BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 13, 2013

                  ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
                                  Paul Fong, Chair
                    SB 360 (Padilla) - As Amended:  August 6, 2013

           SENATE VOTE  :   27-9
           
          SUBJECT  :   Certification of voting systems.

           SUMMARY  :   Makes significant changes to procedures and criteria  
          for the certification and approval of a voting system.  Expands  
          the use of Voting Modernization Fund monies and authorizes a  
          county to use those monies to purchase a conditionally approved  
          voting system, as specified, for research and development of a  
          nonproprietary voting system that uses disclosed source code, as  
          specified, or to manufacture a limited number of voting system  
          units for use in a pilot program, as specified, or for  
          submission to the Secretary of State (SOS) for certification, as  
          specified.  Requires the SOS to adopt and publish regulations,  
          as specified, governing the experimental use of a voting system  
          in a pilot programs. Specifically,  this bill  :   

          1)Provides all of the following are the intent of the  
            Legislature:

             a)   All voting systems be certified or conditionally  
               approved by the SOS, independent of voluntary federal  
               qualification or certification, before they are used in  
               future elections to ensure that the voting systems have the  
               ability to meet accuracy, accessibility, and security  
               standards;

             b)   The SOS adopt and publish testing standards that meet or  
               exceed federal voluntary standards set by the United States  
               Election Assistance Commission (EAC) or its successor  
               agency;

             c)   The SOS study and encourage the development of voting  
               systems that use nonproprietary source code and that are  
               easy to audit; 

             d)   A local jurisdiction may use available public funds to  
               purchase and maintain any certified or conditionally  
               approved voting system or part of a voting system;








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  2


             e)   California receives the benefits of the publicly funded  
               development of a nonproprietary voting system in the state;  
               and,

             f)   A local jurisdiction may use available public funds to  
               research and develop a nonproprietary voting system that  
               uses disclosed source codes, including the manufacture of a  
               limited number of voting system units, for use in a pilot  
               program or for submission to the SOS for certification.

          2)Recasts and revises various procedures and criteria for the  
            SOS's approval of voting systems by changing the term  
            "approval" to the term "certification" and authorizes the SOS  
            to certify, conditionally approve, or withhold approval of a  
            voting system. 

          3)Clarifies that the SOS is responsible for certifying voting  
            systems for use in this state.  

          4)Requires the SOS to adopt and publish voting system standards  
            and regulations governing the use of voting systems.  Requires  
            the standards to meet or exceed federal voluntary voting  
            system guidelines set forth by the EAC or its successor  
            agency.  Provides that until state standards are adopted,  
            Voluntary Voting System Guidelines Draft Version 1.1, as  
            submitted to the EAC on August 31, 2012 shall be used as state  
            standards to the extent that they do not conflict with the  
            provisions of this bill.  Permits the SOS to require  
            additional testing to ensure that voting systems meet the  
            requirements of this code.  Requires voting system standards  
            adopted by the SOS to include, but not be limited to, all of  
            the following requirements:

             a)   The machine or device and its software shall be suitable  
               for the purpose for which it is intended;

             b)   The system shall preserve the secrecy of the ballot;

             c)   The system shall be safe from fraud or manipulation;

             d)   The system shall be accessible to voters with  
               disabilities pursuant to existing law and; and,

             e)   The system shall be accessible to voters who require  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  3

               assistance in a language other than English if the language  
               is one in which a ballot or ballot materials are required  
               to be made available to voters pursuant to existing law. 

          5)Requires the SOS to study the performance of voting systems in  
            use in the state. 

          6)Provides that any voting system that has been tested and  
            approved for use in all elections by the SOS before January 1,  
            2014, shall be deemed certified or conditionally approved by  
            the SOS and may be used in an election subject to any  
            conditions placed on the use of the voting system by the SOS  
            before January 1, 2014, including conditions imposed in the  
            reapproval documents issued by the SOS in 2007 and 2008  
            following the Top-to-Bottom Review, and its subsequent  
            revisions.  Requires the voting systems described above to  
            remain subject to review and decertification by the SOS at any  
            time.  

