Today California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson issued this news release announcing he has granted conditional certification of Diebold's optical scan and touchscreen TSx voting systems. This news will bring some relief to counties using Diebold equipment which are anxious to upgrade their systems to meet the state voter verified paper audit trail requirement and federal disability access requirement.
The certification of this system was controversial because the Secretary of State discovered that there was interpreted code featured in these two voting systems that was written by Diebold and not evaluated by the federal testing authorities. The Secretary of State sent the code back to the federal testers and asked them to look at it; so far that request has not been fulfilled.
The Secretary of State also asked his Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board to look at the code in question. This committee is made up of computer scientists, including David Jefferson (one of CVF's board members) and David Wagner of UC Berkeley. The advisory board's report is not yet available online but the Secretary of State's announcement today summarizes the conditions that must be met by counties that will use the Diebold systems.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Senate Elections Committee hearing on voting equipment testing tomorrow
Tomorrow the California Senate Elections Committee, chaired by State Senator Debra Bowen, will hold a public informational hearing in Menlo Park to explore the state and federal processes of testing and certifying voting equipment. Several members of the National Science Foundation-funded ACCURATE project will be speaking at the hearing, including computer scientists Avi Rubin, Dan Wallach, David Dill and Peter Neumann. Representatives of county election offices are also scheduled to testify.
Sen. Bowen's hearing dovetails with the ACCURATE workshop taking place the following day in Palo Alto. I'll be attending both events and am chairing a panel discussion at the ACCURATE workshop that will explore what are the most critical research problems for elections.
Thursday's Senate Elections Committee begins at 1 p.m. and will be held at the Menlo Park City Council chambers. See Senator Bowen's news release for more details about the hearing.
Sen. Bowen's hearing dovetails with the ACCURATE workshop taking place the following day in Palo Alto. I'll be attending both events and am chairing a panel discussion at the ACCURATE workshop that will explore what are the most critical research problems for elections.
Thursday's Senate Elections Committee begins at 1 p.m. and will be held at the Menlo Park City Council chambers. See Senator Bowen's news release for more details about the hearing.
Thursday, February 9, 2006
Review of the Senate hearing on open source software in voting systems
Is there a place for open source software in California's electoral system? That was the question asked at yesterday's Senate Elections Committee hearing at the California State Capitol. An archived webcast of the hearing is available online from the California Channel, which will also broadcast it tomorrow (Friday) at 11 a.m. Below is my recap of the hearing as well as the testimony I provided.
State Senator Debra Bowen, who chairs the elections committee, ran the hearing, which was comprised of two panels. The first included experts from the open source industry and representatives from California agencies and a university utilizing open source software. Clark Kelso's testimony was particularly compelling, Kelso, Chief Information Officer for the State of California, briefly described the historic use of computers in California government.
Kelso said that thirty to forty years ago, the state was engaged in its own software development activities, typically on mainframes, and was successful in developing and acquiring stable programs to support state needs. Today many of those legacy systems are stable and still serving the state very well, according to Kelso. Starting in the 80's and 90's, state agencies began to use more commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software.
Kelso said that the Air Resources Board is the leading department that has begun turning to open source solutions. The agency maintains a culture in their workforce that supports the use of open source, and the strategy has been successful in that it reduces costs, reduces the amount of time needed to develop technology, and helps the agency avoid procurement cycles. This last point is highly relevant to voting systems equipment, where a long procurement cycle often forces counties to limit their options to considering only equipment from vendors that is certified when the procurement process begins.
According to Kelso, the state's policy on open source is that it is an alternative that should be considered and that it is up to project owners to determine the best architecture for their projects. Factors to be considered in making decisions about technology projects include security, reliability, performance, sustainability, development and maintenance risks, technology trends and cost.
The second panel explored the potential use of open source software in the election process. Deirdre Mulligan, director of the Samuelson Clinic at UC Berkeley's Boalt Law School (and a CVF board member) noted that voting systems used to be observable, not just by experts but the public. The move to electronic voting has created barriers for the public and election officials to oversee the technology and have confidence that their votes are captured and counted as intended.
