|
1 2 3 4 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 5 PUBLIC MEETING 6 7 8 Taken at the Marriott Hotel 9 1535 Broadway, New York, New York 10 11 On the date of Thursday, June 30, 2005 12 13 14 15 COMMISSION MEMBERS: 16 Gracia Hillman, Chair 18 19 20 21 Start time: 11:00 o'clock, a.m. 22 Taken before: ELLEN REACH, a court reporter 1 TESTING LABORATORIES' PERSPECTIVES 2 ON THE PROPOSED VVSG 3 4 CHAIR HILLMAN: If we could get 5 assembled, please, so the hearing can begin. 6 We are going to begin this hearing. 7 If I could remind you please to turn 8 off your - or at least silence - your cell 9 phones, pagers and any other electronic devices 10 that might make noise and distract from the 11 proceedings. 12 Thank you very much. 13 If I could please ask everyone to 14 please stand and join me in the Pledge of 15 Allegiance. 16 (Assembly in Pledge of Allegiance) 17 CHAIR HILLMAN: If we might have the 18 roll call, please. 19 MS. THOMPSON: Certainly, Madam 20 Chair. 21 Commissioners, please respond by 22 saying here or present when I call your name. 1 Gracia Hillman, Chair? 2 CHAIR HILLMAN: Here. 3 MS. THOMPSON: Paul DeGregorio, Vice 4 Chairman? 5 VICE CHAIR DeGREGORIO: Here. 6 MS. THOMPSON: Ray Martinez, 7 Commissioner? 8 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Here. 9 MS. THOMPSON: Madam Chair, there 10 are three members present. 11 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you. 12 Commissioners, we have before us the 13 agenda for today's public hearing. If there are 14 no adjustments to the agenda, it would be 15 appropriate to move adoption. 16 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Move, Madam 17 Chair. 18 VICE CHAIR DeGREGORIO: Second. 19 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you very much. 20 We have our agenda adopted. 21 The purpose of today's hearings is 22 for the Election Assistance Commission to receive 1 testimony and comment on the proposed Voluntary 2 Voting System Guidelines. 3 For those who were with us earlier 4 this morning at our meeting, you did hear several 5 minutes of discussion about the guidelines, our 6 acknowledgement of the work of the Technical 7 Guidelines Development Committee that produced a 8 recommendation and delivered that recommendation 9 to us on May 9th. 10 Our former Interim Executive 11 Director, Carol Paquette, will make a brief 12 presentation that will put this hearing in the 13 context of where the Election Assistance 14 Commission is today with respect to the proposed 15 guidelines that we have now made public. 16 Ms. Paquette. 17 MS. PAQUETTE: Yes, Madam Chair and 18 Commissioners, thank you very much. 19 Section 202 of HAVA directs the 20 Election Assistance Commission to adopt Voluntary 21 Voting System Guidelines and to provide for the 22 testing, certification, decertification and 1 recertification of voting system hardware and 2 software by accredited test labs, among many 3 other duties that are assigned to the Commission. 4 To assist the Commission with the 5 work of developing the guidelines, HAVA also 6 provides for the establishment of a body of 7 subject matter experts, called the Technical 8 Guidelines Development Committee, otherwise known 9 as the TGDC. 10 The composition of this 15 member 11 committee is drawn from a variety of 12 organizations, again, and specified by HAVA. 13 These organizations include the National 14 Association of State Election Directors, the 15 Access Board, the IEEE, the American National 16 Standards Institute, and other representatives as 17 designated in the statute. 18 The TGDC is chaired by the Director 19 of the National Institute for Standards and 20 Technology, NIST, and NIST is charged with 21 providing technical support to the work of the 22 TGDC. 1 In this fiscal year, EAC has 2 provided nearly $3 million to fund this work of 3 the TGDC and NIST. 4 The statute tasks the TGDC with 5 developing recommendations for Voluntary Voting 6 System Guidelines and providing those 7 recommendations for the consideration of the 8 Election Assistance Commission. 9 The TGDC and NIST have been hard at 10 work at this task for nine months, the time 11 period which is allocated by HAVA, and have 12 delivered a very good product to the EAC for us 13 to begin our review on May the 9th. 14 The recommendations provided to the 15 Commission by the TGDC essentially augment the 16 2002 Voting Systems Standards, most particularly 17 in the areas of accessibility, usability and 18 security. 19 This includes new requirements for 20 accessibility, voting system software 21 distribution, system setup validation and the use 22 of wireless communications. 