<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello, All: <br>
<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
<br>
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: <br>
<br>
<br>
1. We can have IRV in Santa Clara County probably
starting with special elections in 2015. <br>
<br>
<br>
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.) <br>
<br>
<br>
Y'all come. <br>
<br>
<br>
Spencer <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">-------- Original Message
--------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: For Philip Chantri, who is scheduled to talk about
federal testing of voting machines in the next couple of
days</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:49:34 -0800</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Spencer Graves <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:spencer.graves@prodsyse.com"><spencer.graves@prodsyse.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td>Chantri, Philip <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Philip.Chantri@rov.sccgov.org"><Philip.Chantri@rov.sccgov.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">CC: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mhunter@lusars.net">mhunter@lusars.net</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mhunter@lusars.net"><mhunter@lusars.net></a>,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:fsweeney@infionline.net">fsweeney@infionline.net</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:fsweeney@infionline.net"><fsweeney@infionline.net></a>,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:steve.chessin@cfer.org">steve.chessin@cfer.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:steve.chessin@cfer.org"><steve.chessin@cfer.org></a>,
Moreles, Matt <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Matt.Moreles@rov.sccgov.org"><Matt.Moreles@rov.sccgov.org></a>, bushey,
shannon <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:shannon.bushey@rov.sccgov.org"><shannon.bushey@rov.sccgov.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi, Philip: <br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks for details. If I read this correctly, the current
situation can be summarized as follows: <br>
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
<br>
Is this correct? If no, please help me understand what I
missed. <br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks again for the information and all your work in
support of democracy in Santa Clara County. <br>
<br>
<br>
Best Wishes, <br>
Spencer <br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/18/2013 1:22 PM, Chantri, Philip wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1CF834FF7B2475418EA999084A9B3EEB4DDD5F52@CMS1.SCCGOV.ORG"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:#002060;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Good
Afternoon!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I've
attempted to provide some background, answer the questions
asked and provided links to additional information. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Background<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">“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.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://eac926.americaneagle.com/assets/1/Documents/Sequoia.Report.Delay.letter.8.30.12.FINAL.pdf">https://eac926.americaneagle.com/assets/1/Documents/Sequoia.Report.Delay.letter.8.30.12.FINAL.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://eac926.americaneagle.com/assets/1/Documents/ltr_Hancock_WinEDS_27Feb2013.pdf">https://eac926.americaneagle.com/assets/1/Documents/ltr_Hancock_WinEDS_27Feb2013.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I’ve
provided a link to the Secretary of State’s website <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/oversight/directives/irv-guidelines.pdf">http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/oversight/directives/irv-guidelines.pdf</a>
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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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?<br>
<br>
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." <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=33356"
target="_blank">http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=33356 </a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
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?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
<br>
3. Do our central scanners and DREs differ from San
Francisco's central scanners and DREs, and if so, how?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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 <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/vendors/sequoia.htm">http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/vendors/sequoia.htm</a> Their
administrative approval is granted for their “blended”
system of Central Count/Precinct Scanner/DRE.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
4. Do our central scanners and DREs differ from Alameda
County's central scanners and DREs, and if so, how?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
Please find more information on the "administrative
approval" granted to Alameda County on the Secretary of
State's voting system approval page at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/vendors/sequoia.htm">http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/vendors/sequoia.htm</a> Their
administrative approval is granted for their “blended”
system of Central Count/Precinct Scanner/DRE.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
<br>
5. Does the recent enactment of SB 360 render irrelevant
the federal testing requirement?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/regulations/proposed/elections/voting-systems/">http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/regulations/proposed/elections/voting-systems/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Please
let me know should you have further questions, seek
clarification and/or would like to have a more in depth
discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Happy
Holidays!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Philip
Chantri<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Election
Division Coordinator<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Precinct
Operations, Outreach, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Training,
& The CBO Program<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">1553
Berger Drive, Building 1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">San
Jose, CA 95112<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">(408)
282-3066<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:philip.chantri@rov.sccgov.org">philip.chantri@rov.sccgov.org</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Download
the free SCCVOTE mobile app for iPhone/iPad &
Android: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bit.ly/sccvote">bit.ly/sccvote</a></span></i></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
Spencer Graves [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:spencer.graves@prodsyse.com">mailto:spencer.graves@prodsyse.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, December 15, 2013 9:09 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> registrar<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Steve Chessin; Sharon/Frank Sweeney;
Michael Hunter<br>
<b>Subject:</b> For Philip Chandri, who is scheduled
to talk about federal testing of voting machines in
the next couple of days</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi, Philip: <br>
<br>
<br>
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? <br>
<br>
<br>
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)? <br>
<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks, <br>
Spencer <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
-------- Original Message -------- <o:p></o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in" nowrap="nowrap"
valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:right"
align="right"><b>Subject: </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Re: IRV in Santa Clara County<o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in" nowrap="nowrap"
valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:right"
align="right"><b>Date: </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Sat, 14 Dec 2013 21:57:21 -0800<o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in" nowrap="nowrap"
valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:right"
