another 2nd District delay: Counties postpone Maloy-Jenkins recount certification to deal with software issue |url=https://www.deseret.com/utah/2024/08/02/utah-2nd-district-recount-software-error/ |access-date=2024-08-09 |work=Deseret News |language=en}}
• In a 2024 primary throughout Puerto Rico, parties found over 1,000 errors. The elections commission said the voting machines "incorrectly calculate vote totals". The election commission then "conducted a full vote tally and audited paper receipts from hundreds of ballot-counting machines."{{Cite news |last=Marcos |first=Coral Murphy |date=2024-06-11 |title=Voting machine contract under scrutiny following discrepancies in Puerto Rico's primaries |url=https://apnews.com/article/puerto-rico-primaries-discrepancies-voting-problems-machines-8019db17829c7b1fbae5fb3fde623a4b |access-date=2024-06-12 |work=Associated Press |language=en}} Dominion said the errors were in their software which exports counts from the voting system for public release.{{Cite web |date=2024-06-02 |title=Statement on June 2, 2024 Puerto Rico Primary Election |url=https://www.dominionvoting.com/statement-june-2-puerto-rico-primary-election/ |access-date=2024-07-12 |website=Dominion Voting Systems |language=en-GB}}

• In a 2022 election in Monmouth County, NJ, software did not notice when staff uploaded six flashdrives of ballot images twice, which added more votes to candidates and switched a school board winner. It was caught by a council member who thought the numbers were too high, and made a public records request for detailed numbers, which showed more ballots than voters checked in. The part of the software designed to notice duplicates had not been installed, and there was no automated checking that the installation was right.http://nj.gov/oag/newsreleases23/2023-0906-Monmouth-County-Investigation-Investigative-Facts-Report-(8-31-2023)-(With%20Exhibits).pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=August 2024}}
• In a 2022 election in DeKalb County, GA, a candidate who actually won appeared to lose, after votes were not counted for her in some precincts, because another candidate withdrew, and programming did not categorize votes correctly.{{Cite news |last=Vigdor |first=Neil |date=2022-06-06 |title=A candidate in Georgia who appeared to get few Election Day votes was actually in first place. |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/06/us/politics/michelle-long-spears-georgia.html |access-date=2022-09-06 |issn=0362-4331}}{{Cite web |date=2022-06-03 |title=Georgia Election System Ensures Accuracy of DeKalb Results |url=https://sos.ga.gov/news/georgia-election-system-ensures-accuracy-dekalb-results |access-date=2022-09-08 |website= Georgia Secretary of State}}
• in a 2022 election in Clackamas County, OR, scanners could not read more than 100,000 ballots on which the ballot printing company had printed a blurred bar code. The ballots needed to be hand-copied by teams of two onto correctly printed ballots. The problem was discovered May 3, for the May 17 election, and was not corrected until after the election.{{Cite news |last=Kavanaugh |first=Shane Dixon |date=May 21, 2022 |title=With election results still stalled, Clackamas County clerk remains shaky on plans to get ballots counted |language=en |work=The Oregonian/OregonLive |url=https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2022/05/with-election-results-still-stalled-clackamas-county-clerk-still-shaky-on-plans-to-get-ballots-counted.html |access-date=May 21, 2022}}{{Cite news |last=Shumway |first=Julia |date=May 20, 2022 |title=Complaints mount as delays drag on for Clackamas ballot counting |language=en-US |work=Oregon Capital Chronicle |url=https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2022/05/20/complaints-mount-as-delays-drag-on-for-clackamas-ballot-counting/ |access-date=May 21, 2022}}{{Cite news |last=Azar |first=Kellee |date=May 5, 2022 |title=Election officials have a fix for ballot issue impacting thousands of Clackamas Co. voters |language=en |work=ABC Channel 2 KATU |url=https://katu.com/news/local/clackamas-county-elections-works-to-fix-ballot-issue-impacting-1-out-of-every-3-voters |access-date=May 21, 2022}}
• in a 2022 election in Lancaster County, PA, scanners could not read 22,000 ballots on which the ballot printing company had put the wrong identification code. The ballots were hand-copied by teams of three onto correctly printed ballots. The state does not let mailed ballots be scanned before election day, so the problem was only discovered on election day.{{Cite news |last=McGoldrick |first=Gillian |date=May 18, 2022 |title=Inside the Lancaster County operation where staff are remarking 16,000 mail ballots that could decide the GOP U.S. Senate primary |language=en |work=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette |url=https://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2022/05/18/dispatch-from-lancaster-county-elections-staff-work-to-remark-16-000-ballots/stories/202205180147 |access-date=May 21, 2022}}{{Cite news |last=Stockburger |first=George |date=May 18, 2022 |title=Lancaster County Board of Elections reports issue scanning mail ballots |language=en-US |work=ABC channel 27 WHTM |url=https://www.abc27.com/election/lancaster-county-board-of-elections-reports-issue-scanning-mail-ballots/ |access-date=May 21, 2022}}

• in a 2021 election in Williamson, TN, precinct scanners had two errors: They misread QR codes, mistakenly classifying some ballots as provisional and not to be tallied, then kept that not-to-be tallied classification for later ballots, so large numbers of ballots were not included in precinct reports at some precincts. They were re-scanned correctly on a central scanner and checked by a hand-tally.{{Cite web |last=Panek |first=Jonathon |date=March 31, 2022 |title=Report of Investigation Dominion Voting Systems D-Suite 5.5-B Williamson County, Tennessee |url=https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/TestingCertification/EAC_Report_of_Investigation_Dominion_DSuite_5.5_B.pdf |website=United States Election Assistance Commission}} The county rented another brand for the 2022 elections.{{Cite news |last=Bomar |first=Coleman |date=March 16, 2022 |title=Williamson County to switch voting machines used in May primary |language=en |work=Williamson Herald |url=https://www.williamsonherald.com/news/local_news/williamson-county-to-switch-voting-machines-used-in-may-primary/article_28270e0a-a4f1-11ec-ae84-138ff7f7962c.html |access-date=May 11, 2022}}
• In a 2021 primary in New York City, 135,000 test ballots were not removed from the database and were included in preliminary counts for the mayoral primary. They were discovered because totals were higher than the number of voters, and corrected by removing them from the count.{{Cite news |last=Anuta |first=Joe |author2=David Giambusso |date=2021-06-30 |title=Latest New York mayoral count voided after 'test' ballots included in tally |language=en |work=Politico |url=https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2021/06/29/election-officials-void-latest-new-york-mayoral-count-after-including-test-results-in-tally-1387464 |access-date=2022-10-27}}{{Cite news |last=Zaveri |first=Mihir |date=2021-06-30 |title=Preliminary Tally Shows Yang and Wiley Voters Breaking for Garcia |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/30/nyregion/nyc-mayor-election |access-date=2022-10-27 |issn=0362-4331}}
• in a 2021 election in Lancaster County, PA, scanners could not read 12,300 ballots on which the ballot printing company had put the wrong identification code.

• in 2020 elections in Collier and Volusia Counties, FL, the election's optical scanners mis-interpreted voters' marks on 0.1% and 0.2% of ballot sheets respectively. These were not enough to change any outcomes, and involved voters' marks which barely touched the ovals intended to record votes. They were discovered by independent software re-examining all the ballot images.{{Cite web |last=Lutz |first=Ray |date=May 30, 2021 |title=AuditEngine Case Study Report, Appendix 1 |url=https://copswiki.org/Common/M1970 |access-date=October 3, 2021 |website=Citizens' Oversight Projects |language=en}}
• in a 2020 election in Antrim County, MI, last minute updates to some ballots were not applied to all scanners, so the scanners had inconsistent numeric codes for different candidates and styles of ballots, causing errors of thousands of votes. Corrections happened in stages, leading to less and less confidence in the results.{{Cite web |last=Halderman |first=J. Alex |date=March 26, 2021 |title=Analysis of the Antrim County, Michigan November 2020 Election Incident |url=https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Antrim_720623_7.pdf |access-date=June 10, 2021 |website=State of Michigan}} Results were eventually confirmed by a hand count.{{Cite web |date=2020-12-18 |title=Final numbers from Antrim County audit continue to affirm accuracy of election results |url=https://www.michigan.gov/sos/resources/news/2020/12/18/final-numbers-from-antrim-county-audit-continue-to-affirm-accuracy-of-election-results. |access-date=2024-04-24 |website=Michigan Dept. of State}}
• In a 2020 election in Windham, New Hampshire, fold lines in the wrong places and dust on scanner sensors caused many fold lines to count as votes.{{Cite web |last=Appel |first=Andrew |date=June 7, 2021 |title=New Hampshire Election Audit, part 2 |url=https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2021/06/07/new-hampshire-election-audit-part-2/ |access-date=June 7, 2021 |website=Princeton University}}
• In a 2020 election in Baltimore, Maryland, the private company which printed ballots shifted the location of some candidates on some ballots up one line, so the scanner looked in the wrong places on the paper and reported the wrong numbers. It was caught because a popular incumbent got implausibly few votes, and corrected by hand-copying mailed ballots onto well-formatted ballots.{{Cite news |last1=Opilo |first1=Emily |last2=Richman |first2=Talia |last3=Davis |first3=Phil |date=June 3, 2020 |title=Concern from candidates, officials as error creates delay in release of returns; Dixon leads in Baltimore mayoral count |work=Baltimore Sun |url=https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/elections/bs-md-pol-ballot-error-baltimore-district-1-20200603-n26t43fkmjadplqeqybloj4dki-story.html |access-date=July 30, 2020}}

