Re: [OVC-discuss] Bill text version 4

From: Jim March <1_dot_jim_dot_march_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Mon Jan 19 2009 - 19:19:47 CST

Alan, it's very close. I have one tiny tweak for you...change:

---
(iv) The system must provide a method for verifying that software and
hardware used for the voter interface and vote tabulation processes
used in an election are versions that have been certified.
---
to:
---
(iv) The system (alone or with it's associated published procedures)
must provide a method for verifying that software and hardware used
for the voter interface and vote tabulation processes used in an
election are versions that have been certified.
---
One example of a "sanity procedure" of this sort is the process we're
working out in the other thread: pollworker/staffer inserts CD into my
machine, I read it, I do an "eject", they remove it.  That way we all
know what disk we're dealing with.  I don't think you can (or want to)
put a process in place for "disk authenticity checking" into the
actual voting system as one, it will be too complex and two, it could
be subverted too easily.
Written procedures on the other hand is just a bit of writing, versus coding.
Jim
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Alan Dechert <dechert@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this might be good enough to submit to leg counsel.
>
> ***********
> Existing law prohibits the Secretary of State from approving any voting
> system or part of a voting system, unless it fulfills specified state law
> requirements and regulations. Existing law also requires the secretary to
> study and adopt regulations governing the use of voting machines, voting
> devices, vote tabulating devices, and any software used for each.
>
> Existing law also requires voting systems to pass voluntary federal
> certification. However, federal certification has been found by the
> Secretary of State to be inadequate, expensive, and procedurally flawed.
> Ultimately, higher certification costs are passed on to taxpayers. As a
> result, few if any new voting systems have been certified in recent years.
> Open source voting systems might be desirable, but since companies cannot
> recoup millions of dollars in certification costs with license fees, there
> are no open source systems available that have been federally certified.
>
> In order to improve options available to election officials, and to
> potentially lower costs, this bill would permit the Secretary of State to
> bypass the federal certification requirement in case the applicant presents
> a voting system for certification that is based on open source software.
>
> THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
>
> SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
>
>  (a) The Secretary of State shall be permitted to waive the federal
>      certification requirement for voting systems based on open
>      source software. The secretary may also waive any or all other
>      state certification fees for open source voting systems.
>
>  (b) The maker shall submit an application for system certification
>      including a sworn affidavit stating that the voting system
>      software and documentation are offered under an open source
>      license or free software license.
>
>  (c) The open source license requires,
>       (i)   free redistribution,
>       (ii)  source code publication,
>       (iii) derived works must be allowed, usable in elections, subject
>             to certification
>       (iv)  integrity of the author's source code,
>       (v)   no discrimination against persons or groups,
>       (vi)  no discrimination against fields of endeavor,
>       (vii) distribution of license is required by anyone distributing
>             or altering the source work,
>      (viii) license must not be specific to a product,
>       (ix)  license must not restrict other software, and in elections
>             it must be consistent with certification rules
>       (x)   license must be technology-neutral.
>
>  (d) The free software license shall meet the following requirements:
>       (i)   freedom to run the program, for any purpose and in an
>             election, subject to certification rules supported by the
>             California Secretary of State;
>       (ii)  freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to
>             your needs, and in elections, subject to certification;
>       (iii) freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor;
>       (iv)  freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
>             to the public, so that the whole community benefits; and
>       (v)   freedom to access the source code is a precondition for these
>             freedoms.
>
>  (e) The Secretary of State is not bound to certify any voting systems
>      under this provision. The secretary may reject applications for
>      systems that seem overly complex, or seem inconsistent with the
>      intent of existing state and federal requirements, or otherwise seem
>      to the secretary to be unworthy of consideration.
>
>  (f) The Secretary of State need not certify a specific make or model
>      of hardware to be used with the open source software. Instead,
>      the system certification will describe a class of hardware with
>      which the software may be used.
>
>  (g) The Secretary of State shall ensure that any open source voting
>      system certified under this provision will receive breadth and
>      depth of testing equal to or exceeding current federal and state
>      certification procedures.
>
>  (h) In addition to the open source requirement, a system must meet the
>      following additional requirements in order to be considered for
>      this exemption:
>   (i)  The voting system must include a durable paper ballot that can be
>        handled, stacked, and counted and re-counted by hand, readily;
>   (ii) The voting system must be designed to be accessible to, usable by,
>        and acceptable to voters with disabilities without requiring
>        personal assistance or special workarounds;
>  (iii) The system must accommodate multiple languages;
>   (iv) The system must provide a method for verifying that software
>        and hardware used for the voter interface and vote tabulation
>        processes used in an election are versions that have been
>        certified.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC-discuss mailing list
> OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
> By sending email to the OVC-discuss  list, you thereby agree to release the
> content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of
> copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly
> archiving at  http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
>
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
By sending email to the OVC-discuss  list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at  http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Thu Jan 7 00:09:46 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 07 2010 - 00:09:57 CST