1
UNITED STATES ELECTION
ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
-------------------------------------------------
TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2005 -
1:00 P.M.
-------------------------------------------------
THE ADAM'S MARK HOTEL
DENVER, COLORADO
2
1 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay, this hearing of the
2
United States Election Commission will come to
3
order. Before we begin, just a couple of
4
announcements, may I ask everybody to make sure
5
that your phones, pagers, and all other electronic
6
devices are either turned off or silenced, so as
7
not to disrupt the proceedings. This meeting is
8
scheduled to run from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. There will
9
be three panels and it will end with a 30 minute
10
period, in which various individuals have signed up
11
to do short testimonies. Please
stand and join me
12
in the Pledge of Allegiance.
13 ALL: I pledge allegiance to the flag of
14
the United States of America, and to the Republic
15
for which it stands, one Nation, under God,
16
individual, with liberty and justice for all.
17 CHAIR HILLMAN: If we could have a roll
18
call, please?
19 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Madame Chair.
20
Commissioners, please answer by saying present or
21
here when I call your name.
Gracia Hillman, Chair?
22 CHAIR HILLMAN: Here.
23 MS. THOMPSON: Paul Degregorio, Vice-
24
Chairman?
25 MR. DEGREGORIO: Here.
3
1 MS. THOMPSON: Ray Martinez,
2
Commissioner?
3 MR. MARTINEZ: Here.
4 MS. THOMPSON: Donetta Davidson,
5 Commissioner?
6 MS. DAVIDSON: Here.
7 MS. THOMPSON: Madame Chair, that is four
8
members present.
9 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you.
We have
10
before us the agenda for today's hearing. Are
11
there any changes to the agenda?
If not, it would
12
be appropriate to adopt the agenda.
13 MS. DAVIDSON: So moved.
14 MR. MARTINEZ: Second.
15 CHAIR HILLMAN: All in favor?
16 MS. DAVIDSON: I.
17 MR. MARTINEZ: I.
18 MR. DEGREGORIO: I.
19 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay.
Presentations on
20
proposed Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, that
21
is the subject of today's hearing.
This is the
22
third of three hearings that the Election
23
Assistance Commission is holding on the proposed
24
Guidelines. The Guidelines were
posted for public
25
comment on or about the 29th of June.
They will be
4
1
available for public comment for a 90 day period,
2
which means the end of the comment period is about
3
September 30. In addition to the
comments that we
4
have received via e-mail, and fax, and other
5
mechanisms to our offices, we are receiving
6
testimony from individuals who we have invited to
7
present for us, or individuals who have signed up
8
for the public comment period.
All of it provides
9 invaluable information and
insight into the work
10
that we are doing. This is, of
course, the first
11
time that the Election Assistance Commission will
12
be issuing Voluntary Voting System Guidelines under
13
its authority, as mandated by the Help America Vote
14
Act. This is a process that we
take very
15
seriously. It's a huge task. It's
an enormous
16
responsibility, but a very important one. And
17
while many of the issues that we address are very
18
technical in nature, this also speaks to the
19
essence of the confidence that the voters have in
20
the voting systems that they use when they go to
21
the polls to vote on election day.
And so, without
22
further comment, unless there are any opening
23
remarks from Commissioners -- no?
We will get into
24
the panel. Our first panel, local
election
25
officials, and in the order that they will present,
5
1
we have Bob Terwilliger?
2 MR. TERWILLIGER: That's right.
3 CHAIR HILLMAN: Terwilliger, I'm going to
4
keep saying that and it's going to roll right up --
5
who is Auditor Snohomish [phonetic], am I doing
6
that right?
7 MR. TERWILLIGER: Um-hmm.
8 CHAIR HILLMAN: That is such a challenge,
9
I love it -- Snohomish County, Washington. Also
10
with us is Lance Grough, Executive Director of the
11
Chicago Board of Elections, and Russ Ragsdale,
12
Clerk and Recorder, City and County of Broomfield.
13
That means the City is Broomfield and the county is
14
Broomfield?
15 MR. GROUGH: Yes, ma'am.
16 CHAIR HILLMAN: That's great, terrific.
17
Thank you very much for accepting the invitation to
18
be here. And we will begin, I
understand that we
19
each have written testimony from the three of you,
20
so we do have that to refer to.
And we ask that
21
you take up to about seven minutes to just do a
22
review and overview of your testimony, and then we
23
will have questions to follow that.