• In a 2019 election in Northampton county, Pennsylvania, the software under-counted one candidate by 99%, reporting 164 votes, compared to 26,142 found in a subsequent hand-count, which changed the candidate's loss to a win.{{Cite news |last=Corasaniti |first=Nick |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/us/politics/pennsylvania-voting-machines.html |title=A Pennsylvania County's Election Day Nightmare Underscores Voting Machine Concerns |date=November 30, 2019 |work=The New York Times |access-date=February 15, 2020 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}
• In 2018 scanners in various states had problems from humidity, rejecting too many ballots, rejecting staff passwords, delivery to the wrong locations, broken machines, power outages, screen calibration shifting votes to other candidates, and broken cartridges to start machines.{{Cite news |last=Menegus |first=Brian |date=November 6, 2018 |title=Voting Machine Hell, 2018: A Running List of Election Glitches, Malfunctions, and Screwups |language=en-us |work=Gizmodo |url=https://gizmodo.com/voting-machine-hell-2018-a-running-list-of-election-g-1830261900 |access-date=March 16, 2022}}
• In a 2018 New York City election when the air was humid, ballots jammed in the scanner, or multiple ballots went through a scanner at once, hiding all but one.{{Cite news |last=MacDougall |first=Ian |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/new-york-city-polling-places-midterms-2018-humidity |title=What Went Wrong at New York City Polling Places? It Was Something in the Air. Literally. |date=November 7, 2018|work=ProPublica |access-date=February 18, 2020 |language=en}}
• In a 2016 Maryland election, a comparison of two scanning systems on the same ballots revealed that (a) 1,972 ballot images were incorrectly left out of one system, (b) one system incorrectly ignored many votes for write-in candidates,{{Cite web |url=https://www.elections.maryland.gov/press_room/documents/PostElectionTabulationAuditLegislativeReport.pdf |title=Joint Chairman's Report on the 2016 Post-Election Tabulation Audit |last=Lamone |first=Linda |date=December 22, 2016 |website=Maryland State Board of Elections |access-date=February 15, 2020}} (c) shadows from paper folds were sometimes interpreted as names written in on the ballot, (d) the scanner sometimes pulled two ballots at once, scanning only the top one, (e) the ballot printers sometimes left off certain candidates, (f) voters often put a check or X instead of filling in an oval, which software has to adapt to, and (g) a scratch or dirt on a scanner sensor put a black line on many ballot images, causing the appearance of voting for more than the allowed number of candidates, so those votes were incorrectly ignored.{{Cite web |url=https://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Elections%20Department/Election%20Integrity%20Commission/2016/2016%20Agenda%20Item%20Materials/Email_Ballot%20Images_White_Ryan.pdf |title=Transcript of Email on Ballot Images |last1=Ryan |first1=Tom |last2=White |first2=Benny |date=November 30, 2016 |website=Pima County, AZ |access-date=February 15, 2020 |archive-date=June 25, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200625210229/https://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Government/Elections%20Department/Election%20Integrity%20Commission/2016/2016%20Agenda%20Item%20Materials/Email_Ballot%20Images_White_Ryan.pdf |url-status=dead }}
• In 2016 Wisconsin elections statewide, some voting machines did not detect some of the inks used by voters.{{Cite news |last=Sommerhauser |first=Mark |date=September 27, 2017 |title=State to end use of ballot-counting machine that had flaw highlighted in recount |language=en |work=Wisconsin State Journal |url=https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/state-to-end-use-of-ballot-counting-machine-that-had-flaw-highlighted-in-recount/article_7a087f85-8894-5f0e-9d16-19920b3065ee.html |access-date=January 9, 2021}}
• In a 2016 Rhode Island election in Foster and North Kingstown, ballot formatting errors resulted in obviously wrong results for a ballot question, which was noticed and quickly corrected. Fear that other incorrect outcomes might be missed led to the adoption of a law requiring risk-limiting audits.{{Cite web |date=2017-06-14 |title=Legislators consider making post-election audits law in RI {{!}} WPRI 12 Eyewitness News |url=https://www.wpri.com/2017/04/28/legislators-consider-making-post-election-audits-law-in-ri/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170614232110/https://www.wpri.com/2017/04/28/legislators-consider-making-post-election-audits-law-in-ri/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=2017-06-14 |access-date=2025-04-29 }}{{Cite web |title=Pilot Implementation Study of Risk-Limiting Audit Methods in the State of Rhode Island |url=https://verifiedvoting.org/publication/pilot-implementation-study-of-risk-limiting-audit-methods-in-the-state-of-rhode-island/ |access-date=2025-04-29 |website=Verified Voting |language=en-US}}
• In a 2016 Rhode Island election, machines were misprogrammed with only one ballot style, though there were two. Results were surprising enough so officials investigated and found the error.{{Cite news |last=Gregg |first=Katherine |date=September 14, 2017 |title=Vote-tally audits, criminal-sentencing overhaul on RI lawmakers' agenda |language=en |work=Providence Journal |url=https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20170914/vote-tally-audits-criminal-sentencing-overhaul-on-ri-lawmakers-agenda |access-date=January 9, 2021}}{{Cite web |last=Garland |first=Lynn |date=2018 |title=Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Tabulation Audits |url=https://electionaudits.org/files/Audit%20Principles%20and%20Best%20Practices%202018.pdf|access-date=January 9, 2021 |website=Election Audits}}
• In a 2014 Stoughton, Wisconsin, election, all voters' choices on a referendum were ignored, because the scanner was programmed to look in the wrong spot on the ballot. It was corrected by a hand count.
• In a 2012 Palm Beach County, Florida, election, votes in four Wellington City contests were reported for a different contest, causing the wrong winners to be certified in two of the contests. The problem did not occur in the county's other 15 municipalities.{{Cite news |last=Bennett |first=George |date=2012-03-19 |title=Recount shows wrong winners declared in two Wellington election races |work=Palm Beach Post |url=https://www.palmbeachpost.com/article/20120319/NEWS/812037658 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418033950/https://www.palmbeachpost.com/article/20120319/NEWS/812037658 |access-date=2022-09-20|archive-date=April 18, 2021 }}{{Cite news |last=Bennett |first=George |date=2012-03-31 |title=Wellington election results tossed out, but legal ground uncertain |language=en-US |work=Palm Beach Post |url=https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2012/03/20/wellington-election-results-tossed-out/7250418007/ |access-date=2022-09-20}}
• In a 2010 New York election, 20,000 votes for governor and 30,000-40,000 votes for other offices were ignored, because the scanners overheated and disqualified the ballots by reading multiple votes in races where voters had properly only voted once.{{Cite news |last=Hamilton |first=Colby |date=May 9, 2012 |title=Machine Casts Phantom Votes in the Bronx, Invalidating Real Ones: Report |language=en |work=WNYC New York Public Radio |url=https://www.wnyc.org/story/207950-reports-find-machine-errors-led-uncounted-votes-2010/ |access-date=June 26, 2020}}{{Cite news |last=Keefe |first=Hohn |date=December 6, 2011 |title=Thousands of NY Votes Tossed Over Ballot Confusion |work=WNYC New York Public Radio |url=http://www.wnyc.org/story/174110-thousands-ny-votes-tossed-2010-overvoting/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150331025717/http://www.wnyc.org/story/174110-thousands-ny-votes-tossed-2010-overvoting/ |access-date=June 26, 2020|archive-date=March 31, 2015 }}{{Cite web |last1=Norden |first1=Larry |last2=Iyer |first2=Sundeep |date=December 5, 2011 |title=Design Deficiencies and Lost Votes |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/design-deficiencies-and-lost-votes |access-date=June 26, 2020 |website=Brennan Center for Justice |language=en}}

• Errors from 2002 to 2008 were listed and analyzed by the Brennan Center for Justice in 2010.
• Errors before 2006 were listed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 2006.{{Cite web |date=2006 |title=Electronic Voting Machine Quick Reference Guides - 2006 |url=http://w2.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/infosheets2006/AccuVoteOS.pdf |access-date=2023-01-05 |website=EFF|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923024115/http://w2.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/infosheets2006/AccuVoteOS.pdf |archive-date=September 23, 2015 }}
• In a 2004 Yakima, Washington, election 24 voters' choices on 4 races were ignored by a faulty scanner which created a white streak down the ballot.{{Cite web |url=http://www.votersunite.org/info/yakimaproblemreport.asp |title=Hart InterCivic Optical-Scan Has A Weak Spot |last=Gideon |first=John |date=July 5, 2005 |website=www.votersunite.org |access-date=February 15, 2020}}
• In a 2004 Medford, Wisconsin, election, all 600 voters who voted a straight party ticket had all their votes ignored, because the manufacturer forgot to program the machines for a partisan election.{{Cite web |last1=McKim |first1=Karen |date=May 15, 2014 |title=It happens all the time: Interview with the consultant who discovered the Medford miscount |url=https://www.wisconsingrassroots.net/_it_happens_all_the_time |access-date=June 26, 2020 |website=Wisconsin Grassroots Network |archive-date=June 28, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200628102806/https://www.wisconsingrassroots.net/_it_happens_all_the_time }} Election officials did not notice any problem. The consultant who found the lost 600 voters also reported a Michigan precinct with zero votes, since staff put ballots in the scanner upside down.
• In a 2000 Bernalillo County (Albuquerque area), New Mexico, election, a programming error meant that straight-party votes on paper ballots were not counted for the individual candidates. The number of ballots was thus much larger than the number of votes in each contest. The software was fixed, and the ballots were re-scanned to get correct counts.{{Cite news |last1=Gruley |first1=Bryan |last2=Cummins |first2=Chip |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB976838091124686673 |title=Election Day Became a Nightmare, As Usual, for Bernalillo County |date=December 16, 2000 |work=Wall Street Journal |access-date=March 11, 2020 |language=en-US |issn=0099-9660}}{{Cite news |last=Baker |first=Deborah |url=https://www.abqjournal.com/elex/apvotes10-31-04.htm |title=ABQjournal: Contentious 2000 Election Closest in N.M. History |date=October 31, 2004 |work=Albuquerque Journal |access-date=March 11, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210416083151/https://www.abqjournal.com/elex/apvotes10-31-04.htm |archive-date=April 16, 2021 }}
• In the 2000 Florida presidential race the most common optical scanning error was to treat as an overvote a ballot where the voter marked a candidate and wrote in the same candidate.{{Cite web |url=https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/96548/vtp_wp11.pdf |title=Using Recounts to Measure the Accuracy of Vote Tabulations: Evidence from New Hampshire Elections 1946-2002. |last1=Ansolabehere |first1=Stephen |last2=Reeves |first2=Andrew Reeves |date=January 2004 |website=CALTECH/MIT Voting Technology Project |access-date=February 14, 2020}}
• Researchers find security flaws in all election computers, which let voters, staff members or outsiders disrupt or change results, often without detection.{{Cite web |url=https://media.defcon.org/DEF%20CON%2027/voting-village-report-defcon27.pdf |title=Def Con 27 Voting Machine Hacking Village |last1=Blaze |first1=Matt |last2=Hursti |first2=Harri |last3=Macalpine |first3=Margaret |last4=Hanley |first4=Mary |last5=Moss |first5=Jeff |last6=Wehr |first6=Rachel |last7=Spencer |first7=Kendal L. |last8=Ferris |first8=Christopher |date=September 26, 2019 |website=Defcon |access-date=March 11, 2020}}
• Security reviews and audits are discussed below.

Recreated ballots are paper"observers from both political parties there ... ballots have to be recreated in every election for a number of reasons, ranging from damaged mail-in ballots, to early voters who use pencils which can't be read by ballot tabulators." {{Cite news |last=Jordan |first=Ben |date=November 7, 2018 |title=MKE Election Commission responds to criticism |language=en |work=WTMJ TV Milwaukee |url=https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/milwaukee-election-commission-responds-to-absentee-ballot-criticism |access-date=May 17, 2020}}

or electronic"With the new digital procedure, staff will be able to fix whatever race couldn't be counted, instead of duplicating a voter's entire ballot." {{Cite news |last=White |first=Rebecca |date=November 18, 2019 |title=One Washington County Plans to Speed Vote Counting with Tech |language=en |work=Government Technology |url=https://www.govtech.com/civic/One-Washington-County-Plans-to-Speed-Vote-Counting-with-Tech.html |access-date=May 17, 2020}}

ballots created by election staff when originals cannot be counted for some reason. Reasons include tears, water damage, folds which prevent feeding through scanners and voters selecting candidates by circling them or other abnormal marks.{{Cite news |last=Miller |first=Steve |date=November 7, 2006 |title=Oddly marked ovals bane of poll workers' day |language=en |work=Rapid City Journal |url=https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/top-stories/oddly-marked-ovals-bane-of-poll-workers-day/article_99cdf7c2-e489-581f-9cde-c804a5679419.html |access-date=May 17, 2020}} Reasons also include citizens abroad who use the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot because of not receiving their regular ballot in time. As many as 8% of ballots in an election may be recreated.

