The federal Help America Vote Act is confusing in many ways. It does not require states to change their systems entirely to digital, electronic ones, but it clearly sets up a set of rules for which electronic voting would provide the easiest solutions.

For example, the law requires that voters be given more detailed information as to how to double check that they have voted correctly before submitting a ballot. That's difficult to do with Utah's current punch-card system. Once a punch-card is completed, the voter is left holding a card containing only a series of holes that appear meaningless. It would take a new type of machine to allow voters an instant confirmation that they have voted correctly. That's not entirely impossible to do, but it would be difficult, at best.

Salt Lake County is going through an agonizing process right now, trying to decide whether to accept the state's recommendation of using Diebold touch-screen voting machines for all voting in upcoming elections. They are under a frantic deadline. The county clerk has until Sept. 8 to sign a contract for these machines, and yet some serious doubts linger. Diebold hasn't performed well in some states. Its machines failed miserably in a mock election in California.

Any conscientious public official should entertain doubts about such a system, but unfortunately the county may have little choice if it wants a part of the federal funding available for a new system. Time is running out. At least one California county decided to stick with Diebold rather than try to rush through a new contracting procedure in time for next year's general election, and that may be the case here, as well.

Electronic voting would help satisfy another of the law's demands — that of total accessibility for handicapped voters. Technically, the law demands only that at least one such machine be available at each polling location, but it makes little sense to use two separate voting systems.

Utah County already has opted not to join the rest of the state in using the Diebold machines. It remains unclear, however, whether that county will be able to provide accessible voting that can be double-checked.

The aims of the Help American Vote Act are noble. No one can argue with the need to allow handicapped voters the ability to vote with dignity and without having to tell anyone else how they voted. No one can credibly argue against the idea that voting would be more accurate if people had the ability to double-check their ballots before submitting them.

However, it also is hard to argue against the notion that a botched electronic election — whether through faulty software or machines that need constant rebooting — would be devastating to public confidence.

Salt Lake County should look carefully at its alternatives. In the end, however, it is probably best to trust that the state lieutenant governor's office, which has gone through its own lengthy selection process, has chosen a good new system.