After the 2006 Congressional elections I happened to overhear a conversation in the local Walmart between two elderly ladies.  They were concerned about the lack of privacy at their polling place; seeming to feel that their groups bus driver had been observing their votes. I mentally noted the conversation and moved on.

Fast forward to this Tuesday (16 Sept) when our town held a special election for an ordinance allowing the sales of alcohol on Sundays.  When I went to vote, I noticed the computers on which we were to vote were set up as always and the way apparently everyone else's that have them around the county are set up;  facing the center of the room and the line to sign in as well as the line to vote.  As long as the person stands directly in front of the machine and the observer is not catty-corner to the voter, the screen is blocked.  But, if a person cares to observe, they can.  This, I feel can lead to intimidation or coercion of a voter.  Or a voter can perceive an attempt to intimidate or coerce.  A voter showing up with their church group, nursing home, or community group can easily feel intimidated if they are voting contrary to the "group think".  For example; a church member voting to allow the alcohol sales when his/her church has campaigned against this ordinance.

According to Ms Lillie Coney, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) who was providing testimony before the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's Technical Guidelines Development Committee as they considered the subject of human factors and privacy in the voting place; "If the touchscreen is at a 75 or 80-degree angle to the horizontal, the view from the screen might be difficult to keep their ballot choices private or hidden from the view of people who are in the polling place, including other voters."

To go further on this issue; the Federal Election Commission has issued a set of Voting System Standards (VSS)14 that serve as a model of functional requirements that elections systems must meet before they can be certified for use in an election. The VSS state explicitly:

To facilitate casting a ballot, all systems shall:

[…] Protect the secrecy of the vote such that the system cannot reveal any information about how a particular voter voted, except as otherwise required by individual State law;15

and:

All systems shall provide voting booths [that shall] provide privacy for the voter, and be designed in such a way as to prevent observation of the ballot by any person other than the voter.  (Privacy And Technologies of Identity By Katherine Jo Strandburg, published by Spinger 2005. ISBN 0387260501, 9780387260501)

I have not seen this done since the advent of the electronic machines.  I can understand the difficulties with cables across the floor and the potential of accidents from voters tripping if the machines were turned away fom the voters and towards a wall.   However, there is an easier solution.  A simple screen, such as room dividers separating the machines from voters standing in the lines would suffice easily and inexpensively.