 |
CAMBER |
|
|
|
Response to RFP #4717-06 - CAMBER
DATE: December 27, 2005 TO: Boulder County Clerk and Commissioners RE: New vote tabulating system – RFP #4717-06.
As you know, Ms. Salas has published for public comment a draft RFP for new vote tabulating equipment. The document and its comment period are not going over well with the members of the public who are working to improve the county’s election system.
1. The requirements are wrong, as is summarized in attachment-A. 2. The public was excluded from the development of the draft. 3. The draft does not address the people’s requirements. (See attachment-B.) 4. There is no real opportunity for citizen-experts to influence the requirements. There is no plan for public hearings; no plan for independently moderated debate. 5. The comment period is wrong. The public is either out of town or too distracted to respond to a massive unplanned systems design effort.
It would be a major public policy error for the County to proceed before the RFP has the genuine support of the people – especially those who have publicly described specific requirements that have not been addressed. The way that this RFP has been handled is a real turn-off. At least some members of the public believe that any effort to repair the requirements would be a total waste of time and effort.
We implore you, as a representative of the people and as keeper of the purse, to use your statutory and political power and influence to get this RFP withdrawn, and not resubmitted until it has earned the support of the people.
Proposed replacement -- Voter Privacy RFP
It is our understanding that there is no pressing need for Boulder County to do anything other than to make a good faith effort to comply with the following section of the Help America Vote Act:
a. Requirements.--Each voting system used in an election for Federal office shall meet the following requirements: 3. Accessibility for individuals with disabilities.--The voting system shall-- A. 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 for other voters; B. satisfy the requirement of subparagraph (A) through the use of at least one direct recording electronic voting system or other voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities at each polling place; and C. if purchased with funds made available under title II on or after January 1, 2007, meet the voting system standards for disability access (as outlined in this paragraph).
Special equipment is required to meet this Help America Vote Act requirement. Critical steps to meeting this requirement are outlined in attachment-C. This more prudent RFP would plan to meet this HAVA requirement for the August 2006 Primary Election.
Recommendations
1. Replace the
draft RFP with a single requirement: "Private Voting for Voters with
Disabilities".
2. Require that
the Voter Privacy RFP earn the endorsement of: Boulder County's independent
public "experts", and independent representatives of the disabled community,
before it is issued.
3. The
Commissioners should instruct the Boulder County Attorney to do whatever
possible to ensure that legal problems do not get in the way of developing the
best solution for Boulder County voters. 4. The Clerk should embrace a public process for development of a follow-on comprehensive election system requirements document.
Any attempt to go beyond the single “voter privacy” requirement at this time will fail because it will either: alienate the public by ramming decisions down the public's throat, resulting in long term distrust and criticism of public officials, or run out of time, because of the reasons enumerated above.
The responsible thing to do is to follow the recommendations in this letter. We encourage you to do so.
Please excuse the
fact that this document was published with insufficient editing.
Al
Kolwicz
Some of the problems with the draft RFP
The draft RFP goes way, way, way beyond the accessibility requirement and creates many more problems than it solves.
1. The scope of the RFP is far too encompassing; it locks down fundamental requirements that lack widespread community support. For example, the County has committed to paper ballots, but the RFP calls for digital ballots. The RFP is positioned as a step toward voting centers, yet there is no public demand to eliminate precinct voting and many reasons to preserve them. The RFP abandons central counting for most ballots, but the Clerk recently persuaded the County to purchase a lot of HART equipment to centrally count ballots.
2. The RFP is
incompatible with most of the requirements that have been put forth by
Boulder County voters who have independently studied the county's needs. For
example, the RFP requires DRE voting equipment, but the public is adamantly
opposed to the use of the digital ballots created by DRE voting equipment.
Recent reports have documented that precinct optical scan and DRE systems are
not secure, private, and accurate.
3. The RFP
exposes the County to needless risk. Voting technology is unproven, is
built on developing standards. It is not properly certified. One or more
suppliers may be forced to exit the business. The courts have started to decide
in favor of the public instead of election officials, vendors, and so-called
independent testing authorities. Colorado has failed to deliver a multi-million
dollar voter registration system. It has also failed to deliver a jobless
insurance system. These failures make the public less willing to trust
government employees.
4. The RFP
lacks the precision needed for a fair evaluation of product offerings.
Instead of detailing what is required, the RFP asks the vendors to tell what
they have. There is no attempt to specify how responses to the requirements or
the actual solutions will be tested. Vendors might read this lack of precision
to mean that the procurement is a done deal, and that the County is not really
looking for serious proposals.
Another example, the RFP has no specific performance requirements. It simply says to the vendor:
5. The Omnibus
RFP is incomplete. It does not address the fundamental requirements of
the public. Nowhere does it require that election processes and data be
transparent. Poll-watchers and the public need access in order to perform their
duties. There is no requirement that each election process and all non-private
election data be verifiably secure and accurate. Attachment-B is a list of
background documents which contain many public requirements. Almost none of
them have been addressed in the RFP. Requirements pending County An ACT to restore public trust in elections - August 2, 2005 Declaration for Election Quality - November 21, 2003 Election Review Committee Report - June 6, 2005 Some Citizens’ Responses to the Election Review Committee Report - August 2, 2005 Voting Center Issues - April 20, 2005 Vote Counting Requirements - January 12, 2004 It's unwise to buy voting equipment now - January 18, 2004 Requirements for Trustworthy Elections - April 9, 2004 Requirements for Canvassing - - August 20, 2004 Requirements for Voting Systems - July 10, 2003 Election System Scorecard - July 10, 2003 Requirements of a voting system - August 16, 2003 Requirements for Paper ballot elections - August 18, 2003 Polling Place Vote Recording and Verification - August 18, 2003 Requirements, Boulder County Voting System Citizens Review Committee - September 22, 2003 Voting system Requirements - November 1, 2003
State Request for Veto of SB05-198 and SB05-206 - May 26, 2005 Requirements for Colorado Statewide Voter Database - June 19, 2003 Requirements for Statewide Voting Equipment RFP - July 25, 2005 Objections to Colorado Secretary of State's Voting Systems RFP - October 4, 2005 Reaching out to NEW Secretary of State, Gigi Dennis - October 9, 2005 NEW "Reaching out" rejected by SOS - October 17, 2005 Objections to Rule-45 Certification Procedures - October 28, 2005 Paul Walmsley's Comments on Colorado Election Rule 45 – October 30, 2005 Urgent Request for Election Reform Meeting - December 5, 2005 NEW Request to participate in database requirements - January 6, 2006 NEW RFP requirements request refused by SOS - January 10, 2006
Federal EAC Voluntary Voting System Guidelines - December 13, 2005 EAC Voting System Certification & Laboratory Accreditation - August 23, 2005 Recommended revisions to EAC's Voluntary Voting System Guidelines - September 25, 2005 Recommendations regarding EAC Draft Voting System Standards - December 26, 2004 GAO Report to Congressional Requesters - September 2005 Carter Baker Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform - September 2005
References Department of Defense Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria - November 1985 Threat Modeling - January 5, 2005 Citizens for Verifiable Voting The following steps must be accomplished to produce a Voter Privacy RFP
|
|
CAMBER is a dedicated group of volunteers who are working to ensure that |
