EAC

'Future of Voting in California' Hearing, Sacramento, Feb. 8

Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:00am - 4:00pm
Just learned of this.  Not sure there has been any widespread public announcement by SoS office.

This announcement (attached) went out to the county registrars and clerks.

An important meeting to make in person, for those of you who can.

The original is posted at:   http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/hearings/

--Dan Ashby

The Future of Voting in California:
The People, the Equipment, the Costs


Secretary of State's Office
First Floor Auditorium

February 8, 2010, 10:00 a.m.

I. Introductory Remarks

  • Debra Bowen, Secretary of State

II. Heading into 2010: Taking Stock of the Post-HAVA
Voting System and Election Administration Environment

  • Brian Hancock, U.S. Election Assistance Commission
  • Lowell Finley, Office of the California Secretary of State
  • Doug Chapin, Pew Center on the States

III. Existing Voting Systems in California

  • John Groh, Election Systems & Software
  • Eric Coomer, Sequoia Voting Systems
  • Marcus MacNeill, Hart Inter Civic
  • McDermot Coutts, Unisyn Voting Solutions
  • Curt Fielder, DFM Associates

IV. New Developments in Voting and Election Administration

  • Bob Carey, Federal Voting Assistance Program
  • Gregory Miller, Trust the Vote/Open Source Digital Voting Foundation
  • Efrain Escobedo, Los Angeles County, Voting Systems Assessment Project
  • Bill O'Neill, Runbeck Election Services
  • Sandy McConnell, King County Elections, State of Washington

V. Public Comment Period


See instructions below for submitting written testimony.


Privacy Statement | Free Document Readers
Copyright © 2010    California Secretary of State



Submit Written Testimony for the Record

February 2, 2010
County ClerklRegistrar of Voters (CCROV) Memorandum #10050

TO: All County Clerks / Registrars of Voters

FROM:
Jennnie Bretsclmeider
Assistant Chief Deputy Secretary of State

RE: Voting Systems: Public Infonnational Hearing on the Future ofVoling in California

Secretary of State Debra Bowen will be hosting a public informational hearing on "The Future of Voting in California: The People, the Equipment, the Costs" to be held Monday, February 8, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in the Secretary of State's auditorium at 1500 11th Street in Sacramento.

Attached is the agenda for the hearing.

Anyone can view a live webcast of the hearing by going to
 http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/hearings/

 The public is invited to attend and to provide testimony during the public comment portion of the hearing.

Written comments may also be submitted prior to or following the hearing and should  be addressed to:

Secretary of State Debra Bowen
1500 11th Street, 6th  Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn: Jennie Bretschneider


or via email to votingsvstems@sos.ca.gov
 
All written comments will be posted on the Secretary of State' s website.

If you have any questions, please contact the Office of Voting Systems Technology Assessment

at (916) 653-7244 or via email at voyingsystems@sos.ca.gov.

 
 
Dan Ashby
Co-Founder, Director
ElectionDefenseAlliance.org


EDA mail:      Dan@electiondefensealliance.org
Phone:
 
          877.375.3930

EDA News and Alerts: Click Here to Subscribe for E-mail Updates
 
The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected.
To take away this right is to reduce a
man to slavery. . . Thomas Paine

Can Open Source Save Democracy? No, Says Bev Harris

Originally published at Blackboxvoting
Discussion: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/80688.html

By Bev Harris
Founder, Black Box Voting http://www.blackboxvoting.org

Quite a wave of PR pieces have come out in the past few days about a new open source voting system -- NOT from Alan Dechert's well known Open Voting Consortium, but instead from an upstart, loosely connected to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and several cronies of the Holt-Bill-pushing verified voting fans.

So let's talk about this. I'm going to link you to Michael Hickens' piece, one of the many bloggers who jumped on this bandwagon. His article is headlined "Can Open Source Software Save Democracy?"

SHORT ANSWER: NO.