When auditing an election, audits are done with the original ballots, not the recreated ones, to catch mistakes in recreating them.

If most voters mark their own paper ballots and one marking device is available at each polling place for voters with disabilities, Georgia's total cost of machines and maintenance for 10 years, starting 2020, has been estimated at $12 per voter ($84 million total). Pre-printed ballots for voters to mark would cost $4 to $20 per voter ($113 million to $224 million total machines, maintenance and printing). The low estimate includes $0.40 to print each ballot, and more than enough ballots for historic turnout levels. The high estimate includes $0.55 to print each ballot, and enough ballots for every registered voter, including three ballots (of different parties) for each registered voter in primary elections with historically low turnout.{{Cite web |url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5766827-OSET.html |title=Georgia State Election Technology Acquisition, A Reality Check |last=Perez |first=Edward |author2=Gregory Miller |date=March 2019 |website=OSET Institute |language=en |access-date=March 6, 2020}}{{Cite news |last=Fowler |first=Stephen |url=https://www.gpbnews.org/post/here-s-what-vendors-say-it-would-cost-replace-georgia-s-voting-system |title=Here's What Vendors Say It Would Cost To Replace Georgia's Voting System|work=Georgia Public Broadcasting |access-date=February 28, 2020 |language=en}} The estimate is $29 per voter ($203 million total) if all voters use ballot marking devices, including $0.10 per ballot for paper.

The capital cost of machines in 2019 in Pennsylvania is $11 per voter if most voters mark their own paper ballots and a marking device is available at each polling place for voters with disabilities, compared to $23 per voter if all voters use ballot marking devices.{{Cite web |url=https://www.cyber.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/PDFs/voting-system-selection-one-pager%282%29.pdf |title=Pennsylvania Counties' New Voting Systems Selections: An Analysis |last1=Deluzio |first1=Christopher |last2=Skoglund |first2=Kevin |date=February 28, 2020 |website=University of Pittsburgh |access-date=February 28, 2020}} This cost does not include printing ballots.

New York has an undated comparison of capital costs and a system where all voters use ballot marking devices costing over twice as much as a system where most do not. The authors say extra machine maintenance would exacerbate that difference, and printing cost would be comparable in both approaches.{{Cite web |url=https://www.nyvv.org/paperballotCostsMain.shtml |title=Paper Ballots Costs |website=www.nyvv.org |access-date=February 28, 2020 |archive-date=February 28, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200228224035/https://www.nyvv.org/paperballotCostsMain.shtml }} Their assumption of equal printing costs differs from the Georgia estimates of $0.40 or $0.50 to print a ballot in advance, and $0.10 to print it in a ballot marking device.

{{further|DRE voting machine|Vote counting#Direct-recording electronic counting}}

File:Paper roll with votes from numerous voters, on iVotronic election computer.png

A touch screen displays choices to the voter, who selects choices, and can change their mind as often as needed, before casting the vote. Staff initialize each voter once on the machine, to avoid repeat voting. Voting data and ballot images are recorded in memory components, and can be copied out at the end of the election.

The system may also provide a means for communicating with a central location for reporting results and receiving updates,[http://www.eac.gov/VVSG Volume_I.pdf 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060208184233/http://www.eac.gov/VVSG |date=February 8, 2006 }} from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission which is an access point for hacks and bugs to arrive.

Some of these machines also print names of chosen candidates on paper for the voter to verify. These names on paper can be used for election audits and recounts if needed. The tally of the voting data is stored in a removable memory component and in bar codes on the paper tape. The paper tape is called a Voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT). The VVPATs can be counted at 20–43 seconds of staff time per vote (not per ballot).{{Cite web |url=http://www.votersunite.org/info/CostEstimateforHandCounting.pdf |title=Cost Estimate for Hand Counting 2% of the Precincts in the U.S. |last=Theisen |first=Ellen |date=June 14, 2005 |website=VotersUnite.org |access-date=February 14, 2020}}{{Cite web |url=http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/VVPATreport.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081126235810/http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/VVPATreport.pdf |archive-date=November 26, 2008 |title=Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail Pilot Project Report |date=April 10, 2007 |website=Georgia Secretary of State |access-date=February 15, 2020 }}

For machines without VVPAT, there is no record of individual votes to check.

File:2004 us voting machine problems.png

This approach can have software errors. It does not include scanners, so there are no scanner errors. When there is no paper record, it is hard to notice or research most errors.

• The only forensic examination which has been done of direct-recording software files was in Georgia in 2020, and found that one or more unauthorized intruders had entered the files and erased records of what it did to them. In 2014–2017 an intruder had control of the state computer in Georgia which programmed vote-counting machines for all counties. The same computer also held voter registration records. The intrusion exposed all election files in Georgia since then to compromise and malware. Public disclosure came in 2020 from a court case.{{Cite web |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.240678/gov.uscourts.gand.240678.699.10.pdf |title=Supplemental Declaration of Logan Lamb |last=Lamb |first=Logan |date=January 14, 2020 |website=CourtListener |access-date=February 3, 2020}}{{Cite web |url=https://coaltionforgoodgovernance.sharefile.com/d-s0dce50c25084f0da |title=Coalition Plaintiffs' Status Report|pages=237–244 |date=January 16, 2020 |website=Coalition for Good Governance |access-date=February 3, 2020}}{{Cite news |url=https://apnews.com/39dad9d39a7533efe06e0774615a6d05 |title=Expert: Georgia election server showed signs of tampering |last=Bajak |first=Frank |date=January 16, 2020 |work=Associated Press |access-date=February 3, 2020}} Georgia did not have paper ballots to measure the amount of error in electronic tallies. The FBI studied that computer in 2017, and did not report the intrusion.{{Cite news |last=Zetter |first=Kim |url=http://politi.co/2heBRW2 |title=Will the Georgia Special Election Get Hacked?|work=Politico |access-date=February 16, 2020 |language=en}}
• A 2018 study of direct-recording voting machines (iVotronic) without VVPAT in South Carolina found that every election from 2010 to 2018 had some memory cards fail. The investigator also found that lists of candidates were different in the central and precinct machines, so 420 votes which were properly cast in the precinct were erroneously added to a different contest in the central official tally, and unknown numbers were added to other contests in the central official tallies. The investigator found the same had happened in 2010. There were also votes lost by garbled transmissions, which the state election commission saw but did not report as an issue. 49 machines reported that their three internal memory counts disagreed, an average of 240 errors per machine, but the machines stayed in use, and the state evaluation did not report the issue, and there were other error codes and time stamp errors.{{Cite report |url=http://www.lwvsc.org/files/buell-lwvscreport2018scelection.pdf |title=Analysis of the Election Data from the 6 November 2018 General Election in South Carolina |last=Buell |first=Duncan |date=December 23, 2018 |work=League of Women Voters of South Carolina |access-date=February 5, 2020 |archive-date=February 24, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190224163525/http://lwvsc.org/files/buell-lwvscreport2018scelection.pdf }}{{Cite news |url=https://statescoop.com/south-carolina-voting-machines-miscounted-hundreds-of-ballots-report-finds/ |title=South Carolina voting machines miscounted hundreds of ballots, report finds |last=Freed |first=Benjamin |date=January 7, 2019|work=Scoop News Group |access-date=February 5, 2020 |language=en}}
• In a 2017 York County, Pennsylvania, election, a programming error in a county's machines without VVPAT let voters vote more than once for the same candidate. Some candidates had filed as both Democrat and Republican, so they were listed twice in races where voters could select up to three candidates, so voters could select both instances of the same name.{{Cite news |last1=Kessler |first1=Brandie |last2=Boeckel |first2=Teresa |last3=Segelbaum |first3=Dylan |url=https://www.ydr.com/story/news/2017/11/07/problem-york-county-voting-machines-could-allow-extra-votes-some-candidates/841010001/ |title='Redo' of some York County races – including judge – possible after voting problems |date=November 7, 2017 |work=York Daily Record |access-date=March 11, 2020}} They recounted the DRE machines' electronic records of votes and found 2,904 pairs of double votes.{{Cite news |last=Lee |first=Rick |url=https://www.ydr.com/story/news/2017/11/20/no-change-after-election-recount/869905001/ |title=York Co. election judicial winners: Kathleen Prendergast, Clyde Vedder, Amber Anstine Kraft |date=November 20, 2017 |work=York Daily Record |access-date=March 11, 2020 |language=en}}
• In a 2015 Memphis, Tennessee, city election, the central processing system lost 1,001 votes which showed on poll tapes posted at precincts: "at Unity Christian ... precinct's poll tape ... 546 people had cast ballots ... Shelby County's first breakdown of each precinct's voting ... for Unity Christian showed only 330 votes. Forty percent of the votes had disappeared ... At first it looked like votes were missing from not just one precinct but 20. After more investigation, he appeared to narrow that number to four ... In all, 1,001 votes had been dropped from the election night count."{{Cite news |last1=Riley |first1=Michael |last2=Robertson |first2=Jordan |last3=Kocieniewski |first3=David |author-link3=David Kocieniewski |date=September 29, 2016 |title=The Computer Voting Revolution Is Already Crappy, Buggy, and Obsolete |language=en |work=Bloomberg.com |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-voting-technology/ |access-date=October 30, 2020}}
• In a 2012 Shelby County, Tennessee, (Memphis area) election 801 voters signed into a polling place, and only 293 votes were recorded. In another precinct 20 extra memory cards were uploaded before polls closed. The central election management system let the number of memory cards be changed by hand, and reducing it could erase memory cards which had been loaded.{{Cite web |last1=Chumney |first1=Carol |last2=Weinberg |first2=Joseph |last3=Kernell |first3=Mike |date=September 1, 2017 |title=Voting on Thin Ice |url=https://www.votingonthinice.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Voting-on-Thin-Ice-121917.pdf |access-date=March 16, 2022 |website=Shelby Advocates for Valid elections}}
• In a 2011 Fairfield Township, New Jersey, election a programming error in a machine without a VVPAT gave two candidates low counts. They collected more affidavits by voters who voted for them than the computer tally gave them, so a judge ordered a new election which they won.{{Cite news |last=Thibodeau |first=Patrick |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/3126820/if-the-election-is-hacked-we-may-never-know.html |title=If the election is hacked, we may never know |date=October 5, 2016|work=ComputerWorld |access-date=February 18, 2020 |language=en}}
• Errors from 2002 to 2008 were listed and analyzed by the Brennan Center for Justice in 2010.
• Errors before 2006 were listed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 2006.
• In 2004, 4,812 voting machine problems were reported to a system managed by Verified Voting and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.{{Cite web |date=February 8, 2012 |title=Election 2004 Machine Problems |url=http://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapNation&tab=ED04&cat=02&start_date=&start_time=00%253A00&end_date=&end_time=00%253A00&search= |access-date=February 6, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120208182137/http://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapNation&tab=ED04&cat=02&start_date=&start_time=00%253A00&end_date=&end_time=00%253A00&search= |archive-date=February 8, 2012 }}{{Cite web |date=February 4, 2005 |title=Election Incident Reporting System |url=http://www.verifiedvoting.org/eirs/ |access-date=February 6, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050204231058/http://www.verifiedvoting.org/eirs/ |archive-date=February 4, 2005 }} Most of these problems were in states which were primarily using direct-recording electronic voting equipment as of 2006.The following site defaults to the most recent year, and can be adjusted as early as 2006:{{Cite web |title=The Verifier — Polling Place Equipment — November 2006 |url=https://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/ |access-date=February 6, 2021 |website=Verified Voting |language=en-US}}
• Security reviews and audits are discussed below.

