1
1
2
3
4 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
5 PUBLIC MEETING
6
7 Taken at 1225 NEW YORK AVENUE
8 NORTHWEST, SUITE 1100
9 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
10
11 Taken on the date of:
12 TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2005
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 Start time: 10:00 o'clock, a.m.
22 Taken by: JACKIE SMITH, a Court Reporter
2
1 U.S.
ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION:
2 Gracia Hillman, Chairman
3 Paul DeGregorio, Vice-Chair
4 Ray Martinez III, Commissioner
5 Juliet Thompson, Legal Counsel
6 Carol Pacquette, Interim Director
7 SPEAKERS:
8 Margaret Sims, Research Specialist, EAC
9 Karen Lynn-Dyson, Research Manager, EAC
10 Kim Brace, Election Data Services
11 Al Ater, Asst. Secretary of State,
12 Louisiana
13 Michael Kerr, ITAA
14 Joe Hazeltine, Wyle Laboratories
15 - 0 -
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
3
1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
2 CHAIR HILLMAN: Good morning.
This
3 meeting of
the United States Election Assistance
4 Commission
will come to order.
5 If you would all stand and join me in,
"The
6 Pledge of
Allegiance."
7 (The Pledge of Allegiance.)
8 CHAIR HILLMAN: If I could remind
9 everyone,
please, to turn off your pagers, cell
10 phones,
and any other devices that would make
11 noise and
distract from our meeting this
12 morning.
13 If we could have roll call, please.
14 MS. THOMPSON: Members, please
15 respond as
I all your names: Chair Hillman?
16 CHAIR HILLMAN: Here.
17 MS. THOMPSON: Vice-Chair DeGregorio?
18 CHAIR HILLMAN: Here.
19 MS. THOMPSON: Ray Martinez?
20 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Here.
21 MS. THOMPSON: Madam Chair, all three
22 members
are present.
4
1 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you.
We have
2 before us
the agenda for today's meeting. And
3 with your
concurrence, I would like to place the
4 update on
the executive director search to come
5
immediately after adoption of the agenda.
6 Are there any other changes or
adjustments?
7 Okay, if
not, we have our agenda, and adoption
8 would be
in order.
9 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: So moved,
10 Madam
Chair.
11 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Second.
12 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you.
As we
13 know, as
we all know, we have been working for
14 quite
awhile to go through the process of a
15
recruitment search and selection of executive
16 director.
17 The Help America Vote Act instructs the
18 Election
Assistance Commission to receive
19
recommendations from both the Board of Advisors
20 and the
Standards Board. They, each of those
21 boards,
put together its own search committee.
22 Those
committees then do their work, and
5
1 presented
to us the required, minimum three
2
recommendations.
3 Following that, we did our
interview. And
4 I am very
pleased to announce, as we did on
5 Friday --
6 Okay, yes. Where is it coming from? Where
7 are the
technicians? There. You're okay.
All
8
right. It is just a little startling, so
9 minimize
the startle factor.
10 As we did on Friday, we announced that
we
11 have hired
Thomas Wilke to be the Election
12 Assistance
Commission's first Executive
13
Director. Tom is with us this morning,
and I
14 would ask
that you stand, and so we can
15
acknowledge you. Congratulations, and
welcome
16 on board.
17 Tom has a very long and illustrious
career
18 in
election administration, starting out as a
19 local
election official, and working his was up
20 through to
serving as Executive Director of the
21 New York
State Board of Elections, very active
22 with the
National Association of State Election
6
1 Directors,
and many other associations. And
2 we're very
pleased and fortunate to have Tom on
3
board. And he will begin, officially,
full
4 time, on
June 20, 2005. This year, 2005.
5 Commissioners.
6 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Thank you,
7 Madam
Chair.
8 I would also like to publicly
congratulate
9 Tom Wilke
on his selection as Executive
10 Director.
11 As the Chair pointed out, we had a very
12 good
process to determine who we were going to
13 select for
this very important position with the
14 Election
Commission, and it was a very good
15 process
that we went through. Certainly, the
16 Advisory
Committee and the Standards Board did
17 its due
diligence, and we did ours, and came up
18 with the
best person we could possibly find in
19 the United
States.
20 And Tom Wilke is the person that not
only
21 served as
a local election official, but a state
22 election
official. He is well known throughout
7
1 the
country, and he is a person of great
2 integrity,
great knowledge, and I know will be a
3 great
asset to this Commission, and to the
4 efforts
for election reform at the federal level
5 in the
United States.
6 So I want to take this opportunity
publicly
7 to
congratulate Tom, and know that we welcome
8 you, and
look forward to your starting date.
9 CHAIR HILLMAN: Commissioner
10 Martinez.
11 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Thank you,
12 Madam
Chair.
13 I, too, want to add my sincere
14
congratulations to Tom for this appointment.
15 Obviously,
Tom's background is well known as
16 very
experienced and very respected, a former
17 local and
state election director, but I think
18 perhaps
even more important to me is that for
19 the past
17 or 18 months, and really beyond
20 that, even
before I started my term as a
21
Commissioner, Tom has been available to lend his
22 expertise
to all of us, quite frankly. And I am
8
1 deeply
appreciative that Tom helps me.
2 There comes the startle factor. There must
3 be a short
somewhere.
4 Tom has helped me to understand the
issues
5 from the
perspective of the election
6
administrator. I mean, it is so valuable
for
7 us, as
Commissioners, to get educated and to
8 hear what
impact our decisions have from every
9
perspective.
10 Obviously, as a direct stakeholder,
11 election
administrators, I think, are very
12 fortunate
to have somebody of Tom's caliber,
13
credibility, and experience, to be coming on to
14 the EAC to
advise us not just on an informal
15 basis, and
as a professional and a friend, but
16 now as a
colleague.
17 So I look forward to his insight. I look
18 forward to
his advice, and I look forward to his
19 leadership
during his tenure here in the EAC.
20 Congratulations, Tom.
21 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you.
If we can
22 now move
our attention to the minutes from the
9
1 April 26,
2005 meeting. Are there any
2
corrections to the minutes? If not, it
would be
3 in order
to move for approval.
4 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: So moved.
5 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Second.
6 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay.
We're all in
7 favor.
8 We have a pretty full agenda this
morning,
9 so we will
get started right away with reports,
10 the
reports. The first report --
11 If the mic's not on, if I'm not audible
--
12 I know
we're doing it for recording purposes as
13 well, so I
hope that even if the mic's not on,
14 it's
getting recorded.
15 First report, Title II requirements
16 payments
update. Margaret Sims, a member of the
17 EAC staff.
18 MS. SIMS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
19 Good
morning, everyone.
20 I'm happy to report that EAC has
processed
21 over
$11,000,000 in HAVA requirements payments
22 since our
last meeting. These payments went to
10
1 two
states, Alaska and North Dakota.
2 The latest disbursements bring the total
3
requirements payments processed by EAC to more
4 than 1.88
billion, of the more than 2.3
5 billion
appropriated for this purpose in fiscal
6 years 2003
and 2004.
7 The payments have gone to 53 of the 55
8 states and
territories eligible to receive them.
9 All 53
have received their 2003 requirements
10
payments. Forty-five of them also
received
11 their full
2004 requirements payments, and two
12 of them
received partial 2004 requirements
13 payments.
14 This leaves just over 437,000,000 to be
15
distributed to ten states from the fiscal year
16 '03 and
'04 funds. Only two states have not
17 received
any requirements payments, and those
18 states are
Guam and New York. New York is
19 expected
to file a certification -- New York is
20 expected
to file certification soon for over
21 153,000,000,
in 2003 and 2004 requirements
22 payments,
now that the state has its
11
1
five-percent match, and its administrative
2 complaint
procedures have been pre-cleared by
3 the
Department of Justice.
4 Guam, certification for its 2003 and
2004
5 payments
is pending. The territories still
6 needs to
file its HAVA compliant administrative
7 complaint
procedures with EAC. That is a
8
prerequisite to its receiving any requirements
9 payments.
10 California recently filed the
certification
11 for its FY
2004 requirements payments, which is
12 worth over
16,000,000. This certification and
13
supplemental materials provided by the state are
14 under
review right now.
15 The remaining outstanding balance of
over
16
$112,000,000 represents the 2004 requirements
17 payments
that have not yet been claimed by seven
18
states. The seven states are Alaska,
Delaware,
19 Hawaii,
Michigan, Montana, Oregon, and Texas.
20 Michigan and Texas, which have received
21 partial
2004 requirements payments, based on a
22 partial
five-percent match, plan to certify for
12
1 the
remaining 2004 funds once their states have
2
appropriated the remaining five-percent match.
3 Alaska, Hawaii, and Oregon, are seeking
the
4 required
five-percent match. Alaska has
5 indicated
they expect to have the match within a
6 couple
weeks. Delaware and Montana cannot
7 certify for their 2004 requirements
payments
8 until
after they have submitted a state plan
9 addressing
the use of those payments, and EAC
10 has
published the plans in the Federal Register
11 for 30
days.
12
Are there any questions?
13 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Yes, Peggy.
14 First, we met with Secretary of State
Bruce
15 McPherson
from California a few weeks ago. It
16 appears he
called and he brought the
17
certification.
18 Where are we with that payment?
19 MS. SIMS: At this point, we're
20 reviewing
some supplemental materials that the
21 state
kindly provided. One was a statement
22 indicating
how they intended to comply with the
13
1 state
auditor's recommendations. Another is a
2
clarification of a budget that was submitted
3 with that
statement to indicate how it compares
4 to the
latest budget published in the state plan
5 for
California.
6 The most recent supplemental material
was
7 received
yesterday, so we're right in the middle
8 of
reviewing that. And, hopefully, we'll
have
9 that done
within 24 hours.
10 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: That is very
11 good.
12 Yesterday, I spoke at the swearing of
the
13 new election
board in St. Louis County. And I
14 was
sitting next to the County Executive on one
15 side, and
the Secretary of State Carnehan on the
16 other.
17 The County Executive made the point that
he
18 doesn't
want to get rid of punch cards, and he
19 has taken
the position that the county is not
20 going to
funds getting rid of the punch cards in
21 St. Louis
County.
22 Missouri has accepted money, and in
doing
14
1 so, they
agreed to get rid of the punch cards
2 that exist
throughout the State of Missouri.
3 About 60 percent of the voters vote on
4 punch cards. And St. Louis County takes the
5 position
they are not going to get rid of punch
6 cards, and
Missouri has accepted the funds.
7 What happens, what will happen next, if
8 they don't
come into compliance with that? Will
9 the State
of Missouri have to give back the
10 three or
four million dollars that's allocated
11 to St.
Louis County for this?
12 MS. SIMS: The state would be
13 required
to a portion of the 102 money that is
14 to cover
the total number of precincts that were
15 considered
for the 102 funds. But aside from
16 that, HAVA
does require that the state meet the
17 301 voting
system standards on and after January
18 1,
2006. And that would apply, regardless
of
19 whether or
not they replace the punch card
20 systems.
21 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: If they don't
22 replace
punch card and lever machines throughout
15
1 the
country, any jurisdiction, if they have
2 accepted
this 102 money or not, they still have
3 to comply
with 301?
4 MS. SIMS: That's correct.
5 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: That is what
6 I told
them, and I know the Secretary of State
7 would like
for them to get rid of the punch
8 cards for
them too. I think it would be a good
9 idea for
them to do so too.
10 They are claiming they don't have
funds. I
11 think this
kind of battle is going on throughout
12 the
country, in other jurisdictions, over
13 whether
they have funds or not to replace the
14 punch
cards, especially for jurisdictions who
15 have
waited so long to do so.
16 So thank you for that.
17 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Peggy, I will
18 simply
make an observation, perhaps not so much
19 a
question.
20 I was in Houston yesterday participating
in
21 a
community forum that was sponsored, in part,
22 by Beverly
Kaufman, the County Clerk of Harris
16
1 County,
who oversees elections for Harris County
2 as
well. There was a lot of discussion
about
3 the
transfer of money from the Federal
4 Government
to the Secretary of State's Office in
5
Texas. And I think Texas is slated to
get about
6
$132,000,000 in Title II payments, in addition
7 to the
roughly 25,000,000 or so that was given
8 to Texas
under Title I for machine replacement
9 and other
things.
10 There was just a lot of talk about
success
11
stories. One of the challenges that
Harris
12 County,
many jurisdictions around the country
13 have, for
example, in complying with the very
14 important
provision of the Voting Rights Act
15 Section
2303, which is the minority language
16
provisions, that if a jurisdiction has a certain
17 percentage
of minority residents in that
18 jurisdiction,
they have to provide ballots, in
19 Spanish,
for example. And one of the challenges
20 has always
been to find poll workers who speak
21 that
language, who speaks Spanish or Vietnam,
22 and they
reported success, this past November.
17
1 I think
they had 90 percent of the poll stations
2 in Harris
County had coverage with Spanish
3 language
interpreters that could assist voters
4 who needed
that assistance.
5 So I just wanted to report to you,
6 obviously,
you are doing excellent work in
7 making
sure that the EAC distributes this money
8 and works
with the states so cooperatively to
9 make sure
that the money is flowing. And I was
10 just
fortunate, I think, to get some first hand
11
observations about some of the success stories
12 that, I
think, will be coming out even more.
13
So as we move into the next selection
14 cycle, in
terms of the use of these
15
unprecedented federal funds. Thanks for
the
16 work you
are doing.
