1
1
2
3
4 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
5 PUBLIC MEETING
6
7 1225 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
8 WASHINGTON, D.C.
9
10 Taken on the date of:
11 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 Start time: 10:00 o'clock, a.m.
22 Taken before: 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 Donetta Davidson, Commissioner
6 Thomas Wilkey, Executive Director
7 Gavin Gilmour, Assistant General Counsel
8 SPEAKERS:
9 Margaret Sims, Research Specialist, EAC
10 Carol Paquette, Senior Manager, EAC
11 Kim Brace, Election Data Services
12 Mark Skall, NIST
13 Leslie Reynolds, National Association of
14 Secretaries of States
15 Michael McDonald, George Mason University
16 - 0 -
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 U.S. Election Assistance
4 Commission will come to order.
5 If you would all please join me in the
6 pledge of Allegiance.
7 (The Pledge of Allegiance.)
8 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you, so much.
9 If we might have a roll call, please.
10 (Roll Call: All Commissioners Present.)
11 CHAIR HILLMAN: It would be time now
12 for us to review and adopt the agenda. I do
13 want for ask everyone who is here to please make
14 certain that your cell phones, pagers, other
15 electronic devices are turned off so the noise
16 won't disrupt these proceedings. Thank you,
17 very much.
18 It's nice to be in Washington. Our last
19 three meetings have been in other states. And
20 while on the one hand, we really appreciated the
21 opportunity to be out and across the country, it
22 is also nice to be here, and to see in the
4
1 audience, familiar fans of the Election
2 Assistance Commission.
3 Commissioners, we have before us the agenda
4 for today's meeting, and I would ask if there
5 are any changes to the agenda? If not, it would
6 be appropriate to adopt.
7 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Move to
8 adapt.
9 MS. DAVIDSON: Second it.
10 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you.
11 The agenda's been moved for adoption and
12 seconded. All in favor, "I." Thank you.
13 We have next correction and approval of
14 minutes for August 23rd. That was the meeting
15 that we held in Denver, Colorado.
16 Are there any edits or corrections to be
17 made to the minutes? If not, adoption of the
18 minutes would be appropriate. Approval of the
19 minutes would be appropriate.
20 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: So moved.
21 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: Second.
22 CHAIR HILLMAN: Motion's been made
5
1 and seconded to approve the minutes for August
2 23rd. All in fair, "I."
3 We will now receive some reports, but
4 before that, I want to once again welcome
5 Commissioner Davidson to her first meeting in
6 Washington, DC.
7 MS. DAVIDSON: Thank you.
8 CHAIR HILLMAN: And good morning to
9 everybody.
10 Our first report is on Title II
11 requirements payments, an update. It's a report
12 that we receive at each meeting, and it is
13 encouraging to see the numbers in the columns
14 shifting.
15 The overwhelming proportion of the money
16 has been distributed to the states, with just
17 four states remaining. And we have with us, to
18 give us the report this morning from our staff,
19 is Eduardo Carvez.
20 MR. CARVEZ: Thank you, Madam Chair,
21 and good morning, everyone. To date, we have
22 disbursed a total of over 2.26 million dollars
6
1 in requirements payments. All 55 states
2 received their respective fiscal year 2003
3 requirements payments. Fifty-one states have
4 received their entire fiscal year '04
5 requirements payments. And one state, Michigan,
6 has received a partial payment of their fiscal
7 year, 2004 funds. We have four states that
8 still have a total of 58,000,000 left in
9 requirements payments.
10 Delaware has actually just submitted their
11 revised state plan, and that is being right now
12 reviewed to make sure that it complies with the
13 requirements in HAVA. They have indicated to us
14 that they have completed their 30-day public
15 comment period. And so after review, if
16 everything is okay, it will be submitted to the
17 subcommittee for approval and publication in the
18 Federal Register for 30 days, at which time, the
19 requirement, they can file their certification.
20 Hawaii has yet certified or will be
21 certifying shortly their fiscal year '04,
22 certifying that they have their five percent
7
1 match that has been approved by the Governor,
2 and so we expect that certification shortly.
3 Michigan has also just sent us a second
4 request for a partial payment of their fiscal
5 year 2004 requirements payments. We believe
6 they are eligible for another 17.6 million
7 dollar partial payment. And they are in the
8 process of amending their state plan to account
9 for the remaining 18.3 million in requirements
10 payments.
