The Wisconsin State Assembly yesterday overwhelmingly passed legislation AB 627 mandating both paper trail and software accountability for election equipment.
Last year a measure with paper trail, but without the source code provision passed the Assembly on the last day of the session, but was not brought up in the Senate. I then convinced sponsor Marc Pocan to add the source code clause. Pocan Press release (pdf)
Gov. Doyle welcomed the new bill, action in the Senate is expected soon.
From the Legislative Reference Bureau’s analysis of the Bill:
…provides that if an electronic voting machine is used at a polling place, the board of canvassers must perform the recount using the permanent paper record showing the votes cast by each elector, as generated by the machines.
and
The substitute amendment also directs the Elections Board to promulgate rules to ensure the security, review, and verification of software components used with each electronic voting system approved by the board for use at elections in this state. Under the substitute amendment, the board must require each vendor of an electronic voting system to place its software components in escrow with the board. The substitute amendment prohibits the board from providing access to the components to any person except in a recount of an election. If a valid petition for a recount is filed in an election in which an electronic voting system is used to record and tally the votes cast, the board must provide access to the software components used to record and tally the votes to one or more persons designated by each party to the recount if each designee first enters into an agreement with the board under which the designee agrees to maintain the confidentiality of all proprietary information provided to the designee. The substitute amendment permits a county or municipality to contract with the vendor of an electronic voting system to permit a greater degree of access to software components used with the system than is otherwise authorized under the substitute amendment.
I convinced the State Elections Board to unanimously decertify unauditable systems early in 2003.
The winning argument was not that they represented a “GOP plot” but rather that the systems were not yet ready for primetime, and we were better off not wasting money until properly configured systems were available.
My take: bad systems were a result not of Partisan scheming, but plain oldfashioned greed. When the Congress passed HAVA, they created a $3 billion pot for election systems. Any manufacturer placed to profit told their engineers not “Get it Right,” but “Get something to marketing in 10 weeks.”
Great news to hear. I saw also though that questionable results were coming out of Ohio again. Results contradicting average norms and analysis.
I agree that inferior or immature systems are not the partisan problem that’s made out to be. It’s the greed factor and it just happened to be the GOP network that was in control of the opportunity.
Diebold is going to end up taking a financial beating in offering up inadequate systems.