17 MS. SIMS: Thank you.
18 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: It was a day
19 well
spent.
20 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay.
Are there any
21 other
questions for Ms. Sims?
22 If not, thank you very much.
18
1 MS. SIMS: Thank you.
2 CHAIR HILLMAN: We now will have
3 several
reports regarding our research agenda
4 for
2005. We'll have an update on the
statewide
5 voter
registration guidance, and following that,
6 an update
on provisional voter, and voter
7
identification study, and then a report on the
8 efforts we
made to collect and analyze data from
9 the
states.
10 Just to put this in context, Section 303
of
11 HAVA
requires that each state develop and
12 maintain a
single statewide list of registered
13
voters. That is a very significant
undertaking.
14 The law
allows, allowed states to waive
15 compliance
with the mandate until January 1,
16 2006. So what we have are 17 states that
17
implemented these lists in time for the November
18 2004
election, and 44 states took the waiver
19 option, which means they must be in
compliance
20 by January
1, 2006.
21 Of the 44, 21 states have entered into
an
22 agreement
for the development of the database,
19
1 and nine
others have requests for proposal
2
pending. And so that leaves a few that
are
3 still
working their way toward being in a
4 position
where they will have requests for
5 proposals,
or developing the database in-house.
6 We issued draft guidance about a month
ago.
7 Tomorrow
is the last day for public comment on
8 the
guidance. The EAC thanks, very much, the
9 state and
election officials who formed a
10 working
group, working with us to develop the
11 draft
guidance.
12 And thank you to Commissioner Martinez,
who
13 spent a
lot of time with the group to help make
14 sure that
we were moving along as swiftly as we
15 could, so
that the guidance would be issued in a
16 timely
fashion for the states. And we're
17 thankful
to everybody who has been submitting
18 comments
and for those who haven't yet, you
19 still have
24 hours until close of business
20
tomorrow. And we will continue to
explore
21 technical
issues surrounding the maintenance and
22 upgrade of
systems that support the voter
20
1
registration databases as it will be a first
2 time
venture for two-thirds of the states.
And
3 it is, as
I said before, a rather significant
4
undertaking.
5 And with that, Commissioner Martinez, I
6 think you
and Ms. Lynn-Dyson have a report for
7 us.
8 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Sure.
I'm
9 happy to
provide a quick -- I think the
10 background
that you just provided, Madam Chair,
11 is
obviously very pertinent to this undertaking.
12 This is
significant, not just because of the
13 subject
matter in that we're providing guidance
14 and
offering some interpretation to the language
15 in
Sections 303, primarily Section 303(a) of
16 HAVA, but
it also marks the first time that the
17 EAC has
developed guidance under our authority
18 in HAVA in
Sections 311 and 312.
19 We're not a regulatory agency when it
comes
20 to the
administrative requirements that state
21 and local
governments have to implement as a
22 result of
HAVA. We are, however, an agency that
21
1 is
required to give guidance when there is
2 ambiguity,
or when there is confusion with
3 regard to
what some of these requirements mean.
4 This represents, Madam Chair, and
5 Vice-Chair,
the first time that the EAC has been
6 able to
develop, and, I think, in a very
7 inclusive
and in a transparent manner, guidance
8 that I
think will be very instructive and,
9 hopefully,
very helpful, as states are trying to
10 make
decisions on how to build their systems and
11 being in
compliance with HAVA.
12 The challenge, of course, was that, as
you
13 mentioned,
something like 17 states have moved
14 forward in
building these statewide systems
15
already. And then you have a number of
states
16 who are in
various stages, as you have just
17 reported
in your comments.
18 And so the challenge for the EAC was to
try
19 to arrive
at some guidance that gathers the
20
information and experience of those states that
21 have moved
forward, but also takes into account
22 the states
that still have decisions to make,
22
1 and the
need that they have for the EAC to offer
2 some
clarity on some of the requirements that's
3 in the
language of HAVA.
4 We have been very fortunate to work, not
5 just with
state and local election officials who
6 have lent
their time and expertise, but also to
7 work
closely with representatives from the
8 advocacy
community, from civil rights, and
9 voting
organizations who we have met with
10
directly. We have heard their input and,
of
11 course, we
have encouraged all stakeholders,
12 whether
direct or indirect, to submit written
13 testimony,
which is what we will consider as we
14 move
forward after tomorrow in making our
15 decision
to finalize this particular guidance.
16 We have also had the expertise of our
17
exceptional general counsel, Julie Thompson, who
18 has worked
directly with the groups, and who
19 will take
all the comments that have been
20 received,
and advise the Commission as we move
21 forward.
22 Of course, our research manager, Karen
23
1 Lynn-Dyson
has been a key player in this process
2 as
well. So this continues to move forward,
and
3 we will,
again, end the comment period and then
4 try to
wrap up that guidance into some final
5 form in
the coming weeks. Madam Chair.
6 CHAIR HILLMAN: Do we have an
7 estimate
when that length of time will be, from
8 tomorrow
until we think we can issue the final
9 guidance?
10 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: We don't have
11 an
estimate. We hope it is sooner rather
than
12
later. It depends on how many comments
actually
13 come
in. We have had to handle individual and
14 entities
submitting comments. I suppose we may
15 have a few
more before the deadline hits
16
tomorrow. And after that, it is up to
our
17 counsel to
take a look at these comments and
18 give some
appropriate advice to the Commission.
19 My guess is we're looking into June,
20 sometime
in June before we can -- when we will
21 finalize
the particular guidance. Julie.
22 MS. THOMPSON: I think that's very
24
1
accurate. We will take approximately a
week to
2
week-and-a-half to process the comments and make
3
recommendation to you as to any changes,
4 additions,
supplements, that may be necessary,
5 based on
those comments, to the guidance.
6 CHAIR HILLMAN: Any questions,
7 Mr.
Vice-Chair?
8 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: No.
Thank
9 you. I don't have any additional questions.
10 CHAIR HILLMAN: The next report we
11 have is on
the work that we're doing with
12 respect to
provisional voting and voter
13
identification. Again, these are two
mandated
14 items
under the Help America Vote Act.
15 Provisional voting as we know, is not a
new
16 concept to
all states. Before November, 2004,
17 22 states
had some form of professional voting,
18 or
affidavit voting, or challenge ballot voting,
19 whatever
it might have been called. Preliminary
20 data that
we gathered, as we have reported
21 before,
indicated that in the November, 2004
22 election,
more than 1.5 million voters cast
25
1
provisional ballots, and of that, more than 1.2
2 million of
those ballots had been counted.
3 Confusion still exists, as it did at
that
4 time, over
the implementation of provisional
5
voting. And many voters are still not
aware of
6 exactly
what provisional balloting is, and what
7 the
options are, and the circumstances under
8 which a
provisional ballot is available to them.
9 The Election Assistance Commission is in
10 the
process of finalizing its discussions with
11 Eagleton
Institute and the Moritz College of Law
12 to enter
into a contract to research how
13
provisional voting was implemented in 2004,
14 including
a review of the statutes, and
15 procedures
that were used throughout the
16
country. We will finalize guidance in
the fall
17 so that it
can be available to the states in
18 time for
the 2006. We're trying very, very hard
19 to be on a
time line that the guidance we issue
20 on any of
the HAVA mandated items will be
21 available
to states in as timely as fashion as
22 we can
produce.
26
1 And part of our study will look into
2 litigation
that was useful in defining the uses
3 of
provisional vote. We're implementing the
4
provisional voting study.
5 HAVA requires identification of first
time
6 voters who
have not been verified through the
7 voter
registration process before. I think it
8 is fair to
say that voter identification is a
9 hotly
debated topic throughout the country right
10 now. Many states are considering various
11 options of
voter identification. And there is
12 discussion
as to how the requirements of HAVA
13 interplay
with existing state law and how
14
alternative identification processes can be
15
implemented in a fashion that does not
16 counteract
what HAVA requires.
17 And, again, the study that will be
18 conducted
by Eagleton, will take a look at voter
19
identification requirements, the types of ID
20 cards that
can be accepted, as well as
21 procedures
for alternative identification. I
22 think at the end, hopefully, it will be
a study
27
1 that will
illuminate all of us.
2 Karen Lynn-Dyson will bring us up to
speed.
3 MS. LYNN-DYSON: Madam Chair, I
4 really
have nothing --
5 CHAIR HILLMAN: Bring the mic closer.
6 MS. LYNN-DYSON: I really have
7 nothing
further to add to your introductory
8 remarks regarding
the study. We're looking
9 forward to
meeting with the contractors who will
10 be working
with us on this important project in
11 the next
week or so. And we have, as we always
12 do, set
forth the very ambitious agenda,
13 research
agenda, and work plan. And we
14 anticipate
that this will be a piece of work
15 that is
somewhat similar to the work that we
16 undertook
with our statewide voter registration
17 databases
and that we'll be convening public
18 meetings
around the topic over the next three to
19 four
months, and we look forward to having a
20 baseline
of data and information on these very,
21 very
important issues, really get a handle on
22 what
happened with provisional voting, what is
28
1 happened
legislatively, administratively, and to
2 eventually
issue some guidance to the elections
3 community
on this topic, and, as you say, the
4 very hotly
debated topic of great interest in
5 the
community around voter identification
6
requirements.
7 CHAIR HILLMAN: Can you bring us up
8 to speed
as to exactly where we are with the
9 contract
process, either you or interim
10 executive
director.
11 MS. PACQUETTE: Madam Chair, that
12 contract
should be on your desk today for
13
signature. We have finished the
discussions
14 with
Eagleton and have prepared the contract
15 materials
that are being finalized for your
16
signature. We have attentive date of, I
believe
17 it's this
Thursday, for a kick-off meeting with
18 Eagleton
here in our offices.
19 CHAIR HILLMAN: Can you explain how
20 the Moritz
College part of the work fits in with
21
Eagleton. We have referred to it as a contract
22 with
Eagleton. What does Moritz do?
29
1 MS. PACQUETTE: Yes.
2 Is this working automatic all right?
3 CHAIR HILLMAN: I can hear.
I don't
4 know if
anybody else can.
5 MS. PACQUETTE: Eagleton is in the
6 commercial
world of being what we could call the
7 prime
contractor. They are -- actually, the
8 contract
that we have is with Rutgers
9
University, which is the parent organization and
10 the
authorized contracting authority.
Eagleton
11 Institute
is an institute within the university,
12 and our
contract is with them. They will be
13 performing
the work. They have chosen to team
14 with the
Moritz College of Law at Ohio State
15 University
because the analysis that we have
16 required
include, as you indicated, reviewing
17 litigation, reviewing legislation. So they
18 brought on
board one of the leading institutions
19 in the
country on election law to provide that
20 expertise
for this contract.
21 However, Rutgers and Eagleton are
22
responsible for the performance of the work.
30
1 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay.
Thank you.
2
Commissioners, questions.
3 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Perhaps just
4 a quick
comment, Madam Chair.
5 Again, I just want to expand upon the
6
significance of this project for the EAC.
7 Gathering
information, I think one of the key
8 accomplishments,
whether we, in the end, end up
9 with
embracing your guidance or best practices
10 as a
result of this work, the key part of this
11 work, I
think, is going to be a thorough
12 analysis
of how each jurisdiction that is
13 covered by
HAVA, 55 jurisdictions, how they
14 treat
provisional voting. And I think there's
15 been a lot
of research in this area done by
16 other
entities.
17 I know electionline.org put out a very
18 useful
post November, 2004 study on provisional
19 voting,
which I think was versus instructive.
20 For the
EAC to go out there and work with these
21 55
jurisdictions and get a compilation of what
22 they do, how they treat provisional
voting. And
31
1 as you
said at the beginning, Madam Chair, there
2 are some
states that have extensive experience
3 with
provisional voting.
4 When Congress passed this provision
within
5 HAVA, they
were looking at states that had been
6 doing this
for a while and taking their
7
experience, but it is also true that at least 16
8 states in
this country have never implemented
9 any type
of provisional voting whatsoever. They
10 didn't
have challenge ballots, they didn't have
11 jury
affidavit ballots. If you lived in one
of
12 jurisdictions
and you registered on the roles to
13 vote, you
have no recourse to challenge that,
14 and you
are simply disenfranchised.
15 So this is an important extremely
important
16 provision
of HAVA. It is one that was the
17 source of
great confusion to election
18
administrators. And I think during this
19 election
cycle, I think it will be one of the
20 most
significant projects that we undertake at
21 the
EAC. And I think just simply gathering
the
22 data is
going to be an accomplishment even of
32
1 itself,
even beyond what we end up embracing as
2 an end
product.
3 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay.
4 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Karen, the
5 data that
was collected by EDS, Kim Brace's
6
organization, we're going to be releasing soon.
7 How will
that help instruct Rutgers and Moritz
8 that are
going to do this work?
9 MS. LYNN-DYSON: I think, Mr.
10
Vice-Chairman, we're comfortable and confident
11 in saying
that the work that Kim Brace and EDS
12 has done
with analyzing, collecting, and
13 analyzing
Election Day survey information is
14 some of
the best and most comprehensive, to our
15 knowledge,
that's been collected on this. And
16 so,
certainly, the information that we have and
17 we have in
turn tasked EDS to analyze, will be
18 readily
available to Eagleton, to Moritz, to
19 consider
when they take a comprehensive look at
20
provisional voting, and any other issues.