          7)Provides that any vendor or county that has submitted a voting  
            system for federal qualification before August 1, 2013, upon  
            obtaining federal qualification before January 1, 2015, may  
            request approval of the voting system from the SOS based upon  
            examination and review requirements in place prior to January  
            1, 2014.  

          8)Prohibits a jurisdiction from purchasing or contracting for a  
            voting system unless it has been certified or conditionally  
            approved by the SOS.  Permits a local jurisdiction,  
            notwithstanding the above restriction, to contract and pay for  
            the following:

             a)   Research and development of a new voting system that has  
               not been certified or conditionally approved by the SOS and  
               uses only nonproprietary software and firmware with  
               disclosed source code, except for unmodified commercial  
               off-the-shelf software and firmware, as defined; or,

             b)   Manufacture of the minimum number of voting system units  
               reasonably necessary for either of the following purposes:

               i)     To test and seek certification or conditional  
                 approval of the voting system; or,

               ii)    To test and demonstrate the capabilities of the  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  4

                 voting system in a pilot program as specified.  

          9)Permits the SOS to grant conditional approval to a voting  
            system or part of a voting system under either of the  
            following circumstances:

             a)   A voting system or part of a voting system was  
               decertified as a result of a review by the SOS; or,

             b)   A certified voting system or part of that voting system  
               is modified to comply with voting system standards or  
               changes in statute.

          10)Permits the SOS to withdraw conditional approval of a voting  
            system at any time, as specified.

          11)Repeals a requirement for the SOS to notify the EAC or its  
            successor of a defect, fault, or failure of voting system, as  
            specified.

          12)Repeals provisions of law that permits the SOS to employ  
            three expert technicians to examine a voting system, and  
            instead requires the SOS to use a state-approved testing  
            agency, as defined, or expert technicians, to examine and test  
            voting systems or parts of voting systems proposed for use or  
            sale in the state.  

          13)Requires the SOS to publish and make publicly available on  
            his or her Internet Web site a quarterly report of regulatory  
            activities related to voting systems.

          14)Requires the SOS, prior to publishing a decision to certify,  
            conditionally approve, or withhold certification of a voting  
            system, to provide for a 30-day public review period and  
            conduct a public hearing.  Requires the SOS to provide notice  
            of the hearing on his or her Internet Web site.  Requires the  
            SOS to provide written notice of the hearing at least 14 days,  
            instead of 30 days, prior to the public review period and  
            hearing, as specified.  

          15)Requires the SOS to make publically available a report  
            stating whether a voting system has been certified,  
            conditionally approved, or withheld, within in 60 days,  
            instead of 30 days, after the completion of the examination.   
            Requires the SOS, within 10 days after issuing the above  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  5

            report, to make available to the public a full and complete  
            copy of the certification report and all associated  
            documentation. Prohibits portions of the report or  
            documentation that contain information that the SOS determines  
            to be confidential or proprietary from being made publically  
            available.  

          16)Defines the following terms for purposes of this bill:

             a)   "Commercial off-the-shelf" to mean mass-produced,  
               readily available hardware devices, including card readers,  
               printers, or personal computers, and their firmware or  
               software products, including operating systems, programming  
               language compilers, or database management systems;

             b)   "Incorrect in part" to mean a full manual tally of the  
               votes cast on the pilot system would reveal rates of error  
               in the pilot system tally that, if extrapolated to the  
               entire contest, would alter the electoral outcome;

             c)   "Partial risk-limiting audit" to mean a procedure that  
               guarantees a large minimum chance of a full manual tally of  
               the votes cast on the pilot system if the electoral outcome  
               is incorrect in part; and,

             d)   "Risk-limiting audit" to mean a procedure that ensures a  
               large, predetermined minimum chance of requiring a full  
               manual tally whenever a full manual tally would show an  
               electoral outcome that differs from the outcome reported by  
               the voting system for the audited contest.

