California Secretary of State - Elections & Voter Information - Ad Hoc Touch Screen Task Force Report

Ad Hoc Touch Screen Task Force Report

Section 1 -
Introduction

Section 2 -
Major Issues And Questions Addressed By The Task Force

Section 3 -
Legal, Technical, And Procedural Constraints

Section 4 -
Recommendations

Section 5 -
Conclusions And Next Steps

Ad Hoc Touch Screen Task Force Report - Section 3

Legal, Technical, And Procedural Constraints

LEGAL, TECHNICAL, AND PROCEDURAL CONSTRAINTS

As the Task Force discussed the issues of computer security, administrative security, voter confidence and voter verification, it became clear that several of these issues faced legal, technical and/or procedural constraints which posed, if not limitations, than at least some more questions.

1. FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS: ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED, NO/LOW LITERACY VOTERS AND NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS

Perhaps the most significant issue facing the development of any new voting system is the requirement in federal and state law that voting equipment provide blind and visually impaired voters with the ability to vote a secret ballot independently and without assistance.

The United States Congress, and the Legislature of the State of California, in enacting these requirements, clearly stated that this is a top priority and stipulated that federal and state funding shall be contingent on meeting this condition. In other words, the state, if it were to implement a ballot verification process that is not verifiable by blind voters, could place at risk the approximately $200 million the federal government is providing California for upgrading voting equipment and reform of the election process.

For all voting systems currently certified by the state, none has a paper-based voter verification option that can be utilized by blind, visually impaired, and illiterate or marginally literate voters, although several vendors have expressed the belief that such a process is feasible. Among the options vendors are exploring includes utilizing a fixed text reader that translates text to speech as the paper ballot is printed, or a reading pen that would allow a blind voter to scan a pen across the paper print-out and hear the words spoken via a speech synthesis component in the pen.

Federal law also requires jurisdictions in California to produce election materials in languages other than English. The County of Los Angeles, for example, is required to provide ballots in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Japanese, and Korean. And Riverside County has a Cahuilla language requirement that is strictly an oral language and has no written form. Providing a paper-based representation of ballots in all these languages is also an important issue, as is the question of whether the paper-based representation must represent the ballot in English as well as the second language so that election officials can read the document.

The Task Force agrees that voting equipment should and must meet the requirements of federal and state laws requiring access to voting.

2. COURT ORDERED CONVERSION

A federal court order on the Secretary of State to assure that there are no pre-scored punch card systems in use in California beyond January 1, 2004, means that nine of California's counties must replace their punch card voting systems by that date. This can only be accomplished in conjunction with legal requirements for contracting and purchasing and the time limitations on state and federal certification of voting systems. For example, as of now, no voting systems currently certified by the state that provide for voting secretly and independently by persons who are blind include a voter verification option that the blind can utilize.

The Task Force agrees that the conversion process required by the presidential elections in 2004 must not be compromised and that its recommendations not undermine the successful preparation and administration of the upcoming March 2, 2004 primary election.

3. PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING CHALLENGES

In order for a county to purchase a system, the vendor would first have to develop it, submit it to national testing laboratories for security and other testing, and submit it to the state for similar testing and evaluation. In addition, the counties would have to issue Requests For Proposal, accept bids, analyze the bids, and negotiate a contract. Many counties are implementing a new voting system for local elections in November of 2003, only six months from the date of this report.

The Task Force agrees that the time requirements for product development and certification are significant issues in terms of the timing of the development of potential market solutions to address any of the issues brought up in this report.