1 Since some states have required the 2 use of voter verified paper audit trails, the 3 recommended guidelines also include performance 4 specifications for this capability. 5 We would note for the Federal 6 certification purposes of voting systems, these 7 are optional. They have been included for use by 8 those states that have added this as an 9 additional requirement for their voting systems. 10 We would also note that paper audit 11 trails is only one of several technical 12 approaches to providing voters an additional 13 means to verify their ballot in addition to the 14 DRE summary screen. And the Commission plans to 15 work with the TGDC and NIST to address the 16 development of similar specifications for audio, 17 video and cryptographic approaches to voter 18 verification. 19 Having received the recommendations 20 on May 9th, the EAC has been, in the intervening 21 weeks, performing its due diligence requirements 22 as the responsible Federal organization for HAVA, 1 to thoroughly review these recommendations. 2 In particular, we have performed a 3 legal analysis of the proposed guidelines and 4 recommended guidelines to ensure that they are 5 fully in compliance with the Help America Vote 6 Act. 7 This has resulted in some changes, 8 particularly in the accessibility provisions. 9 And I would note as an example requirements 2.2.5 10 and 2.2.6, dealing with voter verified paper 11 audit trails, that if the normal procedure is for 12 voters to submit their own ballots, then the 13 accessible voting station needs to provide the 14 same capability for voters who are blind. 15 That is an example of where the 16 Commission changed a 'should' recommendation to a 17 'shall', to be in conformance with Section 301 of 18 HAVA. 19 In addition, the Commission has 20 revised selected portions to reflect the new EAC 21 process to carry out the HAVA mandate for the 22 national certification of voting systems. We 1 have also made some updates throughout the 2 document to include the new terminology that has 3 been specified by HAVA. 4 For example, the testing of voting 5 systems used to be called a 'qualification' 6 process and HAVA now uses the the term 7 'certification' process. 8 We have made these changes in the 9 document because this is a document that will 10 have a substantial life in being used for the 11 testing and certification of voting systems, both 12 at the Federal level and at the state level. 13 That was the principal rationale for the changing 14 of terminology, to put in an appropriate floor 15 for the terminology that will be used as this 16 document is used as a reference for testing 17 purposes in the coming years. 18 We certainly expect to have many 19 more changes coming in over the course of the 20 summer and we will certainly be summarizing at 21 the end of that comment period the further 22 changes that have been made to the document and 1 how the various comments have been handled. 2 The Federal Register Notice on the 3 availability of the guidelines for public comment 4 was published yesterday, June 29th. And that 5 begins the 90 day public comment period. 6 In the Federal Register Notice and 7 also on our web site we provide fairly extensive 8 information on how parties can obtain a copy of 9 the document and also how they can provide 10 comments. 11 The document is a very substantial 12 document. It's about 250 pages. And to 13 facilitate ease in getting the document, we have 14 published it on our web page. It is available in 15 both PDF and HTML formats, so that those parties 16 who use assistive devices will be able to access 17 the document. 18 We have also posted it in a manner 19 so that the entire document can be downloaded or 20 selected sections can be downloaded, again, to 21 make it easier for people to deal with this 22 fairly substantial document. 1 We will also provide copies in hard 2 copy or on CD-ROM. 3 If people wish to send requests by 4 e-mail or by mail to the Commission, we have 5 provided a number of mechanisms for people to 6 submit comments. 7 On our web page we have included an 8 application so that people can log on to the web 9 page and go to the comment screen and provide 10 their comments directly to the web page. 11 Supporting that comment page is a 12 data base where all the comments will be stored 13 and allow for the comments to be posted and for 14 anyone to also look at comments that have been 15 provided to the document. 16 We have established a special e-mail 17 address: votingsystemguidelines@EAC.gov, for 18 those individuals who prefer to send us comments 19 by e-mail. 20 We, of course, will also receive 21 comments by mail. We ask that those be provided, 22 addressed specificaly to Voting System Guidelines 1 Comments, so that they can identified and handled 2 expeditiously. 