          17)Authorizes a governing board, without formally adopting a  
            voting system, to provide for the experimental use of a voting  
            system in a pilot program held in one or more precincts at a  
            single election or, in the case of a special election, the  
            special primary election and the special general election, if  
            the voting system complies with either of the following:

             a)   The voting system is certified or conditionally approved  
               prior to its experimental use; or,

             b)   The voting system meets all of the following  
               requirements:

               i)     Uses only software and firmware with disclosed  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  6

                 source code, except for unmodified commercial  
                 off-the-shelf software and firmware;

               ii)    Meets the requirements set forth in the SOS's voting  
                 system standards and regulations governing the use of a  
                 voting system, as specified; 

               iii)   Meets the requirements set forth in pilot program  
                 regulations adopted by the SOS pursuant to this bill;  
                 and,

               iv)    Implements risk-limiting audits.

          18)Provides that a voting system that meets all of the  
            requirements above does not need to be certified or  
            conditionally approved prior to its experimental use in a  
            pilot program if the number of voting system units deployed in  
            the pilot program is limited to the number necessary to test  
            and demonstrate the capabilities of the voting system in a  
            limited number of precincts of locations, including a prudent  
            number of reserve units to ensure that sufficient working  
            units will be available to conduct the pilot program.   
            Provides that in no event shall the number of voting system  
            units exceed 50 percent of the estimated number of units that  
            would be required for full deployment of the voting system at  
            every polling place and early voting site in a statewide  
            election throughout the jurisdiction.  Provides that the  
            capabilities that may be taken into account in determining the  
            number of voting system units include, but are not limited to,  
            all the following:

             a)   The capability of the voting system to accommodate  
               voting in all languages in which the jurisdiction is  
               required to provide ballots, as required by state and  
               federal laws;

             b)   The capability of the voting system to accommodate  
               voting by persons with a broad range of physical and  
               cognitive disabilities, as required by state and federal  
               laws;

             c)   The current and projected number of voting-eligible  
               individuals in the jurisdiction; and,

             d)   The geography and distribution of the population in the  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  7

               jurisdiction.

          19)Requires a governing board, no later than nine months before  
            the election at which the pilot program of a voting system is  
            proposed to be conducted, to submit a plan for the pilot  
            program to the SOS.  Requires the SOS to approve or reject the  
            plan no later than three months after receipt of the plan.

          20)Requires votes cast on the voting system during the pilot  
            program to be subject to risk limiting audits.  Requires the  
            jurisdiction conducting the pilot program, for each contest  
            conducted entirely on the pilot voting system, to conduct  
            risk-limiting audits with at least a 90 percent chance of  
            requiring a full manual tally of the contest whenever a full  
            manual tally would show an outcome that differs from the  
            outcome reported by the pilot voting system.  Requires the  
            jurisdiction conducting the pilot program, for each contest  
            partially on the pilot voting system, to conduct a partial  
            risk-limiting audit of the portion of the contest in which the  
            voters cast their votes on the pilot voting system, with at  
            least 90 percent chance of requiring a full manual tally of  
            all votes cast using the pilot voting system whenever the  
            outcome is incorrect in part.  Provides that if a  
            risk-limiting audit of a contest leads to a full manual tally  
            of all of the ballots cast in the contest, then the contest  
            outcome according to that manual tally shall become the  
            official result.  Provides that if a partial risk-limiting  
            audit of a contest leads to a full manual tally of the ballots  
            cast using the pilot voting system, the vote counts according  
            to that manual tally shall replace the vote counts reported by  
            the pilot voting system for the purpose of determining the  
            official contest results.  Requires risk-limiting audit  
            procedures to comply with all other requirements in  
            regulations adopted by the SOS.

          21)Requires the governing board, upon completion of the pilot  
            program, to notify the SOS in writing of any defect, fault, or  
            failure of the hardware, software, or firmware of the voting  
            system or a part of the voting system.  Prohibits a voting  
            system pilot program from being conducted in a legally binding  
            election without prior the approval of the SOS.  Requires the  
            SOS to adopt and publish regulations governing voting system  
            pilot programs.
           
          22) Defines "state-approved testing agency," for the purposes of  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  8

            this bill, to mean a person or entity that is authorized by  
            the SOS to conduct the testing and examination of a voting  
            system in connection with certification or conditional  
            approval of the voting system pursuant to this bill. 