11 Montana, this past weekend, their 30-day
12 publication period in the Federal Register
13 ended, I believe, Saturday. And so we expect
14 that they will be sending certification shortly.
15 And this completes my report. Are there
16 any questions?
17 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you, very much.
18 Commissioners, any questions on the requirements
19 payment report?
20 COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: I don't have
21 any questions, Madam Chair.
22 If I could make one quick statement, and I
8
1 know that we have said this before but I think
2 it bears repeating, and that is, that we have
3 had a tremendous effort on the part of staff to
4 insure that the 2.3 billion dollars that we
5 started with some 12 or 13 months ago really is
6 distributed.
7 When we started distribution of the funds,
8 I think the first payment went out in June of
9 2004, that there's been a great deal of hard
10 work on the part of EAC staff. And also it is
11 worth mentioning that the states, the chief
12 executive officials who are the recipients of
13 this money on the state end have been very
14 diligent in working with us, primarily
15 secretaries of states around the country in
16 working with us, because there have been
17 questions along the way that we have had to
18 resolve as we have made the distribution of
19 funds. And I think its been a very cooperative
20 and good effort, both on our staff, and, of
21 course, on the part of primarily secretaries of
22 states and other chief election officials around
9
1 the country, to get this important and
2 unprecedented federal monetary commitment to
3 improving the electoral process, to get this 2.3
4 billion dollars out the door, and almost out to
5 all jurisdictions.
6 So I commend our staff here and also our
7 colleagues around the country who have worked
8 with us to get this money out the door and to
9 good use, to improve the process.
10 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you.
11 Any other questions, comments?
12 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: I do have a
13 couple questions.
14 Eduardo, of the states that are left, do
15 you know, have you had a chance to look at the
16 revised state plans of the ones that are being
17 submitted here? And with the states like Hawaii
18 that are not going to submit a new plan, are any
19 of these funds going to be used to purchase new
20 equipment for them to be in compliance with HAVA
21 in '06?
22 CHAIR HILLMAN: The changes that were
10
1 requested, the changes that were made, for
2 instance, Delaware, which we're in the process
3 of reviewing their changes, were to account for
4 how they were going to use that money. And
5 actually, the money in Delaware is not going to,
6 from what we have seen so far in reviewing the
7 plan, is not going towards the purchase of new
8 machines.
9 The Michigan and Montana plans are also not
10 going -- Montana is using some of the money
11 towards machines, but not all of it. And so
12 it's kind of more towards meeting the Title III,
13 different Title III requirements.
14 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: It's
15 important for them, obviously, to get their
16 money as quickly as they can to put all their
17 PRs to everybody so they have the money to buy
18 the equipment.
19 So I appreciate the work that you and Peggy
20 have done to get all these expedited as they
21 come through because I know it's important,
22 these deadlines are coming up, the money's out
11
1 there, and it's important for it to be spent on
2 the right things, and get out there as quickly
3 as possible. So thank you for your work in this
4 area.
5 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay. Any other
6 comments questions?
7 I do have one question, and I'll ask it
8 either to my colleagues or to Eduardo.
9 Do all of the state plans include a budget
10 for how they will spend the HAVA dollars, so
11 that if individuals wanted to see how the state
12 has apportioned the money, they will see in the
13 state plan, either in the Federal Register or on
14 their state website, I would imagine, right?
15 MR. CARVEZ: Yes.
16 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you, very much.
17 I appreciate that.
18 Our next report is one that is the
19 culmination of a lot of effort. We have, since
20 July of last year, been watching the work of the
21 Technical Guidelines Development Committee to
22 produce recommendations to us for voluntary
12
1 voting system standards that would update the
2 2002 standards, as well as to add some critical
3 information on security, voter-verified paper
4 audit trails, and other components.
5 We're nearing the end of the 90-day public
6 comment period on these voting system
7 guidelines. That is the principle reason why we
8 were out across the country this summer, having
9 held our meetings and hearings on these
10 guidelines in New York, in California, and in
11 Colorado. And so today we're going to receive a
12 report with respect to the number and types of
13 comments that we have been receiving.
14 The comment period stays open until
15 September 30th, is my understanding. And so all
16 comments will be considered.