3 We are providing, in the data base 4 of comments, the ability for the comments 5 received by e-mail and by mail to also be entered 6 into the data base so that we will have one 7 reference source, where comments from all sources 8 will be collected and posted, both for our own 9 review and analysis, as well as the review by 10 other interested parties. 11 I would also note that we are having 12 three hearings in addition to the one just 13 convened. We are holding a second hearing on 14 July 28th at the California Institute of 15 Technology, and a third hearing in August in 16 Denver. 17 And further specifics will be 18 forthcoming as we get that meeting planned. 19 Are there any further questions? 20 CHAIR HILLMAN: Before I turn the 21 mike over to my colleagues, can you just state 22 for the record where the California Institute of 1 Technology is located. I know it's in 2 California, but -- 3 MS. PAQUETTE: It's in Pasadena. 4 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you very much. 5 Commissioners, before I turn the 6 mike over to you, I just want to acknowledge that 7 we have with us today members of the Technical 8 Guidelines Development Committee and from the 9 National Institute of Standards and Technology. 10 And I would just like to acknowledge 11 from the TGDC Sharon Turner-Buie, who is a member 12 of the EAC Board of Advisors and Director of 13 Elections for Kansas City, Missiouri. And we 14 also have Brit Williams, who is with the Center 15 for Election Systems - I probably messed that up, 16 Brit, but forgive me - at Kennesaw State 17 University, in Georgia. Thank you for being with 18 us. 19 And from the National Institute of 20 Standards and Technology, which is a part of the 21 U.S. Department of Commerce, we have Craig 22 Burkhardt, who is actually counsel with the 1 Department of Commerce, and has been working with 2 NIST on the development of the guidelines, the 3 proposed guidelines, and Allan Eustis, who is 4 with the National Institute of Standards and 5 Technology. 6 An important part of the comment 7 period is that the EAC Board of Advisors, which 8 is made up of 37 members, and the EAC Standards 9 Board, which is made up of 110 members, will each 10 go through a process to review the proposed 11 guidelines and offer comments to us. 12 And we have with us, in addition to 13 Ms. Turner-Buie, we have Wes Kliner from, I 14 believe, Tennessee, but I thought I heard you 15 moved, so I am going to acknowledge Tennessee. 16 Thank you very much. As a member of the Board of 17 Advisors, thank you very much for being with us. 18 And I think we might have a member 19 of the Standards Board still with us, Mr. 20 Szczesniak - is Ed Szczesniak still here - from 21 the Standards Board. Thank you. 22 This has been a very wonderful labor 1 of love or labor of something that we have been 2 through to produce these guidelines. So if we 3 get emotional about this, it's because we are 4 very, very attached to both the process and the 5 document. 6 And, Mr. Vice Chairman, it would be 7 appropriate if you would like to give some 8 comments to or ask some questions of Ms. 9 Paquette. I know your name, Carol. 10 VICE CHAIR DeGREGORIO: I think 11 labor is an apt description since it was a nine 12 month process to get done. And we know that to 13 have a child it takes nine months. And this was 14 a big child of the EAC to come forth from the 15 Technical Guidelines Development Committee. 16 And I know I made some comments 17 earlier at our meeting this morning, a few 18 minutes ago. 19 But I do think that this has been a 20 very important process that the Help America Vote 21 Act spells out to give the voters of this country 22 a greater trust in our voting systems. And it's 1 the first time that the Federal Government has 2 put real money behind it. 3 Our Chair mentioned that nearly 4 $3 million has been appropriated by the EAC to 5 NIST for this process. And it is the first time 6 we have had some scientists look into this and 7 provide us their guidance. 8 And I think as we go through this 9 over the next 90 days we will see the fruits of 10 their work come forth as we see the human factors 11 and security and other aspects that have been 12 changed since the 2002 standards and that have 13 been enhanced since the 2002 standards were 14 developed, that have improved this product and 15 made it better for the public out there, election 16 officials. 17 And I look forward from hearing from 18 the testing laboratories, from the vendors and 19 from the advocates and from the public, and to 20 hear their feedback in this process as we 21 finalize this document and then move forward with 22 this, because we know that it's going to have a 1 major impact out there. And we want it to be a 2 positive impact. 