Joe Hall, Ph.D. student at the UC Berkeley School of Information, noted that there are many barriers to any business or nonprofit seeking to provide an open source voting system. There are regulatory barriers, since voting systems must be federally tested and state certified, which may be difficult for new businesses or nonprofits to manage. Hall pointed to a hybrid model, called the Sakai Project, in which universities that were tired of paying management fees for course software got together and created their own consortium to provide the software. Universities that participate must donate coders and pay yearly dues to support the software. Hall suggested a similar consortium of counties, or even states, could achieve something similar for voting systems. (See Hall's blog for their testimony and thoughts on the hearing.)
There was a third panel scheduled, to be comprised of vendors, but none of the vendors attended the hearing, and instead had the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) send written testimony on their behalf. In it, the ITAA states: "Several states have considered source code review or disclosure requirements for voting systems. Our Election Technology Council members believe that these proposals are ill-advised. Review by, or disclosure to, the general public will not improve the efficiency or effectiveness of voting systems software inspection." Senator Bowen expressed disappointment that the vendors chose not to attend, and noted that it may be necessary to compel their participation in future hearings through a subpoena.
I spoke briefly during the public testimony portion of the hearing. Below is my testimony.
--------
Open source software in voting systems is good, but not good enough. there is no guarantee that the code that's been inspected is the same code that is running everywhere. Security is county election offices is not airtight, and software patches are at times installed without authorization or with limited scrutiny.
We need to avoid finding ourselves in the situation where we ask the public to trust the experts. You should not need to be able to read computer code to have confidence in the integrity of the vote count. This is why the paper trail is essential and why public audits of software vote counts using that paper trail are essential -- having the paper trail and using it to publicly verify software vote counts provides broad public access to meaningful verification of the software's performance. Open source software cannot do that. What it can do is give more people a reasonable degree of confidence that the voting systems will work as expected. But open source software alone cannot verify the accuracy of the vote count -- it cannot verify what actually happened on election day.
That said, it is simply common sense that there is something intuitively wrong with using proprietary software to conduct our elections. Perhaps a private sector vendor will make a public source code voting system, and perhaps some counties will buy it. But if we really were to be serious about integrating public code into our voting systems, we would need to create our own voting system. We would need to invest public money into developing a new system from scratch.
It could be done, and if it's going to happen anywhere, it will be California. But such a system would not negate the need for a voter verified paper audit trail and public audits of software vote counts.
State Senator Debra Bowen, who chairs the elections committee, ran the hearing, which was comprised of two panels. The first included experts from the open source industry and representatives from California agencies and a university utilizing open source software. Clark Kelso's testimony was particularly compelling, Kelso, Chief Information Officer for the State of California, briefly described the historic use of computers in California government.
Kelso said that thirty to forty years ago, the state was engaged in its own software development activities, typically on mainframes, and was successful in developing and acquiring stable programs to support state needs. Today many of those legacy systems are stable and still serving the state very well, according to Kelso. Starting in the 80's and 90's, state agencies began to use more commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software.
Kelso said that the Air Resources Board is the leading department that has begun turning to open source solutions. The agency maintains a culture in their workforce that supports the use of open source, and the strategy has been successful in that it reduces costs, reduces the amount of time needed to develop technology, and helps the agency avoid procurement cycles. This last point is highly relevant to voting systems equipment, where a long procurement cycle often forces counties to limit their options to considering only equipment from vendors that is certified when the procurement process begins.
According to Kelso, the state's policy on open source is that it is an alternative that should be considered and that it is up to project owners to determine the best architecture for their projects. Factors to be considered in making decisions about technology projects include security, reliability, performance, sustainability, development and maintenance risks, technology trends and cost.
The second panel explored the potential use of open source software in the election process. Deirdre Mulligan, director of the Samuelson Clinic at UC Berkeley's Boalt Law School (and a CVF board member) noted that voting systems used to be observable, not just by experts but the public. The move to electronic voting has created barriers for the public and election officials to oversee the technology and have confidence that their votes are captured and counted as intended.