{{further|Electronic voting#Online voting|Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act}}

Email, fax, phone apps, modems, and web portals transmit information through the internet, between computers at both ends, so they are subject to errors and hacks at the origin, destination and in between.

As of 2018–19, election machines are online, to transmit results between precinct scanners and central tabulators, in some counties in Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Wisconsin.{{Cite news |last=Zetter |first=Kim |date=August 8, 2019 |title=Exclusive: Critical U.S. Election Systems Have Been Left Exposed Online Despite Official Denials |language=en |work=Vice |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/exclusive-critical-us-election-systems-have-been-left-exposed-online-despite-official-denials/ |access-date=July 9, 2021}}

In many states, voters with a computer and printer can download a ballot to their computer, fill it out on the computer, print it and mail it back. This "remote access vote by mail" (RAVBM) avoids transmitting votes online, while letting distant voters avoid waiting for a mailed ballot, and letting voters with disabilities use assistive technologies to fill in the ballot privately and independently, such as screen readers, paddles or sip and puff if they already have them on their computer.{{Cite web |title=Remote Accessible Vote-by-Mail |url=https://votingsystems.cdn.sos.ca.gov/vendors/ravbm-faq2.pdf |access-date=September 24, 2021 |website=California Secretary of State}} The voter also receives a form with tracking numbers and a signature line, to mail back inside or outside the envelope with the ballot, so staff can review eligibility of the voter and prevent multiple votes from the same voter. Many states accept mailed ballots after election day, to allow time for mail from distant voters to arrive.{{Cite news |last=Jowers |first=Karen |date=October 28, 2020 |title=Military and family members: It's not too late to vote by absentee ballot! |language=en |work=Military Times |url=https://www.militarytimes.com/pay-benefits/2020/10/28/military-and-family-members-its-not-too-late-to-vote-by-absentee-ballot/ |access-date=September 24, 2021}} The printed ballot may show just the choices and a bar code or QR code, not all the candidates and unvoted contests.

The voter's choices are not put online, which is an advantage for the voter's privacy. However the system does not work for people who have no printer or no computer. For people, such as soldiers, with a shared computer or printer, votes can be divulged by keystroke logging, by the print queue, or by people seeing ballots on the printer. Alternatives for distant voters are to get a paper ballot from the election office or the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot.{{Cite web |title=Electronic Transmission of Ballots |url=https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/internet-voting.aspx |access-date=September 24, 2021 |website=www.ncsl.org}} Alternatives for local voters with disabilities are to use a ballot marking device (BMD) at a polling place, if they can get there, or have election staff bring a BMD and ballot box to the voter.{{Cite web |title=Ballot Pickup, Delivery, and Return Services |url=https://sfelections.sfgov.org/ballot-pickup-delivery-and-return-services |access-date=September 24, 2021 |website=sfelections.sfgov.org}} The voter's printer does not necessarily use the weight and size of paper expected by the election scanners, so, after separating ballot from identifiers, staff copy the voter's choices onto a standard ballot for scanning.{{Cite news |date=September 13, 2021 |title=Right-wing media are already crying foul on the California recall |language=en-US |work=Los Angeles Blade |url=https://www.losangelesblade.com/2021/09/13/right-wing-media-are-already-crying-foul-on-the-california-recall/ |access-date=September 24, 2021}} This copying has scope for error.

In California people send a signed application by mail, email or fax and receive a code by email, so there are signature checks both on the application and when the ballot envelope arrives.{{Cite web |title=Voters with Disabilities |url=https://recorder.countyofventura.org/elections/elections/voter-information/voters-with-disabilities/ |access-date=September 24, 2021 |website=recorder.countyofventura.org}} In Washington, people access the ballot electronically with name and birth date, so signature checks when the ballot envelope arrive are the method to authenticate ballots.{{Cite web |title=Online ballot marking program |url=https://kingcounty.gov/depts/elections/how-to-vote/ballots/accessible-voting-options.aspx |access-date=September 24, 2021 |website=King County, WA}}

States which allow individual voters to submit completed ballots electronically in the United States are:{{Cite web |title=Electronic Transmission of Ballots |url=https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/internet-voting.aspx#Table |access-date=July 8, 2020 |website=www.ncsl.org}}

• Hawaii allows email voting by any permanent absentee voter who has not received a ballot by five days before an election
• Idaho allows email and fax voting in declared emergencies
• Louisiana allows fax voting for voters with a disability
• Utah allows email and fax voting for those with disabilities
• Other states have tried or considered software, with problems discussed below.

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) lets overseas citizens and all military and merchant marine voters get ballots electronically (email, fax, or web site). They then submit ballots by mail to 19 states. Seven states allow submission through secure web sites: AL, AZ, CO (if needed), MA, MI,{{Cite news |last=LeBlanc |first=Beth |date=2023-09-28 |title=Michigan lawmakers debate overseas ballot transmission, transport to get voters to polls |language=en-US |work=Detroit News |url=https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2023/09/28/michigan-elections-overseas-ballot-transmission-military-members-transportation-to-the-polls/70992908007/ |access-date=2023-09-29}} NC, ND, and WV. These seven and the remaining 25 states have a mix of rules allowing email or fax: AK, CA, DE, DC, FL, HI, IN, IA, KS, LA, ME, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NJ, NM, OK, OR, RI, SC, TX (for danger, combat zones or space{{cite news|title=Astronauts beam votes home|url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/02/astronauts-beam-votes-home/|newspaper=CNN|date=November 2, 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303184642/http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/02/astronauts-beam-votes-home/|archive-date=March 3, 2016}}{{cite news|last=James |first=Kate |title=Astronauts Cast Vote From Space Thanks to 1997 Texas Law |url=http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978657286 |access-date=November 2, 2010 |newspaper=Gather.com |date=November 2, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511035033/http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978657286 |archive-date=May 11, 2011 }}), UT, and WA. The Federal Voting Assistance Program converts emails to fax at voter request, so states which require fax receive ballots which started as emails.{{Cite web |date=December 6, 2017 |title=Americans can vote. Wherever they are. |url=https://www.fvap.gov/info/news/2017/12/5/fvap-announces-changes-to-ets-system-for-2018 |access-date=January 25, 2022 |website=Federal Voting Assistance Program |language=en}}

Security experts have found security problems in every attempt at online voting,{{Cite web |last=Appel |first=Andrew |date=June 8, 2020 |title=Democracy Live internet voting: unsurprisingly insecure, and surprisingly insecure |url=https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2020/06/08/democracy-live-internet-voting-unsurprisingly-insecure-and-surprisingly-insecure/ |access-date=June 23, 2020 |website=Princeton University}}

{{Cite web |title=Internet Voting |url=https://www.verifiedvoting.org/resources/internet-voting/ |access-date=June 20, 2020 |website=Verified Voting |language=en-US}}

"Secure Internet voting will likely not be feasible in the near future ... At the present time, the Internet (or any network connected to the Internet) should not be used for the return of marked ballots" {{Cite book |date=September 6, 2018 |title=Securing the Vote: Protecting American Democracy |publisher=National Academies Press |doi=10.17226/25120 |isbn=978-0-309-47647-8 |s2cid=158434942 |url=https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25120/securing-the-vote-protecting-american-democracy |access-date=June 23, 2020 |language=en}}

"Electronic ballot return faces significant security risks to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of voted ballots. These risks can ultimately affect the tabulation and results and, can occur at scale ... Even with ... technical security considerations, electronic ballot return remains a high-risk activity." {{Cite web |publisher=Election Assistance Commission, National Institute of Standards and Technology, FBI, Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency |date=May 11, 2020 |title=Risk Management for Electronic Ballot Delivery, Marking, and Return |url=http://s3.amazonaws.com/ftt-uploads/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/07210015/Final_-Risk_Management_for_Electronic-Ballot_05082020-1.pdf |access-date=June 23, 2020}}

including systems in Australia,{{Cite conference |last=Halderman |first=J. Alex |author2=Vanessa Teague |date=August 13, 2015 |title=The New South Wales iVote System: Security Failures and Verification Flaws in a Live Online Election |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-22270-7_3 |conference=International Conference on E-Voting and Identity |arxiv=1504.05646 }}

Estonia,{{citation|last1=Springall|first1=Drew|last2=Finkenauer|first2=Travis|last3=Durumeric|first3=Zakir|last4=Kitcat|first4=Jason|last5=Hursti|first5=Harri|last6=MacAlpine|first6=Margaret|last7=Halderman|first7=Alex|title=Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security |chapter=Security Analysis of the Estonian Internet Voting System|year=2014 |pages=703–715 |doi=10.1145/2660267.2660315 |isbn=978-1-4503-2957-6 |s2cid=1985090 |doi-access=free}}"The OSCE/ODIHR EAM was made aware of a program that could, if it was running on a voter's computer, change the vote without the possibility for the voter to detect it. The case was brought to the attention of the project manager who assessed this threat to be theoretically plausible but nearly impossible to implement in reality." {{Cite web |date= March 6, 2011 |title=Estonia Parliamentary Elections OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Report |url=https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/a/9/77557.pdf |access-date=June 20, 2020 |website=OSCE}}

Switzerland,{{Cite web |last=Zetter |first=Kim |date=March 12, 2019 |title=Researchers Find Critical Backdoor in Swiss Online Voting System |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/researchers-find-critical-backdoor-in-swiss-online-voting-system/ |access-date=June 20, 2020 |website=Vice |language=en}}

Russia,{{Cite news|last=Gupta|first=Manhar|title=Russia's Blockchain Voting Turned Into A Fiasco|work=Cryptotrends|url=https://cryptotrends.in/russias-blockchain-voting-turned-into-a-fiasco/}}{{Cite conference |last=Gaudry |first=Pierrick |author2=Alexander Golovnev |date=February 10, 2020 |title=Breaking the Encryption Scheme of the Moscow Internet Voting System |url=http://fc20.ifca.ai/preproceedings/178.pdf |conference=Financial Cryptography 2020 |via=International Financial Cryptography Association}}{{Cite journal|title=Electronic voting systems |last=Anderson |first=Ross |date=February 21, 2020 |url=http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/31/59#subj2.1 |journal=The RISKS Digest |volume=31 |issue=59 |language=en |via=Newcastle University}}

and the United States.