3 So all the input that we can get to 4 make that happen is important to me as a 5 Commissioner, as has been since we started this 6 process in June 2004. 7 So thank you, Carol, for providing 8 that history of where we are with this and I look 9 forward to the testimony we are going to hear 10 today. 11 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you. 12 Commissioner Martinez. 13 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Thank you, 14 Madam Chair. 15 I will be very brief. I do have one 16 quick question for Carol. But just as an 17 introductory statement, I guess I said earlier in 18 our public meeting portion of this day that this 19 is, I think, perhaps the most significant thing 20 that this Commission has done thus far in our 21 short 18 months or so of being in existence. 22 So my thanks to all of our partners 1 in helping to developing this first draft of 2 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines: our partners 3 at NIST and the Department of Commerce and, of 4 course, all of the members who served on a 5 voluntary capacity with the Technical Guidelines 6 Development Committee. We are so grateful and 7 indebted for your service and we thank you for 8 it. 9 I guess for me, there was a poll 10 that was taken a few weeks after the November 11 2004 election, which was not too long ago, by NBC 12 News and the Wall Street Journal, and it said 13 something like a quarter of all American 14 surveyed, that a quarter of those surveyed in 15 that poll did not believe in the accuracy of the 16 voting systems that they were using to cast a 17 ballot in November of 2004. 18 And as a Commissioner - really, as 19 an American - we should just be troubled, I 20 think, by such a high level of lack of confidence 21 in the very machinery and the tools that help our 22 democracy to continue to exist. 1 And that's why, again, I point to 2 this as being among the most significant 3 accomplishments that we have undertaken here at 4 this Commission. 5 So I hope, Madam Chair and Mr. Vice 6 Chairman, that at the end of this process what I 7 hope and I know will be a very transparent and 8 very open and, yes, at times perhaps even an 9 emotional process for us to go through, because 10 there are so many things at stake here, from 11 accessibility for individuals with disabilities, 12 to folks who believe strongly that there ought to 13 be mechanisms in place to ensure better accuracy 14 of ballots that have been cast -- 15 I think this is one of our 16 panelists, welcome. 17 So, Madam Chair, I would simply say 18 that I think we have undertaken a significant 19 project and it's one that I know that we will all 20 feel better about at the end of the process. 21 Carol, if I could, there was a 22 clarification I think that I wanted to make to 1 one of the things that you said. 2 You were giving an example of our 3 legal analysis and you were talking specifically 4 with the functionality of voting systems where 5 the voter has to cast the ballot aside from, for 6 example, on a DRE you can punch a button that 7 says 'cast ballot'. But there are other voting 8 systems, like optical scan systems, for example, 9 where the functionality of casting a ballot 10 requires a voter to do something other than 11 hitting a button on a touch screen. And you 12 refer to that as VVPAT. 13 But I think what you meant to say is 14 that we changed this 'should' to a 'shall' when 15 it comes to the functionality of those type of 16 systems and not necessarily when it comes to 17 VVPAT, because VVPAT contemplates that a voter 18 gets to see something behind a screen, but not 19 walk away with a particular ballot and have to go 20 cast it in another location. 21 So in describing that example, when 22 we made a change from a 'should' to a 'shall', 1 you said that "in the context of VVPAT," but I 2 think what you meant it in was the context of the 3 functionality, for example, an optical scan 4 voting system. 5 MS. PAQUETTE: You are correct, 6 Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: That's it. 8 Thank you, Madam Chair. 9 CHAIR HILLMAN: Today's hearing is 10 in four sections. We have Panel Number 1, 11 presentations from the testing laboratories. And 12 presenting this morning will be Mr. Joe 13 Hazeltine, Senior Director, Eastern Test 14 Operations with Wyle Laboratories, and Ms. 15 Carolyn Coggins, Director of ITA Operations at 16 SysTest Labs. 17 Following Panel 1, we will take a 18 lunch break. And when we reconvene at about 19 1:30, the second panel will make presentations 20 and these will be people representing vendors and 21 we will have presentations from people 22 representing ES&S, Vote Here, Sequoia Voting 1 Systems and AccuPoll. 