[GPSCC-chat] Instant Runoff Voting (Jan. 7 meeting of SCC Citizens' Advisory Commission on Elections to discuss this)
Spencer Graves
spencer.graves at prodsyse.com
Thu Dec 19 11:10:39 PST 2013
Hello, All:
Below please find a detailed description of the current status of
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for Santa Clara County, preceded by a
summary of my understanding of this issue.
We will discuss this further at the Green Party meeting at the
Peace Center, scheduled to start at 7:30 (informal discussions starting
at 7; I plan to arrive by 6:45 PM to make sure the Peace Center is
open). In brief:
1. We can have IRV in Santa Clara County probably starting
with special elections in 2015.
2. However, to get this, we need to push for it. The next
opportunity for this will be Tuesday, January 7, 6 PM, at the next
meeting of the Santa Clara County Citizens' Advisory Commission on
Elections in the Isaac Newton Senter Auditorium, County of Santa Clara
Government Center (First Floor), 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose, CA,
95110. I think we should try to get as many people as feasible to
attend this meeting, and encourage all inclined to prepare a 1-2 minute
speech on why they want IRV. This should include trying to identify and
contact all the groups that have endorsed IRV in the past. (NOTE: The
League of Women Voters nationally has endorsed IRV, though the current
president of the local League may oppose it.)
Y'all come.
Spencer
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: For Philip Chantri, who is scheduled to talk about federal
testing of voting machines in the next couple of days
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:49:34 -0800
From: Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>
To: Chantri, Philip <Philip.Chantri at rov.sccgov.org>
CC: mhunter at lusars.net <mhunter at lusars.net>, fsweeney at infionline.net
<fsweeney at infionline.net>, steve.chessin at cfer.org
<steve.chessin at cfer.org>, Moreles, Matt <Matt.Moreles at rov.sccgov.org>,
bushey, shannon <shannon.bushey at rov.sccgov.org>
Hi, Philip:
Thanks for details. If I read this correctly, the current
situation can be summarized as follows:
1. Similar to "Catch 22", Santa Clara County can't approve
IRV without authorization by the Feds and the California Secretary of
State, who won't provide authorization without prior approval by the
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.
2. Fortunately, unlike "Catch 22", the Board of
Supervisors could vote to use it as soon as possible, preferably to
begin with a special election in 2015. That vote would then allow the
California Secretary of State to approve it and the other steps planned
in time to make it actually happen.
Is this correct? If no, please help me understand what I missed.
Thanks again for the information and all your work in support of
democracy in Santa Clara County.
Best Wishes,
Spencer
On 12/18/2013 1:22 PM, Chantri, Philip wrote:
>
> Good Afternoon!
>
> I've attempted to provide some background, answer the questions asked
> and provided links to additional information.
>
> Background
>
> On November 3, 1998, voters in Santa Clara County approved Measure F,
> amending the County Charter, Section 208, to allow consideration of an
> instant run-off voting system. The Impartial Analysis by County
> Counsel stated:
>
> “The current Poll Star voting system used in the County cannot
> accommodate IRV since it is unable to distinguish between voter first
> and second choices. However, in the future, this system may be
> replaced by a voting system that can accommodate IRV. This charter
> measure would enable, but not require, the Board of Supervisors to
> consider the use of IRV for County elections consolidated with the
> November general election once suitable technology is available in the
> County. Procedural issues regarding the implementation of IRV will
> need to be considered by the Board of Supervisors at the time IRV
> becomes a feasible option.”
>
> On April 29, 2003, the County entered into an agreement with Sequoia
> Voting Systems, now owned by Dominion Voting Systems, for a DRE voting
> system. The new voting system was implemented without the capability
> to accommodate IRV. The County's contract with Sequoia includes a
> requirement that if IRV is authorized in the State of California and
> required by the County, Sequoia must develop and certify an upgrade
> within a reasonable time as agreed upon by both parties.
>
> The version currently in use in Santa Clara County is the last
> software version submitted for certification in California and
> approved on March 20, 2006 and revised reapproval with conditions on
> December 31, 2009 for Sequoia Optech 400-C/WinETP v. 1.12.4 (our
> central count system), Sequoia AVC Edge Model II v. 5.0.24 (our DREs)
> along with Sequoia WinEDS 3.1.012. No later versions have been
> certified for general use in California.