Joe Hall, Ph.D. student at the UC Berkeley School of Information, noted that there are many barriers to any business or nonprofit seeking to provide an open source voting system. There are regulatory barriers, since voting systems must be federally tested and state certified, which may be difficult for new businesses or nonprofits to manage. Hall pointed to a hybrid model, called the Sakai Project, in which universities that were tired of paying management fees for course software got together and created their own consortium to provide the software. Universities that participate must donate coders and pay yearly dues to support the software. Hall suggested a similar consortium of counties, or even states, could achieve something similar for voting systems. (See Hall's blog for their testimony and thoughts on the hearing.)
There was a third panel scheduled, to be comprised of vendors, but none of the vendors attended the hearing, and instead had the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) send written testimony on their behalf. In it, the ITAA states: "Several states have considered source code review or disclosure requirements for voting systems. Our Election Technology Council members believe that these proposals are ill-advised. Review by, or disclosure to, the general public will not improve the efficiency or effectiveness of voting systems software inspection." Senator Bowen expressed disappointment that the vendors chose not to attend, and noted that it may be necessary to compel their participation in future hearings through a subpoena.
I spoke briefly during the public testimony portion of the hearing. Below is my testimony.
--------
Open source software in voting systems is good, but not good enough. there is no guarantee that the code that's been inspected is the same code that is running everywhere. Security is county election offices is not airtight, and software patches are at times installed without authorization or with limited scrutiny.
We need to avoid finding ourselves in the situation where we ask the public to trust the experts. You should not need to be able to read computer code to have confidence in the integrity of the vote count. This is why the paper trail is essential and why public audits of software vote counts using that paper trail are essential -- having the paper trail and using it to publicly verify software vote counts provides broad public access to meaningful verification of the software's performance. Open source software cannot do that. What it can do is give more people a reasonable degree of confidence that the voting systems will work as expected. But open source software alone cannot verify the accuracy of the vote count -- it cannot verify what actually happened on election day.
That said, it is simply common sense that there is something intuitively wrong with using proprietary software to conduct our elections. Perhaps a private sector vendor will make a public source code voting system, and perhaps some counties will buy it. But if we really were to be serious about integrating public code into our voting systems, we would need to create our own voting system. We would need to invest public money into developing a new system from scratch.
It could be done, and if it's going to happen anywhere, it will be California. But such a system would not negate the need for a voter verified paper audit trail and public audits of software vote counts.
Tuesday, February 7, 2006
Hearing on Open Source Software for voting systems tomorrow in Sacramento
A public hearing will take place tomorrow, February 8 at the State Capitol in Room 112 to examine whether open source software has a place in California's electoral system. The hearing agenda includes CVF Board Member Deirdre Mulligan of Boalt Law School, Peter Neumann from SRI International, and several other invited speakers such as representatives from voting equipment manufacturers.
The hearing starts at 9 a.m. and will most likely last several hours. For those who can't make it to Sacramento, you should be able to watch a live webcast of the hearing on the California Channel, which will also broadcast it the following day, February 9 at 12 noon. Also check out the new open source software report issued by the Secretary of State, which provides a lot of background information on this topic and concludes that further study is needed. Hopefully tomorrow's hearing will help to further flesh out the debate over open source software in voting systems.
The hearing starts at 9 a.m. and will most likely last several hours. For those who can't make it to Sacramento, you should be able to watch a live webcast of the hearing on the California Channel, which will also broadcast it the following day, February 9 at 12 noon. Also check out the new open source software report issued by the Secretary of State, which provides a lot of background information on this topic and concludes that further study is needed. Hopefully tomorrow's hearing will help to further flesh out the debate over open source software in voting systems.