2 Panel 3 will be presentations about 3 the specific section of the guidelines or 4 sections of the guidelines that address voter 5 verifiable paper audit trails and perspectives 6 will be presented by four individuals. 7 And then the final section, which I 8 don't know if the mike is - the final section 9 will be public comment period. And we do have 10 people who have registered in advance requesting 11 an opportunity to make a comment. 12 So, can people hear me? No, I 13 didn't think so. I am not sure. Here we go. 14 I am going to repeat that anyhow. I 15 was just explaining the make-up of the four 16 panels for today. 17 So thank you very much to Mr. 18 Hazeltine and Ms. Coggins. 19 And, Mr. Hazeltine, if we could call 20 on you first. 21 MR. HAZELTINE: Thank you, Madam 22 Chair and members of the Commission. 1 I have been asked to speak on the 2 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, the impact 3 from the -- 4 CHAIR HILLMAN: The mike isn't on 5 here. 6 MR. HAZELTINE: Thank you, Madam 7 Chair and members of the Election Commission. 8 I have been asked to speak on the 9 impact of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 10 from a testing laboratory standpoint. And you 11 have a copy of my presentation. I am just going 12 to kind of go through that. 13 I guess, first, in talking about the 14 impact, one is to discuss what's the same in this 15 document as the 2002 Voting System Guidelines. 16 And when we look at Volume I, 17 Sections 2.1 through 2.2.6 and then 2.2.8 to 18 2.6 - which is System Functional Capabilities - 19 have remained the same. 20 Section 3 on hardware, Section 4 on 21 software requirements are the same. 22 Section 5 on telecommunications are 1 the same. 2 Section 6.1 to 6.6.4.3 on security 3 are the same. 4 Section 7 on quality assurance and 5 Section 8 on configuration management 6 requirements are the same. 7 So, the bulk of the document remains 8 the same as before. 9 In Volume II, we see even more - 10 Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which would be 11 Description of the Technical Data Package, 12 Functional Testing, Hardware and Software, System 13 Integration and Examination of Configuration 14 Management Practices - have all remained the 15 same. 16 Appendix A, the Description of the 17 National Certification Test Plan is the same, and 18 Appendix B, the Description of the National 19 Certification Test Report. 20 So, again, the bulk of the documents 21 remain close to as it was before. 22 But there been of some changes and 1 they are significant. 2 In Volume I, Section 1 has been 3 redone. Primarily it is new text on the program 4 that clarifies the requirements. 5 In Section 2.2.7 is probably the 6 largest change to the document, where there are 7 many new requirements on Human Factors and 8 compliance with HAVA 301(a)(3) were added. And, 9 certainly, that's an important revision to the 10 document. 11 Section 6.6.4 to Section 6.8.7.5 12 added many new requirements dealing with 13 security, wireless and the verifiable voting 14 paper audit trail. 15 Appendix A was added, which is a 16 very good thing, adding a glossary. 17 Appendix B, adding references, 18 again, a good thing. 19 Appendix C added best practices for 20 election officials and Appendix D added 21 independent dual verification systems. 22 We also added Appendix E, which was 1 the NASED Technical Guide, Number 1, dealing with 2 colorblindness and some of those issues. 3 Volume II had two changes. 4 Section 1, the revised National 5 Certification Testing Guidelines, shifting over 6 from NASED to the Elections Assistance 7 Commission. 8 And then Appendix C, where we added 9 the National Certification Test Design criteria, 10 the revision, in the back of that. 11 So kind of what was changed, in a 12 nutshell. 13 So if we look at what the impact is 14 to a testing labs, or to us, the Volume I Section 15 1 change, we are -- 16 CHAIR HILLMAN: Technology always 17 challenges us, always. 18 MR. HAZELTINE: We are back on. 19 Volume I Section 1, the 20 introduction, there is a new certification that 21 is required for independent testing authorities 22 that would now come through the National 1 Institute of Standards and Technology, through 2 their NVLAP program, so it's a new certification, 3 similar to what we already have. But it will 4 require some additional work. 5 In Section 2.2.7, Volume 1, Human 6 Factors Assessment, accesibility changes were 7 made. And certainly those are major changes with 8 a major impact to the work that we will have to 9 do. 10 In Volume 1, 6.6.4 of the software 11 security, that's relatively small changes, which 12 is mostly administrative. Their impact to us is 13 minor. 