          23)Requires the SOS to do the following:

             a)   Publish requirements for the approval of state-approved  
               testing agencies that are authorized to conduct the testing  
               and examination of voting systems.  Provides that until  
               requirements are published, federally accredited voting  
               system laboratories shall be used to conduct testing and  
               examination; and, 

             b)   Approve and publish a list of authorized state-approved  
               testing agencies.

          24)Provides that a person, corporation, or public agency  
            applying for certification of a voting system is responsible  
            for all costs associated with the testing of the voting  
            system.

          25)Permits the SOS to contract with one or more expert  
            technicians to assist with the certification of a voting  
            system, including testing and examination of the voting  
            system.

          26)Deletes outdated intent language pertaining to voters with  
            visual disabilities and instead provides that it is the intent  
            of the Legislature that California voting system standards and  
            elections comply with the provisions of the federal Help  
            America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) that require voting systems be  
            accessible for individuals with disabilities, including  
            nonvisual accessibility for the blind and visually impaired,  
            in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and  
            participation, including privacy and independence, as provided  
            to other voters who are not disabled.  

          27)Authorizes Voting Modernization Fund monies to be used to  
            purchase systems certified or conditionally approved by the  
            SOS, instead of only systems certified by the SOS.  Permits a  
            county to use fund moneys to contract and pay for the  
            following:

             a)   Research and development of a new voting system that has  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  9

               not been certified or conditionally approved by the SOS and  
               uses only nonproprietary software and firmware with  
               disclosed source code, except for unmodified commercial  
               off-the-shelf software and firmware, as defined;

             b)   Manufacture of the minimum number of voting system units  
               reasonably necessary for either of the following purposes:

               i)     To test and seek certification of conditional  
                 approval for the voting system pursuant to the provisions  
                 of this bill; or, 

               ii)    To test and demonstrate the capabilities of the  
                 voting system in a pilot program pursuant to this bill.

          28)Makes technical and conforming changes for ballot marking  
            systems.

          29)Makes other technical and conforming changes.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Defines a "voting system" as any mechanical,  
            electromechanical, or electronic system and its software, or  
            any combination of these used to cast or tabulate votes, or  
            both.

          2)Requires the SOS to study and adopt regulations and  
            specifications governing the use of voting machines, voting  
            devices, vote tabulating devices, and ballot marking systems  
            and any software used for each, including the programs and  
            procedures for vote tabulating and testing.  Requires the  
            criteria for establishing the specifications and regulations  
            to include, but not be limited to, the following:

             a)   Requires the machine or device, and its software, to be  
               suitable for the purpose for which it is intended;

             b)   Requires the system to preserve the secrecy of the  
               ballot; and, 

             c)   Requires the system to be safe from fraud or  
               manipulation.

          3)Prohibits a voting system, in whole or in part, from being  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  10

            used unless it has received the approval of the SOS prior to  
            any election at which it is to be first used.

          4)Prohibits a jurisdiction from purchasing or contracting for a  
            voting system, in whole or in part, unless it has received the  
            approval of the SOS.  

          5)Permits a person or corporation owning or being interested in  
            a voting system or a part of a voting system to apply to the  
            SOS to examine it and report on its accuracy and efficiency to  
            fulfill its purpose.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  Unknown

           COMMENTS  :   

           1)Purpose of the Bill  :  According to the author:

               California has long been a leader in expanding voter access  
               and participation as well as ensuring the transparency and  
               integrity of elections.

               Transparency of the voting process is important for the  
               public's ability to verify and trust election outcomes. And  
               this trust rests in the systems and machines we use to cast  
               and count votes.

               In California, voting systems are a patchwork of different  
               technologies that are developed, leased and sold to 58  
               counties by half a dozen different vendors. Counties only  
               partially own their systems which limits access and  
               transparency of the hardware and software.  Election  
               equipment is subject to licensing agreements, which means  
               counties must hire the vendor for repairs and maintenance.

               Just as we can't repair our home computers without breaking  
               the warranty, counties can't repair their own voting  
               systems. Voting system vendors change ownership and can  
               even go out of business leaving counties without election  
               support. Vendors can also [have] conflicts of interest in  
               an election their systems administer.

