ALAN DECHERT DRAFT OF PROPOSED CA LAW

(COMMENTS IN BOLD BY RICHARD C. JOHNSON)

Current state law requires that the vote counting process be publicly

observable. However, with the advent of computerized vote counting

processes, the ability of the public to meaningfully observe tabulation

is limited since details of these systems are secret. Not necessarily. A technically proficient poll watcher could inspect tabulation code and monitor tabulation procedures. Public scrutiny is lacking. The People of California declare that every voter has the

right to know that votes are accurately recorded and counted.

This bill would require vendors to disclose all technical details What are details? when applying for state certification for a voting system. The Secretary of State would manage a process whereby citizens can obtain technical information free of charge, including computer source code, relevant to voting systems under review for certification as well as systems that have obtained state certification.

This public review process shall be in place by June 30, 2007. In the

event that a vendor of a system certified before June 30, 2007 refuses to comply with disclosure requirements, their system(s) shall be decertified. The Secretary of State shall ensure that a suitable replacement be available. This requires advance selection and a list of system(s) acceptable to the state in some priority order.

This bill would require that to the extent that they are available for

the purposes of this article, federal funds or the Voting Modernization

Fund, a special fund, shall be used. The bill would prohibit the expenditure of General Fund moneys for these purposes. This assumes that the cited funds are truly available. Otherwise, the State’s hands would be tied as to funding new voting systems.

By increasing the duties of local elections officials, the bill would

impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that the Legislature finds there is no mandate

contained in the bill that will result in costs incurred by a local

agency or school district for a new program or higher level of service which require reimbursement pursuant to these constitutional and statutory provisions. Is a “legislative finding” the appropriate vehicle for this?

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

a) By June 30, 2007, the Secretary of State shall not approve a voting

system for use in a public election until all details (Needs definition, otherwise vague.) of the inner (And outer?) workings (Needs definition) of the system are publicly disclosed.

b) By June 30, 2007, while applying for voting system certification in

the State of California a vendor shall have an implied or express provision granting:

i) To any and all residents of the State of California the right to

(Purchase? Otherwise, how to obtain machine time? It could be a big line waiting.) inspect and test such Voting System, to retain test materials, test results, and to freely publish the same openly. Vendor retains proprietary rights?

ii) The Vendor shall promise to refrain from exerting any copyright,

trade secret, or other rights that it may have to hinder any resident of the State from exercising the right to inspect, test, and publish.Again, how many machines, how much machine time must be made available to how many people? The right to purchase machines should suffice.

c) The Vendor may require reasonable notice of public testing and may

require that the tests be performed in a matter that does not burden

the vendor with significant costs beyond those of making the Voting System (on how many occasions with how many machines?)available.

d) The materials to be made freely available to the public include:

i) All voting system specific source code

ii) Detailed instructions for building the software, including

compiler used, compilation scripts, checksums

iii) For voting specific hardware, complete specifications, drawings

and schematics must be made available

iv) General purpose COTS components must be described in detail,

including versions and dates of manufacture

(I like this section (d) and completely agree with it.)

e) By June 30, 2007 the Secretary of State shall establish and maintain

a page (A site? It might be more than a page.)on the Internet to provide the following:

i) Free download of materials pertaining to each voting system

certified or under consideration for certification

ii) A system for acquiring and processing input from the public(Like a trouble ticket or bug reporting system, including voter critiques of machine design and usability?)

iii) A reporting system to inform the public on findings, problems

reported, problem resolution, comments from the Secretary of State, the

public, and vendors

iv) Standards used by the Secretary of State for evaluating voting

systems including test plans and specific test cases employed

(I like this set under “e” as well, and I strongly support it.)

For purposes of this article, the following terms shall have the

following meanings:

a) "COTS" means Common (Commercial?)Off-The-Shelf component that is manufactured in large quantities and is widely available.

b) "General purpose COTS devices" -- a COTS component intended for use

in a variety of non-voting systems

c) "Voting specific" hardware or software means a component

manufactured specifically for use in a voting system

d) "Vendor" -- Any person, partnership, corporation, or other entity

that offers a Voting System, whether for money or not, to the State of

California, to any county or city of the State of California, or to any

government agency.

e) "Voting System" -- Any computerized machinery used in a Public

Election to present one or more Contests to voters, to obtain voter choices, to verify voter choices, to store voter choices, to communicate voter choices, to tabulate voter choices, or to present partial or full results of one or more contests.

f) "Source code" -- computer instructions written by programmers