The Butler County Commissioners, like county officials across the country, are being pushed into making a potentially costly mistake by purchasing touch screen voting machines. The pressure to make a decision — and a purchase — prematurely is coming from Congress, which passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002 following controversial elections in Florida.

While well-intentioned, HAVA features a deadline that is unrealistic, considering the serious questions that remain about the reliability and long-term costs of electronic voting systems. The federal mandate to purchase new voting machines comes with money that most states and counties are loath to let slip through their fingers.

But, given the many questions surrounding the various electronic voting systems, Butler County officials should ensure that they do not act before they are forced to act and, then, they should act in a way that minimizes the potential harm and financial costs to both voters and taxpayers.

The commissioners have more than enough reasons to resist being hurried into a purchase decision.

Officials in Miami-Dade County, Fla., who conducted elections using touch screen voting machines, used in Florida are planning to scrap those machines and replace them with an optical scan in which paper ballots are marked, then scanned into a computer system.

The ongoing maintenance costs of touch-screen systems are significant and, over a decade or more, could exceed the federal funds provided for the purchase.

Security issues remain with any voting system that lacks a paper backup and with any system that has software that can be tampered with or hacked into by someone wanting to alter election outcomes. Simpler systems such as optical scanners and even punch card systems are less prone to undetectable tampering and have the additional advantage of offering built-in paper backup for verification.

County officials are not to blame for the current situation. The blame rests with Congress and the flawed HAVA law.

The notion of a more uniform and reliable voting system in the United States is a worthwhile goal, but jumping into high-technology, touchscreen systems cannot be assumed to be the solution. Too many people have fallen for the lure of a high-tech solution, without considering the many downsides. To make matters worse, it now seems clear that Congress failed to provide adequate time for the new technologies to be proven and the alternatives to be fully tested.

Because of the confusion being caused by HAVA across most of the states in the U.S., Congress should extend the deadline until at least the November general election, if not further. There is a bill pending in Congress that would do just that.

The controversy associated with the 2000 presidential election pressured Congress to do something, or at least look like it was doing something. But, Congress made a mistake in assuming that touchscreen technology was the answer. Other systems that are less dependent on computer technology and less costly — and that offer more security and backup — should have been given greater consideration. Consider that Canada holds its federal elections with paper ballots marked with an X for the selected candidate and counted by people — one representing each party with a candidate in the elections. That system works, is less vulnerable to mass manipulation and is far less costly than a computer-based system.

In fact, local election officials have said repeatedly in the past that the punch card system used in Butler County is highly accurate, reliable and not expensive to maintain or operate. Yet state officials have decertified them, apparently due to the hanging-chad stories from Florida's 2000 election.

Even if paper-based and punch card systems are being de-certified, they have been proven to be effective. The same cannot be said for the current crop of high-tech, touchscreen systems.

County officials are in a difficult situation, not of their own making. Still, they should be aggressive in determining all of their voting machine options — and the costs associated with those options. They also should avoid any premature decisions, considering the various lawsuits and legislative remedies pending.