21 You are going to here later from Mr.
Brace.
22 And I
think this is the first-time effort we
33
1 have in
this regard but it is very
2
comprehensive, and the best information that's
3 been
gathered to date.
4 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: So if we
5 obtain
information on provisional voting from
6 different
states, coupled with this research,
7 that will
tell us how they do it, what the law
8 says. We'll be moving to get some data and do
9 some
comparative analysis from states that, for
10 instance,
had statewide voter registration
11 database
in place for 2004, and how they
12 compared to a state that did not. And,
13 obviously,
we'll be able to get their data, the
14 raw data,
from the survey from EDS, but compare
15 it to the
other data that we get, the research
16 data on
the laws and regulations themselves, to
17 try to
make some real comparison about what
18 worked,
what didn't work, and to help instruct
19 states on
how they can do it better.
20 MS. LYNN-DYSON: Right.
I think that
21 as we
pursue assorted tasks within the research
22 agenda, it
becomes very clear how the issues are
34
1
interconnected.
2 Case in point, provisional voting and
3 statewide
voter registration database. As you
4 point out,
on provisional voting and voting
5
identification requirements, as we explore these
6 issues, we
will see how they inform one another.
7 And, eventually, we hope, improve
election
8
administration practice.
9 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Thank you.
10 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay.
Thank you,
11 very much.
12 Okay.
The final report under the research
13 agenda is
from Mr. Kim Brace, Election Data
14 Services,
to give us an update on our efforts to
15 collect
data from the states, including our
16 Election
Day Survey, and the military and
17 overseas
citizen survey data. As we have
18 wrestled
with up to this point, when we have
19 reported
activities under HAVA to Congress and
20 others, we
have had to do it based on anecdotal
21 or
inconsistent data. And part of our
effort is
22 to lay a
baseline of data collection by the EAC,
35
1 so that as
we go through future federal election
2 cycles, we
can build on that and have
3
comparative data to mark progress or lack
4 thereof
under the Help America Vote Act.
5 With that, Mr. Brace. Thank you.
6 MR. BRACE: Thank you, Madam Chair,
7 Vice-Chair,
Commissioners. It's a pleasure to
8 come
before you today and give you an updated
9 progress
report on the analysis we have
10 undertaken
of the Election Day Survey for the
11 EAC.
12 For the first time in this nation's over
13 230-year
history, the Federal Government has
14 made an
assessment of election procedures used
15 across the
land. The Election Day Survey
16 represents
the largest and most comprehensive
17 survey of
voting and election administration
18 practices
ever conducted by a U.S. Governmental
19
agency. A survey provides statistics and
voter
20
registration modes of voting, including absentee
21 and provisional;
over votes and under votes for
22 federal
offices, number of precinct polling
36
1 places and
poll workers. The survey also
2 provides
information on voting equipment,
3 including
equipment failures and polling place
4
accessibility.
5 State election directors and election
6
administrators in the District of Columbia and
7 four
territories, Guam, Puerto Rico America's
8 Samoa, and
the U. S. Virgin Islands were asked
9 to respond
to the survey. The state directors,
10 in turn,
sought data from local election
11
administrators. Responses were received
from
12 all state level jurisdictions except for
13 America's
Samoa and Guam.
14 The Election Day Survey requested
15
information from a total of 6,568 local election
16
administrators. The 43 questions in the
survey,
17 if all had
been completed, would have produced a
18 total of
282,000 individual data items, but
19 there is a
substantial number of missing
20 responses
to questions on the number of ballots
21 counted
and votes cast for federal offices.
22 Response
rates were over 90 percent, but on
37
1 other
questions, such as provisional ballots and
2 polling
place accessibility, response rates were
3 under 50
percent.
4 Although higher response rates are
5
preferable, it is important to point out that,
6 one, this
is the first time that the Election
7 Day Survey
was administered, and two,
8
participation in the survey was voluntary.
9 As is
typical with baseline surveys, many issues
10 were
identified with the administration of the
11 Election
Day Survey. These include first, there
12 were differences in how state and local
election
13
administrators interpreted some of the
14
terminology used in the survey questions.
For
15 example,
what is a poll worker, or what
16
constitutes an absentee ballot.
17 Different interpretations of the survey
18 items by
election administrators resulted in
19 some
uneven reporting, sometimes even within a
20 state.
21 Second, because of the delay in the
22 election of the EAC and the time
required to
38
1 obtain
approval of the survey instrument under
2 the
Paperwork Reduction Act, the survey was sent
3 to state
election directors just one week before
4 the
November General Election. Election
5
administrators did not have enough lead time to
6 plan and
set up the systems for compiling the
7 statistics
that were requested by the survey.
8 Third, the Election Day Survey was
9
distributed to state election directors as an
10 electronic
spread sheet, but responses to the
11 survey
were received in a variety of formats.
12 While some
election directors sent the original
13 electronic
spreadsheet to local election
14
administrators, others prepared their own
15 surveys,
and in some cases, altered the survey
16
questions. This resulted in even more
uneven
17 reporting
amongst the states.
18 Fourth, we have identified many data
entry
19 errors in
those spread sheets. In some
20 instances,
we have been able to identify the
21 error
through our analysis. We have asked for
22
clarification and made corrections to them.
39
1 However,
we don't have the resources to validate
2 every one
of the 282,000 data items. And,
3
subsequently, some data items, some errors might
4 remain.
5 Despite the problems in administrating
the
6 survey, we
believe that reliable information has
7 been
obtained from many of the questions, and
8 our work
illustrates some of the successes and
9 challenges
of election administration in the
10 United
States.
11 However, we caution that our findings
are
12 still very
preliminary, and only valid for those
13
jurisdictions that reported. We cannot
make
14 inferences
for jurisdictions that did not
15
report. We would also caution that the
16
reliability of some responses reduced the
17 overall
validity of some of our efforts.
18 One purpose of the Election Day Survey
was
19 to
provide, as you mentioned, Madam Chairman,
20 the
baseline of election administration data to
21 help the
EAC to identify the prioritize issues
22 for the
study under Section 241 of HAVA. As of
40
1 now, the
baseline has only partly been
2
established, but we continue to receive data.
3 In just
the past two weeks since we have put
4 together
some of our analysis, we have received
5 18
separate submissions of new or corrected
6 data. As of now, we have four major
7
recommendations for the EAC on data collection
8 efforts.
9 First, we would recommend that the EAC
hold
10 two
symposiums, the first for state election
11 directors,
and the second, for consumers of
12 election
data to produce accurate and consistent
13
definitions of election administration
14
terminology. A set of common definitions
will
15 increase
the reliability of future data
16
collection. We recommend that the
symposiums be
17 held in
the near future to allow election
18
administrators time to conform procedures to the
19 new
definitions.
20 Right now, for example, as has already
been
21 testified,
many states are in the midst of the
22 computer
programming for the development of the
41
1 statewide
voter registration systems, and that
2 provides a
lot of opportunity for data
3 collection.
4 Second, we recommend that the next
Election
5 Day Survey
be conducted by a method that
6 provides
interactive quality assurance checks.
7 Such a
system might be Internet-based, or
8 consist of
a spread sheet in which respondents
9 could see
how different survey questions were
10 related.
11 For example, the number of ballots cast
in
12 early
absentee, provisional, and Election Day
13 voting
should be equivalent to the total number
14 of ballots
cast. That's not always the case in
15 the data
that we have collected. Validating
16 responses
at the time of data entry would
17 greatly
reduce the number of data errors that we
18 have
found.
19 Third, we would recommend, as we have in
20 previous
progress reports, that the EAC expand
21 its
clearinghouse role to include the ongoing
22 funding
and election of precinct level
42
1
registration, turn out, election returns,
2 precinct
maps, polling place information, sample
3 ballots,
election manuals, and other items to
4 assist in
the analysis of the voting process.
5 And, finally, as I said earlier, there
are
6 errors and
omissions in the data from the
7 Election
Day Survey. The assessment is not
8
perfect. Some of the errors might even
point
9 users of
the survey data in the wrong direction,
10 but the
survey is a start.
11 Consequently, our conclusions are still
12 sensitive,
and a report of the survey is not
13 ready to be
released at this point. So, as for
14 the
recommendation, we would, to help reach the
15 ultimate
goal of the election administration
16 baseline
in representing all election
17
jurisdictions, we would recommend that the EAC
18 consider
involving the states in a review of the
19 data
that's been compiled so far.
20 Many original state commissions have
been
21 updated
several times. Such a review would not
22 only provide
an opportunity for survey
43
1
respondents to identify and correct data items,
2 but also
to retrieve some of the missing data
3 needed to
complete the survey. This would
4 greatly
improve the quality of the data and
5 coverage
of the survey so that more election
6
jurisdictions are represented in the election
7
administration baseline.
8 In addition, census population estimates
9 that have
been used in our analysis so far, in
10 July, the
Census Bureau will be releasing new
11 population
estimates that could be incorporated
12 into the
survey analysis for a more complete and
13 current
view of voting and election
14
administration statistics.
15 We would also note that the questions on
16 absentee
voting in the Election Day Survey are
17 closely
related to the military and overseas
18 absentee
ballot survey from the ULC HAVA Survey
19 which was
conducted shortly thereafter.
20 Coverage
rates and data quality issues related
21 to the ULC
HAVA Survey, however, are even more
22 problematic. And in some instances, it appears
44
1 that data
from the two surveys have been
2
intermingled. A delay in the release of
the
3 Election
Day Survey to allow for the review of
4 the survey
data by state election directors
5 would also
provide an opportunity to resolve
6 conflicts
between the ULC HAVA and the election
7 surveys,
as well as resolve other data coverage
8 and data
quality issues specifically for the ULC
9 HAVA
survey.
10 Finally, we have begun work on the NVRA
11 survey,
Voter Registration Survey, as final data
12 has now
been coming to the EAC. Some of the
13 data
requested are the same or similar to the
14
information requested in the Election Day
15
Survey. We are comparing the data right
now,
16 and I can
report as an update that there are
17
differences in that data compared to the
18 Election
Day survey. So we're seeking a way of
19 trying to
resolve these differences between the
20 states.
21 This concludes my progress report to
date,
22 and I'd be
happy to answer any questions.
45
1 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay.
Commissioner
2 Martinez,
do you have any questions?
3 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Well, first
4 of all, I
want to start, and Ken, perhaps you
5 have much
more experience in this area than I
6 do, but I
think it is important to note and
7 perhaps to
give a strong word of appreciation to
8 the jurisdictions
that are complying, and even
9 to all
jurisdictions, quite frankly.
10 Gathering their data, I am certain is
very
11 time
intensive and personnel intensive.
12 MR. BRACE: Absolutely.
13 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: And so my
14 guess is
that while, obviously, this data, we
15 feel, is
critical to give us a baseline so that
16 we can
appropriately wear our hat that Congress
17 gave us,
as a national clearinghouse of
18
information related to the federal election
19
administration practices. The fact of
the
20 matter is,
this is a major undertaking to get a
21 survey
like this, and then as a chief election
22 official,
disseminate that survey to your local
46
1
jurisdictions, and try to get compliance for
2 something
that, again, is voluntary.
3 MR. BRACE:
That's correct.
4 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: So I want to
5 commend
the states and local jurisdictions for
6 their
efforts in complying and in helping us to
7 gather
this very important and critical
8
information.
9 The one question I would have to you,
and I
10 had a
chance to read through your testimony
11 before you
came up, and I think it's very
12 helpful,
and I think your recommendations are
13 very
compelling. I didn't realize that we, in
a
14 sense,
were going to be confusing jurisdictions
15 by sending
out a survey that asked questions on
16 absentee
voting that would then confuse what is
17 required
information or surveys under two other
18 federal
statutes, UL HAVA and NVRA. There is no
19 choice,
and those jurisdictions are required to
20 give us
that information whereas our Election
21 Day Survey
is voluntary. And I would ask you,
22 certainly,
there is a way, can we send all three
47
1 surveys at
the same type. Perhaps you can give
2 us some
insight, as we can insure that type of
3 confusion
does not occur again in the future.
4 MR. BRACE: As I recall, not all
5 three
surveys were sent out exactly at the same
6 time, but
fairly close together. They were sent
7 to the
states, as I said, the Election Day
8 Survey, so
they got it just before Election Day.
9 And the
other two, I believe, were sent out in
10 late
November and December time with varying,
11 statute geared
deadlines for receiving
12 responses.
13 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: So once we go
14 through
the exercise of trying to achieve a
15 common set
of definitions and take some of your
16
suggestions, we will have our survey instrument
17 out well
before an Election Day, so they can
18 know and
anticipate what information they are
19 going to
need to gather to be able to comply
20 with our
Election Day Survey.
21
MR. BRACE: Absolutely. And that is
22 the heart
of my recommendation, in terms of
48
1 having
that symposium very soon, so they can see
2 what's needed.
3 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Thank you,
4 Madam
Chair.
5 CHAIR HILLMAN: Mr. Degregorio.
6 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Just to build
7 on what
Commissioner Martinez said, because it
8 is a very
important point, I think many election
9 officials
out there don't collect a lot of data,
10 as you
know, in your line of work.
11 MR. BRACE: Yes.
12 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: We have
13 talked
about this in the past. I know this
14 survey was
a surprise to many, but the UL HAVA
15
information, as an example, is something that as
16 mandatory
that we request, that we try to
17 obtain.