{{Cite web |last=Clarkson |first=Michael |author2=Brian Hay |author3=Meador Inge |author4=abhi shelat |author5=David Wagner |author6=Alec Yasinsac |date=September 19, 2008 |title=Software Review and Security Analysis of Scytl Remote Voting Software |url=https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~daw/papers/scytl-odbp.pdf}}

in 2019-2020 researchers found insecurities in online voting systems from Voatz,{{Cite news |last=Zetter |first=Kim |date=February 13, 2020 |title='Sloppy' Mobile Voting App Used in Four States Has 'Elementary' Security Flaws |language=en |work=VICE |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/sloppy-mobile-voting-app-used-in-four-states-has-elementary-security-flaws/ |access-date=June 23, 2020}}

{{Cite web |last=Specter |first=Michael A. |author2=James Koppel |author3=Daniel Weitzner |date=February 12, 2020 |title=The Ballot is Busted Before the Blockchain: A Security Analysis of Voatz, the First Internet Voting Application Used in U.S. Federal Elections |url=https://internetpolicy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/SecurityAnalysisOfVoatz_Public.pdf |access-date=June 23, 2020 |website=Massachusetts Institute of Technology}}

{{Cite news |last1=Halper |first1=Evan |date=May 16, 2019 |title=The vote-by-phone tech trend is scaring the life out of security experts |language=en-US |work=San Diego Union Tribune |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/us-politics/la-na-pol-voting-by-phone-20190516-story.html |access-date=June 23, 2020}}

and Democracy Live.{{Cite news |last=Parks |first=Miles |date=February 28, 2020 |title=States Expand Internet Voting Experiments Amid Pandemic, Raising Security Fears |language=en |work=National Public Radio |url=https://www.npr.org/2020/04/28/844581667/states-expand-internet-voting-experiments-amid-pandemic-raising-security-fears |access-date=June 23, 2020}}

In 2010, graduate students from the University of Michigan hacked into the District of Columbia online voting systems during an online voting mock test run and changed all the cast ballots to cater to their preferred candidates. This voting system was being tested for military voters and overseas citizens, allowing them to vote on the Web, and was scheduled to run later that year. It only took the hackers, a team of computer scientists, thirty-six hours to find the list of the government's passwords and break into the system.{{cite news

|last = Wheaton

|first = Sarah

|title = Voting Test Falls Victim to Hackers

|newspaper = The New York Times

|date = October 9, 2010

|access-date = February 20, 2015

|url = https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09vote.html?_r=2&

|url-status = live

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170627030036/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09vote.html?_r=2&

|archive-date = June 27, 2017

}}

In March 2000 the 2000 Arizona Democratic presidential primary internet election was conducted over the internet using the private company votation.com.{{Cite web|url=https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Arizona+Democratic+Party+Selects+Votation.com+to+Hold+World's+First...-a058272337|title=Arizona Democratic Party Selects Votation.com to Hold World's First Legally-Binding Public Election Over the Internet |website=www.thefreelibrary.com|access-date=December 19, 2017}} Each registered member of the party received a personal identification number in the mail. They could vote in person or over the internet, using their PIN and answering two questions such as date and place of birth. During the election older browsers failed, but no hacks were identified.{{cite web|url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1346.htm|title=How online voting works|work=usatoday.com|date=March 10, 2000}}

File:2018 Vote by mail envelopes being sorted in Santa Clara County.webm

File:Postal ballots rejection rates.png

{{main|Postal voting in the United States}}

Checking signatures on envelopes of absentee ballots is hard, and is often computerized in jurisdictions with many absentee ballots. The envelope is scanned, and the voter's signature on the outside of the envelope is instantly compared with one or more signatures on file. The machine sets aside non-matches in a separate bin. Temporary staff then double-check the rejections, and in some places check the accepted envelopes too.

Error rates of computerized signature reviews are not published. "A wide range of algorithms and standards, each particular to that machine's manufacturer, are used to verify signatures. In addition, counties have discretion in managing the settings and implementing manufacturers' guidelines… there are no statewide standards for automatic signature verification… most counties do not have a publicly available, written explanation of the signature verification criteria and processes they use"{{Cite web |title=Signature Verification and Mail Ballots: Guaranteeing Access While Preserving Integrity |url= https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/FINAL-Signature-Verification-Report-4-15-20.pdf|date=April 15, 2020 |website=Stanford University |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200513131907/https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/FINAL-Signature-Verification-Report-4-15-20.pdf|access-date=June 1, 2020|archive-date= May 13, 2020}}

Handwriting experts agree "it is extremely difficult for anyone to be able to figure out if a signature or other very limited writing sample has been forged".{{Cite web |title=Handwriting Disputes Cause Headaches for Some Absentee Voters |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/handwriting-disputes-cause-headaches-for-some-absentee-voters |last=Armitage |first=Susie |date=November 5, 2018 |website=ProPublica |language=en |access-date=June 1, 2020}}

The National Vote at Home Institute reports that 17 states do not mandate a signature verification process.{{Cite web |date=May 2020 |title=Vote at Home Policy Actions: 1 and 2 Stars |url=https://www.voteathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/NVAHI-50-State-Policy-Analysis.pdf |access-date=June 18, 2020 |website=National Vote at Home Institute |archive-date=June 6, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200606200617/https://www.voteathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/NVAHI-50-State-Policy-Analysis.pdf }}

The Election Assistance Commission says that machines should be set only to accept nearly perfect signature matches, and humans should doublecheck a sample, but EAC does not discuss acceptable error rates or sample sizes.{{Cite web |date=May 20, 2020 |title=Signature Verification and Cure Process |url=https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/electionofficials/vbm/Signature_Verification_Cure_Process.pdf |access-date=June 17, 2020 |website=U.S. Election Assistance Commission}}

In the November 2016 general election, rejections ranged from none in Alabama and Puerto Rico, to 6% of ballots returned in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky and New York.{{Cite web |date=June 28, 2017 |title=The Election Administratin and Voting Survey (EAVS) 2016 Comprehensive Report |url=https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/2016_EAVS_Comprehensive_Report.pdf |access-date=June 12, 2020 |website=Election Assistance Commission}}

{{Cite news |last=Salame |first=Richard |date=June 18, 2020 |title=As States Struggle With Vote-by-Mail, "Many Thousands, If Not Millions" of Ballots Could Go Uncounted in November |language=en-US |work=Type Investigations |url=https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2020/06/18/as-states-struggle-with-vote-by-mail-many-thousands-if-not-millions-of-ballots-could-go-uncounted-in-november/ |access-date=June 18, 2020}}

Where reasons for rejection were known, in 2018, 114,000 ballots arrived late, 67,000 failed signature verification, 55,000 lacked voter signatures, and 11,000 lacked witness signatures in states which require them.{{Cite web |title=Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) 2018 Comprehensive report |url=https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/2018_EAVS_Report.pdf |access-date=June 12, 2020 |website=Election Assistance Commission}} The intent of the signature verification step was to catch and reject forged signatures on ballot envelopes.{{Cite news |last=Cervantes |first=Lauren |date=October 8, 2020 |title=How Seminole County election officials detect voter fraud |language=en |work=ClickOrlando |url=https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2020/10/08/how-seminole-county-election-officials-detect-voter-fraud/ |access-date=December 2, 2020}}{{Cite news |last=Jennings |first=Nicole |date=October 29, 2020 |title=A ballot's journey at King County Elections headquarters |work=MyNorthwest |url=https://mynorthwest.com/2266769/a-ballots-journey-at-king-county-elections-headquarters/? |access-date=December 2, 2020}}

The highest error rates in signature verification are found among lay people, higher than for computers, which in turn make more errors than experts.{{Cite report |last=Srihari |first=Sargur N. |author-link=Sargur Srihari |date=August 12, 2010 |title=Computational Methods for Handwritten Questioned Document Examination: Final Report (Award Number: 2004-IJ-CX-K050) |url=https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232745.pdf |citeseerx=10.1.1.186.175 }}

Researchers have published error rates for computerized signature verification. They compare different systems on a common database of true and false signatures. The best system falsely rejects 10% of true signatures, while it accepts 10% of forgeries. Another system has error rates on both of 14%, and the third-best has error rates of 17%.These systems handle scanned ("offline") signatures from multiple people ("WI, writer-independent"). {{Cite book |last=Hafemann |first=Luiz G. |author2=Robert Sabourin |author3=Luiz S. Oliveira |title=2017 Seventh International Conference on Image Processing Theory, Tools and Applications (IPTA) |chapter=Offline handwritten signature verification — Literature review |date=October 16, 2017 |pages=1–8 |doi=10.1109/IPTA.2017.8310112 |arxiv=1507.07909 |isbn=978-1-5386-1842-4 |s2cid=206932295 }}{{Cite journal |last1=Bibi |first1=Kiran |last2=Naz |first2=Saeeda |last3=Rehman |first3=Arshia |date=January 1, 2020 |title=Biometric signature authentication using machine learning techniques: Current trends, challenges and opportunities |journal=Multimedia Tools and Applications |language=en |volume=79 |issue=1 |pages=289–340 |doi=10.1007/s11042-019-08022-0 |s2cid=199576552 |issn=1573-7721}}

It is possible to be less stringent and reject fewer true signatures, at the cost of also rejecting fewer forgeries, which means erroneously accepting more forgeries.{{Cite conference |last1=Igarza |first1=Juan |last2=Goirizelaia |first2=Iñaki |last3=Espinosa |first3=Koldo |last4=Hernáez |first4=Inmaculada |last5=Méndez |first5=Raúl |last6=Sanchez |first6=Jon |date=November 26, 2003 |title=Online Handwritten Signature Verification Using Hidden Markov Models |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220842960 |conference=CIARP 2003 |volume=2905 |pages=391–399 |doi=10.1007/978-3-540-24586-5_48|doi-access=free }}

Vendors of automated signature verification claim accuracy, and do not publish their error rates.{{Cite web |date=May 5, 2020 |title=SignatureXpert for Vote by Mail |url=https://www.parascript.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SignatureXpert-for-VBM-brochure.pdf |access-date=July 21, 2020 |website=Parascript}}{{Cite web |date=November 7, 2019 |title=Agilis Ballot Packet Sorting System |url=https://runbeck.net/wp-content/uploads/Agilis_Product_Sheet.pdf |website=Runbeck}}{{Cite web |title=Criterion Elevate |url=https://www.fluenceautomation.com/products/criterion-elevate |access-date=July 21, 2020 |website=www.fluenceautomation.com}}{{Cite web |title=Vote-By-Mail Best Practices Webinar Series |url=https://www2.bluecrestinc.com/vote-by-mail-webinars |access-date=July 21, 2020 |website=www2.bluecrestinc.com}}