17 We're hoping that today's meeting will
18 prompt individuals who want to comment but
19 haven't yet done so to please do so by September
20 30th.
21 And I would ask if our next panel would
22 join us at the table. Carol Paquette, Senior
13
1 Manager of Special Projects for the Election
2 Assistance Commission, Merle King, from Kennesaw
3 State University in Georgia, and Mark Skall,
4 from the National Institute of Standards &
5 Technology, the institute which we refer to as
6 NIST, has been providing support to the
7 Technical Guidelines Development Committee.
8 It is my understanding that, Mr. King, you
9 will be making the presentation, and that Ms.
10 Paquette and Mr. Skall are here to provide any
11 additional comments or to answer questions. Is
12 that pretty much it?
13 Okay, then we're ready after we get through
14 with logistics. Mr. King, we're ready.
15 We will get back to you. I forgot your
16 report. I'm sorry. We will get back to you.
17 MR. KING: Thank you, Madam Chair.
18 Good day, Commissioners.
19 My name is Merle King. I am chair of the
20 computer science and information systems
21 department at Kennesaw State University.
22 Kennesaw State has accepted the task of
14
1 providing technical support to the EAC in the
2 management of public comments regarding the
3 voluntary voting system guidelines and the
4 subsequent editing of the VBSG document to
5 reflect the incorporation of these in my
6 comments.
7 In addition, we have been asked to assist
8 in making recommendations on editing
9 considerations, format style.
10 My comments, I'd like to address the
11 following issues as they relate to the comments
12 received so far: First, the quantity of
13 comments received by category, second,
14 challenges in resolving comments, and, third, a
15 proposed procedure for resolving the use of the
16 comments received in editing of the VBSG.
17 Comments, as you know, are received
18 directly to a website, "www.eac.gov," or may be
19 submitted to an e-mail address at the e-address
20 at the EAC website. Comments only may be
21 delivered by fax or regular mail to the
22 Commission, and also comments have been received
15
1 in hard copy submitted at public hearings.
2 This requires the staff to not only analyze
3 comments posted on the website, but also to
4 decompose what we call aggregated comments. The
5 public will send in large documents that will
6 contain multiple comments. Those comments have
7 to be decomposed and posted to the website.
8 Each comment though, regardless of how it's
9 received or posted, is assigned to a tracking
10 number within our system, so that at the end of
11 the comment period, we will know the resolution
12 of every comment received.
13 After a comment is uploaded to the website,
14 it is reviewed and assigned a status of accepted
15 or rejected. Far and away, out of the 432
16 comments received as of last Friday, 406 have
17 been accepted. So the vast majority are
18 accepted. Those that are rejected, most of them
19 are early tests of the system that the various
20 users of the system at the EAC and at Kennesaw
21 State were testing the system, but we thought it
22 important to capture those and retain those so
16
1 that we can document everything that's been up
2 loaded to the site.
3 Since its inception, we have 11 comments
4 that have been rejected in the general category.
5 And if you recall, there are three primary
6 categories; those that relate to specific
7 sections, those that relate, generally, to the
8 VBSG, and a special section for the glossary.
9 The 11 comments that were rejected in the
10 general category were those that commented on
11 election outcomes, commented on election
12 procedures, but did not comment on the
13 guidelines themselves. Of the 432 comments
14 accepted, not all are single topic comments, nor
15 are they posted by their authors into the
16 appropriate categories. So sometimes we have to
17 look through a comment, and even though the
18 author of the comment identified it as a general
19 comment, it is actually targeted towards a
20 specific section.
21 But, in general, at a high level, 242
22 comments relate to Volume I of the VBSG, 47 to
17
1 Volume II, 69 general comments, and 84 for the
2 glossary. And I presented in my testimony a
3 detailed table, Table 3, that breaks down the
4 distribution of those comments.
5 The majority of the comments related to
6 Volume I, Appendix A, are entered by two people,
7 one who is a member of our staff who is going
8 through the glossary and reconciling definitions
9 within the glossary against HAVA definitions,
10 against NIST definitions, against NASAD
11 definitions.
12 To support the efficient resolution of
13 these comments as we move towards the end of the
14 comment period, we have proposed a broad
15 classification scheme that identifies a comment
16 as non-extensive or extensive. And those labels
17 describe the effort that will be required to
18 resolve that comment.