Monday, February 6, 2006
Voting systems move closer to certification
Voting systems that meet federal accessibility and state paper audit trail security requirements have passed an important hurdle in the state's certification process. According to this Oakland Tribune article by Ian Hoffman, systems manufactured by Hart, ES&S, Sequoia and Populex have cleared federal testing and are now moving through the state certification process, much to the relief of county registrars who are anxiously awaiting approval of these systems in order to comply with the new state and federal requirements.
Last week the Secretary of State announced that a public certification hearing will take place on March 1 in Sacramento, and the four manufacturers are listed on the agenda. Absent from the agenda is Diebold, whose voting system is still pending certification while federal and state testers further scrutinize the code contained in the system. Since the Secretary of State has already held a public hearing on the Diebold system, no further hearings are required before the Secretary of State makes a final decision.
Though the certification process is moving forward, many counties are still hoping that they will be able to bypass the challenge of purchasing and deploying new equipment for the June election by moving to mail-in balloting. Today's San Jose Mercury News includes an editorial in support of this option. Excerpts are featured below.
------
A mail-in only ballot would give the Secretary of State's office time to thoroughly vet the electronic voting systems without feeling the political pressure of an impending deadline. It also would give the counties time to negotiate deals and train poll workers for the November election.
For 40 percent of state voters, an all mail-in ballot would mean no change in their habits; they already vote by absentee ballot. And yet a mail-in election bill faces tough odds and would require a two-thirds majority of the Legislature for passage. For the wrong reasons, legislators generally have opposed mail-in elections. Elections consultants hate them, and Republicans and Democrats both suspect they would advantage the other party. (It would be a moot argument this time, since the June election is a primary.) There are undocumented claims of widespread vote-tampering.
It is quite possible that the systems will be authorized in the nick of time. As of last week, all major systems except for Diebold's, which is used by 18 counties, have received feds' OK and are undergoing state testing and public review. Santa Clara County, which has bought and used Sequoia Voting Systems' touch-screen machines, is betting on certification.
Why chance it? Counties should have some flexibility.
Last week the Secretary of State announced that a public certification hearing will take place on March 1 in Sacramento, and the four manufacturers are listed on the agenda. Absent from the agenda is Diebold, whose voting system is still pending certification while federal and state testers further scrutinize the code contained in the system. Since the Secretary of State has already held a public hearing on the Diebold system, no further hearings are required before the Secretary of State makes a final decision.
Though the certification process is moving forward, many counties are still hoping that they will be able to bypass the challenge of purchasing and deploying new equipment for the June election by moving to mail-in balloting. Today's San Jose Mercury News includes an editorial in support of this option. Excerpts are featured below.
------
A mail-in only ballot would give the Secretary of State's office time to thoroughly vet the electronic voting systems without feeling the political pressure of an impending deadline. It also would give the counties time to negotiate deals and train poll workers for the November election.
For 40 percent of state voters, an all mail-in ballot would mean no change in their habits; they already vote by absentee ballot. And yet a mail-in election bill faces tough odds and would require a two-thirds majority of the Legislature for passage. For the wrong reasons, legislators generally have opposed mail-in elections. Elections consultants hate them, and Republicans and Democrats both suspect they would advantage the other party. (It would be a moot argument this time, since the June election is a primary.) There are undocumented claims of widespread vote-tampering.
It is quite possible that the systems will be authorized in the nick of time. As of last week, all major systems except for Diebold's, which is used by 18 counties, have received feds' OK and are undergoing state testing and public review. Santa Clara County, which has bought and used Sequoia Voting Systems' touch-screen machines, is betting on certification.
Why chance it? Counties should have some flexibility.
Wednesday, February 1, 2006
Open Source, Voting Equipment Certification Process to be discussed at upcoming hearings
The Senate elections committee, chaired by State Sen. Debra Bowen has scheduled public hearings on two major voting technology issues -- open source and the certification process. In announcing the hearings, Bowen said, "To restore people’s faith in the system and ensure ballots are tallied accurately, we need to turn on the lights and let people see the nuts and bolts of how the technology works and how it’s tested for accuracy.”