Voters with short names are at a disadvantage, since even experts make more mistakes on signatures with fewer "turning points and intersections".{{Cite journal |last1=Sita |first1=Jodi |last2=Found |first2=Bryan |last3=Rogers |first3=Douglas K. |date=September 2002 |title=Forensic Handwriting Examiners' Expertise for Signature Comparison |url=https://www.academia.edu/1361670 |journal=Journal of Forensic Sciences |language=en |volume=47 |issue=5 |pages=1117–24 |doi=10.1520/JFS15521J |pmid=12353558 |issn=0022-1198}}

{{main|Electronic pollbook}}

An electronic pollbook, also known as an e-pollbook, is a combination of hardware and software which maintains voter register information at a polling place to check if each voter is registered and has not already voted in the election. When voters have a choice of multiple vote centers where they may vote, e-pollbooks communicating over the internet can prevent a voter from voting more than once.{{Cite web |last=Orange County Registrar of Voters |date=2017-04-02 |title=Voter's Choice Act Versus Traditional Election Models |url=https://www.caceo58.org/assets/documents/votecenterbriefingdocumentfinal.pdf |website= California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials}}

In 2023 a contractor, WSD Digital, developing a voter registration and e-pollbook system for New Hampshire put in code to link to websites in Russia and used open source software managed by a Russian. New Hampshire found those issues by hiring another company, ReversingLabs, to review the code of the first company.{{Cite web |last=Sakellariadis |first=John |date=2024-09-01 |title=Hacking blind spot: States struggle to vet coders of election software |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/01/us-election-software-national-security-threats-00176615 |website=Politico}}

In 2022 Williamson County TX found two problems: that its use of e-poll books sometimes assigned the wrong ballot style to voters, so they voted on contests outside their area, and did not vote on contests in their own area; and that some ballots did not display the voters' precincts.{{Cite web |last=Appel |first=Andrew |date=2023-02-17 |title=Unrecoverable Election Screwup in Williamson County TX |url=https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2023/02/16/unrecoverable-election-screwup-in-williamson-county-tx/ |access-date=2023-02-17 |website=Princeton University |language=en-US}}

Election offices display election results on the web by transferring USB drives between offline election computers, and online computers which display results to the public. USB drives can take infections from the online computers to the election computers.[http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/3/3/0331766E-3FC4-44E5-B1CA-2BDEB58211B8/Microsoft_Security_Intelligence_Report_volume_11_English.pdf Microsoft Security Intelligence Report Volume 11, January-June, 2011.]{{Cite web |title=The State of USB Drive Security: Study of IT and IT Practitioners |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/the-state-of-usb-drive-security-study-of-it-and-it-practitioners-1 |access-date=July 30, 2020 |website=news.bloomberglaw.com |language=en}} Local governments communicate electronically with their state governments so the state can display results, with the result that problems at the state level can affect all or many local offices.

Election-reporting websites run software to aggregate and display results. These have had programming errors which showed erroneous partial results during the evening,{{Cite news |last=Reding |first=Shawna |date=July 14, 2020 |title=Texas Secretary of State website fixes technical glitch in runoff election results |language=en-US |work=KVUE - ABC |url=https://www.kvue.com/article/news/politics/vote-texas/texas-primary-runoff-election-results-2020-secretary-of-state-website-glitch/269-91570c9b-8e86-423c-b128-0845991e5747 |access-date=July 30, 2020}} and the wrong winner.{{Cite news |last=Cottrill |first=Clarissa |date=May 18, 2018 |title=Official results in: Hammer, Redding win judge seats |language=en |work=Journal-News.net |url=https://www.journal-news.net/news/local-news/official-results-in-hammer-redding-win-judge-seats/article_8cd8c910-2f00-5404-827d-cc954cd226e9.html |access-date=July 30, 2020}} Local officials can change results. A Virginia official was charged with changing results by herself in the state's VERIS system. All charges were dropped when witnesses changed their stories, since computer logs did not prove whether changes were or were not made.{{Cite news |last=Muzyk |first=Cher |date=2024-01-03 |title=Former Prince William elections chief cleared of all criminal charges |url=https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/former-prince-william-elections-chief-cleared-of-all-criminal-charges/article_5868b370-aa85-11ee-ad5e-f7527afca6b8.html |access-date=2024-02-01 |work=Prince William Times |language=en}}

Before the 2016 general election, Russians gained access to at least one employee's account{{Cite news |last1=Cole |first1=Matthew |last2=Esposito |first2=Richard |last3=Biddle |first3=Sam |last4=Grim |first4=Ryan |date=June 5, 2017 |title=Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election |language=en-US |url=https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/ |access-date=July 30, 2020}} at a vendor which manages election-reporting websites.{{Cite news |last=Sherman |first=Amy |date=October 19, 2016 |title=Premature posting of election results was mistake, not a crime |work=Miami Herald |url=https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article109203007.html |access-date=July 30, 2020}} During the 2018 general election, a hacker in India gained administrative access to the Alaska election-reporting website.{{Cite news |last=Herz |first=Nathaniel |date=May 8, 2018 |title=Hackers broke partway into Alaska's election system in 2016. Officials say no damage was done. |language=en-US |work=Anchorage Daily News |url=https://www.adn.com/politics/2018/05/07/hackers-broke-partway-into-alaskas-election-system-in-2016-officials-say-no-damage-was-done/ |access-date=July 30, 2020}}{{Cite magazine |last=Newman |first=Lily Hay |date=March 16, 2020 |title='Kill Chain': HBO's Election Security Doc Stresses Urgency |language=en-us |magazine=Wired |url=https://www.wired.com/story/hbo-kill-chain-election-security/ |access-date=July 30, 2020 |issn=1059-1028}}

Studies by McAfee and ProPublica in 2020 found that most election websites have inadequate security. McAfee analyzed swing states.{{Cite web |date=February 3, 2020 |title=McAfee Research Reveals Election Website Security Shortcomings in 2020 Battleground States |url=https://www.mcafee.com/enterprise/en-us/about/newsroom/press-releases/press-release.html?news_id=fb9ec213-a250-45cb-90ee-59d0f31c17d6 |access-date=July 31, 2020 |website=www.mcafee.com}} ProPublica analyzed Super Tuesday states.{{Cite news |last=Gillum |first=Jack |date=March 2, 2020 |title=Is your local election website safe? Investigation finds security risks in old systems. |work=Raleigh News & Observer |url=https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article240749586.html}} They found many offices using outdated, insecure, dangerous and inappropriate software, including unsupported operating systems, and using the same few web hosts, which they said is dangerous for critical infrastructure, since finding a flaw in one can lead to access to them all. They criticized offices for not using https encryption, and for public sitenames ending in .com or .org, since it leads voters to trust sites which are not .gov, and voters can easily be tricked by a similar name.{{Cite news |date=February 4, 2020 |title=Majority of Election Websites in Battleground States Failing in Cybersecurity |language=en |work=Security |url=https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/91658-majority-of-election-websites-in-battleground-states-failing-in-cybersecurity?v=preview |access-date=July 31, 2020}}

File:US voters by county.png

{{main|Election security}}

In 2016 Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence said that United States elections are hard to hack, because they are decentralized, with many types of machines and thousands of separate election offices operating under 51 sets of state laws.{{Cite web |date=October 7, 2016 |title=Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security |url=https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national |access-date=July 8, 2020 |website=Department of Homeland Security |language=en}}{{Cite news |last=Brandom |first=Russell |date=October 28, 2016 |title=How worried should we be about election hacking? |language=en |work=The Verge |url=https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/28/13421734/election-2016-hacking-voting-machine-risk-cybersecurity-trump |access-date=July 8, 2020}} Others have made similar statements.{{Cite news |last1=Riley |first1=Michael |last2=Robertson |first2=Jordan |last3=Kocieniewski |first3=David |date=September 29, 2016 |title=The Computer Voting Revolution Is Already Crappy, Buggy, and Obsolete |language=en |work=Bloomberg.com |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-voting-technology/ |access-date=October 13, 2020}}

An official at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said a nation state would target hacks in key counties.{{Cite news |last=Good |first=Chris |date=October 31, 2018 |title=When it comes to election cybersecurity, decentralized system is viewed as both blessing and curse |language=en |work=ABC News |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/election-cybersecurity-decentralized-system-viewed-blessing-curse/story?id=58877082 |access-date=July 8, 2020}} A McAfee expert said decentralization makes defense hard and for "a very determined group, trying to compromise this system, I think it ends up playing more into their favor than against them." Each city or county election is run by one office, and a few large offices affect state elections. County staff cannot in practice defend against foreign governments.{{Cite news |last=McManus |first=Doyle |date=June 16, 2019 |title=Column: Norway, if you're listening: Feel free to hack our presidential race |language=en-US |work=Los Angeles Times |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-russia-election-security-20190616-story.html |access-date=July 9, 2020}}

The Brennan Center summarized almost 200 errors in election machines from 2002 to 2008, many of which happened repeatedly in different jurisdictions, which had no clearinghouse to learn from each other.{{Cite web |last=Norden |first=Lawrence |date=September 16, 2010 |title=Voting system failures: a database solution |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Report_Voting_Machine_Failures_Database-Solution.pdf |access-date=July 7, 2020 |website=Brennan Center, NYU}}

More errors have happened since then. Cleveland State University listed formal studies of voting systems done by several groups through 2008.{{Cite journal |last1=Hoke |first1=S. |last2=Bishop |first2=Matt |last3=Graff |first3=Mark |last4=Jefferson |first4=David |last5=Peisert |first5=Sean |date=October 9, 2008 |title=Resolving the Unexpected in Elections: Election Officials' Options |url=https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/lawfac_reports/3 |access-date=May 22, 2021 |journal=Law Faculty Reports and Comments}}

Machines in use are not examined to determine if they have been hacked, so no hacks of machines in use have been documented. Researchers have hacked all machines they have tried, and have shown how they can be undetectably hacked by manufacturers, election office staff, pollworkers, voters and outsiders and by the public. Vulnerabilities identified at the 2019 DEFCON Las Vegas hackers convention had been previously noted and "included poor physical security protections that could allow undetected tampering; easily guessable hard-coded system credentials; potential for operating system manipulations; and remote attacks that could compromise memory or integrity checks or cause denial of service."Lily Hay Newman. (September 26, 2019). "Some Voting Machines Still Have Decade-Old Vulnerabilities". [https://www.wired.com/story/voting-village-results-hacking-decade-old-bugs/ Wired website] Retrieved March 13, 2022. The public can access unattended machines in polling places the night before elections.{{Cite web |last=Felten |first=Ed |date=June 8, 2010 |title=NJ Voting Machines Left Unattended, Despite Court Opinion |url=https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2010/06/08/nj-voting-machines-left-unattended-despite-court-opinion/ |access-date=July 8, 2020 |website=Princeton University}} Some of the hacks can spread among machines on the removable memory cards which tell the machines which races to display, and carry results back to the central tally location.