19 Examples of non-extensive comments include
20 spelling, typographical, errors in the draft
21 document, formating errors, such as indentions,
22 numbering schemes, pagination schemes,
18
1 confirming definitions to authoritative sources
2 such as HAVA, confirming correctness of
3 references of other documents within the VBSG.
4 Exhibit 10 document is an example of the
5 extensive comments, including those that
6 recommend a change from a "should" to a "shall"
7 or a "shall" to a "should," alteration of scope
8 of the subject under consideration, technical
9 specifications, or changes in performance of a
10 component of a voting system.
11 I have come prepared to talk about examples
12 in each of the three broad categories of
13 extensive and non-extensive, to help the
14 Commission and the audience understand the range
15 of comments that have been received.
16 In the glossary section, an example of a
17 non-extensive comment in the definition of the
18 word tabulation in the draft document,
19 tabulation is cited as seek out. The
20 recommended change asks to include a definition
21 process of totaling votes, and then add the
22 cross-reference, seek out. We have comments in
19
1 that category, we think, will be very easy to
2 resolve and incorporate into the final edit.
3 On the other hand, an example of an
4 extensive comment is one that recommends that
5 the glossary be rewritten to conform with
6 Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
7 defines a minimum literacy level for public
8 documents. A change of that nature, very
9 extensive in scope, clearly is in the policy
10 area, and we would consider to be an extensive
11 change.
12 In the general category, an example of a
13 non-extensive comment is inconsistent use of
14 commas before the last item in a string before
15 the word "or." It is a simple change to make.
16 We have already identified editing style
17 considerations.
18 On the other hand, an example of an
19 extensive comment with one that reads, the EAC
20 must eliminate any and all proprietary equipment
21 or software and provide open source systems,
22 that comment falls outside the scope of the
20
1 existing VBSG document, and would require a
2 pervasive policy in the section category.
3 Selecting an example of a non-extensive
4 comment related to Section 6, security, and you
5 will note from the table provided that security
6 received far and away the most comments of any
7 section, the total of 120 comments related to
8 security.
9 A non-extensive comment would be one that
10 reads, the voting system should generate and
11 store digital signature. The comment was, where
12 is the teeth in the section, how are you going
13 to prevent this. You better put in a penalty or
14 suggest penalties. Far outside the scope of the
15 guidelines. Fairly easy comment, we believe, to
16 resolve.
17 On the other hand, an example of an
18 extensive comment is regarding 6.3.5, which is
19 normal procedures regarding the VPAC system,
20 that the VBSG should change "should" to "shall."
21 Those comments, we recognize, address policy and
22 will require some extensive research in guidance
21
1 from the EAC for resolution.
2 The comments requesting consideration of
3 changing "should" to "shall" or "shall" to
4 "should" currently total 11. Results in these
5 comments will require research and perhaps
6 multiple passes through other organizations to
7 help resolve those comments.
8 To control the process of resolving and
9 incorporating comments into the final version of
10 the VBSG, we have developed an on-line system to
11 enable designated reviewers to access the
12 comments as well as recommended resolution. The
13 EAC will determine who the reviewers will be.
14 Our prototype assumes that the reviewing will be
15 KSU staff and EAC staff. Each change that is a
16 result of a process in the comment will include
17 an appropriate sign-off, with the final sign-off
18 being that of the EAC.
19 In summary, we have implemented a system
20 that tracks only comments from origin to
21 resolution. That resolution, we believe, will
22 be able to insure that the comment is
22
1 incorporated into the VBSG as written, it is
2 incorporated with modifications, or it is
3 unused.
4 We're aware that there are organizations,
5 including vendors, which are still preparing
6 their comments for resolution -- I'm sorry, for
7 submission. We do not expect these comments to
8 be posted until right before the closing of the
9 comment period, which is September 30th. We're
10 prepared to process a last minute, high volume
11 of submissions. And our estimation is we could
12 easily double the number of comments between now
13 and the close of the comment period.
14 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to
15 the Commission this morning. I'll be glad to
16 answer any questions you have.