And I understand, at least in
18
preliminary information, that you provided to
19 us, that
in that particular area, we're fairly
20 weak.
21 MR. BRACE: That's correct.
22 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Can you
49
1 elaborate
a little bit on that?
2 MR. BRACE: As I indicated in my
3 testimony,
the response rates varied from
4 between 90
down to 50 percent. Unfortunately,
5 on the ULC
HAVA data, we're lucky to get up in
6 the 50s
range.
7 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: And the
8 polling
place accessibility issues, which is a
9 very
important issue for this Commission to
10 obtain
that type of information from the states,
11 it is
disappointing that that is at the 50
12 percent
level too. Why do you think that is?
13 Why aren't
they able to obtain that information?
14 Because as
I understand it, most states are
15 required
to obtain that information from the
16 election
jurisdictions. At least in Missouri,
17 the states
survey jurisdictions on a regular
18 basis to
obtain information on how many polling
19 places
were accessible.
20 Are the states not doing or just not
21 providing
the information to us?
22 MR. BRACE: We don't know totally the
50
1 answer
yet. However, the Election Day Surveys
2 actually
asks three questions dealing with
3
disability. The first question was
looking at
4 wheelchair accessibility, which is, as you
5 mentioned,
the requirement that they meet.
6 There is
much more data there, although not as
7 much as we
would have liked.
8 The other two surveys or the other two
9 questions
ask for variations on the theme. And
10 from what
we can see so far, there appeared to
11 be some
confusion in whether or not you were
12 looking at
voting equipment information in those
13 two
questions or polling place information where
14 the
question actually did say polling place.
15 So there has been some confusion, in
terms
16 of those
particular data, but it does appear
17 that at
least in terms of the wheelchair
18
accessibility, we're getting a little bit better
19 response,
but that was Question No. 21 at the
20 tail end
of everything. And I think you can see
21 a definite
drop-off of responses as you got
22 towards
the tail end.
51
1 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Their issue
2 of ballots
cast, which is a tough one, we're
3 aware that
the Department of -- Congressional
4
Department, the Census Bureau is going to come
5 up with
some kind of report very shortly on
6 ballots
cast, on census data.
7 In your report to us today, you talk
about
8 the number
of ballots cast and early absentee
9 election
day voting should be equivalent to the
10 total
number of ballots cast. Let me ask you,
11 how do you
define this, just so that I
12
understand. If somebody cast a provisional
13 ballot,
provisional ballot which may or may
14 not -- we
know that roughly 67 percent of
15
provisional ballots are counted, the votes are
16 counted.
17 MR. BRACE: That's correct.
18
VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Is that a
19 cast
ballot or counted ballot? How would you
20 define
that for us? Because, as an example, in
21 Ohio, with
40,000 provisional ballots cast but
22 not
counted, the state reports their turn-out.
52
1 Are they
reporting that 40,000 into their
2 ballots
cast are saying we had a higher
3
turn-out. Even though, technically,
those
4 people
were not registered to vote because their
5 ballots
were not counted.
6 Enlighten us as to what you think about
7 this
issues?
8 MR. BRACE: That is a continued
9 confusion
area, Mr. Vice-Chairman.
10 Unfortunately, the states have come up
with
11 different
definitions of whether or not they
12 count that
kind of information. We're seeing
13 different
definitions of whether or not inactive
14 voters are
counted in with the counts of
15 registered
voters or not. What we attempted to
16 do, in
putting together the answers to the
17 survey, is
look from an analysis standpoint of
18 how data
could be used together.
19 The survey, however, asked for data
20
separately. And I believe, and I think
in
21 talking
with a number of different states and
22 why, one
of our recommendations is that they put
53
1 together
that data with kind of like blinders,
2 without
realizing that there are some
3
relationships between data. So part of
what our
4 goal is, is
to get out to the states the
5
information so that they can see that there are
6
relationships between the two, that things
7 should add
up, and that you don't want to count
8 something
here when you should be counting it
9 over
there.
10 I'm afraid that we're going to find a
lot
11 of that in
the ULC HAVA survey, of whether or
12 not, even
though the instructions to the survey
13 said when
you look at the absentees, don't count
14 ULC HAVA
when you answer the Election Day, but
15 do count
ULC HAVA here on the ULC HAVA Survey,
16 we're
seeing intermingled data.
17 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Thank you for
18 that.
19 CHAIR HILLMAN: Kim, one of the
20 things I
want to thank you for is the candor in
21 which you
sort of said we've got to correct some
22 things
along the way here so we can compile the
54
1 kind of
statistics that really will not only
2 inform the
EAC in its work, but inform the
3 country
with respect to not only progress made
4 under the
Help America Vote Act, but progress
5 made in
assuring voters that their votes are
6 being
counted.
7 And, secondly, seeing an increase,
8 hopefully,
in participation at the polls, that
9 more
voters will vote over time. I think one
of
10 the things
for me that, you know, you just don't
11 know what
you're going to learn when you go
12 through an
effort like this. And the
13
recommendation about coming up with some agreed
14 upon universal terminology, if you will, I
know
15 that, for
example, on the voting system
16
guidelines, there is a glossary of terms so that
17 people
will all understand when we refer to poll
18 worker,
this is what we mean.
19 MR. BRACE: That's correct.
20 CHAIR HILLMAN: So I think it will be
21 a very
interesting exercise for us to go through
22 and,
hopefully, it will help educate people as
55
1 to why
there may have been confusion with
2 respect to
the use of different terminology and
3 different
expectations in different
4
jurisdictions when the Census Bureau issues its
5 report on
the number of people registered and
6 voter
participation, what is the basis of the
7 data. Is it a survey, is it an extrapolation.
8 And I used that data for many, many
years,
9 and I
should know the answer to that question.
10 I have
just plain forgotten.
11 MR. BRACE: I use it also, Madam
12
Chair. It is a survey. However, they have not
13 gone and
collected the actual information like
14 you have,
in terms of the Election Day Survey.
15 So when
the bureau puts out its study, which
16 we're
anticipating probably within the next week
17 or so, you
do need to understand that they are
18 going to
come out with one set of numbers and
19 we'll have
a different set of numbers. Ours
20 tend to be
the certified, official numbers.
21 Theirs are
the results of survey questions being
22 posed to
voters. And we know that the survey
56
1
methodology indicates that not all voters want
2 to answer
the way that they truthfully should.
3 If you
were asked, did you vote, and everybody
4 wants to
say that they voted, but we only know
5 that a
certain number of votes were actually
6 cast.
7 And so survey responses have,
8
traditionally, shown that it tends to be a
9 little
inflated. The Census Bureau surveys,
10 they have
started those back in 1964, and they
11 have
consistently shown a little bit more
12
registration and voting than the real numbers.
13 show.
14
CHAIR HILLMAN: But the trends are
15 pretty
consistent, even if the number's around a
16 hundred
percent.
17 MR. BRACE: The good pieces of
18
information coming from the Census Bureau
19 studies are the demographic variables,
how are
20 the
different race groups voting and
21
registering, how do different income groups vote
22 and
register, how do different people that own
57
1 property
vote and register. That information is
2 not
available from the official sources.
3 There's only five states in the nation
that
4 collect
race information on their registration
5 rolls, so
you can't get data, other than those
6 five. The Census Bureau studies are useful, but
7 looking at
that demographic variable.
8 CHAIR HILLMAN: Well, it is my hope
9 that the
Election Assistance Commission in time
10 will be
able to be a solid and credible source
11 of data,
because it is very useful. I mean, it
12 is one
sure way to measure progress, but as you
13 said, in
the past, the Census Bureau data was
14 always
useful to indicate patterns and voting
15 behavior.
16 In your presentation, you said that as
of
17 now, our
baseline has only been partly
18
established. What percentage would you
say, are
19 we halfway
there, three quarters of the way
20 there,
two-thirds of the way there.
21 MR. BRACE: It depends on which
22 question?
58
1 CHAIR HILLMAN: Overall.
2 MR. BRACE: Overall.
3 CHAIR HILLMAN: All overall effort.
4 MR. BRACE: Overall effort, I think
5 we're
probably about between 60 to 70 percent
6 there.
7 CHAIR HILLMAN: All right.
Well,
8 that is
encouraging. All right. Well, I think
9 that you
have answered all my questions.
10 Commissioners, any other questions. Okay.
11 Thank you,
very much, Mr. Brace.
12 MR. BRACE: Thank you.
13 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay.
Next on our
14 agenda is
an update from our general counsel,
15 Ms.
Thompson on the California audit.
16 As we noted earlier when Ms. Sims was
17 giving us
an update on the Title II requirements
18 payments,
we did have an opportunity to meet
19 with
Secretary McPherson and Mr. Clark, who I
20 believe is
Deputy Secretary of Election Matters
21 from
California. And it was a good
22
conversation, and they soon thereafter submitted
59
1 their information
with respect to what they will
2 do to
comply, and how they have responded to the
3 California
auditors report. And we did
4 discussion
with them that we will proceed with
5 our own
audit. As we had voted to do earlier
6 this year.
7 So thank you for the update.
8 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you for that,
9 Madam
Chair.
10 Just for purposes of recapping, I'd like
to
11 take a
moment just to inform you all as well as
12 the public
that are here with regard to the
13 California
audit that you all voted in January
14 to
conduct, a special audit out of Title I fund
15 by the
California Secretary of State's Office,
16 and that
is prior to current administration,
17
specifically, during what would have been their
18 fiscal
year, 2004.
19 I'm happy to report that we have
finalized
20 a contract
with the Department of Interior. The
21 Office of
the Inspector General will be
22 conducting
that audit for us. They are in the
60
1 process
now of developing a plan for that audit,
2 which will
be delivered to us 20 working days
3 from the
dates of that contract, which would be
4 within the
next week-and-a-half to two weeks.
5 At that
time, you all will have the opportunity
6 to review
the audit plan, approve it, and then
7 the audit
begins.
8 CHAIR HILLMAN: You referred to the
9 Department
of Interior. That is the U.S.
10 department
of Interior, correct?
11 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, ma'am.
12 CHAIR HILLMAN: Any questions? Okay
13 good. Thank you.
All right.
14 The next is an update on the process of
15 publishing
the proposed voluntary voting system
16 guidelines. And we received the guidelines from
17 the
Technical Guidelines Development Committee
18 on May
9th, I believe, which was, in fact, the
19
deadline. And we are getting ready for
the
20 public
comment period.
21 MS. PACQUETTE: Yes, ma'am.
This is
22 to briefly
review the process that we're
61
1
following. We did receive the
recommendations
2 from the Technical Guidelines Development
3 Committee
on May 9th. In addition, a few days
4 before
that, we received from NIST a collection
5 of public
comments that they had received on
6 their
website since the 8th of April, which is
7 when NIST
had to cut off their review of public
8
comments. So we already have some public
9 comments
to look.
10 In addition, there were comments made to
11 the
glossary. We were just talking about
12
terminology. NIST has delivered to us a
revised
13 glossary
on the 20th of May. They have
14
incorporated all the comments that they received
15 up until a
few days before that on the glossary,
16 and so we
now have a revised glossary with
17 comments
incorporated that we can move forward
18 with.
19 We are working on developing a web
20
application so that it will be easy for people
21 to submit comments to our web page. This will
22 include a
format that will also help us in
62
1 reviewing
and managing the comments, as we have
2 to go
through them all, as you know, and make a
3
determination of how to handle them.
4 We're currently in the process, in the
5
Commission, of reviewing the recommendations and
6 looking at
some potential modifications to the
7 document
before we publish it for public
8
comment. We're currently envisioning
that that
9
publication will happen in early June.
10 The plan
is to publish a notice in the Federal
11 Register,
and an executive summary or an
12 overview
of the document in the Federal
13 Register.
14 We will actually post the proposed
15 guidelines
on our website in their entirety, and
16 we will
also issue a press release at that time
17 to let the
public be aware that the document is
18 ready for
review and comment. In addition to
19 being
available on the website, we will also
20 have
available in hard copy, and on CD. It
will
21 be
available in both PDF and HTML format on the
22 website,
again, to accommodate all members of
63
1 the public
who may be using technology to review
2 this
document.
3 We will at the same time be notifying
our
4 boards of
the availability of the document for
5 their
review, which will be concurrent with the
6 public
comment period.
7 We have scheduled the first public
hearing
8 for June
30th. This will be running just in
9 advance of
the ICREOT meeting in New York City.
10 The first
hearing will have two panels of
11
presenters, with representatives from the test
12
laboratories and system vendors who will be
13 giving us
their comments on the guidelines.
14 The second public hearing has been
15 scheduled
for July 26th. We have not yet
16 settled on
a venue for this hearing. In this
17 hearing,
we will also have two panels, one of
18 election
officials and one of election officials
19 from
advocacy groups, similarly to give us their
20 commentary
on the guidelines.
21
I might also note that in both of these
22 public
hearings, there will be an opportunity
64
1 for
members of the public, the general public,
2 to
register in advance to come before the
3 Commission
and make their comments on the
4 document.
5 Also, in July, we envision having a
joint
6 meeting of
the EAC's board of advisors and
7 standards
boards to review and discuss their
8 comments
on the guidelines. We have not
9 finalized
the date or the venue for that
10
meeting. Since we anticipate publication
in
11 early
June, that would mean ICREOT would be the
12 end of the
90-day comment period. We hope to
13 then
accommodate all the comments, and then have
14 the
guidelines ready for the Commission's review
15 and
adoption towards the end of September or
16 perhaps
early October.