14 And 6.7 of Volume I, wireless 15 requirements, would have an impact if that 16 technology were implemented. There are several 17 places where expert staff is needed. There are 18 cryptiographic (sic) issues and other things 19 which would require quite a bit of additional 20 work. 21 In Section 6.8 of Volume I, the 22 Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail, I would 1 consider those to be relatively small. They are 2 administrative type changes. For us the impact 3 is not all that difficult from a testing 4 laboratory. 5 Certainly, Volume I, Appendix A, B, 6 C, with the glossary, references and best 7 practices, there is no real impact to us. It 8 certainly adds to the clarity of the document and 9 allows you to understand terminology being 10 addressed much better. 11 Appendix D, where the Independent 12 Verification Systems comes into Volume I, that 13 would be a major impact when implemented because 14 it really requires two systems. So you are 15 basically doing the testing twice, so it would be 16 an impact as far as the work. 17 Appendix E, the NASED Technical 18 Guide is small, mostly administrative changes for 19 us. 20 In Volume II, Section 1, the 21 National Certification Program Guidelines, there 22 were some clarification text added. There is no 1 real impact added to us. That is the same 2 practices the 2002 standard required. 3 Appendix C, the National 4 Certification Test Design Criteria, really no 5 impact to us in as far as conducting a normal 6 test program. If the specimen did fail, there 7 would be some additional testing requirements to 8 work with. But if the system passes, it would 9 pretty much would be a very similar process. 10 I am talking about possible issues 11 where we get into a little more detail of areas, 12 as we went through it where - I wouldn't say 13 concerned - we were just identifying. 14 We will need guidance on the 15 summative usability test required for partially 16 blind, blind, persons with limited motor control, 17 persons with limited command of English, and the 18 general population. 19 I have given some of the references 20 of where that would be in the document. But we 21 will need guidance on how to conduct those tests 22 in the future. 1 For the accessible voting station, 2 guidance with personal assistive devices is too 3 broad. We would need to know exactly what we are 4 talking about there and what devices could be 5 connected and what our requirements would be to 6 evaluate those. 7 I noted that the voter control of 8 contrast must be reset after the vote was cast. 9 They do have the ability to reset contrast. But 10 I didn't see anywhere else in the document where 11 it would reset back to some nominal value for the 12 next voter. 13 Synchronized audio with those 14 scrolling screens, that could be an issue with 15 testing. That would have to be defined exactly 16 what we mean there. 17 The Auto Tactical Interface 18 requirements will require more testing, 19 certainly, because it's a new feature. Certainly 20 a good feature, but a new one. 21 The audio qualification to ANSI 22 C63.19 would require more testing. That's where 1 we have to classify the actual microphones and 2 system ratings. 3 Our recommendation at Wyle would be 4 that we consider EIA/TIA 968, which was the old 5 FCC Part 68 document which regulated telephony 6 (ph) and has much - I don't know - I would say 7 are better rules - that are rules which are well 8 known, have been in place for a number of years, 9 does include hearing aide compatability and does 10 include a process that is somewhat better 11 understood by testing laboratories. 12 The guidance on testing cochlear 13 mounted hearing devices that we needed in here, 14 that could be an issue because I imagine that 15 there are a number of different types. So that's 16 an area of concern. 17 The frequency range of 315 Hz to 18 10 kHz, that requires now equipment of the new 19 testing techniques. Once again I would suggest 20 looking back at the ITA/TIA 968, the old FCC Part 21 68 document where the frequency range was not 22 quite so broad and test equipment already exists 1 for it. 2 Another document would be TIA 470, 3 which would address the acoustic performance as 4 well. 5 The rate of speech control where you 6 are allowed to, actually adjust or advance how 7 fast or how slowly the audio playback is would 8 require more testing and we would need some 9 guidance on that. It says within reasonable 10 levels. Well, reasonable can be interpreted in 11 different ways, so we would need some help on 12 that. 13 Confirmation of the blind paper 14 ballot would require some additional testing, 15 additional skill. We need someone who could read 16 those ballots to make sure the system is 17 performing properly. 