>
> A later version of the software that would have included IRV
> capability was submitted for federal testing and certification over
> five years ago. The latest information received by the County
> indicates that the version submitted for use with our system to the
> EAC is no longer in testing, will not receive an EAC Certification #
> and will not be submitted for approval in California. I’ve provided
> links below to correspondence between the EAC and Dominion Voting Systems.
>
> https://eac926.americaneagle.com/assets/1/Documents/Sequoia.Report.Delay.letter.8.30.12.FINAL.pdf
>
> https://eac926.americaneagle.com/assets/1/Documents/ltr_Hancock_WinEDS_27Feb2013.pdf
>
> At the FGOC meeting on April 6, 2006, the ROV presented the FY 2007
> recommended budget proposal, included in this proposal was a request
> for augmentation for Instant Runoff Voting. The succeeding Board of
> Supervisors meeting of April 25, 2006 minutes show (Item 12) "Received
> comment from the County Executive that the board will have a policy
> discussion related to Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) if and when the
> Secretary of State approves IRV and if and when the County's
> technology is capable of providing IRV, the board will discuss to
> determine its next steps."
>
> We have been involved in requesting information, studying Alameda and
> San Francisco implementation, attending Training during implementation
> and keeping abreast of federal and state certification status and
> requirements.
>
> I’ve provided a link to the Secretary of State’s website
> http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/oversight/directives/irv-guidelines.pdf
> the guidelines state, “the county board of supervisors, must first
> approve the use of instant runoff voting.” Should one of our
> jurisdictions decide to become an “investing” jurisdiction and our
> Board have a policy discussion and decide to seek “administrative
> approval” outside of federal certification the next steps to be
> determined would be development of a certification package,
> development of use procedures, development of a voter education and
> outreach package and creation of a budget for the “investing”
> jurisdiction.
>
> 1. The original contract with Sequoia required them to provide
> the software for IRV once the County made a decision to implement it.
> Does that provision still hold? If not, why not?
>
> Please find a link to the Sequoia contract below. However a brief
> excerpt from the contract states, "Following direction and
> certification from the California Secretary of State, Sequoia
> must provide the necessary computer software for instant runoff
> election capability within a reasonable time to be agreed by the
> parties. If instant runoff voting is authorized in the State of
> California and required by the County, Sequoia must develop and
> certify an upgrade within a reasonable time to be agreed by the parties."
>
> http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=33356
> <http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=33356>
>
>
> 2. The original contract with Sequoia included software upgrades as
> part of the maintenance agreement, implying no additional cost for the
> IRV software. Does that provision still hold? If not, why not?
>
> The contract does state, “The annual license and maintenance fee
> includes upgrades to the software furnished by Sequoia under this
> Agreement at no additional cost, but County has discretion whether to
> implement upgrades. Sequoia must ensure that software upgrades are in
> compliance with federal certifying authority and California Secretary
> of State certification.”
>
>
> 3. Do our central scanners and DREs differ from San Francisco's
> central scanners and DREs, and if so, how?
>
> Alameda County and the City and County of San Francisco use Sequoia
> Optech 400-C/WinETP v. 1.16.6 (Santa Clara County uses a differing
> version 1.12.4) Sequoia Optech Insight Plus APX K2.16, HPX K1.44
> (Santa Clara County does not use precinct scanners) Sequoia AVC Edge
> Model II v. 5.0.24 ( Santa Clara County uses the same hardware but
> differing software). More simply stated, San Francisco uses Sequoia
> Optech 400-C/WinETP v. 1.16.6 for Vote by Mail, Sequoia Optech Insight
> Plus APX K2.16, HPX K1.44 to tabulate optical scan ballots in precinct
> and Sequoia AVC Edge Model II v. 5.0.24 for polling place
> accessibility requirements.
>
> Please find more information on the "administrative approval" granted
> to The City and County of San Francisco on the Secretary of State's
> voting system approval page at
> http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/vendors/sequoia.htm Their
> administrative approval is granted for their “blended” system of
> Central Count/Precinct Scanner/DRE.