17 We'll be following a process of
reviewing
18 the
comments at least on a weekly basis as they
19 come in,
because we do want to facilitate the
20 process at
the conclusion of the comment period
21 to
complete all of the perhaps required
22
modifications and have this document ready for
65
1 your
review.
2 We also plan presentations at the summer
3 meetings of all the election organizations
and
4 other
stakeholder groups in our effort to very
5 widely
publicize the availability of this
6 document
and to encourage commentary from the
7 public.
8 That concludes my report.
9 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you, Ms.
10 Pacquette.
11 Some few questions have been raised
about
12 what it is
that the EAC is doing now, from the
13 time it
received the draft on May 9th, until the
14 time that
we post it for public comment. And I
15 think it's
important for us to just at least
16 clarify
the due diligence that we're doing.
17 And correct me if I have forgotten
18 something,
but three major things. One is to
19 just make
certain that the recommendation, the
20
recommended guidelines are in compliance with
21 and
consistent with the Help America Vote Act,
22 that the
things that the law directs us to take
66
1 into
account are, in fact, addressed. And
that,
2 secondly,
with respect to the portion of the
3 guidelines
that is the 2002 standards, that
4 there is
some outdated terminology in those
5 sections
which are no longer used. And that
6 we're
going to put a clarification to explain
7 that we're
not changing that old terminology at
8 this
point, but rather to acknowledge.
9 And maybe if you could just explain that
10 back to me
a little better than I have to you.
11 MS. PACQUETTE: Yes.
Well, one very
12 clear term
that under the previous voting system
13
qualification process was the term,
14
"qualification," for the national processing of
15 systems
for use while the term, "certification,"
16 was
reserved for the use of the states in their
17 process in
certifying systems for uses in their
18 states.
19 HAVA has used some new language which
says
20 the
national process will now be called a
21
certification. So rather than go back to
change
22 all the
places in the portion of the new
67
1 proposed
guidelines that is the 2002 voting
2 system
standards, we will just indicate at the
3 beginning
of the sections that there will be
4 some
inconsistencies in terminology between the
5 new
portions of the document and the older
6 portions
of the document, and just to explain to
7 the reader
why they are seeing different
8
terminology in the two sections.
9 Similarly, there's quite different
10 formating
between the new portions of the
11 document
and the old portions, and we want to
12 just put
in an explanatory comment for the
13 reader who
might be looking for a document
14 that's
similarly formated from beginning to end,
15 which is
what we're used to seeing.
16 There are very good reasons for why it's
17 formated
this way, because we wanted to make it
18 very clear
what are the new portions and what
19 are the
old portions. Again, we just need to
20 need some
language around the document to
21 explain
how it was put together, how it should
22 be
reviewed, and as you note, some
68
1
clarifications on the terminology.
2 CHAIR HILLMAN: And the document
3 itself can
be very intimidating to look at and
4 enough to
make somebody decide they will take a
5 pass on
wanting to review it. For those people
6 who are
technical and the groupies of what used
7 to be
called the standards and now the
8
guidelines, they may enjoy going through each
9 page, but
much people have an interest in this
10 because of
all the discussion about the
11 electronic
voting systems, and security, and
12 reliability,
and whether or not there are
13 sufficient
measures of security being taken,
14 that it
may not be as easy for them to
15 appreciate
where in the documents those items
16 are.
17 So we're doing an executive summary of
some
18 sort to
help people who can sort of at a glance
19 get to the
meat of the issue they are looking
20 for.
21 MS. PACQUETTE: Well, the document
22 does have
a very full and complete table of
69
1 contents,
but we're also doing, as you note, an
2 executive
summary that explains the significance
3 of the
document, and indicates what are the new
4 elements
from the 2002 standards, and to just
5 give a
complete overview so that members of the
6 public,
who don't normally deal with the subject
7 matter,
will have some context in which to
8 understand how this document is used.
9 For example, this document is used as
the
10 testing
document for the qualification and now
11
certification of voting systems. So,
again,
12 many
people don't think of it in those terms.
13 So we're
trying to just make it clear because we
14 expect
that there will be more interest in this
15 document,
given all the publicity about HAVA
16 funding
and issues with voting systems, that we
17 may have
more wide readership than perhaps the
18 2002
standards received, and we just want to
19 make it an
accessible document, if you will, to
20 the extent
that such a technical document can be
21 made a
little more user friendly.
22 CHAIR HILLMAN: Good.
And then the
70
1 other
aspect that we're considering, of course,
2 will be
the subject of our next panel of
3
presenters, and that is the executive date of
4 the
guidelines, and any consideration for
5
grandfathering provisions.
6 MS. PACQUETTE: Yes, that's correct.
7 The
Commission decided that we wanted to think
8 very hard
about whether to issue an executive
9 date and
perhaps some consideration of
10
grandfathering of existing systems along with
11 issuing
the proposed guidelines. So the panel
12 that we have before us today is part of
the
13
information gathering that you have already
14 engaged in
to inform your decision-making in
15 that
regard.
16 CHAIR HILLMAN: Great.
Thank you.
17 Vice-Chair Degregorio?
18 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Yes, Madam
19
Chair. That is the document here. It is very
20 detailed,
a lot of work has gone into it. They
21 built the
standard upon the 2002. I know, Madam
22 Chair,
that at the previous meeting, Dr. S.
71
1 Fiinnech
spoke about the work they did to come
2 up with
this document that NIST and, of course,
3 the Technical Guidelines Development
Committee
4 that did
so.
5 Ms. Pacquette, do you envision, as we go
6 through
this process this summer in receiving
7 comments
from the public and from various
8 groups, that NIST will continue to
support the
9 work that
we do in coming up with a final
10 version of
this?
11 MS. PACQUETTE: Yes, Mr. Vice-Chair.
12 We will
have conversations with NIST, and we
13 have an
understanding that certainly the
14 comments
are going to be reviewed by the EAC
15
staff. And we're looking at getting some
16
consultants on board to assist us with this
17 workload.
18 We
have an understanding with NIST that
19 more
technical comments, we will certainly be
20 consulting
with them or clarification points, to
21 maintain
some consistency in approach.
22 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: You spoke of
72
1 our public
hearings that we're going to conduct
2 this
summer. The fact that this will be
3 published
on the web, do we have a plan, a pro
4 active
plan, in place to make sure that we're
5 notifying
all the groups out there in the
6 states,
groups out there who have an interest in
7 the
subject to make sure they have the
8
opportunity to know about this, to inform us
9 what they
may think about this document.
10 MS. PACQUETTE: Yes.
We do want to
11 make it
very widely publicized. There will be a
12 press
release, presentations at meetings. We,
13 of course,
have our e-mail distribution list,
14 which
includes state and local election
15 officials,
and representatives of many of the
16
constituencies that would be interested in this
17
document. So we will certainly be
soliciting
18 all of our
groups that we work with to reach out
19 to their
membership.
20 We have also had very good support from
NAS
21 and ICREOT
in putting important EAC notices on
22 their
websites as well. And we hope they would
73
1 do that
for the guidelines to, again, help us
2 get the
word out to all of the parties.
3 CHAIR HILLMAN: Commissioner
4 Martinez.
5 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Thank you,
6 Madam
Chair.
7 I want to start by, again, I think we
have
8 all said
this publicly before, but thanking NIST
9 and the TGDC members for accomplishing in
nine
10 months
what takes many years, and that is, to
11 revise
these type of technical standard
12
requirements, objective, repeatable measures.
13 I think
extraordinary work was done by -- thanks
14 to the
NIST partners.
15 Likewise, Carol, you spent the better
part
16 of your
term as interim director shepherding
17 this
process, moving toward where we are today,
18 on the version
of being able to embrace,
19 hopefully,
a good product in these revised
20 standards.
21 My personal opinion is that the most
22 critical
work that is happening with regard to
74
1 our due
diligence, internally, that we're doing
2 right now
and for the next couple of weeks, is
3 the
analysis of the requirements with their
4
consistency technically, in Section 301 of HAVA.
5 Because
while the voting system guidelines are
6 voluntary,
states can choose to accept them and
7 impose
them, or not. And at last count, Tom
8 Wiggle
probably knows that, but 36 states or
9 thereabouts have required national vendors
to go
10 through a
national certification process before
11 they can
actually do business in their state,
12 but it is
all voluntary.
13 Once, again, the standards in Section
301
14 of HAVA
for voting systems, there is nothing
15 voluntary
about that. Those are requirements
16 and
mandatory, as a matter of federal law.
And
17 there's
some key things in Section 301 of HAVA
18 which I
think, as a Commissioner, need to be
19 consistent
about what we embrace at the end of
20 this
product. And so I think the review that
21 we're
doing for the general counsel, I think, is
22 key.
75
1 Julie, I would call on you, if you have
a
2 few words
about the process that you're using,
3 how that
work is going, with regard to that
4 analysis.
5
MS. THOMPSON: Thank you,
6
Commissioner Martinez.
7 The Commissioners have asked me to
review
8 the
recommendations provided by the Technical
9 Guidelines
Development Commission for compliance
10 with
Section 301-A of HAVA. Therein lie the
11
requirements that HAVA has dictated for what are
12 quote,
"HAVA-compliant voting systems."
13 So I am reviewing each of the standards
one
14 by one,
analyzing that comparison, in comparison
15 to that
statute as well as, in some instances,
16 there are
other statutes to be considered, but
17 analyzing
each one, one by one, to insure they
18 are in
compliance.
19 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Just to
20 clarify,
they have informed us they had the very
21 same
questions as they were developing
22
requirements. While they had counsel,
they did
76
1 not have
counsel that could appropriately
2 interpret
consistency issues with regard to HAVA
3 and
Section 301. So that has all been
deferred
4 to the
EAC. That is not so much a discretionary
5
undertaking, but one that is really needed, not
6 because we
think so at the a EAC, but NIST and
7 the TGDC
members also think that as well. Is
8 that
correct?
9 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, it is.
10 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Thank you,
11 Madam
Chair.
12 CHAIR HILLMAN: So we will move right
13 now into
our next panel of presenters.
14 We have with us -- if all three of you
15 could just
take a seat at the table. We have
16 Mr. Al
Ater, First Assistant Secretary of State
17 from
Louisiana. Michael Kerr, Information
18 Technology
Association of America, ITAA,
19
representing the counsel of voting machine
20 vendors,
and Joe Hazeltine, Senior Director,
21 Eastern
Test Operations, Wyle Laboratories.
22 And then just -- you know, we did also
77
1 invite
Steven Berger, who is with the IEEE. And
2 somebody
has to help me with, IEEE, what that
3 stands
for.
4 MS. PACQUETTE: Institute for
5 Electronic
Electrical Engineers, more or less.
6 CHAIR HILLMAN: I don't have details
7 in my
head.
8 Mr. Berger is a member of the Technical
9 Guidelines
Development Committee. And we did
10 have with
us earlier, but I believe she has
11 left,
Alice Miller, who is director of the DC
12 Board of
Elections, who was also a member of the
13 Technical
Guidelines Development Committee.
14 Gentlemen, we have asked you to bear
with
15 us and
make brief presentations so that we could
16 have
sufficient time for discussion and
17 questions
for all of you. And I see somebody is
18 going to
use a PowerPoint.
19 MR. HAZELTINE: I am.
20 CHAIR HILLMAN: How about that, if
21 you don't
mind, we will go to Hazeltine.
22 CHAIR HILLMAN: So that light can be
78
1 turned
off, out of my eyes. Okay.
2 MR. HAZELTINE: Well, good morning,
3 Madam
Chair, and members of the Election
4 Assistance
Commission.
5 CHAIR HILLMAN: Could you -- I'm
6 sorry,
bring a microphone.
7 MR. HAZELTINE: Good morning, Madam
8 Chair, and
the members of the Election
9 Assistance
Commission.
10 I was asked to do a presentation on
11
grandfathering of the voting systems standards
12 of 2005,
from a test laboratory's perspective,
13 and that's
what this presentation here does.
14 Here we go. First thing, I want to talk
15 about past
standards. In 1990, when the federal
16 election
performance standards and directive
17 regarding
electronic system was created, it was
18
implemented over a period of several years.
19 1992, when
we got involved in it, but it was
20 finalized
in around '94.
21 2002, voting system standards was
published
22 in April
of that year, and grandfathered until
79
1 January of
2005. The other two standards,
2 European
norm, and Millstair, the only reason I
3 mentioned
those is because those are documents
4 referred
to in the voting system standards.
5 Generally,
on European norm standards, they have
6 a two to
three-year grandfathering period.
7 Millstair
also grandfathered based on the
8 applicable
revision, looking at the impact of
9 not
grandfathering.
10 First of all, the standard is not
available
11 today,
generally available. You can get a copy
12 of
it. Testing laboratories have not been
able
13 to train
on the new standard requirements, and
14 there are
many. The vendors are not all aware
15 of the new
requirements and how to implement
16 them. The compliance checklists which we use in
17 testing
laboratories is our primary
18
documentation goal. We would need to
have those
19 in place
to make sure we can give people results
20 in between
different competing laboratories, and
21 also
different products. And not all issues
22 have been
resolved in the voluntary voting
80
1 system
guidelines. For example, the
2
implementation of VPAT audit trails.
3 Other issues, they contain many new
4
requirements. The Americans With
Disabilities
5 Act,
Section 508, which have not been evaluated
6 before,
and we would need to create processes.