18 The actuation force requirement test 19 required in test fixtures so that we can do, I 20 believe that is 22 newtons of force, so we would 21 need some additional devices to run that test. 22 We would need a wheelchair to be 1 provided so that we can evaluate the clearance 2 requirements in Section 2.2.7.4. And there are a 3 number of those. They are good requirements, 4 there are just a number of them. 5 And for the English illiterate voter 6 machines, would require interpreters be present 7 during some parts of the testing. The required 8 languages should be specified. Right now it's 9 quite broad and that would require some 10 additional work on our part. 11 Wireless documentation in accordance 12 to 6.7.2.1.3.1 - there are a lot of numbers 13 there - but requires a "subject area recognized 14 expert." So that would need to be identified and 15 provided to us. 16 If wireless systems currently don't 17 exist, but if they do, that would be be an issue. 18 The wireless system requires that it 19 be able to operate with or without the wireless 20 capability. So that would require us testing it 21 twice, with and without. 22 Encryption verification also 1 requires an expertise in the field and we would 2 need some help there. 3 Again, the Voter Verified Paper 4 Audit Paper Trail testing poses no significant 5 testing issue. It does involve more time, but 6 it's not a technical challenge for us. 7 Am I going too fast? 8 SIGNERS: We can't hear you. 9 CHAIR HILLMAN: If you could move 10 closer to the microphone. 11 MR. HAZELTINE: When I taught I 12 always had two hours of notes and one hour of 13 speech, so I learned how to speak quickly. 14 CHAIR HILLMAN: Mr. Hazeltine, we 15 know you live and breathe this stuff, but some of 16 us are running to catch up. 17 MR. HAZELTINE: I'm sorry. 18 CHAIR HILLMAN: No problem. 19 MR. HAZELTINE: Witness IDV Systems, 20 again, will have twice the amount of testing 21 because there are two devices. I had mentioned 22 that earlier. 1 The bottom line, from our viewpoint, 2 is to be Wyle's viewpoint, we consider the 3 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines to be a 4 significant improvement over the past two 5 documents, the 2002 and 1990 versions, 6 particularly in Human Factors, Accessibility and 7 Security. 8 It's quite well done. There are 9 some issues, but they are resolvable. 10 Prior to implementation, further 11 clarification would be required, but I don't 12 believe it's all that difficult to get that data 13 to us. 14 The current 2005 Voting System 15 Voluntary Guidelines that are out are in need of 16 some corrections and formatting, primarily in 17 correct references and page numbering. Section 18 2.2.7 is probably the one that would need the 19 most work there. 20 Independent testing laboratories do 21 have some cost requirements through the 22 accreditation through NIST which is not an issue. 1 It's just a thing to be noted. 2 We will need some guidance for 3 testing laboratories in several areas, which I 4 have identified in the presentation. 5 There will be some new testing. It 6 will add costs to the certifying of the voting 7 machine. 8 From Wyle's standpoint we are 9 already training our staff to the new document. 10 I know it's a draft, but it's probably going to 11 be fairly close to the final format. We will be 12 ready to implement by the end of the 90 day 13 comment period. We are quite confident on that. 14 And we feel that the mandatory 15 implementation date of 24 months after the 16 comment period is both reasonable and do-able. 17 And I'd like to thank you once again 18 for your time. I have provided my contact 19 information for you on the last sheet and I am 20 certainly willing to answer any and all 21 questions. 22 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you. 1 Commissioners, if we could just 2 agree that we will let Ms. Coggins make her 3 presentation and then open it up for questions to 4 both. Thank you. 5 Ms. Coggins. 6 MS. COGGINS: Thank you. Thank for 7 inviting me here today to provide some comments 8 on the proposed Voluntary Voting System 9 Guidelines. 10 First let me say that it is my 11 perception that in view of the HAVA January 2006 12 deadline, there is significant concern in the 13 states and the vendors in how the Human Factor 14 requirements stack up against the current testing 15 of accessibility to the 2002 standards. 16 I think Joe has done a really good 17 job of talking about impact in the long term. I 18 thought I may address my remarks a little to the 19 transition period of providing a little bit of 20 insight as to where the differences are for 21 people are going to have to be making some 22 decisions for January 2006. 