>
>
> 4. Do our central scanners and DREs differ from Alameda County's
> central scanners and DREs, and if so, how?
>
> Alameda County and the City and County of San Francisco use Sequoia
> Optech 400-C/WinETP v. 1.16.6 (Santa Clara County uses a differing
> version 1.12.4) Sequoia Optech Insight Plus APX K2.16, HPX K1.44
> (Santa Clara County does not use in precinct scanners) Sequoia AVC
> Edge Model II v. 5.0.24 ( Santa Clara County uses the same hardware
> but differing software). More simply stated, Alameda uses Sequoia
> Optech 400-C/WinETP v. 1.16.6 for Vote by Mail, Sequoia Optech Insight
> Plus APX K2.16, HPX K1.44 to tabulate optical scan ballots in precinct
> and Sequoia AVC Edge Model II v. 5.0.24 for polling place
> accessibility requirements.
>
>
> Please find more information on the "administrative approval" granted
> to Alameda County on the Secretary of State's voting system approval
> page at http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/vendors/sequoia.htm Their
> administrative approval is granted for their “blended” system of
> Central Count/Precinct Scanner/DRE.
>
>
>
> 5. Does the recent enactment of SB 360 render irrelevant the
> federal testing requirement?
>
> Three members of our Staff, myself included, were included in
> presentations provided on this topic from the Secretary of State's
> Office last week.Additionally, last Friday I was able to attend a
> hearing on the proposed regulations in Sacramento. Please find below a
> link to the proposed regulations, voting system performance standards,
> and notices on the hearing from the Secretary of State. While the
> provisions of SB 360 have not been fully implemented yet, the vision
> and operational understanding is that a voting system vendor could pay
> and submit a system for testing to the State of California who would
> then contract with a federal testing lab for system review and
> certification testing bypassing the EAC. In essence following slightly
> tougher standards, requirements and testing the EAC would have
> followed but not requiring the EAC #. However, if a system had
> previously received the EAC #, the State would not require a
> duplication of the fees and testing already completed. The vendors are
> free to choose which path to follow.
>
> http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/regulations/proposed/elections/voting-systems/
>
> Please let me know should you have further questions, seek
> clarification and/or would like to have a more in depth discussion.
>
> Happy Holidays!
>
> Philip Chantri
>
> Election Division Coordinator
>
> Precinct Operations, Outreach,
>
> Training, & The CBO Program
>
> 1553 Berger Drive, Building 1
>
> San Jose, CA 95112
>
> (408) 282-3066
>
> philip.chantri at rov.sccgov.org <mailto:philip.chantri at rov.sccgov.org>
>
> */Download the free SCCVOTE mobile app for iPhone/iPad & Android:
> bit.ly/sccvote <http://bit.ly/sccvote>/*
>
> *From:*Spencer Graves [mailto:spencer.graves at prodsyse.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 15, 2013 9:09 AM
> *To:* registrar
> *Cc:* Steve Chessin; Sharon/Frank Sweeney; Michael Hunter
> *Subject:* For Philip Chandri, who is scheduled to talk about federal
> testing of voting machines in the next couple of days
>
> Hi, Philip:
>
>
> What can you tell me about the original contract between Santa
> Clara County and Sequoia, how our equipment differs from that of San
> Francisco and Oakland, and the impact of SB 360 on federal testing
> requirements?
>
>
> Also, could you please provide me with a copy of that contract
> and documentation relevant to these questions (or -- better --
> appropriate web links where those documents are publicly available)?
>
>
> Below please find my understanding from our conversation Dec.
> 9. I'd like answers to Steve Chessin's five questions (below,
> summarized in the first line to this email). In addition, if I
> misrepresented anything you said to me, please correct same.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Spencer
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> *Subject: *
>
>
>
> Re: IRV in Santa Clara County
>
> *Date: *
>
>
>
> Sat, 14 Dec 2013 21:57:21 -0800
>
> *From: *
>
>
>
> Steve Chessin <steve.chessin at cfer.org> <mailto:steve.chessin at cfer.org>
>
> *Organization: *
>
>
>
> Californians for Electoral Reform
>
> *To: *
>
>
>
> Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>
> <mailto:spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>, Sharon/Frank Sweeney
> <fsweeney at infionline.net> <mailto:fsweeney at infionline.net>, Michael
> Hunter <mhunter at lusars.net> <mailto:mhunter at lusars.net>
>
> Hi, Spencer. I suggest you ask Philip these questions:
>
> 1. The original contract with Sequoia required them to provide the
> software for IRV once the County made a decision to implement it. Does
> that provision still hold? If not, why not?