7 With no
grandfathering, there would be no
8 qualified
system available.
9 Qualified system -- can HAVA funding be
10 used. That is an issue more than testing, but
11 no system's built to the standards, so
system
12 testing
laboratories will see a pretty good size
13 lull and
the corresponding surge. We may have
14 the
capacity to keep up with the demand during
15 that surge
period, and that would be an issue.
16 Bottom line, in our opinion at Wyle
17
Laboratories, we're not ready to implement
18
today. We would think three to six
months. I
19 would
think end of the year for sure.
20 Benefits, grandfathering provides
21 time for
us to train in the new requirements,
22 provides
time for to us prepare, review, and
81
1 approve
the verification checklists, which will
2 take a
month to six weeks to do, provides time
3 for
vendors to learn and design new systems.
4 Vendors
will now have time to design all changes
5 at the
same time. Otherwise, what we will see
6 would be
systems come in a piecemeal approach.
7 Certain aspects have been addressed.
8 Others
haven't. This also forces compatibility
9
issues. The other benefits supplementary
is it
10 is
consistent with past practice, consistent
11 with other
standards on how they implement.
12 Detriments, once again, the e-mail's
going
13 through
that sequence. It would slow the
14
implementation of the standard of should be VVSS
15 2005,
would not be used extensively. It is not
16 amenable,
end of the year, and possibly not used
17 in the
2006 election cycle. Some of the
18 technology
is ready for implementation, not all
19 of it.
20 Systems non-compliant with HAVA would
need
21 to be
fielded, particularly in the area of
22 Americans
With Disabilities Act. Would HAVA
82
1 funds be
used for those systems. Which standard
2 would we
use for those systems, or include
3 partial
portions of the ADA-type issues. Issues
4 like voter
verifiable paper audit trail remain
5 under
resolve. The point there is, the longer
6 you delay
implementation, the longer you delay
7 creating
systems that could be compliant with
8 the
standard as intended, and vendors and
9
laboratories, obviously, would not be challenged
10 to develop
new technology until it is required,
11 there is a
firm date for implementation. All
12 those
things are detrimental, in terms of moving
13 technology
forward, by delaying implementation
14 of the
standard.
15 Just to point out where we currently
are,
16 we
completed three systems in the last few
17
weeks. We have four systems which are
currently
18 in various
stages of the certification process,
19 all using
2002 voting system standard, which is
20 the
applicable document. Actually, I have
two
21 new jobs
that came in the last week for
22 additional
voting machines. So there is six to
83
1 eight
programs that are in the introductory
2 phases of
new equipment, all being tested to the
3 current
document, to the proposed new one. Some
4 vendors
are looking down the road, saying, why
5 don't we
just block a certain time, two to three
6 months at
the testing lab, so we can learn how
7 to
implement this new technology. What that
was
8 going to
do, certainly, would limit capacity for
9 competing
vendors. So it is an issue that is
10 out there
for us, that we would have to work
11 with.
12 Again, I would like to thank you so much
13 for your
time, and that is my presentation.
14 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you, very much,
15 for the
efficiency of your presentation. We
16 appreciate
that very much.
17 What we'll do is have all three
18
presentations, and then we'll do the questions
19 and
answers. And so then we will go back to
Mr.
20 Ater. Am I pronouncing that correctly, Ater?
21 MR. ATER: Yes, Madam Chair.
22 CHAIR HILLMAN: Well, okay.
84
1 MR. ATER: Thank you, Madam Chair,
2
Vice-Chair, Commissioner Martinez. I
appreciate
3 the
opportunity to appear before you today and
4 give some
thoughts on how this could affect our
5 state.
6 Commissioner Martinez, as you mentioned,
7 our state
is one of these that it's not
8
voluntary. Our state says, by state
statute,
9 that we
shall do this. So it creates a unique
10 problem
for us, and we're very glad to see that
11 you all
are considering an executive gate, or
12
grandfathering, or something of that nature.
13 I'll give you a very brief description
of
14 where we
are within our process, with regards to
15 HAVA. We have an RFP out on the streets that
16 the
responses are due on June 1st. We hope
to
17 have a
contract in hand to replace our voting
18 system in
our state. We use some lever
19
machines. We have some parishes, as we
call
20 them, in
Louisiana, that have DREs, and used
21 DREs for
the last 12 to 15 years, but we have
22
approximately 50 parishes that use the lever
85
1 machines
which we have agreed to replace
2 pursuant
to accepting the money that you were
3 speaking
of earlier.
4 So we find ourselves in the unique
5 situation,
without grandfathering, or without an
6 effective
date or something of that nature that
7 we're
required by January 1st of 2006 to
8 complete
this task. Because just as
9 Mr. Hazeltine
had just said, in reality, by then
10 you may or
may not have the standards, you may
11 or may not
have it tested, and we may have
12 purchased
and spent $50,000,000 of taxpayers'
13 monies
that the State of Louisiana, quite
14 candidly,
can't afford to spend again for
15 something
that does not meet the new standards.
16 So it
would be of great concern to us that you
17 would
consider a grandfathering or effective
18 date or
something to address that situation
19 because we
don't want to find ourselves out of
20 compliance
with you all, with justice, or with
21 anybody
else, for that matter. And you can see
22 a unique
situation where we, because of our
86
1 state
statutes and our expectations, while our
2 state
statutes now address NASAD, I fully expect
3 the
legislature, as this rolls, to roll it
4 forward to
that because that is clearly the
5 intention.
6 As a former member of the state
7
legislature, I can assure you that was clearly
8 the
intention and desire of our state
9 legislature,
is that this not be optional.
10 The only thing we want to certify is
those
11 things
that meet the standards and guidelines
12 that is
set forth by this Commission.
13 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you, very much.
14 MR. ATER: Thank you.
15 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay.
Mr. Kerr.
16 MR. KERR: Good morning, Chairman. I
17 am -- my
name is Michael Kerr. I am with the
18 Information
Technology Association of America,
19 and its
Election Technology Council.
20 ITAA is one of the oldest groups for the
21 IT,
representing about 400 companies. The
22 Election
Technology Council is made up of a
87
1 group of
vendors which produce software,
2 hardware,
and services for the voting systems
3
marketplace. Current members of the ETC
are:
4 Advanced
Voting Solutions, Danaher Gardian
5 Voting
System, Diebold Election Systems,
6 Election
Systems & Software, Hart InterCivic,
7 Perfect
Voting System, Sequoia Voting Systems,
8 and
UniLect Corporation. Membership is open
to
9 any
company in the election systems marketplace.
10 We're pleased to respond to your request
11 for vendor
perspective on the issues surrounding
12 the timing
and implementation of the VVSG. Our
13 member
companies have a great stake in the
14 conduct
and outcome of this process.
15 Indeed,
equipment provided by our members
16 accounts
for about 90 percent of voting systems
17 in the
marketplace today, and over 2000
18 dedicated
system employees at our member
19 companies
work hard to make sure American
20 elections
are worked out.
21 ETC applauds the Election Assistance
22
Commission, the TGDC, and NIST, on the
88
1 aggressive
timetable to adopt revised guidelines
2 for the
2002 Federal Voting System Standard.
3 However,
despite the considerable work underway,
4 our member
companies are concerned that election
5 officials
may have unrealistic expectations
6 about the
completion of the first phase of the
7 VVSG
amendment to the 2002 VSS.
8 As the Commissioners and the EAC staff
9 already
know, the drafting of the guidelines is
10 just the
first step of a multi-step process
11 before
there will be substantive changes in the
12 design and
function of actual voting equipment
13 in the
market. Therefore, as the EAC considers
14 an
executive date for the VVSG, it is critically
15 important
to keep in mind all that must occur
16 after the
new guidelines are in place. As
17 history
has shown, taken in whole, this process
18 can take
years to complete.
19 As this process gets underway, there are
20 several
realities that voting system vendors
21 believe
must be acknowledged and accounted for
22 in laying the ground work for successful
roll
89
1 out of the
new standard and guidelines. The
2 delays at
the beginning of the EAC/Nist ramp-up
3 period set
the guidelines development process
4 back by 12
to 18 months, and there is no
5 reasonable
way to make up for front-end delay by
6
shortcutting the VVSG roll out process.
7 There is simply too much at stake to
8 expedite
the process to meet artificial
9 deadlines
while creating risks of getting the
10 outcomes
wrong. The current guidelines revision
11 effort is
unparalleled in terms of scope and
12 speed of a
technical guidelines development for
13 any voting
system, and possibly for any
14 comparable
technology. Indeed, similar efforts
15 have taken
many years to complete.
16 For evidence of the time it takes for
the
17
marketplace to absorb and adjust to a new
18 standard,
one need look no further than the 2002
19 voluntary
voting system standards. In 2005,
20 three
years after its initial release, only now
21 is the
standard beginning to take on a
22
near-universal hold. This lengthy
adoption
90
1 period has
not been for a lack of trying as
2 meeting
the standards that the election market
3 demands
provides a competitive advantage, but
4 rather
recognition that the process to make
5
encompassing changes requires to do it right.
6 Promulgation change to rules,
guidelines,
7 and standards
is a time-consuming, risky
8 business
for technology vendors and their
9
customers. Because of its almost
unprecedented
10 nature, it
can fairly be said that no one
11
understands how specific changes proposed in the
12 new
guidelines will impact the big picture, in
13 terms of
voting system reliability, accuracy,
14 usability,
and security. Moreover, the changes
15 proposed
might have a profound impact on the
16 economic
and business models under which
17 companies
operate in the voting system
18
marketplace.
19 The vendor community is pleased to be
20 working
with EAC as one of the constituencies
21 providing
input into the guidelines, but due to
22 the way
the guidelines development process has
91
1 been
defined and operated from the outset, that
2 is,
without direct vendor participation in the
3 TGDC, our
members will be coming in at the tail
4 end of the
process and sorting through a complex
5 set of
proposals. Some of our members have
6 dozens of
different products in the marketplace.
7 To turn on
a time and bring all these products
8 into
compliance with the new guidelines is not
9 likely to
comport with the realities of
10 generating
quality products, of producing
11
shareholder value, and assisting the customers,
12 elections
officials, and ultimately, voters,
13 with the
key element of democracy, providing
14 secure,
accurate, reliable viewing systems.
15 It is unrealistic to expect that the
16 vendors,
ITAs, and customers, which include
17 state,
county, and local officials, will be able
18 to get
these products, new products certified
19 and into
the field for the national elections in
20 November,
2006. While we have yet to see the
21 final
version of the guidelines, but early
22
indications point to many new requirements that
92
1 impact
widely on vendor equipment and practices
2 as well as
on the customer. Some have been
3 drafted
hastily, and may conflict with other
4 existing
requirements. Changes to the
5
requirements are still occurring today -- sorry.
6 Changes to
the requirements still occurring
7 today will
continue through the public comment
8
period. These protests will require
9
interpretation, test design, and product
10
certification.
11 On the vendor side, a likely scenario
will
12 be that
changes contained in the VVSG will be
13 factored
into the system design, production,
14 testing,
marketing, support and maintenance
15 operations
over the course of two to three years
16 after
their final release.
17 Customers will be faced with a similar
set
18 of metrics
and procedures when it comes to
19
acquisition, deployment, and support for systems
20 seeking
compliance with the new VVSG.
21 In addition to funding and management
22 issues,
there remains a host of policy questions
93
1 to be
considered and resolved at the customer
2
level. Consideration of questions
related to
3 paper
requirements has already slowed
4
considerably the acquisition and deployment of
5 new
equipment in several states, even in the
6 systems
mandated for replacement under HAVA.
7 Members of the ETA are concerned that
many
8 state and
county officials are delaying their
9
acquisition and deployment of voting systems
10 under the
false assumption that the adoption of
11 new
standards will immediately result in revised
12 voting
technology appearing in the marketplace
13 prior to
January 2006, and that those new
14 systems
can be implemented and used in 2006
15 primary
and general elections. Given the
16 realities
described above, it is simply not
17 possible
to achieve those timelines. If states
18 and
counties delay their decisions, it is very
19 likely
they will miss their 2006 deadlines for
20 HAVA
compliance.
21 To help minimize that issue, we think it
22 would be
helpful for the EAC to advise election
94
1 officials
that waiting for these guidelines to
2 be
implemented may jeopardize their ability to
3 comply
with HAVA guidelines. EAC should assure
4
jurisdictions that equipment properly certified
5 to
existing standards is capable of providing
6 secure,
accurate, and reliable elections that
7 meet
functional requirements laid out under
8 HAVA.
9 Under a best case scenario, it will
still
10 be
difficult, under the current 2002 standards,
11 for state
and counties to meet the deadline
12 under 2002
standards, unless they act quickly.
13
Recognizing that it often takes three to six
14 months for
counties to select a system and
15 complete
contracts, waiting for 2005 VVSG will
16
effectively preclude counties and states from
17 completing
their transition to new voting
18 technology
under the deadlines established by
19 HAVA.
20 We urge you to communicate these
important
21 timeline
issues to counties and states, and
22 encourage
them to proceed as quickly as possible
95
1 under the
currently available standards. It is
2 our
understanding that the subject of
3
grandfathering current equipment under the new
4
guidelines, as well as phased implementation
5 through
effective dates, has come up for
6 discussion
at TGDC and EAC. This is a greatly
7 important
issue which merits consideration by
8 the EAC.