The CEO of Free and Fair, an open source vendor, said the cheapest way to improve security is for each election office to hire a computer student as a white hat hacker to conduct penetration tests.{{Cite news |last=Gross |first=Grant |date=October 5, 2016 |title=5 ways to improve voting security in the U.S. |language=en |work=ComputerWorld |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/3128085/5-ways-to-improve-voting-security-in-the-us.html |access-date=September 3, 2020}}

File:State audits.png

{{main|Election audit}}

Five states check all contests by hand tallies in a small percent of locations, AK, CA, PA, UT, WV, though California excludes about half the ballots, the ones counted after election day, and Alaska excludes small precincts.

Two states check all contests by machines independent of the election machines, in a small percent of locations, NY, VT.

Seventeen states check one or a few contests by hand, usually federal races and the governor; most local contests are not checked.

Four states reuse the same machines or ballot images as the election, so errors can persist, CT, IL, MD, NV.

Sixteen states do not require audits, or only in special circumstances.

In seven states many voters still lack paper ballots, so audits are not possible. IN, KY, LA, MS, NJ, TN, TX.{{Cite news |title=State Audit Laws |language=en-US |work=Verified Voting |url=https://www.verifiedvoting.org/state-audit-laws/ |access-date=July 8, 2020 |archive-date=January 4, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200104201852/https://www.verifiedvoting.org/state-audit-laws/ }}

Even where audits are done, no state has adequate security on the paper ballots, so they can be damaged to impede audits, or altered to match erroneous machine tallies.{{Cite conference |title=|book-title=Electronic voting: second International Joint Conference, E-Vote-ID 2017, Bregenz, Austria, October 24–27, 2017, proceedings |last=Benaloh|display-authors=etal|year=2017 |isbn=978-3-319-68687-5 |location=Cham, Switzerland |publisher=Springer |page=122 |oclc=1006721597}} Even insiders have breached security.{{Cite news |url=https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2007/11/elections_board_workers_to_tak.html |title=Elections board workers take plea deal |last=Turner |first=Karl |date=November 5, 2007 |work=Cleveland Plain Dealer |access-date=August 17, 2019 |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |url=http://votewell.homestead.com/clark_county_report.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190812144903/http://votewell.homestead.com/clark_county_report.pdf |archive-date=August 12, 2019 |title=Report on the 2016 Presidential Recount in Clark County, Nevada. Page 20. |date=January 11, 2017|website=Internet Archive |access-date=August 17, 2019}}

The Pew Research Center found in October 2018 wide mistrust of election security in both parties, especially among Democrats

• 8% of voters were "very confident that election systems are secure from hacking and other technological threats".
• 37% were "somewhat confident", and the remaining 55% were not confident
• 13% of Republicans were very confident, and 41% were not confident
• 4% of Democrats were very confident, and 66%% were not confident{{Cite web |date=October 29, 2018 |title=Voter views on U.S. election security |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/10/29/election-security/ |access-date=August 5, 2020 |website=Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy |language=en-US}}

An MIT professor's survey found that Republicans think domestic hackers are more likely than foreigners; Democrats think the opposite.{{Cite web |last=Stewart |first=Charles |date=March 8, 2018 |title=What does "election hacking" mean to the public? |url=https://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2018/03/08/what-does-election-hacking-mean-to-the-public/ |access-date=August 5, 2020 |website=electionupdates.caltech.edu}}

Stanford and Wisconsin researchers in 2019 found that only 89% of voters disapprove if a foreign country would "hack into voting machines and change the official vote count to give [a] candidate extra votes" and the candidate wins. This 89% disapproval is not much more than the 88% who disapprove of a foreign country making campaign contributions and 78-84% against them spreading lies. Only 73-79% disapprove if their party got help, while 94-95% disapprove of the other party getting help. If a foreign country thought about interfering, but did not, 21% distrust the results anyway. This rises only to 84% distrusting final results after a foreign country hacked and changed results.{{Cite journal |last1= Tomz|first1=Michael |last2= Weeks |first2=Jessica L. P. |date=2020 |title=Public Opinion and Foreign Electoral Intervention |url=https://tomz.people.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj4711/f/tomzweeks-apsr-2020.pdf |journal=American Political Science Review |volume=114 |issue=3 |pages=856–873 |doi=10.1017/S0003055420000064 |s2cid=106401159 |via=Stanford University}}{{Cite web |last1= Tomz|first1=Michael |last2= Weeks |first2=Jessica L. P. |date=August 2019 |title=Public Opinion and Foreign Electoral Intervention |url=https://web.stanford.edu/~tomz/working/TomzWeeks-ElectoralIntervention-2019-08-13i.pdf |access-date=August 4, 2020 |website=Stanford University}}

For any of the foreign actions (hacks, contributions or lies), 72% of voters support economic sanctions, 59% support cutting diplomatic relations, 25% support a military threat, and 15% support a military strike. There was less support for action, by 4-20 percentage points, if the foreign country helped one's own party win, so the researchers point out that retaliation is unlikely, since there is little support for it in a winning party. Deep investigation creates more certainty about who is to blame, which they find raises support for retaliation very little. They randomly listed China, Pakistan or Turkey as the interfering country, and do not report any different reactions to them.

A Monmouth University poll in May 2019 found that 73% thought Russia interfered in the 2016 election (not necessarily by hacking), 49% thought it damaged American democracy a lot, 57% thought Russia interfered in the 2018 election, and 60% thought the U.S. government is not doing enough to stop it. Margin of error is ±3.5%.{{Cite web |date=May 16–20, 2019 |title=Russia |url=https://www.pollingreport.com/russia.htm |access-date=August 5, 2020 |website=www.pollingreport.com}}

Many election companies are members of the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's Election Infrastructure Subsector Council.{{Cite web |title=Government Facilities - Election Infrastructure Charters and Membership |url=https://www.cisa.gov/government-facilities-election-infrastructure-charters-and-membership |access-date=2022-11-23 |website=www.cisa.gov}}

Three vendors sell most of the machines used for voting and for counting votes. As of September 2016, the American Election Systems & Software (ES&S) served 80 million registered voters, Canadian Dominion Voting Systems 70 million, American Hart InterCivic 20 million, and smaller companies less than 4 million each.{{Cite web |last1=Hitt |first1=Lorin |last2=Ahluwalia |first2=Simran |last3=Caulfield |first3=Matthew |last4=Davidson |first4=Leah |last5=Diehl |first5=Mary Margaret |last6=Ispas |first6=Alina |last7=Windle |first7=Michael |title=The Business of Voting Market Structure and Innovation in the Election Technology Industry |url=https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/files/270-the-business-of-votin |access-date=July 7, 2020 |website=Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative}}

Three companies sell mail sorting and signature verification machines: ES&S, Runbeck and a merged company, Olympus/Vantage/Pitney Bowes/Bell & Howell. In 2018 BlueCrest acquired the Pitney Bowes election business,{{Cite web |date=2018-07-24 |title=Pitney Bowes DMt is now BlueCrest |url=http://www.bluecrestinc.com/company/newsroom/bluecrest-launch-release/ |access-date=2022-11-11 |website=www.bluecrestinc.com |language=en |archive-date=November 11, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221111232640/https://www.bluecrestinc.com/company/newsroom/bluecrest-launch-release/ |url-status=dead }}

and in 2021 BlueCrest acquired Fluence,{{Cite web |date=2021-11-04 |title=Fluence Automation acquired by BlueCrest |url=https://www.parcelandpostaltechnologyinternational.com/news/automation/fluence-automation-acquired-by-bluecrest.html |access-date=2022-11-11 |website=Parcel and Postal Technology International |language=en-GB}}

which had obtained the Bell & Howell election business in 2017.{{Cite web |date=2017-08-01 |title=Bell and Howell Sells Sorting Business to Fluence Automation |url=https://bellhowell.net/about-us/news/bell-and-howell-sells-sorting-business-to-fluence-automation/ |access-date=2022-11-11 |website=Bell and Howell |language=en-US}}

In 2022 the BlueCrest printing and sorting business was acquired by Corum Group.{{Cite web |title=BlueCrest Portfolio Investments, BlueCrest Funds, BlueCrest Exits |url=https://www.cbinsights.com/investor/bluecrest |access-date=2022-11-23 |website=www.cbinsights.com}}

Olympus{{Cite web |title=Mail Sorting System - Olympus® II Flexible Tier Mail Sorting Solution |url=https://www.pitneybowes.ca/equipment/Production-Mail-Systems/Sorters/OlympusII-Flexible-Tier-Mail-Sorting-Solution.shtml |access-date=2022-11-23 |website=www.pitneybowes.ca}}

and Vantage{{Cite web |last=Bluecrest |title=Vantage sorting solution |url=http://www.bluecrestinc.com/products/sorters/vantage-sorting-solution/ |access-date=2022-11-23 |website=www.bluecrestinc.com |language=en}}

machines are sold by BlueCrest. Runbeck uses Vantage sorters from BlueCrest.{{Cite web |date=2020-09-25 |title=BlueCrest and Runbeck Election Services Team up to Tackle Vote-by-Mail Surge |url=http://www.bluecrestinc.com/company/newsroom/bluecrest-and-runbeck-election-services-team-up-to-tackle-vote-by-mail-surge/ |access-date=2022-11-23 |website=www.bluecrestinc.com |language=en}}

Runbeck also processes envelopes under contract.{{Cite news |last=Fifield |first=Jen |date=2024-04-22 |title=Why this private company handles a pivotal batch of Arizona ballots |url=https://www.votebeat.org/arizona/2024/04/22/runbeck-election-services-scans-maricopa-county-arizona-ballots/ |access-date=2024-04-27 |work=Votebeat |language=en}}

The signature-matching software most used is from Parascript,{{Cite web |last=Wiggers |first=Kyle |date=2020-10-25 |title=Automatic signature verification software threatens to disenfranchise U.S. voters |url=https://venturebeat.com/ai/automatic-signature-verification-software-threatens-to-disenfranchise-u-s-voters/ |access-date=2023-02-14 |website=VentureBeat |language=en-US}} spun off from Paragraph, a Soviet-American joint venture

though there are other companies.{{Cite web |author=Robert Hummel |author2=Timothy W. Bumpus |author3=Alyssa Adcock |author4=Sharon Layani |title=Authentication Using Biometrics: How to Prove Who You Are |url=https://www.potomacinstitute.org/steps/featured-articles/september-2021/authentication-using-biometrics-how-to-prove-who-you-are |access-date=2023-02-14 |website=www.potomacinstitute.org |language=en}}

Parascript had fewer errors than other software in 2010: Parascript rejected 14% of genuine signatures and accepted 8% of forgeries if they were modeled on a genuine signature.{{Cite web |last=Ferrer |first=Miguel and J. Francisco Vargas-Bonilla |date=December 2010 |title=The 4NSigComp2010 Off-line Signature Verification Competition: Scenario 2 |url=https://accedacris.ulpgc.es/bitstream/10553/46159/1/68969_1.pdf |website=Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria}}