The Open Source hearing takes place in Sacramento on Wednesday, February 8, 9 a.m. The Certification hearing will be in Menlo Park on Wednesday, February 16, 1 p.m.
More details from the Jan. 27 news release announcing the hearings are featured below.
---------
Questions about whether California should move toward using electronic voting systems that rely on “open source software” and how exactly voting systems are tested and certified for use will be the subject of two hearings scheduled today by Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), the chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee.
---
The first hearing on February 8th will focus on the open source software issue. “Open source software” has been around for several decades, but it’s become more popular in recent years. Some of the more well-known names in the open source software world are Firefox (an Internet browser), Linux (an operating system), and Red Hat (which sells and supports a version of Linux for businesses). Witnesses will include experts on the benefits and shortcomings of open source software in general, businesses and government agencies that rely on open source software, experts on the challenges of using open source software in an electoral setting, and voting machine vendors. The hearing will be in Room 112 at the State Capitol and will begin at 9:00 a.m.
---
The second hearing on February 16th will look at the process of how exactly voting systems are certified for use in California. Witnesses will discuss how the process works, what roles the Elections Assistance Commission, the Independent Testing Authorities (ITA), the voting machine vendors, and the state play in the process – and about what the flaws are in the current system. The hearing will be held in the Menlo Park City Council Chambers at 1:00 p.m. The following day, researchers from around the U.S. who are studying voting technology as part of ACCURATE (A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Auditable, and Transparent Elections) will be meeting in Menlo Park, led by nationally-recognized Johns Hopkins University Professor Avi Rubin.
---
“The federal testing process is notoriously weak and it’s done in secret,” continued Bowen. “These supposedly ‘independent testing authorities’ are not only paid for by the voting machine industry, but they also conduct their tests behind closed doors. We need to do away with the secrecy and the ‘Trust us, we know what we’re doing’ approach the voting machine vendors and the Secretary of State are taking with this issue, because California voters deserve a process that’s as open and transparent as possible.”
The Open Source hearing takes place in Sacramento on Wednesday, February 8, 9 a.m. The Certification hearing will be in Menlo Park on Wednesday, February 16, 1 p.m.
More details from the Jan. 27 news release announcing the hearings are featured below.
---------
Questions about whether California should move toward using electronic voting systems that rely on “open source software” and how exactly voting systems are tested and certified for use will be the subject of two hearings scheduled today by Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), the chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee.
---
The first hearing on February 8th will focus on the open source software issue. “Open source software” has been around for several decades, but it’s become more popular in recent years. Some of the more well-known names in the open source software world are Firefox (an Internet browser), Linux (an operating system), and Red Hat (which sells and supports a version of Linux for businesses). Witnesses will include experts on the benefits and shortcomings of open source software in general, businesses and government agencies that rely on open source software, experts on the challenges of using open source software in an electoral setting, and voting machine vendors. The hearing will be in Room 112 at the State Capitol and will begin at 9:00 a.m.
---
The second hearing on February 16th will look at the process of how exactly voting systems are certified for use in California. Witnesses will discuss how the process works, what roles the Elections Assistance Commission, the Independent Testing Authorities (ITA), the voting machine vendors, and the state play in the process – and about what the flaws are in the current system. The hearing will be held in the Menlo Park City Council Chambers at 1:00 p.m. The following day, researchers from around the U.S. who are studying voting technology as part of ACCURATE (A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Auditable, and Transparent Elections) will be meeting in Menlo Park, led by nationally-recognized Johns Hopkins University Professor Avi Rubin.
---
“The federal testing process is notoriously weak and it’s done in secret,” continued Bowen. “These supposedly ‘independent testing authorities’ are not only paid for by the voting machine industry, but they also conduct their tests behind closed doors. We need to do away with the secrecy and the ‘Trust us, we know what we’re doing’ approach the voting machine vendors and the Secretary of State are taking with this issue, because California voters deserve a process that’s as open and transparent as possible.”