1 First I just want to say this 2 release was made available late last week so 3 these comments are based on my preliminary review 4 of the guidelines and should not be considered 5 complete research. 6 Also, there has not been really a 7 peer review on the comments, which is our normal 8 process, in view of the time frame. These are my 9 initial interpretations of the guidelines and 10 shouldn't be considered a formal in-depth 11 analysis. We actually are going to make a 12 recommendation that maybe the EAC consider 13 providing this as a service to the states and the 14 vendors in the interim. 15 Third, in identifying those 16 differences, it does not mean that the systems 17 qualified to the 2002 standards do not contain 18 some of these required features. It means that 19 they weren't required to contain these features 20 when they were tested to the 2002 standards. 21 A vendor may have incorporated some 22 of these features into their systems. In that 1 case, the ITA would have been tested to them. 2 The first group of changes is audio. 3 And in the 2002 standards it did not identify 4 specific decibel volume settings for the initial 5 volume or minimum volume control. The VSS did 6 specify maximum, so things were tested to that. 7 In the 2002 VSS it did not identify 8 specific frequencies over the audible range. So 9 that would be something that would need to be 10 tested. 11 The 2002 VSS did not stipulate the 12 use of human recorded speech rather than 13 synthesized speech. There are 2002 qualified 14 systems that use synthetic speech. 15 And there appears to be a 16 contradiction in this requirement to the 17 underlying principle that you don't dictate a 18 design. 19 And it seems within the discussion 20 on this requirement, it is preferred not to use 21 synthesized speech. But that may be an issue as 22 to systems that are out there. 1 The 2002 VSS did not stipulate that 2 voters control the rate of speed. And now also 3 the voting system guidelines indicate this as a 4 'should' and not a 'shall'. So I'm not clear 5 whether or not the intention is that that will be 6 a requirement or if that's just -- 7 A 'should' is normally optional when 8 you are looking at a requirement. And there are 9 vendors out there who have addressed this issue. 10 The next group of changes deals with 11 controls. The 2002 VSS did not stipulate that 12 mechanically operated controls or keys on the 13 voting system shall be tactilely discernible 14 without activating those keys. I'm not sure that 15 that is a really significant issue as far as 16 current systems out there. It doesn't pop to 17 mind that that seems to be a problem. 18 2002 VSS does not stipulate that the 19 status call logging or toggle control keys, such 20 as shift keys, shall be visually discernible and 21 discernible either through touch or sound. That 22 was not stipulated. Nothing comes to mind as 1 being really an issue with that though. 2 The 2002 VSS did not stipulate that 3 controls shall not require direct bodily contact 4 or for the body to be part of any electrical 5 circuit. Additionally, it did not stipulate that 6 the voting system shall provide a mechanism to 7 enable non-manual input that is functionally 8 equivalent to tactile input. This would be along 9 the lines of CIVNTOP (ph). 10 And, also, this is stated as a 11 'should' and not a 'shall'. But there are 12 systems out there, 2002 qualified, that did 13 incorporate this type of technology. 14 And the same with the next 15 requirement, that the VSS stipulates voters who 16 lack fine motor control or use of their hands 17 perform submission of ballot. 18 Again, that's something that vendors 19 have addressed, some. 20 Also the guidelines, as Joe had 21 said, are changing the physical reach. They are 22 much are more detailed and the numbers appear to 1 have changed. So that's something that may need 2 to be addressed. 3 There are systems out there that 4 have really addressed some of these issues 5 through documentation. I have not done a 6 complete analysis of all the changes that went 7 into effect and the measurements. But in some 8 cases this may actually be -- It's an issue of 9 setup and it may actually be something that can 10 be handled from documentation levels. 11 CHAIR HILLMAN: You will need to 12 speak into the mike directly. You are turning 13 away from it and I think they can't hear you. 14 MS. COOGINS: I'm sorry. I am 15 usually so loud, they usually tell me to quiet 16 down. 17 Visual sight impairments is the next 18 group, the final group. The 2002 VSS did not 19 stipulate a system adjusted by the voter or poll 20 worker, including font size, color and contrast 21 |