align="right"><b>From: </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Steve Chessin <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:steve.chessin@cfer.org"><steve.chessin@cfer.org></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in" nowrap="nowrap"
valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:right"
align="right"><b>Organization: </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Californians for Electoral
Reform<o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in" nowrap="nowrap"
valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:right"
align="right"><b>To: </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Spencer Graves <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:spencer.graves@prodsyse.com"><spencer.graves@prodsyse.com></a>,
Sharon/Frank Sweeney <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:fsweeney@infionline.net"><fsweeney@infionline.net></a>,
Michael Hunter <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mhunter@lusars.net"><mhunter@lusars.net></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Hi, Spencer. I suggest you ask Philip these questions:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>1. The original contract with Sequoia required them to provide the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>software for IRV once the County made a decision to implement it. Does<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>that provision still hold? If not, why not?<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>2. The original contract with Sequoia included software upgrades as part<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>of the maintenance agreement, implying no additional cost for the IRV<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>software. Does that provision still hold? If not, why not?<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>3. Do our central scanners and DREs differ from San Francisco's central<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>scanners and DREs, and if so, how?<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>4. Do our central scanners and DREs differ from Alameda County's central<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>scanners and DREs, and if so, how?<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>5. Does the recent enactment of SB 360 render irrelevant the federal<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>testing requirement?<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>The answers to these questions will set the stage for appropriate<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>follow-up questions.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>--Steve<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>On 12/14/13 12:34 AM, Spencer Graves wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> Hi, Steve:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> What do you suggest we do to respond to Philip's claims?<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> For example, might it be wise to ask Philip about the situation,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> citing to the extent feasible irrefutable sources describing the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> situation as you did? He may not be aware of some of the things you<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> cited. Or you may misunderstand something. Or there may be people over<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> Philip in the office of the Registrar of Voters who do not share your<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> perception of situation. In any of these situations, it would be<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> helpful to provide detailed documentation of your sources of information.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> Philip might then say you are correct. Or he might explain some<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> other obstacle of which we are currently unaware. In either case, we<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> would be closer to our goal.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> As I mentioned, he is scheduled to talk with someone with the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> feds next week and get back with me before the Santa Clara Green Party<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> meets next Thursday evening.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> Best Wishes,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> Spencer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> On 12/13/2013 8:59 PM, Steve Chessin wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> Hi, all. While Philip may be technically correct, as far as I can tell<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> the hardware we have is identical to the hardware in Alameda County and<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> in San Francisco, and all we lack is the software that they use.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> (Election equipment is certified as a complete package, hardware and<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> software together.)<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> Our original contract with Sequoia specified that they would provide the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> IRV software upon request by the County, and the maintenance contract<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> included software upgrades; no additional charges necessary. I believe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> Dominion is bound by those terms.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> The equipment (hardware and software) in San Francisco and Alameda<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> counties has been given conditional (or provisional, I forget the exact<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> term) certification by the Secretary of State absent the results of<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> federal testing; there is no reason the same could not be done for Santa<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> Clara County. Also, SB 360, recently enacted into law, removes the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> requirement that election equipment be federally qualified before it can<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> be given state certification.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> So once the County asks for and receives the IRV software upgrade, our<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> equipment can receive certification for IRV.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> --Steve<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> On 12/9/13 11:52 AM, Spencer Graves wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> Hi, Sharon, Steve, Michael:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> I just received a call regarding Instant Runoff Voting from<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> Philip Chandri, the contact person for IRV in the Santa Clara County<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> Registrar of Voters. He said that the equipment Santa Clara County has<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> is NOT certified for IRV. It was submitted for "federal testing" three<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> years ago, and they're still waiting for the results. He said that many<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> people have expressed interest in IRV; I heard him mention at least one<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> Democratic group, the League of Women Voters, and the Cities of San José<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> and Santa Clara.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> He is scheduled to meet with someone involved with that "federal<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> testing" in the next few days and will get back to me before the Santa<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> Clara Greens meet 10 days from now, Dec. 19. I'll let you know what I<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> hear.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> Best Wishes,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> Spencer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.structuremonitoring.com">www.structuremonitoring.com</a>
</pre>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>