               I have introduced SB 360 to ensure the public can own their  
               vote and have full access to every part of their voting  
               system.  We trust election officials to conduct our  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  11

               elections, we should trust them to create and maintain our  
               voting systems.

               SB 360 will allow counties to develop and own voting  
               systems that meet federal and state standards and are  
               certified by the Secretary of State. SB 360 maintains  
               current standards that voting systems:

                  "         Produce an auditable paper trail.
                  "         Allow access for voters with special needs.
                  "         Require a full public review before  
                    certification a voting system.

               One of the driving forces behind the public ownership of  
               voting systems is the Los Angeles County  
               Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk. L.A. County is the most  
               populated and geographically expansive county in the U.S.  
                                                       and the most complex election jurisdiction in the nation. 

               The county has 10 million residents spread across 4,000  
               square miles and over 500 elected offices. The County is in  
               the process of developing a voting system that meets their  
               unique needs. The development of the system has been open,  
               transparent, and included many political stakeholders,  
               including political parties and election protection  
               advocates.

           1)United States Election Assistance Commission  :  In 2002, the  
            EAC was established by HAVA to serve as an independent,  
            bipartisan commission responsible for developing guidance to  
            meet HAVA requirements, and to accredit testing laboratories  
            and certify voting systems, as well as audit the use of HAVA  
            funds.  However, the EAC has been without a quorum of  
            commissioners since 2011.  In addition, there are three bills  
            pending in the House of Representatives which eliminate the  
            EAC altogether.  

          On November 19, 2012, United States Senator Barbara Boxer sent a  
            letter to congressional leaders calling for the appointment of  
            EAC Commissioners.  Her letter states, "The EAC, which  
            currently has no commissioners and no executive director, has  
            not held a public meeting since 2011.  Staff members have  
            continued to perform the day-to-day functions of the EAC, but  
            without Senate-confirmed leaders, the Commission can do  
            nothing of importance."  As a result, the EAC is currently  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  12

            unable to approve new voting systems in a timely manner.

           2)Voting System Review Process  :  Current law requires a voting  
            system and any modification to a voting system to be approved  
            by the SOS before it can be used in any election.   
            Additionally, electronic voting systems must be certified at  
            the federal level by the EAC before they can be submitted to  
            the SOS's office for review.  When a voting system is brought  
            to California for review, the SOS conducts a thorough  
            examination and review of the proposed system that includes: a  
            review of the application and documentation, end-to-end  
            functional examination and testing, volume testing under  
            election-like conditions of all voting devices used by the  
            voter, security testing that includes a full source code  
            review and penetration testing, accessibility examination and  
            testing, a public hearing, and public comment period.  The  
            SOS's review process is designed to augment, not duplicate,  
            the EAC review and approval process.  

          This bill, which removes the federal pre-certification or  
            qualification requirement, makes a significant policy change  
            to California's voting system review process.  This bill  
            allows a person, corporation or county owning or having  
            interest in the sale or acquisition of a voting system to  
            bypass federal review and approval and instead only seek  
            certification or conditional approval from the SOS.   
            Proponents argue that due to uncertainty about the operations  
            of the EAC, it may be some time before the federal review and  
            approval processes resume and new guidelines are adopted.   
            Consequently, jurisdictions seeking to replace their voting  
            system with a new system are stalled.   Furthermore, voting  
            system vendors may be reluctant to build new systems because  
            there is uncertainty as to when new standards will be adopted.  
             In addition, while the state testing process is designed to  
            complement, not duplicate the EAC testing, proponents argue  
            that California's testing, which includes penetration testing  
            and volume testing, is more stringent and goes beyond federal  
            testing. 

            Others argue that while the federal testing requirements may  
            not be as robust as California's requirements, they do have  
            value.  According to Verified Voting's June 2013 report,  
            "Changes Ahead: A Look at Voting System Testing and  
            Certification," federal testing and certification programs  
            enable states to know that a voting system with federal  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  13

            certification has met certain requirements before being  
            submitted to state testing, acceptance and deployment.  In  
            addition, the EAC program requires that testing laboratories  
            be inspected and meet certain conditions to be accredited and  
            ensures transparency by posting online test plans and test  
            result reports which is useful information for stakeholders  
            interested in voting system technology.  

