Re: AAPD attacking AutoMark

From: Ed Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Sun Apr 24 2005 - 20:56:01 CDT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Thanks, Edmund R. Kennedy
Always work for the common good.
10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510
USA
I blog now and then at: <http://ekennedyx.blogspot.com/>
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Teresa Hommel 
  To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list 
  Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 6:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] AAPD attacking AutoMark
  Note that Jim Dickson opposes everything except DREs, and has consistently put accessibility ahead of verifiability because he "trusts" computers.
  Note that different disabilities require different assistance, and that is why a wheelchair is not the same as a pair of glasses, a set of headphones, or a hearing aid.
  http://www.wheresthepaper.org/links.html#dis
  Teresa Hommel
  Arthur Keller wrote:
    This has implications for the OVC model architecture. 
    Best regards, 
    Arthur 
      electionline Weekly - March 31, 2005 
      <http://www.electionline.org/> electionline.org 
      I. In Focus This Week 
      'Hybrid' voting machines raise questions about certification, accessibility 
      By  <mailto:eschneider@electionline.org> Elizabeth Schneider 
      electionline.org 
      They were touted as the solution to the problem of paper and accessibility 
      in voting. Manufacturers of "hybrid" voting machines, which look and act 
      like touch-screen systems but use a high-tech interface to mark paper 
      ballots, say their systems bring the flexibility of e-voting - multiple 
      languages, font sizes, accessibility for voters with disabilities, reduced 
      printing costs - with the ballot-by-ballot auditability of optical-scan 
      systems. 
      It's a tempting choice for states seeking to balance the needs of those with 
      disabilities with concerns over direct-recording electronic (DRE) systems, 
      which do not allow an independent paper audit of individual ballots. 
      In nine months - by January 1, 2006 - states must meet the voting-system 
      accessibility mandates of the Help America Vote Act. If a state accepted 
      punch-card and lever machine buyout money, it must replace systems 
      statewide. All states must purchase at least one machine per polling 
      accessible to people with disabilities. 
      And that gives them little time to figure out the maze of voting system 
      certification. 
      Given the current and complex system of voting machine certification, which 
      uses standards that were last updated in 2002, election officials are still 
      unsure how to meet the January 2006 deadline, and at the same time comply 
      with standards that might not be on target with the yet-to-be released 
      guidelines. (See last week's 
      <http://electionline.org/index.jsp?page=Newsletter%20Mar%2024%2005> 
      electionline Weekly for more.) 
      The manufactures of the hybrid 
      <http://www.vogueelection.com/products_automark.html> AutoMark system say 
      their machines comply with the HAVA mandates. Some groups representing 
      voters with disabilities disagree. 
      In a  <http://www.aapd-dc.org/dvpmain/votemachines/blackwell.html> letter 
      addressed to Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, the American Association 
      of People with Disabilities (AAPD) states several counties in Ohio plan to 
      purchase an AutoMark system in order to comply with the new state law. By 
      doing so, the AAPD argues, they would violate the law. 
      "The AutoMark is not accessible for those disabled Buckeyes who cannot 
      handle paper... purchasing the AutoMark not only violates the Help America 
      Vote Act, it is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 
      Rehabilitation Act," states the AAPD letter. 
      The AutoMark is outfitted with a sip/puff tube for voters who are unable to 
      use a touch screen or touch pad and an audio function for voters with 
      impaired vision. The  <http://www.populex.com/> Populex machine, a similar 
      hybrid, also allows touch controls and other "enhanced navigation" for 
      people with disabilities. 
      Jim Dickson, vice president of government affairs for the AAPD, argues that 
      people who are unable to use their hands will lose their right to a secret 
      ballot with the AutoMark machine because, "a voter who casts a ballot on the 
      system would be required to carry the marked ballot and then insert it into 
      a vote tabulator." 
      "HAVA outlines that the voting process is to be independent," says Dickson. 
      "And the simple problem [with AutoMark] is the loss of independence and 
      secrecy." 
      According to several groups supporting the voting rights of the disabled 
      community, including the American Council of the Blind, the use of 
      direct-recording electronic machines, already certified by the federal 
      government and in use in many states, has proven to be the most accessible 
      voting system. DREs can also be outfitted with a printer to produce a 
      voter-verifiable paper record. 
      According to the National Institute for of Standards and Technology (NIST), 
      HAVA allocates $850 million to the states over three years to purchase 
      accessible voting equipment, footing about 95 percent of the total cost. 
      The AutoMark has also drawn fire from the United Spinal Association. 
      "This system is accessible, but not to all," the group wrote in a 
      <http://www.unitedspinal.org/pages.php?catid=231&pageid=808> letter opposing 
      the use of the machines. 
      According to Ellen Bogard, a spokesperson for ES&S, the voting machine 
      company which markets the system, the AutoMark ensures the privacy of every 
      voter. A voter would be able to use a secrecy sleeve which would protect the 
      ballot from view, and for those who require assistance handling the ballot 
      ES&S can "prepare ballots without any candidate names, initiatives or other 
      ballot measures printed on the document." 
      But the cost of the machines could discourage some localities, even if they 
      want the hybrid technology. Ohio, for example, has increased its voter rolls 
      by nearly one million people in the past two years. "The $106 million the 
      state received for new voting technology will not be enough to reach the 
      states original goal of supplying one accessible machine per 200 registered 
      voters," said Carlo LaParo, a spokesperson for Blackwell. "The AutoMark is 
      currently outside of our budget." 
      According to the AAPD, the cost of the AutoMark is at least 30 percent 
      higher than accessible touch screens. Elaine Gravely, Montana's deputy 
      secretary of state for elections, told a local newspaper that the machines 
      cost around $5,000. 
      In contrast, Maryland reports the state paid just over $2,800 per 
      touch-screen DREs manufactured by Diebold. 
      To update the standards, NIST was given the authority, under HAVA, to 
      provide technical and administrative support to the body that will make the 
      final recommendation to the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC). 
      The Institute's Technical Guidelines Development Committee is expected to 
      review and approve the final draft of the new recommendations and standards 
      on April 20th and 21st. 
      Allan Eustis, project leader for the committee, said the reports will serve 
      as a road map to help the EAC create new voting certification standards. 
      "It will be up to the guidelines committee to say 'yea' or 'nay,'" he said. 
      The report from NIST, said Whitney Quesenbery, of Whitney Interactive Design 
      and an advisor to the Technical Guidelines Development Committee 
      specializing in usability, is being rushed out "precisely because of the 
      gaps in the 2002 standards." 
      What's missing, she said, is a specific standard which would cover the full 
      range of a person's abilities, including those that face problems in 
      accessing a voting system, and where the disability affects the usability of 
      the system. 
      According to federal election commissioner Ray Martinez, NIST and the 
      committee are taking existing standards and updating them with a priority on 
      security, accessibility and usability. 
      The AutoMark system, he said, could be problematic for a person who does not 
      have the use of their hands or is blind or visually impaired to take ballots 
      from system to a ballot box which could possibly compromises the independent 
      clause of HAVA. 
      "The EAC has not weighed in on whether this is the case [with the 
      AutoMark]," he said. "We need to look at any of these areas where there is 
      ambiguity or need for greater clarity... and these will be voluntary 
      guidelines." 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  _______________________________________________
  OVC discuss mailing lists
  Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sat Apr 30 23:17:12 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 30 2005 - 23:17:22 CDT