Thank you.
24 MR. TERWILLIGER: Thank you, Madame
25
Chair. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here
6
1
today. My name is Bob
Terwilliger. I am currently
2
the elected Snohomish County auditor from the State
3
of Washington. I've been the elected auditor since
4
1993, and for ten years before that I was Chief
5
Deputy Auditor. In addition, I
have a law degree
6
and served three years in the Snohomish County
7
Prosecuting Attorney's Office, as a Deputy
8
Prosecuting Attorney, advising the County Auditor's
9
Office on legal matters related to Election Law.
10
I'm also a member of the EAC Standards Board, so
11
I've been directly and indirectly in the elections
12
and voter registration business for over 25 years.
13
It's clear that since the presidential elections of
14
2000 and 2004, and in the State of Washington since
15
the governor's race in 2004, the public in general
16
and various interest groups, specifically, have
17
become interested, energized, and involved in all
18
aspects of election and voter registration
19
processes. This, I believe, is
long overdue and is
20
good in healthy turn of events.
Nowhere is this
21
interest more prevalent than in and around the
22
concern for how election tabulation software and
23
hardware is developed, manufactured, tested, and
24
deployed, and used in the process of counting
25
ballots. This series of events
involves vendors,
7
1
election officials, testing authorities, and the
2
public. The purpose of my
comments today is to
3
offer my impression of the draft Voting System
4
Guidelines, volume one. My
comments are limited to
5
two through six. The sections
dealing with issues
6
outlined in seven through nine are the [inaudible]
7
well founded in the concepts and precepts of
8
computers, and the associated technology,
9
performance standards, and testing standards which
10
is well beyond my expertise. In general, I believe
11
the standards set forth in sections two through six
12
follow common sense precepts that, to a large
13
degree, are already followed by elections officials
14
around the country. As you have
experts here to
15
talk about the accessibility issues for the
16
disabled, my only comment on those sections is that
17
the level of specificity and the breadth of
18
populations intended to be served by those
19
standards will all add additional costs.
For many
20
jurisdictions, even with the HAVA money, the cost
21
implications are overwhelming, and certainly will
22
be so once the HAVA money is gone. Therefore, it is
23
critical that the mandatory requirements for voters
24
with disabilities be limited to serve the largest
25
numbers of a disabled community is possible, while
8
1
at the same time recognizing that not every single
2
disability can be accommodated in a polling place
3
environment. As a county that
converted its
4
polling placing environment from one of optical
5
scan central count to electronic DRE central count
6
in 2002, I am especially interested in the sections
7
dealing with electronic voting.
In our county,
8
650,000 population, 359,000 registered voters,
9
220,000 who vote by mail, we have deployed
10
electronic voting without any major mishaps. We do
11
not use any wireless communication mode.
We do not
12
transmit any data via the internet.
We have a
13
stand alone, central count, ballot tabulation
14
environment. We count all ballots
centrally. We
15
employ parallel monitoring for all elections. We
16
calculate pre-logic and accuracy test to all
17
machines to be deployed in any given election. And
18
we also conduct a logic and accuracy test,
19
supervised by the Secretary of State's office,
20
three days before the election, and again on
21
election day before we count ballots.
And finally,
22
we conduct a post-election logic and accuracy test
23
on all machines used in the election. We understand
24
the need to demonstrate the trustworthiness of
25
votes cast on electronic voting machines. One area
9
1
over which counties, and to a large degree, the
2
state election offices as well have had to rely on
3
has been the area of testing the hardware and
4
software by independent testing laboratories. The
5
requirements for more rigorous testing for hardware
6
and software is set forth in sections three and
7
four are, in my opinion, are long overdue. My only
8
suggestion would be to move rapidly to certify more
9
independent testing authorities, and to require
10
their process of testing be open to the public so
11
trust can be built wit the public regarding the
12
testing process. For example, if
there was
13
sufficient testing authorities certified on a
14
regional basis, then those interested members of
15
the public, or interest groups in a region, could
16
attend the testing process to ensure that the
17
standards, as adopted by the EAC are being adhered
18
to on a regular basis. More
openness about the
19
testing of the source code, while at the same time
20
protecting proprietary interests of the vendors is
21
a good thing. Also, the records of the software and
22
hardware that have been tested and certified must
23
always be current, and what is being used in the
24
local jurisdictions must always correspond to what
25
has been tested and certified.
Section five talks