9 As we have stated above, we believe that
10 equipment
certified under the 2002 standard is
11 HAVA-compliant. The core requirements of the
12 2002
standard make up the VVSG1, with some
13 notable
additions. Therefore, should it not
14 follow
that systems certified to meet 2002
15 standards,
and that have been proven in the
16 field to
provide the customer and voter with an
17 acceptable
level of usability, reliability,
18 accuracy,
and security, would be grandfathered
19 under
VVSG.
20 The decision to grandfather or re-test
the
21 installed
base of equipment to the 2005
22 guidelines
leads to some tough questions.
96
1 What
impact of the business case and lifetime
2 costs of
equipment would be caused by changes
3 proposed
in the guidelines? What is the gain to
4 the
customer and voter of equipment recertified
5 under
VVSG? Is a minor modification sufficient
6 to cause
re-testing of thousands of lines of
7 cost and
dozens of hardware components? Should
8 higher
immunity testing thresholds mandate
9 costly
hardware changes to existing
10
installations when the benefits may be minimal?
11
This decision raises serious funding
12 issues, as
well. If equipment certified under
13 2002
standards is not grandfathered under the
14 new
guidelines, the cost burden to the customer
15 will be
onerous. Without some type of
16
grandfathering provisions under VVSG, additional
17 federal
funds will be necessary to cover the
18 cost of
replacement equipment and upgrades that
19 may fall
out of line with new standards.
20
We believe that an implementation of the
21 guidelines
should follow the old adage, "Perfect
22 should not
be an enemy of the good." While we
97
1 always
strive towards perfection, we believe
2 that
making perfection the operating standard in
3 the
guidelines development process and then
4 requiring
re-certification of existing equipment
5 will lead
to slower adoption of the guidelines,
6 greater
backlogs in systems certification and
7 testing,
and other undesirable or unintended
8 outcomes.
9 The Commissioner and customers should
know
10 that
companies operating in a profit-seeking
11 market are
driven to out-compete each other on
12 the basis
of product features, benefits,
13 quality,
service, and price. It is only logical
14 that they
will make every effort to bring their
15 products
into line with the updated guidelines
16 because
that is what their customers will be
17
demanding. But to find a system and
entire
18 product
line, or even a generation of voting
19 equipment,
uncertifiable against possibly a
20 possibly
unattainable or untestable standard set
21 forth in
the VVSG, while that equipment can
22 readily
meet requirements in HAVA, it would be a
98
1 poor
outcome, one that may force states as to
2 squander
federal and states monies already
3
appropriated and spent.
4 Please accept the going comments in the
5 spirit
offered. ETC members fully support the
6 goals of
the VVSG development efforts. However,
7 as the
party charged with implementing the
8 guidelines
into all of the legacy, current and
9 future
election products, we urge circumspection
10 and
caution in the process. Workable and
11 reasonable
requirements and timetables are key.
12 Thank you for providing us with the
13
opportunity to express our concerns and
14
participate at this level, and I look forward to
15 answering
any question by the Commission.
16 CHAIR HILLMAN: Great.
Thank you.
17 We do have
time for a few minutes of questions.
18 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Thank you,
19 Madam
Chair.
20 This is an important issue that we're
21 looking
at. We have had conversations with NIST
22 about the
history of the work that they do in
99
1 setting
standards, and whether there is
2
grandfathering or implementation dates that are
3 looked at
in the industry, and that they look at
4 when they
implement standards. Certainly, the
5 history of
voting system standards shows that
6 there have
been implementation dates put forth
7 each time
standards have been come up, whether
8 it is 1990
or 2002, to allow the industry to
9 come into
compliance.
10 I'd like to ask Mr. Hazeltine a question
11 about the
timetable to conduct this work,
12 actually,
test equipment. And I know that
13
equipment's different, it depends on which
14 equipment
you're talking about, which standards
15 you're
talking about, but what's an average time
16 that it
takes for you to receive something and
17 then to go
through testing it, and coming up
18 with
finishing the work that you do on a
19 particular
product? Is there an average type of
20 time that
you have to go through.
21 MR. HAZELTINE: Thank you,
22 Mr.
Vice-chair.
100
1
The average would be probably four or five
2 months,
from start to finish. That's a program
3 where the
documentation is pretty in good
4 condition,
the vendor's been through the process
5 before, so
they are aware of the steps.
6 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: The issue of
7 VPAT, you
brought it up in your remarks,
8 voluntary
voting.
9 MR. HAZELTINE: Voter verified paper
10 audit
trail.
11 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: But as you
12 stated,
you said it remains unresolved.
13 Certainly,
the draft guidelines, and there's
14 been a big
discussion with the TDGC and NIST.
15 They were
instructed from the EAC to come up
16 with
guidelines in regard to this particular
17 area that
we know is an important issue. And we
18 know that
many states are mandated through
19 regulation
or legislation that they want to use
20 the VPAT,
the systems that they buy, as used in
21 the 2006
election cycle.
22 Do you see how we can get there? Do you
101
1 see how
these systems can be tested in time? If
2 we don't
come up with guidelines, if we're not
3 finished,
for instance, until the end of
4 September,
early October, then they have to come
5 to
you. Is it possible to get there for the
6 VPAT 2006?
7 MR. HAZELTINE: Yes, sir, it is
8 possible
to get there.
9 Mr. Hancock asked the question about six
10 weeks ago
to the testing tab, has anyone seen a
11 VVPAT-compliant
system in test. And the answer
12 is,
no. I believe there is a way to get
there
13 from here,
if something were available for us to
14 look at.
15 CHAIR HILLMAN: Mr. Iter, in
16 Louisiana,
you stated this change over, and what
17 you're
doing in your states and your locals.
18 Are you
helping your locals, I can't remember if
19 it is just
a state contract and the locals buy
20 into it,
but to develop language in the
21 contracts
with the vendors that require the
22 vendors to
come in compliance at some point with
102
1 the
guidelines that are produced by the EAC.
2 MR. ITER: Thank you.
Louisiana is
3 actually
one of the few states that we are a
4
state-based system. Our state furnishes
all the
5 equipment,
buys it, and gives it to the locals
6 and so forth,
and so on. So we're a state-based
7 system, so
we're not working from jurisdiction
8 to
jurisdiction.
9 But in our request for proposal that we
10 have out
now, obviously, one of the mandates is
11 that it be
HAVA compliant, particularly with
12 Section
301. That point in my comments that
13 gave me
pause and great concern is that we also
14 are a
state that, by statute, says that nothing
15 -- we
shall not certify anything unless it meets
16 these
guidelines that you're talking about. So
17 we're
faced with the was unique situation that I
18 find very
troubling, that we have a January 12,
19 '06
deadline to be HAVA-compliant. We have
new
20 guidelines
that are going to be coming out,
21 September,
October testing that takes perhaps
22 four on
five months. We're hopeful to have a
103
1 contract signed early summer so that we
can meet
2 the
January 1, 2006 deadline. Then as I said
in
3 my
comments, we could find ourselves having just
4 spent
$50,000,000 of taxpayer money on a system
5 that suddenly,
a view shorthand of, we sign the
6 contract
to find out that they don't meet the
7
guidelines, and that our state statute says they
8 must be,
but do that trying to meet the HAVA
9
guidelines.
10 We're in a little of a catch-22, of can't
11 win for
losing, as we like to say in the
12 country.
13 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: We appreciate
14 that. There are many states --
15 MR. ITER: There is probably several
16 other
jurisdictions in the exact same situation
17 we are.
18 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Please, give
19 our best
regards to our secretary. We're still
20 praying
for his recovery, and hope he is back to
21 work soon.
22 MR. ITER: Thank you for those
104
1 comments,
and I certainly will.
2 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Mr. Kerr, you
3 raise a
lot of red flags in your testimony about
4 how your
members can come into compliance and
5 meet these
guidelines.
6 Are the vendors willing to except
language
7 that I
know some jurisdictions have, some don't,
8 but to
make sure that when contracts are let in
9 the states
like Louisiana, or other states buy
10 equipment,
that they can at some point in time
11 become in
compliance with the guidelines, be it
12 on the
date that we set, or some other date that
13 they may
set in negotiation, or set by their own
14 states?
15 MR. KERR: I have not raised that
16
question. The question has not come up
for
17 discussion
on any of our recent calls. Of
18 course, I
couldn't commit a single one of our
19 members to
taking that kind of action.
20 With that said, that approach, a
graduated
21
implementation effective dates, as long as it
22 didn't
push equipment out that our members could
105
1 consider
compliance with requirements of HAVA
2 and
performing to the specifications of the
3 customer,
I think they certainly would give that
4 positive
consideration, because they realize the
5 pressure
that their customers are under, and
6 they want
to respond to those as well.
7 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: That's a
8 question I
get very often from election
9 officials.
10 That's all I have.
11 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay.
Mr. Martinez.
12 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Thank you,
13 Madam
Chair, and I will be very brief.
14 Thank you all for your testimony. I think
15 it is very
helpful. We're trying to do our
16 homework,
so to speak, on our end, to get
17 educated
and put some language out, hopefully,
18
simultaneous, draft guidelines that gives
19 indication
where we're going so we can get
20 comment on
this particular issue. So I
21 appreciate
all of the testimony that has been
22 presented.
106
1 Mr. Kerr, I want to thank you,
2
particularly. I think your comments are
well
3 thought
out. And I had a chance to read your
4 testimony,
and there's several things that you
5 say that I
think are worth expanding on. I'm
6 not going
to focus on just one area, in the
7 interest
of time.
8 I want to say that one of the things
that
9 you said
in your testimony was that systems
10 certified
in the 2002 VVSG have proven to be
11 accurate,
reliable, secure, etc.. I agree with
12 you, and I
want to say that for the record.
13 On the other hand, there was a poll
taken
14 by the
Wall Street Journal, NBC News, perhaps a
15 week or
two after the November 2004 election,
16 which
asked the basic question, do you believe
17 that your vote is being tallied
accurately, or
18 I'm not
sure what the question exactly was, but
19 it spoke
to voter confidence. And one in four
20 voters
lacked confidence. This is just in the
21 past
election system.
22 So this is a critical issue that we're
107
1 trying to
address, and to do so in a manner that
2 is
reasonable to all affected parties, the
3 vendor industry, certainly, or partners
that do
4 the
testing for us in the labs, our
5
stakeholders, and election administrators and
6 voters
themselves, trying to keep everything and
7 juggle all
these things.
8 We have ended up in the worse case
scenario
9 in that
the Commission was late in being
10
appointed. We have heard the plan
already, we
11 have said,
violins playing. We were under
12 surrounded
in our first fiscal year, and here we
13 are,
standing within seven or eight months from
14 your
statutory deadline of being compliance,
15 whether
VVSG-compliant, that is a very ominous
16 thought.
17 So that's some commentary. And I wonder if
18 I could
just play out a scenario and get all of
19 you to
react to it. And that is, hypothetically
20 speaking,
because I don't know where we're going
21 to go as a
body. But if we went, essentially,
22 the normal
route, if you will, Mr. Hazeltine,
108
1 you and I
have heard it from others, but
2 normally
there is some sort of an effective date
3 that
embraces an 18 to 24-month window.
4 I think in
the case of the 2002 VVSG, it was
5 something
along those lines. I think by 2005,
6 all
vendors had to be certified fully to the
7 2002
standards, but they could do it sort of
8 piecemeal
in between then. That may not be
9 exactly
accurate but something to that effect.
10 If we went down the road of embracing an
11 effective
date, let's say 24 months from the
12 date of
adoption, and yet worked with the labs
13 to
encourage you all to be ready to test to the
14 new
requirements as quickly as possible, which I
15 think I
have heard you say you could be ready to
16 do so
roughly within three to six months, and
17 then left
the decision to states as to which of
18 those
requirements, if they wanted to pull down
19 to try to
get vendors to test before the 2006
20
election. Let me place this out, and
that is
21 the
concern that I have, is that you have
22
jurisdictions, and we have not taken a position
109
1 on this
and will not take a position on VPAT, as
2 to whether
that is a required way to
3
independently verify, but you have had, at least
4 I think at
last count, eight states that have
5
legislatively mandated by 11-06, their VPAT
6 systems have
to be compliant, which we don't
7 have any
testable, repeatable standard to insure
8 accuracy,
reliability of those components.
9 And if a state wants to pull down, for
10 example,
the requirements on VPAT, and require
11 the
vendors to be able to have a piece of
12 equipment
that either they are adding to
13 existing
machines or they are purchasing a new
14 system
entirely that's been tested to those VPAT
15 requirements,
is that even possible?
16 And I know I have confused the question,
17 but, in
other words, Mr. Iter, I am sitting
18 there in
one of your parishes that is already
19 using a
DRE system. I don't think your state is
20 mandated
VPAT.
21 MR. ITER: that's right.
22 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: And I want to
110
1 be able to
buy a piece of equipment, or I'm
2 going to
require the vendor to make this VPAT
3
requirement, but yet currently, actually, that
4 is not
entirely accurate because this was done,
5 at least
in part for the Nevada system. But is
6 it possible to get to a point so that a
state
7 can, at
their discretion, decide to pull down
8 the VPAT
requirement, should we embrace them in
9 final form
in the next three or four months?
10 Mr. Hazeltine, do you follow where I am
11 going?
12 MR. HAZELTINE: Thank you,
13 Mr.
Martinez. I do follow where you're
going.