17 CHAIR HILLMAN: Good. Thank you.
18 Mr. Skall, one, we have appreciated all the
19 work that NIST has done. Forming a partnership
20 with NIST has turned out to be a wonderful
21 experience. We're now with our third director
22 of NIST since we started. I don't know if I
23
1 want to take that personally or not, but we
2 certainly have enjoyed working with Dr. Beaman
3 and then Dr. Spergen, who was the interim acting
4 director, and now we look forward to meeting
5 Dr. Jeffries, the new director of NIST.
6 Do you have any comments or anything to add
7 before we go to the questions?
8 MR. SKALL: The only thing I'd like
9 to say, it sounds like there is clearly a lot of
10 comments related to the "should" versus "shall"
11 issue. That's one that is going to be not
12 obvious in resolving those types of comments
13 because of the decision to put in "shoulds"
14 versus "shalls" was not a simple decision in the
15 original draft of the VBSG.
16 Sometimes "shalls" were put in as
17 "shoulds," because the research had not been
18 complete. And I believe the TGDC did not feel
19 that one could make an absolute requirement
20 until further research was done. Sometimes I
21 believe "shalls" were looked at as "shoulds," it
22 was decided to make "should" the determining
24
1 word because perhaps in some cases the
2 technology could not be implemented in time. In
3 other cases, it was probably a compromise.
4 I guess what I'm trying to say is there is
5 not one reason why shall versus should decisions
6 were made. It was not just one set of criteria.
7 There were quite a few.
8 I think it is going to be one that requires
9 a lot of thought and discussion.
10 CHAIR HILLMAN: Thank you. Ms.
11 Paquette, do you have any comments before we go
12 to questions?
13 MS. PAQUETTE: No, I don't, Madam
14 Chair. I think we'll just let you have the
15 questions. Thank you.
16 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay. Thank you.
17 Commissioner Davidson, do you have questions?
18 COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON: The one
19 question I have for Mr. King is --
20 CHAIR HILLMAN: I think we need to
21 give you a mic.
22 COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON: I'm sorry.
25
1 In the ones that you have received so far, the
2 comments, have you seen any from, we'll say
3 vendors, is that the ones that are waiting until
4 the end, do you feel?
5 MR. KING: Yes, Commissioner.
6 Because the comments can themselves be commented
7 on, we think that the vendors are waiting to
8 post their comments to avoid what they may
9 perceive as undue criticism of their comments.
10 So we have received comments from one vendor,
11 but I would not consider that to be a major
12 vendor in the market.
13 Informal discussions at prior EAC meetings,
14 I have spoken with two vendors who did intend to
15 submit comments, but we have not seen them as of
16 yet.
17 CHAIR HILLMAN: Just a follow-up
18 question on that. The testimony that we
19 received in writing from any vendor, would that
20 have been posted?
21 MR. KING: It would have been, yes.
22 CHAIR HILLMAN: Okay. Thank you.
26
1 VICE-CHAIR DEGREGORIO: Thank you,
2 Madam Chair.
3 And thank you for all the work that you are
4 doing to compile this important information. It
5 will be very helpful to this Commission, to our
6 staff, and to NIST, as we work through this
7 process to finalize this draft and adopt them.
8 I do want to say that I am finding that the
9 comments, the drafts, are being followed very
10 closely all over the world. I was at a
11 conference of 40 election officials, mainly from
12 Europe, Asia, and Africa, and I was surprised by
13 the number of election folks that came up to me
14 and said, we're following the work on the
15 guidelines and standards that you are setting,
16 interesting comments that you are getting. So
17 they, obviously, are going to the web page,
18 reading the comments, because many of them are
19 looking to adopt these.
20 Folks from India are following these. They
21 use electronic voting in India pretty
22 extensively. They are looking at some of the
27
1 guidelines that have been set already, but some
2 of the comments, they felt, have been helpful.
3 I have a question on the comments that are
4 being made on Section l. There's many
5 requirements in their hardware, software,
6 quality assurance issue requirements. Are you
7 getting comments that are specific, that is,
8 conformance-related; well, this needs to be
9 added or these machines can conform to this
10 particular standard, or do they tend to be
11 general in nature?
12 Are you getting some real meat and
13 specifics on how conformance testing can be
14 changed?
15 MR. KING: I think it is unbalanced.
16 In the area of accessibility, I think the
17 quality of the comments,