BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 360
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 21, 2103
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 360 (Padilla) - As Amended: August 6, 2013
Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:5-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill changes the procedures and criteria for certification
of voting systems, and expands the allowable use of state
general obligation bond funds for voting system modernization.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to adopt and publish
voting system standards and regulations, as specified, to
include standards that meet or exceed federal voluntary voting
system guidelines set forth by the federal Elections
Assistance Commission (EAC) or its successor agency.
2)Requires the SOS to study the performance of voting systems in
use in the state.
3)Prohibits a jurisdiction from purchasing or contracting for a
voting system unless it has been certified or conditionally
approved by the SOS, except that a local jurisdiction may
contract and pay for the following:
a) Research and development of a new, non-certified or
conditionally approved voting system that uses only
nonproprietary software and firmware with disclosed source
code, except for unmodified commercial off-the-shelf
software and firmware.
b) Manufacture of the minimum number of voting system units
reasonably necessary to either:
i) Test and seek certification or conditional approval
of the voting system.
SB 360
Page 2
ii) Test and demonstrate the capabilities of the voting
system in a pilot program as specified.
4)Repeals authority of 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.
5)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.
6)Authorizes a governing board, without formally adopting a
voting system, to test the use of a voting system in a pilot
program, as specified, if the voting system is either
certified or conditionally approved prior to its experimental
use, or meets specified technical requirements and SOS's
standards for use of a voting system and regulations for the
pilot program.
7)Requires a governing board, no later than nine months before
the election including the voting system, to submit a plan for
the pilot program to the SOS, which must approve or reject the
plan within three months.
8)Provides that a person, corporation, or public agency applying
for certification of a voting system is responsible for all
costs associated with testing the system.
9)Permits the SOS to contract with one or more experts to assist
with the certification of a voting system, including for
testing and examination.
10)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, and allows
a county to use these moneys for the purposes specified in
(3)(a) and (3)(b) above.
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor ongoing GF cost, in the range of $50,000, to the SOS
associated with additional voting system evaluation
SB 360
Page 3
responsibilities formerly conducted by the EAC and for
evaluation of any voting system pilot programs. The SOS
indicates that voting systems standards and regulations
consistent with this bill's requirements are already planned or
under development.
COMMENTS
1)Background . 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, under
California law, 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. The SOS's review process is
designed to augment, not duplicate, the EAC review and
approval process.
The EAC was established in 2002 to serve as an independent,
bipartisan commission responsible for developing guidance to
meet the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requirements and to
accredit testing laboratories and certify voting systems, as
well as audit the use of HAVA funds. The EAC has been without
a quorum of commissioners since 2011, however. There are
three bills pending in the House of Representatives that
eliminate the EAC.
2)Purpose . Given the lack of a functioning EAC, this bill
removes the federal pre-certification or qualification
requirement. To retain the federal testing and approval
processes, however, 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, and requires the state to use the latest updated
EAC guidelines until state standards are adopted.
3)Voting Modernization Bond Fund . At the March 2002 state
primary election, voters approved $200 million in state
general obligation bond funding (Proposition 41) to help
counties pay for new voting equipmen, and established a Voting
Modernization Board to carry out this task. 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
SB 360
Page 4
moneys."
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. The 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
systems from five different vendors.
SB 360 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 of December 2012, about $65.6 million of bond moneys
allocated to counties was uncommitted. About three-fourths of
this total was Los Angeles County's unspent allocation.
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 difficult for Los
Angeles to 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.
The VSAP is noteworthy because it is attempting to first
define the kind of voting system it wants, and then be
directly involved in the system's development, which could
make Los Angeles the first county in the United States to
develop, operate, and own its voting system.
SB 360 would allow Los Angeles, or any other county, to use
its allocation of bond funds toward development of the new
system and to manufacture sufficient units to test the system
in a pilot program.
SB 360
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081