            In an effort to retain the federal testing and approval  
            processes, this bill requires the SOS to adopt and publish  
            voting system standards and regulations governing the use of  
            voting systems that meet or exceed federal voluntary voting  
            system guidelines set forth by the EAC or its successor.   
            Furthermore, the bill requires the state to use the latest  
            updated EAC guidelines until state standards are adopted.  

           3)Voting Modernization Bond Fund  :  In September 2001, AB 56  
            (Shelley), Chapter 902, Statutes of 2001, also known as the  
            Voting Modernization Bond Act of 2002, provided $200 million  
            in state bond funds to help counties pay for new voting  
            equipment and established a Voting Modernization Board to  
            carry out this task.  Governor Gray Davis signed the bill and  
            AB 56 became Proposition 41 and was placed on the March 2002  
            ballot.  Voters approved Proposition 41 with a 52 percent vote  
            in favor of the measure.  However, the text of Proposition 41  
            states that, "Fund money shall only be used to purchase  
            systems certified by the Secretary of State" and that counties  
            receiving funds must match "fund moneys at a ratio of one  
            dollar of county moneys for every three dollars of fund  
            moneys."  

          At the federal level, Congress passed and President George W.  
            Bush signed HAVA.  Among its provisions, HAVA provided federal  
            matching grants to states to help pay for modernizing voting  
            equipment.  

          In April 2003, California received $265 million in HAVA funds;  
            including $75 million for new voting equipment and $40 million  
            for a new statewide voter database.  These voting equipment  
            funds were distributed to each county beginning in 2004.   
            California counties were then authorized to purchase a new  
            voting system.  Nearly all California counties purchased their  
            voting systems from five different vendors.  The vendors  
            offered a variety of systems and upgrades resulting in a  
            patchwork of technologies throughout California.  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  14


            As mentioned above, current law only authorizes Voter  
            Modernization Bond funds to be used to purchase voting systems  
            certified by the SOS.  This bill makes a significant change to  
            policies that were approved by voters.  The bill authorizes  
            fund monies to be used to purchase voting systems that are  
            conditionally approved by the SOS and allows a county to use  
            fund monies to contract and pay for the research and  
            development of a new nonproprietary voting system that uses  
            disclosed source code and has not been certified or  
            conditionally approved by the SOS.  In addition, this bill  
            permits a county to use public funds to manufacture a limited  
            number of voting system units that are reasonably necessary to  
            test and seek certification or conditional approval as well as  
            test and demonstrate the capabilities of the voting system in  
            a pilot program, as specified.  These policy changes are  
            significant departures from how fund monies have been used in  
            the past.

            Proponents of the bill argue that county voting systems in  
            California are aging rapidly and the process for approving  
            voting systems is doing little to help approve new innovative  
            systems or spur new approaches to voting system development.   
            This bill, which allows counties to use public funds to own,  
            develop, and operate a voting system will ensure counties have  
            the opportunity to be innovative and create systems that will  
            meet the needs of their jurisdiction while being transparent  
            and open to the public. 

           4)Los Angeles County Voting Systems Assessment Project (VSAP)  :   
            Due to Los Angeles County's size, diversity, complexity, and  
            the limited voting systems market, it is extremely challenging  
            for Los Angeles to reasonably consider a commercial  
            off-the-shelf voting system.  Consequently, in 2009, the Los  
            Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (RR/CC)  
            launched the VSAP in response to the growing voting system  
            needs and challenges faced by Los Angeles County.  According  
            to VSAP background documents, the vision of the VSAP is to  
            identify and implement a new voting system in a transparent  
            and participatory manner that takes into account the needs and  
            expectations of current and future Los Angeles County voters.   


          VSAP background documents state that a VSAP Advisory Committee  
            was established in response to a motion adopted by the Los  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  15

            Angeles County Board of Supervisors in September of 2010,  
            establishing a more participatory approach to the acquisition  
            and implementation of a new county voting system.  The  
            Committee provides a formal platform for continued citizen  
            participation and transparency.  The purpose of the Committee  
            is to help analyze and comment on the project's initial  
            research findings and to provide the RR/CC input and guidance  
            for the establishment of principles and general requirements  
            of a voting system and for the development of acquisition  
            models the County intends to employ.  The Committee is  
            composed of a group of sixteen members representing experts,  
            stakeholders, and community leaders from critical constituency  
            groups and communities of interest, including voters with  
            disabilities, language minority groups and ethnic minorities.   
            Also represented are critical stakeholders such as local  
            election officials, political parties, and academic  
            institutions.  