Monday, January 30, 2006
Secretary of State requests voting system contingency plans
California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson last week sent a memo to all county registrars in the state asking for information about what, if any contingency plans the counties have if their voting equipment does not receive a favorable review by the indepedent testing authority, according to this article by Shane Mizer in Sunday's Eureka Reporter (Humboldt County). Excerpts are featured below.
--------
Humboldt County election officials could see longer hours come election night if the Independent Testing Authority decides to issue an unfavorable review of a component found inside Diebold Inc.’s AccuVote-OS voting machine. In anticipation of the results, expected to be received by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson on Tuesday, local election officials are crossing their fingers.
“There’s always hand counts, but I don’t see that, (considering) the time involved, as a desirable alternative at all,” Humboldt County Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich said.
On Tuesday, the day after McPherson paid a visit to Humboldt County election officials and the Board of Supervisors, a memo from the secretary of state’s office was sent to all registrars of voters throughout the state with a questionnaire attached designed to gauge what sort of contingency plans counties will adopt if the ITA does not recommend certifying Diebold’s machine for the upcoming elections.
The request for a contingency plan came as a surprise to election officials, considering that the county is being forced to troubleshoot a problem that the federal and state guidelines have only recently created.
Up until now, Crnich has assumed that the only ramifications of the ITA results would be to cause an extended delay in the certification of Diebold’s AccuVote-TSX system.
If approved for state certification, the county plans to purchase the AccuVote-TSX machine to comply with Help America Vote Act of 2002.
One of HAVA’s requirements is to establish greater accessibility for disabled voters in all polling stations in the county, which the AccuVote-TSX would hypothetically fulfill.
---
When asked if the state has created any contingency plans for a county due to the delays, the McPherson’s press secretary Jennifer Kerns said:
“We are laser-focused on getting qualified systems for counties to use for the June elections; therefore, I cannot speculate on any contingency plans. We are doing everything in our power to meet those deadlines and that is our top priority. We continue to have conversations with election officials at the local level, and all options are currently on the table for June.”
Despite the secretary’s optimism, under the worse-case scenario for the upcoming June 6 primary election, if the entire Diebold system is decertified, the county’s election department could find itself relying on only three central counting machines at its Eureka office that will have to suffice for collecting all 60,000 ballots estimated to come in that night.
--------
Humboldt County election officials could see longer hours come election night if the Independent Testing Authority decides to issue an unfavorable review of a component found inside Diebold Inc.’s AccuVote-OS voting machine. In anticipation of the results, expected to be received by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson on Tuesday, local election officials are crossing their fingers.
“There’s always hand counts, but I don’t see that, (considering) the time involved, as a desirable alternative at all,” Humboldt County Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich said.
On Tuesday, the day after McPherson paid a visit to Humboldt County election officials and the Board of Supervisors, a memo from the secretary of state’s office was sent to all registrars of voters throughout the state with a questionnaire attached designed to gauge what sort of contingency plans counties will adopt if the ITA does not recommend certifying Diebold’s machine for the upcoming elections.
The request for a contingency plan came as a surprise to election officials, considering that the county is being forced to troubleshoot a problem that the federal and state guidelines have only recently created.
Up until now, Crnich has assumed that the only ramifications of the ITA results would be to cause an extended delay in the certification of Diebold’s AccuVote-TSX system.
If approved for state certification, the county plans to purchase the AccuVote-TSX machine to comply with Help America Vote Act of 2002.
One of HAVA’s requirements is to establish greater accessibility for disabled voters in all polling stations in the county, which the AccuVote-TSX would hypothetically fulfill.
---
When asked if the state has created any contingency plans for a county due to the delays, the McPherson’s press secretary Jennifer Kerns said:
“We are laser-focused on getting qualified systems for counties to use for the June elections; therefore, I cannot speculate on any contingency plans. We are doing everything in our power to meet those deadlines and that is our top priority. We continue to have conversations with election officials at the local level, and all options are currently on the table for June.”
Despite the secretary’s optimism, under the worse-case scenario for the upcoming June 6 primary election, if the entire Diebold system is decertified, the county’s election department could find itself relying on only three central counting machines at its Eureka office that will have to suffice for collecting all 60,000 ballots estimated to come in that night.