14 We're not
the one -- ultimately, the ones making
15 the
decision. It would be the vendors using
the
16
equipment. Can we be ready to test? Yes.
17 Could we
be ready to test Volume 2 of the VVSG,
18 2005? Yes.
19 There is not a significant number of
20
changes. My focus, I guess, if we're
going to
21 -- would
be to prioritize some of the areas in
22 the ADA
area, in the voter verifiable area, and
111
1 also in
the security area, and actually have
2
implementation dates on those sections which
3 pose the
largest changes to the document at this
4 point.
5 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Any comment
6 from
Commissioners, from your perspective?
7 MR. KERR: I think my testimony
8 touched on
two or three of issues that would
9 come into
play. First, the test design process.
10 Once the
test comes out of the door at a lab or
11 is ready
to go into production, there may be
12 some
continued tweaking that may stretch the
13 process
out a little further. Sometimes on the
14 testing
day, one is going to come back with some
15 conflicts
in the marketplace or with existing
16
requirements that may need to be worked out for
17 a set of
iterations.
18 I think also that the risk posed by
those
19 types of
continued testing scenarios might add
20 to cost
and complexity for the customer, which
21 may,
again, cause the vendor some hesitation in
22 going back
for continued testing until they
112
1 believe
that everything is up and running
2 smoothly
and the way it should be.
3 So while I think that there are ways to
get
4 in, there
are certainly issues that should be
5 addressed
up front and clearly communicated with
6 vendors
and the states that might enable that
7 outcome to
take place.
8 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: I appreciate
9 that, Mr.
Iter. I guess, Mr. Iter, what I am
10 trying to
get to is giving election
11
administrators some tools and, obviously,
12
flexibility in making decisions on how to impose
13 these
requirements, but some tools so that you
14 can say to
your constituents back in Louisiana
15 and in the
various jurisdictions, we've done
16 something
to try to improve the process, not
17 just for
2008, but for 2006, because right now,
18 the
perception, like it or not.
19 I think, again, you make a very good
point
20 that
systems in use today that have been
21 certified
to the existing standards are secure,
22 they are
accurate, they are reliable. There
113
1 certainly
have been mistakes, we acknowledge
2 that.
3 We have to work in tandem as
4
administrators, advocates, etc, to insure that
5 we
minimize any of those mistakes. But I'm
6 trying to
arrive at a point, if at all possible,
7 it may be
too late. Maybe we're just so down
8 the road
here and so close to the deadlines,
9 Mr. Iter,
that it is impossible to do anything
10 to help
you, as you prepare for the 2006
11 election
cycle.
12 Any comments you want to add?
13 MR. ITER: Thank you, Commissioner.
14 I share
your similar concern, quite candidly,
15 with
regard to the verifiable voter paper trail.
16 From a personal perspective, what I
would
17 love to
see is, rather than Congress address it
18 at one
phase, and another state address it in
19 another
fashion, and perhaps EAC address is it
20 another
fashion, I would love to see a uniform
21 --
obviously, if this is something that is going
22 to be
done, there is obviously more than one way
114
1 to do it,
one correct way is what I'm trying to
2 say.
3 In many instances, there's a host of
things
4 that are
reliable and accurate and everything.
5 From a
personal perspective, I would love to see
6 if this is
where we're going, a standard by
7 which all
of us can say, pick and choose, if you
8 will, a
menu, and these are acceptable methods.
9 And then
an adequate amount of time to implement
10 it,
because I share your same concern.
11 While I hear and I appreciate their
12 optimism,
from our perspective, I don't see any
13 way in the
world we can go there from here with
14 what we're
dealing with. Because we're dealing
15 with you
all coming out with some standards as
16 late as
October, and five or six months, and we
17 don't know
it is just going to be a guess.
18 Maybe some
things on the market now will meet
19 those
standards. Maybe not a thing on the
20 market now will meet those standards,
but in any
21 event,
five or six months before those tests are
22 done, as
to see if they do or do not. So that
115
1 would put
me in the posture of delaying the
2 purchase
or the signing of any contracts, if I
3 want to
make certain what we purchased meets
4 those
standards, until after the deadline of
5 when I am
not found in compliance with the HAVA
6 Act.
7 And I don't relish that, quite candidly,
8 being out
of compliance with DOJ, or with
9 anybody,
for that matter. But the most
10 important
comment I think you made is what we
11 have said
in our state from day one. We come
12 from a
state or I come from a state where we do
13 enjoy
great voter confidence.
14 I speak a lot. I spoke five times in the
15 last two
weeks to different groups. And my
16 standard
question when I get up, before I say my
17 comments,
I say, I would like a show of hands,
18 please,
how many of you in this audience believe
19 that when
you walked into the booth -- and in
20 our state,
you can push a button, push a lever
21 or touch a
touch screen because we have all
22
three. When you do, your vote is
recorded
116
1 accurately,
and it is going to the candidate or
2 to the
question that you voted on, and that on
3 election
night, that when the Secretary of State
4 reports
those results, that you have confidence
5 in
it. Do I have a show of hands, how many
6 people in
the room believe that? I have been
7 speaking
of audiences 250 or 300, and every hand
8 in the
room goes up.
9 So that's my lead-in to say, as we do
this,
10 the most
important thing we can do is not lose
11 that
confidence. Because an the old saying
from
12 father, it
takes a lifetime to earn someone's
13 trust, and
about 15 second to lose it. That's
14 what we're
trying very carefully not to do.
15 The confusion seems to be adding to
that,
16 quite
candidly. So sometimes I think it is
17 better
just to slow down, stop and say, hey,
18 let's get
it right, rather than get it quick.
19 CHAIR HILLMAN: I have a quick
20 question
for each of you. Mr. Iter, you said in
21 Louisiana,
I think you have used a state-based
22 system
where the state purchases the equipment?
117
1 MR. ITER: Yes.
2 CHAIR HILLMAN: Remind me again, how
3 many
counties are using DRE?
4 MR. ITER: We have 14 of our 64.
5 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay.
6 MR. ITER: And some of them, as long
7 as 14, 12,
15 years.
8 CHAIR HILLMAN: Can you help me
9 understand
how some parishes are using DREs and
10 other aren't? Was this their option?
11 MR. ITER: No, its been financial.
12 When I say
financial, its been as we get money
13 from the
state legislature. Obviously, this
14 whole new
host of monies and/or requirements
15 hasten
that, but through a slow process, we
16 update
equipment each year. And we have a
17 request
given to our state legislature to keep
18 full the
fleet updated. And as we update it, we
19 would buy
what we felt was the best product on
20 the market
and go forward from there.
21 We had 64. We can't afford to buy 64 new
22 once all
the same year. We embarked upon a
118
1 process.
2 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you, very much.
3 MR. ITER: Yes, ma'am.
Thank you.
4 CHAIR HILLMAN: Mr. Hazeltine, Do I
5 understand
correctly that Wyle was testing prior
6 to 2002?
7 MR. HAZELTINE: Yes, ma'am.
We have
8 been he
using since probably about 1992.
9 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay.
When the 2002
10 standards
came into place, was there a similar
11 rush, if
you will, or surge, with respect to
12 equipment
to be tested against the new
13 standards,
was there similar activity as you
14 would
anticipate would happen under the new
15 guidelines?
16 MR. HAZELTINE: Well, my
17
recollection, the answer to that would be no.
18 The
majority of the requirements in 2002 were
19 pretty
much in the machines already, from a
20 testing
standpoint.
21 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay.
Thank you.
22 MR. HAZELTINE: There wasn't a void,
119
1 as we're
going to come into this time.
2 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you.
Mr. Kerr,
3 in your
testimony or in your written testimony
4 anyway,
you say that under a best case scenario,
5 it will
still be difficult for states and
6 counties
to meet the HAVA deadlines under the
7 current
2002 standards, unless they act quickly.
8 Can you
help me understand what you meant by
9 that?
10 MR. KERR: I believe if you look at
11 the
process, actually, I am not quite sure where
12 the 2002
standards reference.
13 CHAIR HILLMAN: It is on page 4, and
14 it is
under your section, "Insuring Compliance
15 With HAVA
Deadlines."
16 MR. KERR: You know what, I have
17 recorded
mine, for easier visibility here.
18 CHAIR HILLMAN: It is like the third
19 paragraph
under, "Insuring Compliance With hava
20
Deadlines."
21 MR. KERR: Right.
For them to come
22 into
compliance with 2002, in some states, I
120
1 think the
point is some states are still working
2 on
that. And the process for them to get to
3 2002
compliance is an important one. And we
4 recognize
that the equipment that has been
5 released
in recent years has performed above and
6 beyond
what was available under the previous
7 standards. So we're working closely -- I
8 believe
our members are working closely with our
9 customers
to can get them to 2002 levels of
10
compliance.
11 Even with the expedited activity that is
12 going on
right now, there is still considerable
13 work to be
done to get them there, and we
14 believe
that should be the focus.
15 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay.
And one last
16 question
for you. Some of your members sell
17 voting
equipment outside of the United States,
18 is that
correct?
19 MR. KERR: That's correct.
20 CHAIR HILLMAN: Do they have to be
21 certified
against standards in those other
22 countries,
some or a few or many?
121
1 MR. KERR: I'm sorry.
The
2
international marketplace goes beyond my scope
3 of
expertise. One of our members, John
Brow, is
4 here. He might be able to help you out after
5 the
hearing, because he does international work.
6 He is with
ES&A.
7 CHAIR HILLMAN: All right.
I will
8 ask him afterwards. Thank you, very much.
9 Before closing, I have just two final
10
items. I want to take this time to thank
Carol
11 Pacquette
for working with us as interim
12 executive
director. She jumped into the very
13 deep end
of the pool. I think we blindfolded
14 her and
told her, now, jump in. But I want to
15 thank you
so much for coming in. We were a
16 train
moving down the track. And the
17
commissioners were holding on for dear life, and
18 you were
willing to jump on and hold on for dear
19 life with
us. We appreciate that, very much.
20 And as
Commissioner Martinez mentioned earlier,
21 in
particular, you have helped shepherd, just
22 push along
this process with the voting system
122
1
guidelines. Because it is, for us, so
2 incredibly
important, and it is a huge, huge
3 task that
we're doing. And also to thank you
4 for your
willingness to continue after Mr. Wilke
5 comes on
board to help us with our tasks on this
6 and
related issues. So thank you, very much.
7 MS. PACQUETTE: Madam Chair, thank
8 you. Its been a lot of fun. Its been a lot of
9
challenges, and I think your description is very
10
accurate. We're all still hanging on to
that
11 boxcar and
trying to not lose our grip, not to
12 intimidate
Tom.
13 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Tomorrow
14 hasn't
signed his employment contract yet.
15 MS. PACQUETTE: But its just been
16 great to
work with the Commissioners,
17
counselors, and everyone on the staff.
It is an
18 amazing
organization.
19 I have spent many years employed by and
20 working as
a contractor for many different
21 federal
agencies, and I just have to say the
22
productivity rate coming out of the EAC is just
123
1 head and
shoulders above anything that I've seen
2 anywhere
else. It's really a tremendous record.
3 I have
been happy to contribute to that, and to
4 continue
helping the EAC. So thank you all,
5 very much,
for your confidence in keeping me
6 onboard.
7 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you, very much.
8 (Applause.)
9 CHAIR HILLMAN: Mr. Vice-Chairman.
10 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: I will just
11 ditto
those comments. Carol has been very
12 helpful to
all of us, as a Commission, and
13
individually. And I simply appreciate
the
14 efforts
she has put in to help us in this moving
15
training. We're all holding on for dear
life
16 many days.
17 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Carol, thank
18 you for
everything you have done. We look
19 forward to
your continued leadership, helping us
20 with the
guidelines, as we go over the next
21 several
months. And also the transition, there
22 is a whole
list of substantive things you are
124
1 going to
continue to work on for us. We
2 appreciate
your leadership and continuing to
3 hang on.
4 CHAIR HILLMAN: Let me just say, to
5 remind us
all, that we have meetings each month
6 June,
July, August, September, probably through
7 the rest
of the year, but my schedule takes me
8 through
September here.
9 Our next meeting is June 30th. It will be
10 held in
New York City. We'll be addressing the
11 topics of
the voter identification study and the
12 draft
guidance. We'll be developing and holding
13 hearings
on the voluntary voting system
14
guidelines.
15 Future meeting topics will include the
16 National
Voter Registration Act. Another
17 hearing on
the voluntary voting system
18 guidelines,
voter education, and further work
19 with
respect to the guidance that we'll be
20 issuing on
the provisional voting and voter
21
identification.
22 So with that, this meeting stands
125
1
adjourned. All right. Thank you.
2 (Whereupon at approximately
12:00
3 o'clock, p.m., the above
meeting
4 was adjourned.)
5 *
* * * *
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
126
1
2 CERTIFICATE OF COURT
REPORTER
3
4 I, Jackie Smith, court reporter in
and for the
5 District of Columbia, before whom the
foregoing meeting was
6 taken, do hereby certify that the meeting was
taken by me in
7 shorthand at the time and place mentioned in
the caption
8 hereof and thereafter transcribed by me; that
said transcript
9 is a true record of the meeting; that I am
neither counsel
10 for, elated to, nor employed by any of the
parties to the
11 action in which this meeting was taken.
12
13 _______________________________
14 JACKIE SMITH,
15 Court Reporter in
and for
16 The District of
Columbia
17
18
19
20
21
22
=