Before I get to that, and before outlining my concerns with the new "Open Source Digital Voting Foundation" concept, I'll point out that:

(1) THIS IS NOT ON THE IMMEDIATE HORIZON. The federal certification process takes two to three years

(2) Though not covered by U.S. antitrust laws, THIS IS STRUCTURED MUCH LIKE ANOTHER MONOPOLISTIC GRAB FOR U.S. ELECTION PROCESSES. This new group claims to have 26 states on board (though I doubt this) -- that would give a horizontal monopoly of over 50% of the USA; the "top to bottom" design also invokes vertical monopoly concerns, in that it wants to have the software control voter registration, ballot design, ballot counting, and even election auditing.

CAN OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE SAVE DEMOCRACY?

Counting votes inside computers conceals the counting from the public. If key processes are concealed from the public, you no longer have public elections. If you don't have public elections, The People no longer hold sovereignty over the instruments of government they have created, and it ceases to be a democratic system.

The core issues are not "security" or "assuring the public" as the author of this blog assumes. The ultimate issues are public right to know, and public ability to understand their own election without need for special expertise, and public controls. You cannot achieve these simply by replacing proprietary software with open source software.

Open source software DOES achieve two worthwhile things, though it doesn't solve our current elections problems. It does enhance our ability to get freedom of information requests filled, by eliminating the proprietary exemption, and it should significantly reduce cost. But costs are also reduced significantly by public hand counts, which, when done correctly, actually do restore democracy.

Case in point: Marion County, Indiana is conducting its next election by public hand count. This is a large jurisdiction (Indianapolis). The ballot is a small one, just four ballot questions. This will provide an excellent pilot project example for expansion of hand counts, beginning with elections with only a modest number of ballot questions. Marion County estimates that all together, it will save $288,000. In fact, the cost of just delivering the voting machines (be they open or closed source) was estimated by Marion County to be $22,000!

The German high court recently banned its e-voting system because it conceals the counting from the public. Open source changes this not a whit. Instead, Germany is now counting in public, by hand.

TWO MORE HALLMARKS OF PUBLIC ELECTIONS:

(1) The less centralized, the better (the more people, the better, the "many eyes" safeguard);

(2) the public needs to be able to understand how the election works, and be able to authenticate it, without need for special expertise.

IS THIS WHAT THE SENATE HEARING ON THE ES&S MONOPOLY IS LEADING TO?

You've gotta wonder. The acquisition of Diebold's elections division by Election Systems & Software, giving it 75% of the horizontal market and a vertical monopoly as well, is being questioned by a U.S. Senate committee, but the committee chosen is a bit odd: The Rules Committee. One might expect to see this investigation taken up by the Judiciary Committee (after all, monopolies are illegal and are typically investigated by the U.S. Dept. of Justice); or perhaps the Commerce Committee ... but the Rules Committee?

On this Rules Committee are the two key Senate pushers of forced voting machine purchase, Help America Vote Act sponsors Chris Dodd and Mitch McConnell. If only they had Steny Hoyer, they'd have the trifecta. Chairing the committee is Charles Schumer, who is now pushing an unwise Internet Registration bill (and Internet registration happens to be one of the areas this nifty new Open Source Digital Voting Foundation claims to be developing).

At first, after looking at the makeup of the senate committee undertaking the antitrust examination, I thought maybe they'd be using this as an excuse to expand the powers of the EAC. Now I expect the real reason these particular senators grabbed this particular investigation was to push an open source agenda -- but not just any open source agenda.

One particular open source agenda. The specific well oiled machine produced by a bunch of the folks who had been associated with the Quixote Group, who also have been associated with pushing the Holt Bill; those folks chummy with the multi-million-dollar NSF-funded ACCURATE. Always covered by Kim Zetter at Wired News. Usually pipelined in to the New York Times Editorial Page.

By the way, not all the "open source" code is being released.
And the only comment I can offer for that is:  Strange, but true.

Now, here's one of the blogs on this:

Information Week Government Blogs
Oct. 26, 2009, by Michael Hickens

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/10/can_open_sourc...

Can Open Source Software Save Democracy?


State Voting Machine Requirements Relative to Federal Testing and Certification

Source: Election Assistance Commission

State Requirements and the Federal Voting System Testing and Certification Program

Download Complete 50-State Report

How to Use This Guide

Introduction:
Section 311 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requires the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to periodically adopt standards for voting systems in the form of Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). Section 231 of HAVA further requires the EAC to provide for the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting system hardware and software to these Federal standards.