Disabled try out voting machines
Disabled voters in Northern California tried out a variety of accessible voting devices recently, according to this article by John Wildermuth in last Friday's San Francisco Chronicle. Excerpts are featured below.
-------
Jerry Daniels cast fake votes in a phony election Thursday and was delighted to have the chance.
"This is the first time I've used a voting machine in eight or 10 years, and it just feels great," said Daniels, a Santa Rosa man who's legally blind.
Daniels was joined by about two dozen other disabled voters as Sonoma County asked three voting-machine companies to demonstrate how their systems make it possible for people with physical and mental disabilities to cast ballots.
---
Beginning in June, disabled voters in California will have that access. Under the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002, every polling place in the nation must have at least one accessible voting booth by this year.
California counties, which also face new state laws requiring all touch-screen voting machines to provide a way for voters to verify that their ballots have been tallied correctly, are scrambling to find and purchase the new voting machines for the June 6 primary.
"We're going to have to buy machines for 335 precincts," said Janice Atkinson, assistant registrar of voters in Sonoma County. "But before we do, our goal was to get as many people (with disabilities) here as possible."
The county wanted to watch how the machines worked with people with different types of disabilities: the blind, the deaf, the physically disabled and those with other impairments.
---
"I've voted absentee for years," Daniels said. "They'd send me a ballot, and I'd have someone come over and read the ballot to me. Now I'll be able to do this myself, and (the polling place) is even close enough that I can walk."
The voting machines are designed to assist people with a wide range of disabilities and can be programmed for people who speak a language other than English.
---
While the new voting machines are an important start, they won't solve all the problems disabled voters face in casting a ballot.
Roy Rauschkolb of Cotati has voted absentee since an automobile accident 4 1/2 years ago left him confined to a wheelchair. Having voting machines that come down to his level and are easy to use are only part of the answer, he said.
"It only takes a lip of one or two inches to make a voting place inaccessible," he said. "People don't realize that a doorway an inch or two narrower or a slight slant of the floor can keep me out.
"These are things I deal with every day."
-------
Jerry Daniels cast fake votes in a phony election Thursday and was delighted to have the chance.
"This is the first time I've used a voting machine in eight or 10 years, and it just feels great," said Daniels, a Santa Rosa man who's legally blind.
Daniels was joined by about two dozen other disabled voters as Sonoma County asked three voting-machine companies to demonstrate how their systems make it possible for people with physical and mental disabilities to cast ballots.
---
Beginning in June, disabled voters in California will have that access. Under the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002, every polling place in the nation must have at least one accessible voting booth by this year.
California counties, which also face new state laws requiring all touch-screen voting machines to provide a way for voters to verify that their ballots have been tallied correctly, are scrambling to find and purchase the new voting machines for the June 6 primary.
"We're going to have to buy machines for 335 precincts," said Janice Atkinson, assistant registrar of voters in Sonoma County. "But before we do, our goal was to get as many people (with disabilities) here as possible."
The county wanted to watch how the machines worked with people with different types of disabilities: the blind, the deaf, the physically disabled and those with other impairments.
---
"I've voted absentee for years," Daniels said. "They'd send me a ballot, and I'd have someone come over and read the ballot to me. Now I'll be able to do this myself, and (the polling place) is even close enough that I can walk."
The voting machines are designed to assist people with a wide range of disabilities and can be programmed for people who speak a language other than English.
---
While the new voting machines are an important start, they won't solve all the problems disabled voters face in casting a ballot.
Roy Rauschkolb of Cotati has voted absentee since an automobile accident 4 1/2 years ago left him confined to a wheelchair. Having voting machines that come down to his level and are easy to use are only part of the answer, he said.
"It only takes a lip of one or two inches to make a voting place inaccessible," he said. "People don't realize that a doorway an inch or two narrower or a slight slant of the floor can keep me out.
"These are things I deal with every day."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