Amazon provides election websites in 40 states, including election-reporting sites in some of them.{{Cite news |last=Bose |first=Nandita |date=October 15, 2019 |title=How Amazon.com moved into the business of U.S. elections |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-elections-amazon-com-insight-idUSKBN1WU173 |access-date=July 31, 2020}} A Spanish company, Scytl, manages election-reporting websites statewide in 12 U.S. states, and in another 980 local jurisdictions in 28 states.{{cite news |last1=Heilweil |first1=Rebecca |title=Nine Companies That Want To Revolutionize Voting Technology |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccaheilweil1/2017/12/02/eight-companies-that-want-to-revolutionize-voting-technology |access-date=December 4, 2018 |work=Forbes |date=December 2, 2017 |language=en}}

Another website management company is VR Systems, active in 8 states.{{cite news |website=FiveThirtyEight |url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-latest-mueller-indictment-tells-us-about-election-hacking/ |quote=The Intercept report was based on National Security Agency documents, which did not directly identify the company but made references to a product made by VR Systems, whose products are used in eight states. |first=Claire |last=Malone |title=What The Latest Mueller Indictment Tells Us About Election Hacking |date=July 13, 2018}}

Maryland's election website is managed by a company owned by an associate of Russian President Putin.{{Cite news |last=Donovan |first=Doug |date=August 7, 2018 |title=Maryland senators ask Treasury panel to investigate Russian oligarch's ties to state election contractor - Baltimore Sun |work=Baltimore Sun |url=https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-senators-letter-russian-20180806-story.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810172802/https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-senators-letter-russian-20180806-story.html |access-date=July 30, 2020|archive-date=August 10, 2018 }}

• 1964: The Norden-Coleman optical scan voting system, the first such system to see actual use, was adopted for use in Orange County, California.E. G. Arnold, [https://josephhall.org/arnold_ca_vs_hist.pdf History of Voting Systems in California] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306210826/https://josephhall.org/arnold_ca_vs_hist.pdf |date=March 6, 2016 }}, California Secretary of State Bill Jones, June 1999.
• 1974: The Video Voter, the first DRE voting machine used in a government election, developed by the Frank Thornber Company in Chicago, Illinois, saw its first trial use in 1974 near Chicago.Douglas W. Jones and Barbara Simons, Broken Ballots, CSLI Publications, 2012; see Section 5.2, page 96.
• Mar. 1975:The U.S. Government is given a report by Roy G. Saltman, a consultant in developing election technology and policies,{{Cite news |title=Roy Saltman, election expert who warned of hanging chads, dies at 90 |language=en-US |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2023/04/26/roy-saltman-hanging-chads-dead/ |access-date=2023-04-30 |issn=0190-8286}} in which the certification of voting machines is analyzed for the first time.
• August 28, 1986: The Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) requires that U.S. states allow certain groups of citizens to register and vote absentee in elections for federal offices.{{cite web|url=http://people.howstuffworks.com/e-voting.htm|title=How E-voting Works|work=HowStuffWorks|date=March 12, 2007|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150703014127/http://people.howstuffworks.com/e-voting.htm|archive-date=July 3, 2015}}
• 1990: The FEC (Federal Election Commission) released a universalized standard for computerized voting.
• 1996: The Reform Party uses I-Voting (Internet Voting) to select their presidential candidate. This election is the first governmental election to use this method in the U.S.{{cite web |url=http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/evoting-encyclopedia.html |title=Electronic Voting |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150506054541/http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/evoting-encyclopedia.html |archive-date=May 6, 2015 }}
• May 2002:The FEC revised the standards established for electronic voting from 1990.
• Nov 2004: 4,438 of votes in the general election is lost by North Carolina's electronic voting machines. The machines continued to count electronic votes past the device's memory capacity and the votes were irretrievably lost.
• Dec 2005: Black Box Voting showed how easy it is to hack an electronic voting system. Computer experts in Leon County, Fl lead a simulation where they changed the outcome of a mock election by tampering with the tabulator without leaving evidence of their actions.
• September 13, 2006: It was demonstrated that Diebold Electronic Voting Machine can be hacked in less than a minute. Princeton's Professor of Computer Science, Edward Felten who installed a malware which could steal votes and replace them with fraudulent numbers without physically coming in contact with the voting machine or its memory card. The malware can also program a virus that can spread from machine to machine.
• September 21, 2006: The governor of Maryland, Bob Ehrlich (R), advised against casting electronic votes as an alternative method for casting paper absentee ballots. This was a complete turn around since Maryland became one of the first states to accept electronic voting systems statewide during his term.
• September 3, 2009: Diebold, responsible for much of the technology in the election-systems business, sells their hold to Election Systems & Software, Inc for $5 Million, less than 1/5 of its price seven years earlier.{{cite web|url=http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000021|title=Historical Timeline |access-date=February 25, 2015}}
• October 28, 2009: The federal Military and Overseas Voters Empowerment Act (MOVE) requires U.S. states to provide ballots to UOCAVA voters in at least one electronic format (email, fax, or an online delivery system).{{cite web |url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ84/html/PLAW-111publ84.htm |title=Archived copy |access-date=May 22, 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150515020810/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ84/html/PLAW-111publ84.htm |archive-date=May 15, 2015 }}
• January 3, 2013: Voter Empowerment Act of 2013 – This act requires each U.S. state to make available public websites for online voter registration.{{cite web|url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr12|title=Voter Empowerment Act of 2013 (2013; 113th Congress H.R. 12) - GovTrack.us|work=GovTrack.us|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151018162217/https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr12|archive-date=October 18, 2015}}
• Spring 2019: Department of Defense DARPA announces $10 million contract for secure, open-source election system prototypes based on the agency's SSITH secure hardware platform work: a touch screen ballot-marking device to demo at the annual DEF CON hacker conference in summer 2019 and an optical scan system to read hand-marked paper ballots targeted for DEF CON 2020.{{Cite web|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/darpa-is-building-a-dollar10-million-open-source-secure-voting-system/|title=DARPA Is Building a $10 Million, Open Source, Secure Voting System|last1=Zetter|first1=Kim|last2=Maiberg|first2=Emanuel|date=March 14, 2019|website=Vice|language=en-US|access-date=June 1, 2019}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.technologyreview.com/f/613126/darpa-is-trying-to-build-an-unhackable-open-source-voting-system/|title=DARPA is trying to build an unhackable open-source voting system|date=March 15, 2019|website=MIT Technology Review|language=en-US|access-date=June 1, 2019}}{{Cite web|url=https://futurism.com/darpa-open-source-voting-machine|title=DARPA is building an open source voting machine|last=Robitzski|first=Dan|date=March 14, 2019|website=Futurism|language=en|access-date=June 1, 2019}}

In the summer of 2004, the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Association of Information Technology Professionals issued a nine-point proposal for national standards for electronic voting.[http://www.aitp.org/newsletter/2004julaug/index.jsp?article=evoteside.htm "Legislative Committee Resolution Awaiting BOD Approval"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110724231220/http://www.aitp.org/newsletter/2004julaug/index.jsp?article=evoteside.htm |date=July 24, 2011 }}. (July 2004). [http://www.aitp.org/newsletter Information Executive] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080518061010/http://www.aitp.org/newsletter/ |date=May 18, 2008 }} In an accompanying article, the committee's chair, Charles Oriez, described some of the problems that had arisen around the country.{{cite web |url=http://www.aitp.org/newsletter/2004julaug/index.jsp?article=evote.htm |title= Information Executive - July / August 2004|website=www.aitp.org |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040908180039/http://www.aitp.org/newsletter/2004julaug/index.jsp?article=evote.htm |archive-date=September 8, 2004}}{{cite web |url=http://www.aitp.org/newsletter |title= AITP Chapter Redirect|website=www.aitp.org |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110724231334/http://www.aitp.org/newsletter |archive-date=July 24, 2011}}

Legislation has been introduced in the United States Congress regarding electronic voting, including the Nelson-Whitehouse bill. This bill would appropriate as much as 1 billion dollars to fund states' replacement of touch screen systems with optical scan voting system. The legislation also addresses requiring audits of 3% of precincts in all federal elections. It also mandates some form of paper trail audits for all electronic voting machines by the year 2012 on any type of voting technology.{{cite news |last=Padgett |first=Tim |url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1680451,00.html |title=Voting Out E-Voting Machines |magazine=Time |date=November 3, 2007 |access-date=February 6, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130824205815/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1680451,00.html |archive-date=August 24, 2013 }}

Another bill, HR.811 (The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003), proposed by Representative Rush D. Holt, Jr., a Democrat from New Jersey, would act as an amendment to the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and require electronic voting machines to produce a paper audit trail for every vote. The U.S. Senate companion bill version introduced by Senator Bill Nelson from Florida on November 1, 2007, necessitates the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to continue researching and to provide methods of paper ballot voting for those with disabilities, those who do not primarily speak English, and those who do not have a high literacy rating. Also, it requires states to provide the federal office with audit reports from the hand counting of the voter verified paper ballots. Currently, this bill has been turned over to the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and a vote date has not been set.{{cite web |url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN02295:@@@D&summ2=m& |title=Bill Summary & Status - 110th Congress (2007–2008) - S.2295 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress) |publisher=Thomas.loc.gov |date=November 1, 2007 |access-date=February 6, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151018162217/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN02295:@@@D&summ2=m& |archive-date=October 18, 2015 }}

During 2008, Congressman Holt, because of an increasing concern regarding the insecurities surrounding the use of electronic voting technology, submitted additional bills to Congress regarding the future of electronic voting. One, called the "Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008" (HR5036), states that the General Services Administration will reimburse states for the extra costs of providing paper ballots to citizens, and the costs needed to hire people to count them.{{cite web|url=http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/US/legislation/SummaryFlyer5036.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=March 6, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080305191355/http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/US/legislation/SummaryFlyer5036.pdf |archive-date=March 5, 2008 }} This bill was introduced to the House on January 17, 2008.{{cite web|url=http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h5036/show |title=H.R.5036: Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008 - U.S. Congress |publisher=OpenCongress |date=April 15, 2008 |access-date=February 6, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120313141636/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h5036/show |archive-date=March 13, 2012 }} This bill estimates that $500 million will be given to cover costs of the reconversion to paper ballots; $100 million given to pay the voting auditors; and $30 million given to pay the hand counters. This bill provides the public with the choice to vote manually if they do not trust the electronic voting machines. A voting date has not yet been determined.

The [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1562 Secure America's Future Elections Act or the SAFE Act (HR 1562)] was among the relevant legislation introduced in the 115th Congress. The bill's provisions include designation of the infrastructure used to administer elections as critical infrastructure; funding for states to upgrade the security of the information technology and cybersecurity elements of election-related IT systems; and requirements for durable, readable paper ballots and manual audits of results of elections.

• Electronic voting in India

{{reflist}}

{{United States elections}}

{{Voting rights in the United States}}

Category:Elections in the United States

United States

Category:Voting in the United States

Category:Computer hardware standards

Category:Articles containing video clips