          The VSAP is noteworthy because it is attempting to first define  
            the kind of voting system it wants and then to be directly  
            involved in the system's development.  The VSAP process that  
            the RR/CC is proceeding with could make Los Angeles the first  
            county in the United States to develop, operate, and own its  
            voting system.  

           5)New Voting System Pilot Program  :  Current law permits a  
            governing board to provide for the experimental use of a  
            voting system at an election in one more precincts.  This  
            allows a county the ability to test the fit of a certified  
            voting system before committing to the full purchase of such a  
            system.  This bill expands on that premise and establishes a  
            pilot program which allows a governing board, without formally  
            adopting a voting system, the experimental use of a voting  
            system in a pilot program held in one or more precincts at a  
            single election, as specified.  To ensure the security and  
            integrity of the pilot program, the bill sets up two paths by  
            which the pilot program may work.  First, a jurisdiction may  
            use a voting system that is certified or conditionally  
            approved prior to its experimental use.  The second option  
            allows a jurisdiction to use a voting system that is not  
            certified or conditionally approved if certain requirements  
            are met.  For example, the bill requires the system to use  
            only software and firmware with disclosed source code, as  
            specified.  In addition, the bill requires the system to meet  
            all the SOS's voting system guidelines and regulations,  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  16

            including federal guidelines, to implement risk limiting  
            audits, as defined, and limit the number of units used in the  
            pilot to the number necessary to test and demonstrate the  
            capabilities of the voting system in a limited number of  
            precincts or locations, as specified.  Furthermore, the bill  
            requires the governing board to submit a plan of the pilot  
            program to the SOS for approval. These strict requirements  
            will ensure the integrity and transparency of the pilot  
            program.  

          The limited scope of any pilot programs will not only ensure the  
            integrity and transparency of such pilot programs, but is will  
            also provide some much needed flexibility and innovation into  
            voting system development.  

           6)Arguments in Support  :  VerifiedVoting.org writes in support: 

               Thirty-five states involve federal testing and /or  
               standards at some level.  Federal standards can thus set a  
               floor to which most states have a relationship, even if  
               those states do not require federal certification.   
               California supplements federal standards testing with state  
               testing that actually exceeds much of what is done in other  
               states around the country.  We examine source code for  
               security purposes, and we conduct penetration testing to  
               identify security vulnerabilities.  We also do volume  
               testing under election-like conditions to ensure systems  
               perform in real-world conditions.  And we go beyond the  
               current federal requirements to test for voting system  
               accessibility.

               In that respect, we already lead in this arena, but we are  
               stymied by the fact that our standards for testing no  
               longer can be improved because the federal agency that  
               approves those standards lacks the necessary quorum to do  
               so.  This means states like California become increasingly  
               limited in the choices available to them in the current  
               voting system marketplace, and vendors, uncertain about  
               whether or when a new iteration of the standards will be  
               adopted, do not know what to design to. 

               If we can establish our own standards, and govern the  
               testing process for ourselves, we can enable better systems  
               as we move forward.  With our own standards, California can  
               lead the shift to requiring common data format in voting  








                                                                  SB 360
                                                                  Page  17

               system design: a real game-changer for better systems in  
               future, improving post-election auditing and statistical  
               analysis of elections, as well as enabling component-based  
               systems that are more flexible and less costly.


           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

           Support 
           
          Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (Sponsor)
          California Association of Clerks and Election Officials
          California Common Cause
          California Forward Action Fund
          California State Association of Counties
          California State Council of the Service Employees International  
          Union
          National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials  
          Educational Fund
          PowerPAC.org
          Secretary of State Debra Bowen
          VerifiedVoting.Org
           
            Opposition 
           
          Santa Monica Democratic Club

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)  
          319-2094