>
> 2. The original contract with Sequoia included software upgrades as part
> of the maintenance agreement, implying no additional cost for the IRV
> software. Does that provision still hold? If not, why not?
>
> 3. Do our central scanners and DREs differ from San Francisco's central
> scanners and DREs, and if so, how?
>
> 4. Do our central scanners and DREs differ from Alameda County's central
> scanners and DREs, and if so, how?
>
> 5. Does the recent enactment of SB 360 render irrelevant the federal
> testing requirement?
>
> The answers to these questions will set the stage for appropriate
> follow-up questions.
>
> --Steve
>
> On 12/14/13 12:34 AM, Spencer Graves wrote:
> > Hi, Steve:
> >
> >
> > What do you suggest we do to respond to Philip's claims?
> >
> >
> > For example, might it be wise to ask Philip about the situation,
> > citing to the extent feasible irrefutable sources describing the
> > situation as you did? He may not be aware of some of the things you
> > cited. Or you may misunderstand something. Or there may be people over
> > Philip in the office of the Registrar of Voters who do not share your
> > perception of situation. In any of these situations, it would be
> > helpful to provide detailed documentation of your sources of information.
> >
> >
> > Philip might then say you are correct. Or he might explain some
> > other obstacle of which we are currently unaware. In either case, we
> > would be closer to our goal.
> >
> >
> > As I mentioned, he is scheduled to talk with someone with the
> > feds next week and get back with me before the Santa Clara Green Party
> > meets next Thursday evening.
> >
> >
> > Best Wishes,
> > Spencer
> >
> >
> > On 12/13/2013 8:59 PM, Steve Chessin wrote:
> >> Hi, all. While Philip may be technically correct, as far as I can tell
> >> the hardware we have is identical to the hardware in Alameda County and
> >> in San Francisco, and all we lack is the software that they use.
> >> (Election equipment is certified as a complete package, hardware and
> >> software together.)
> >>
> >> Our original contract with Sequoia specified that they would provide the
> >> IRV software upon request by the County, and the maintenance contract
> >> included software upgrades; no additional charges necessary. I believe
> >> Dominion is bound by those terms.
> >>
> >> The equipment (hardware and software) in San Francisco and Alameda
> >> counties has been given conditional (or provisional, I forget the exact
> >> term) certification by the Secretary of State absent the results of
> >> federal testing; there is no reason the same could not be done for Santa
> >> Clara County. Also, SB 360, recently enacted into law, removes the
> >> requirement that election equipment be federally qualified before it can
> >> be given state certification.
> >>
> >> So once the County asks for and receives the IRV software upgrade, our
> >> equipment can receive certification for IRV.
> >>
> >> --Steve
> >>
> >> On 12/9/13 11:52 AM, Spencer Graves wrote:
> >>> Hi, Sharon, Steve, Michael:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I just received a call regarding Instant Runoff Voting from
> >>> Philip Chandri, the contact person for IRV in the Santa Clara County
> >>> Registrar of Voters. He said that the equipment Santa Clara County has
> >>> is NOT certified for IRV. It was submitted for "federal testing" three
> >>> years ago, and they're still waiting for the results. He said that many
> >>> people have expressed interest in IRV; I heard him mention at least one
> >>> Democratic group, the League of Women Voters, and the Cities of San José
> >>> and Santa Clara.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> He is scheduled to meet with someone involved with that "federal
> >>> testing" in the next few days and will get back to me before the Santa
> >>> Clara Greens meet 10 days from now, Dec. 19. I'll let you know what I
> >>> hear.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best Wishes,
> >>> Spencer
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph: 408-655-4567
web:www.structuremonitoring.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20131219/cb9d1332/attachment.html>
More information about the sosfbay-discuss
mailing list