To accomplish this goal, HAVA requires the EAC to develop a program to provide accreditation and revocation of accreditation of independent, non-federal laboratories to test voting systems. In this way, the EAC’s Certification Program provides (1) Voluntary Voting System Standards, (2) voting system testing by accredited laboratories, and (3) voting system certification.

Participation in these EAC programs is strictly voluntary. However, some states have, through legislation or administrative rules, mandated participation in EAC’s Testing and Certification Program in varying degrees. Currently, 35 states mandate some element of EAC’s Testing and Certification Program.

This document consists of a summary table, a fact sheet for each state, territory, and the District of Columbia, and an appendix of state statutes and administrative rules.

Methodology:
The purpose of this document is to provide a broad overview of the degree to which states have (though statutes or administrative rules) mandated the use of EAC’s Certification Program. In looking at state requirements in this area, it was apparent that states took varying approaches in what they required and the language used to require it.

Because of the diversity of approaches taken by the states, it was difficult to develop a document that could serve as a useful tool in understanding the big picture. To address this issue, EAC staff classified each state’s requirements into four groups:

(1) No Federal Requirements
(2) Requires Testing to Federal Standards
(3) Requires Testing by a Federally Accredited Laboratory
(4) Requires Federal Certification.

These classifications required staff to review each statute and make a determination based upon its plain language. In each case, the language of the reviewed statutes and regulations is provided so that readers can make their own determination about the effect of the jurisdiction’s statutes and/or regulations.

Please note that this document is meant to provide a general understanding regarding relationship between state and Federal certification. It is not meant to provide a definitive interpretation of state law. The EAC recognizes that such interpretation is not the purview of the Federal government. This document is not intended to provide an authoritative interpretation of state law.

In viewing each category, it is important to note that the classification only reflects state statutes and regulations. It does not address policy or practice. The fact that a state has not statutorily mandated the use of EAC’s Certification program does not mean that they do not utilize the program. For example, we noted that some small states, which have historically relied on national certification, are not required to do so by their jurisdiction’s statutes or regulations.

It is also important to remember that classification is based upon a narrow interpretation of the state requirement, not necessarily on intent. For example, when a state required voting systems to be certified by an accredited laboratory (as opposed to the EAC), staff read this requirement only as requiring testing by Federal laboratories and not requiring Federal Certification. Description of Categories: EAC staff reviewed statutes and administrative regulations for all states, territories, and the District of Columbia to determine what level of participation each may require regarding EAC’s Testing and Certification Program.

The following is a description of each category:

1. No Federal Requirements:
Relevant state statutes and/or rules make no mention of any federal agency, certification program, laboratory, or standard.

2. Requires Testing to Federal Standards:
Relevant state statutes and/or rules require testing to Federal voting system standards (states reference standards drafted by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the EAC).

3. Requires Testing by a Federally Accredited Laboratory:
Relevant state statutes and/or rules require testing by a federally or nationally accredited laboratory.

4. Requires Federal Certification:
Relevant state statutes and/or rules require that voting systems be certified by a federal agency.

U.S. Election Assistance Commission Categories of State Participation in Federal Voting Standards

1. No Federal Requirements  -- 20 States
AK   AS   AR   FL   GU   HI   KS    ME   MS   MT   NE   NH   NJ   OK   PR   TN   VT   VI   WV   WY

2. Requires Testing to Federal Standards -- 10 States
CT   DC   IN   KY   MN   NV   NY   OR   TX   VA

3. Requires Testing by a Federally Accredited Laboratory -- 15 States
AL  AZ   IL   IA   LA*   MD*   MA   MI*   MO   NM   OH   PA   RI*   UT*   WI*   WA

4. Requires Federal Certification -- 10 States
CA   CO    DE    GA    ID **    NC**   ND    SC    SD               

* Statutes/rules require testing by an independent testing authority (ITA)  or NASED accredited laboratory
according to standards adopted by the FEC or EAC.

**Statute allows for NASED or EAC certification.

================================
Download Complete 50-State Report

Syndicate content