EAC Publicly Rebuffs Voting Machine Vendor Association

[Wilms]

1225 New York Ave. NW – Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005

Statement by Chair Rodriguez Regarding EAC Voting System Certification Program

For Immediate Release Contact: Jeannie Layson
June 18, 2008 Sarah Litton
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]

WASHINGTON – U. S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Chair Rosemary E. Rodriguez today issued a statement about the EAC’s
Voting System Testing and Certification Program. The Election Technology Council (ETC), an organization that represents voting
machine manufacturers, has issued a report calling for the EAC to reform its voting system certification process.

The report cites concerns regarding the fact that the EAC has not certified any voting systems, the associated costs to participate
in the program, and urges the EAC to “move quickly to recognize the limitations and challenges of regulating the voting industry.”
The ETC also asks for more participation in the development of voluntary voting system guidelines (VVSG) by occupying a position
on the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC).

“We always welcome feedback about our programs, and we understand that some stakeholders think our certification program is
too tough and takes too long,” said EAC Chair Rodriguez. “However, we take our responsibility to certify voting systems
very seriously, and we will take the time necessary to thoroughly review them.

“Simply put, the EAC will not sacrifice the integrity of the certification process for expediency.”

The ETC report also criticizes the EAC for being too restrictive regarding interaction between voting system manufacturers and EAC staff
and commissioners. The EAC’s Ex Parte Policy states: “No Commissioner or staff member with decision making authority shall communicate
ex parte with any prohibited individual regarding a particular matter before the Commission.” The policy was adopted to make sure EAC
decisions would not be influenced by off-the-record communications between decision makers and individuals or organizations, to
avoid the appearance of impropriety and to ensure that everyone is treated fairly by the Commission.

Background

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) mandates that the EAC accredit voting system test laboratories and certify voting
equipment, marking the first time the federal government has offered these services to the states. Participation by states in EAC’s
certification program is voluntary. The EAC’s full accreditation and certification program became effective in January 2007. Visit
the Voting System Certification Center to view a list of accredited test labs and registered manufacturers, test plans and
voting systems currently being tested. Correspondence between the EAC and program participants is also available.

History of Voting System Certification and Standards

In the past, voting systems were tested and certified by the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED). NASED performed
this service on a volunteer basis and received no federal funding or assistance. With the passage of the HAVA, EAC was assigned the
responsibility of updating voting system standards – the VVSG – and to launch the federal government’s first program to
test and certify voting systems.

The first set of national voting system standards was created in 1990 by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). In 2002,
the FEC updated the standards (2002 VSS). HAVA also instructed the EAC, along with its Federal advisory committee, the TGDC,
and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to work collaboratively to develop the VVSG.

The EAC is an independent bipartisan commission created by the Help America Vote Act. The EAC serves as a national clearinghouse
and resource of information regarding election administration. It is charged with administering payments to states and developing
guidance to meet HAVA requirements, adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, and accrediting voting system test laboratories
and certifying voting equipment. It is also charged with developing and maintaining a national mail voter registration form.

The four EAC commissioners are Rosemary Rodriguez, chair; Caroline Hunter, vice chair; Gracia Hillman; and Donetta Davidson.


(MS WORD 97 Document :crazy: ): http://www.eac.gov/News/docs/etc-statement-final.doc/attachment_download/file

[robinlynne]

1. The EAC was so corrupt that it's chairman resigned because it was impossible to work.

I'm talking about a Bush appointee!
so maybe the vendors aren't paying enough now?

[Wilms]

2. I think it's DeForest Soaries you refer to.

While those words are yours, he wasn't very happy with the White House or Congress.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3491


Keep in mind, however, that in days recently past, NASED...a private association of Secty. States and likely funded by the vendors...would be the organization certifying the voting machines.

Probably every machine currently in service was certified by NASED. The EAC, to date, ZERO!

Some will consider that an improvement. ;)

[kster]

3. The two crime families, Democratic and Republican, have created their own watch dog group

Lovely, We will be Hand Counting our optical scanned Paper Ballots, BEFORE THE optical scanned BALLOTS LEAVE THE POLLING PLACE, Thank you very much.

K&R

[Melissa G]

4. At the hearings Wed in Texas, Rep Lon Burnam blasted the EAC that 6 years

after the passage of HAVA, they had yet to certify a single voting machine and we still have this presidential election coming up.

Amazing. No certifications, yet we are mandated to use these 'uncertified' machines to vote.

NASED disssolved along with their records. The EAC gut said they had 11 companies in the process but he had no idea of the pool of possible companies.

[Wilms]

5. It's not like they were funded...or even housed properly.

Not defending them. But I'm glad we can exert some degree of oversight not possible before with NASED. Also, it's not 6 years since NASED's involvement was cut. That happened recently, I think.

Keep in mind that standards are being written. And until they are complete, testing by the old standards remains. Add to that standards for the test labs, and certifying them! On it's face, none of this is bad. Unaudited e-voting/counting is the problem.

And, no. We aren't "mandated to use these 'uncertified' machines to vote". We are mandated to have an accessible machine per polling place. We could hand count from there. And there are no uncertified systems in use AFAIK, just ones certified some time ago...by the NASED club.

[Melissa G]

6. Burnam was talking about time elapsed since HAVA without a functional system in place

and yet another upcoming presidential election. I agree that EAC is probably better than NASED but the reason we in Texas were having the discussion was that the state does testing because of the vaccuum and the state was trying to get out of duplication of labor business.

I believe that you are right that NASED dissolved recently. I don't know how testing by the old standards can remain since NASED is no longer around and I understand they took their paperwork into oblivion with them?

Here is the catch 22. The EAC has not certified any machines. They specifically said when asked, THEY will only take complaints on voting machines which THEY have certified, which currently number a big fat goose egg (0).That kicks our machine complaints over to NASED. Oh wait, They don't exist!

Fox in henhouse!!! OH yeah, Nobody is supposed to be watching. Convenient.

[Wilms]

7. Good points, all.

But state's testing gear isn't necessarily the worst thing. CA and NY have been tougher on vendors than NASED. And I'm guessing a state could de-certify a machine with or without a NASED/EAC blessing. Not that they would.

I'm very intrigued by the notion that NASED absconded with their records. Any more about that??

[Melissa G]

8. What I know about that is not much but came from the first couple of hours

of the hearing. The EAC guy was fairly early in the line up. I had to leave about 10:30 so I know it was before then. I came back in the afternoon but had to leave again at 2:45. Our buddy sonias caught more of the morning testimony than I did or may know just off the top of her head 'cuz she is so smart that way. Sonia posted the link to hearings on the other thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x504770#504781