Once the analysis of the data is complete, what is the next step? Will the EAC compile best practices or guidelines?

Does the EAC or Congress plan to propose legislation based on the results to make the State’s data collection processes uniform?

Is there a specific approach to data collection that is preferred by the EAC?

What are the consequences for test States that stray from the recommended course of action?

In reviewing the timeline, it seems unreasonable that the states would be able to implement such ambitious goals (in some cases, overhauling the elections management system, or, in Minnesota’s case, 11 different sub-projects) in time for the November 2008 election. Is this a concern? Has work already begun on these projects? According to the timeline, initial contact with grantees is to be completed by September 19, 2008.  Perhaps I am missing this in the documents and if so please disregard.  However, the timing is still a concern if the states must conduct an overhaul of their elections management system.

Questions about ICF

I understand that ICF International does a lot of contract work for various government agencies.  I have a few questions about ICF.

1. How were they chosen to oversee this project?  Who made that decision?
2. What expertise do they bring?
3. Do they have any potential conflict of interest?  In particular, do they have any business dealings with vendors, individual states, or other relevant organizations?

Thanks

As the newest member of the Board of Advisors, I would like to express my appreciation for this on-line tool.  Those of us who don't live in DC don't have to take long trips to attend a meeting, the EAC is saved the cost of our travel expenses, and the public can easily view our discussions.

That said, I have one small request.  It would be nice if the time provided for making comments would take into account the three hour difference between East Coast and West Coast times.  So, rather than have the discussion terminated at 5pm EDT, perhaps the discussion could be terminated at 5pm PDT.

I have several comments that I'll list separately so that folks can respond to individual comments.

Thanks again for providing this interactive tool.

Program evaluation

How will the program be evaluated to determine if the money was effectively utilized?

1. Quality of data.  One approach would be to randomly select some precincts in each of the participating states and to verify the accuracy of the data with phone and mail follow-ups.
2. Completeness of data.  Have the states provided all of the information that they have committed to provide?
3. Speed.  How long did it take for the states to collect and process the data? 
4. Follow-up.  While the focus of the project is data collection, one would hope that individual states would follow up if they observed anomalies.   For example, if an abnormally large number of undervotes were registered in a particular precinct, will the state investigate to determine if those undervotes might have been caused by a technical failure of the voting machines, a poorly designed ballot, or something else?  If not, what is the value in obtaining this information?

Technology failures

Will states track voting machine failures, both in terms of numbers and times that the machines were unavailable?  Will states do the same for poll books and other technologies related to voter registration databases?  If not, how will we be able to determine if the information that is collected has been impacted by technological failures?

Providing public access to the information

Will the EAC make all of the information gathered in the studies accessible to the public?

Is there a commitment to provide all of the information on the web in a uniform format that is amenable to quantitative study and analysis? 

Comparisons

One way in which the effectiveness of the funding will be analyzed is by comparing states which received funding with comparable ones that did not.

1. How will the comparable states be selected?  Can we state specifically what criteria will be used?
2. Who will make the selection of comparable states to study?
3. Will anyone be looking at those states that submitted grant applications but were rejected?
4. Is there some way of determining if distributing smaller sums of money to a larger number of states might have had more impact?  Might standardized tools provided by the EAC have helped?

Providing a uniform method of data collection

It would be very useful if all of the data that is collected could be presented in a uniform fashion to facilitate analysis and evaluation.  This has been recognized by some of the proposals that discuss the use of XML (Extensible Markup Language).  XML is a general purpose markup language that allows people to create tailored versions for their specific needs.

However, there already is a widely recognized markup language for elections, namely the Election Markup Language (EML).  EML was created by an international task group operating under OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards).  This task group included election officials, representatives of vendors, and academics.  I've been told that at least some vendors, and perhaps all of them, would like to have a common language.  Using a common language would facilitate analysis by election officials and academics, as well as concerned citizens.

In addition to ease of use and interoperability, using EML would save states the cost of developing yet another markup language.  This money could be better put to other uses.

Greetings,

I appreciate Congress providing the Board of Advisors a role in reviewing this program.  I realize this not a program requested by EAC.  The five states are excellent laboratories in Democracy to determine if there are some answers to the vexing challenges that EAC Election Day Survey has imposed on State and local governments.  I believe this responsibility requires a committee of the Board of Advisors to stay abreast of the complex program and prepare the members of the Board of Adviors to fully review the finding of EAC via ICF International.

I found this to be an ambitious program that will be difficult to execute in an election year and the months following prior March 09.  Many of the outcomes could possibly be beneficial to a number of states; however, various technologies will not alway transfer.

Until recently I had not realized that the grant actually required the five states to have something in place for the 08 reporting cycle. 

It bears note that the scope of the program is broader that EAC Election Day Survey.  For the firs time the reporting to Washington of precinct level election results is part of a program.  With regard to this, I believe some states have already figured out how to convert voting system vendor output files to a central file.  Other states continue to struggle with this.

While there is great variety among the five states, it is difficult to imagine that the final goal of identifying transferable solutions will be uniformly achieved due to the differences among the states.

It is an ambitious program and may well create some breakthroughs.

1. How were they chosen to oversee this project?  Who made that decision?

A contract was competitively bid through Acquisition Services Directorate (AQD), a government procurement contracting agency. AQD awarded the contract to ICF in July 2008.

2. What expertise do they bring?

     For more than 35 years, ICF has partnered with government agencies at all levels, providing policy analysis, as well as program management and evaluation services. ICF employs a staff of over 3,000 who serve clients in various locations across the country. ICF has a history of designing and implementing program evaluations to foster change and improve performance results.

3. Do they have any potential conflict of interest?  In particular, do they have any business dealings with vendors, individual states, or other relevant organizations?

AQD, in the course of awarding this contract, indicated no conflicts of interest.