Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/01/2004 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 459-PAPER TRAIL FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE Number 0962 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 459, "An Act requiring an auditable paper trail for electronic voting machines; and providing for an effective date." Number 0950 REPRESENTATIVE GARA, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of HB 459, told the committee that last night he spoke with representatives of the Division of Elections in the lieutenant governor's office. He said their concerns are addressed in three amendments. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that before the committee was the committee substitute (CS) for HB 459, [Version 23-LS1686\Q, Kurtz, 3/29/04.] REPRESENTATIVE GARA turned to Conceptual Amendment 1, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Insert at p.2 line 9: "(15) No more than one machine that produces electronically generated ballots may be used at a precinct, except that the Division may utilize more than one machine in places where it determines additional machines are needed to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities, physical limitations or visual impairments." REPRESENTATIVE GARA stated that one of the concerns has been how wide spread the [touch screen voting] machines are going to become. He said the lieutenant governor's office explained that it has no intention of using more than one of these machines in any precinct. He said Conceptual Amendment 1 confirms that intention. He proffered that one exception might be to have a special polling place for people with visual impairments in Anchorage. Number 0890 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 [text provided previously]. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0857 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Delete page 2 lines 14-17. Insert at page 2 line 14 as follows: "(b) Any software for such equipment shall be tested and certified pursuant to AS 15.20.900." REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that the director of the Division of Elections was scared that she would be given certification duties that she wouldn't be able to undertake. He noted that the current law, AS 15.20.900, provides that election equipment, including software and computer equipment, needs to be certified and tested before every election. He explained that [Amendment 2] emphasizes that that rule applies to the software of the Direct Recording Electronic voting machines (DREs) and provides a new subsection (b). Number 0800 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0785 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 3, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Delete page 2 lines 4-8. Insert at page 2 line 3 after "only" as follows: "by a voter who requests use of a voting machine that produces such ballots." REPRESENTATIVE GARA noted that Amendment 3 is the only amendment that involves a policy call by the committee. He said the bill is written to limit the use of DRE machines as much as possible, until "the evidence helps us develop a better comfort level with them." Currently, the bill states that if someone needs to use [a touch screen machine] he/she just needs to ask. The Division of Elections responded that if someone with a visual impairment is made to say he/she needs to use the machine, that would be unfair, because it would highlight the handicap. Therefore, Amendment 3 would change the language so that the voter only has to request the use of the machine [without proving the need to do so]. He pointed out that this may allow the machines to be used a little more frequently. Number 0723 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to a request made by the chair, objected to Amendment 3. Number 0706 LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, stated that the division bought 100 [touch screen voting machines] and since then, many concerns have come to the forefront. She mentioned an intent to "back up" implementation. She stated that the machines will be placed in the regional supervisors' offices. She mentioned a piece of legislation that would come before the legislature soon that would allow the increase of "early voting," which would allow the division to "have all 40 ballots available." With the machines in the regional offices, anyone who needs to use them could go vote at a regional office. However, the staff in the division, as well as the lieutenant governor's office had a concern about segregating a group of voters, which is why [Amendment 3] was recommended. She clarified that the division is not going to do voter outreach or "get everybody all excited to use the machine," but if the machine is in the regional office and somebody wants to use it, they will be allowed to do so. She said the division will do the outreach to the people that need to use it. Number 0584 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that people may just want to try out the machines. MS. GLAISER, in response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, confirmed that the division doesn't want to be "in a place of blocking someone" who really wants to use the machines. She told the committee that [the touch screen voting machines] won't be in polling places for the 2004 elections, with the exception of "Access Alaska," and if there is a [request] from the Alaska Pioneers' Home. Number 0502 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if the division would make it known to everyone that the machines are available. Number 0480 MS. GLAISER said the division had intended to do so. She mentioned the concern [first discussed at a prior hearing] that not many people use the machines, and she admitted she is a little confused "at what direction is before me." She stated that she has to be true to what she promised the lieutenant governor, which is to ensure that his promise to Sandy Sanderson and Lynn Koral, [made through] the Frank Haas legislation, is honored. That means that the machines have to be made available to the blind, vision impaired, and disabled. She said the division will limit its usage if that's what the legislature decides. Conversely, she stated that if the machine is in a regional office, she is not going to block its use. Number 0407 MS. GLAISER, in response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, reiterated that the [touch screen voting] machines are currently located in each of the regional offices throughout the state. In response to a comment made by Chair Weyhrauch, she confirmed that it is the intent of the division to introduce the machines to the legislators. She commented that the division just recently finished its final training. Number 0321 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that in letting voters know that the machines are available, the division should also let them know that there is no paper trail and the machines have been known to malfunction. MS. GLAISER suggested that signage could be used to let the voters know which method of voting provides a paper trail and which does not. Number 0277 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the signage also be in Braille. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned back to Amendment 3, which would delete subsection (a). He questioned whether the division would want to keep subsection (b) in the bill. MS. GLAISER said that discussion was held last night. She reminded Representative Gruenberg that the major default in every precinct will be a paper ballot; therefore, that language may not be necessary. Number 0180 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested, in regard to Amendment 3, that on page 2, line 3, after the word "ballots", the phrase "by a voter" be added. REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that it would read the same with or without that language. He pointed out that [Amendment 3 would take subparagraphs (A) and (B) out, leaving only one sentence, so that addition wouldn't really be necessary. Number 0109 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "This goes somewhere towards solving one of my concerns," which he said is that if there are only two people using the machine, because of restrictions placed on others, then the identity of the two people will be exposed. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested deleting "but only" [on page 2, line 3]. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further discussion on Amendment 3. Number 0040 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the committee amend Amendment 3 to also delete on line 3, the phrase ", but only". CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was objection [to the amendment to Amendment 3]. Without objection it was so ordered. Number 0029 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his previously stated objection to Amendment 3. Number 0015 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was further objection to Amendment 3, as amended. There being none, Amendment 3, as amended, was adopted. TAPE 04-53, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that the intent of HB 459 has always been that a person would get to use the [touch screen voting] machine by request. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH turned to the transitional provisions and ballots cast in 2004. He asked, "Are those all good still?" Number 0088 MS. GLAISER mentioned "the funding source" and using federal funds. She informed the committee that federal funds do require a 5 percent match; therefore, there will be a limited general fund expense on anything that's related to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Number 0161 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to [subsection (b)] on page 3. He opined that language "could be potentially read to prohibit the use of any state money, even as a match." He questioned whether a few words should be added to say, "including any required state match." REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that he doesn't think that is necessary. He suggested that where the language currently reads, "federal funds", the committee could choose to add "including federal matching funds". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to do that. Number 0215 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that [Conceptual] Amendment 4 would read as follows: On page 3, line 3 After "federal funds" Insert ", including federal matching funds," CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection [to Conceptual Amendment 4]. There being no objection, [Conceptual Amendment 4] was adopted. Number 0281 SANDRA ZIRNHELD, testifying on behalf of herself, prefaced her testimony by informing the committee that she doesn't have the current Version Q in front of her. Notwithstanding that, she voiced a major concern by reading an Associated Press article from November 2002, as follows: A Scurry County - I believe that's in Texas - election error reversed the outcomes in two commissioner races. A defective computer chip in the county's optical scanner misread ballots Tuesday night and incorrectly tallied a landslide victory for Republicans. Democrats actually won by wide margins. "The problem was discovered when poll workers became suspicious of the markings of the vote," Scurry County clerk Joan Bunch said. "A new computer chip was flown to Snyder from Dallas," she said. By Wednesday morning, the votes had been counted twice by hand, and once again by scanner with the replacement chip. MS. ZIRNHELD said she has read countless newspaper articles regarding elections that have been compromised through the use of leading brands of touch screen voting machines. However, she said this is the first article that she has read that documents the glitch with optical scanner tallying systems. She said she thinks this is important for the committee to know about, for two reasons: First, she turned to the fact that the state has purchased 100 Diebold machines in order to be in compliance with HAVA. She stated that in a conversation last week with an employee of the Division of Elections, she learned that the [the state's] optical scanning system uses the same tallying software as the touch screen voting machine. She said [the touch screen voting machine] has been studied by leading computer security researchers at Johns Hopkins [University] and Rice [University], who found that the security feature on the machine is extremely lax. She indicated that the same touch screen voting machines have been implicated in countless re-election mishaps since 2002. Currently, she said, the state Division of Elections has no check in place for the tallying system used by its optical scanners. She offered her understanding that the division sometimes reruns the ballots and checks the second tally with the first, but she said that would not catch systematic malfunction. She opined that HB 459 needs to include language inserted that "would mandate the prized, post-election manual recount in some subset of precinct with votes cast equaling at least 0.5 percent of votes cast statewide." She explained that the manual tallies can then be compared with the electronic tallies to verify that the entire system is functioning correctly. She added that she thinks this should encompass all systems, whether touch screen or optical scanning. Number 0506 MS. ZIRNHELD expressed that, as a citizen of the state, she wants to have confidence that the entire election system is functioning correctly. She noted that Alaska receives high marks [for its voting process], and she said she can understand that, since both the legislature and the division take the matter so seriously. "But I think my suggestion is needed to ensure that we're not simply happily voting with a false sense of security in our tallying software," she said. Number 0527 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH closed public testimony. Number 0536 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Glaiser if the division has a "dummy pack" that it knows ahead of time has "50 percent on every ballot" that it can run through the scanner to verify that the scanner [records] that 50 percent, or does the division just double-check ballots, without knowing the distribution, to make certain they have the same results. MS. GLAISER explained that the division runs a sample ballot through [the scanner] to ensure that it has the marks it ought. This test is done in the director's office, she said. After being tested by the review board, the memory cards are sent to the regional AccuVote boards that run the same test again. Then the machines are sealed and delivered to the precinct. She concluded, "So, I think our chances to find something like that happening in [an] Alaska election are minimal, at best." Number 0886 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to page 2, lines 27 and 28. He noted that language defines optically scanned ballots in AS 15.60.010. He said he doesn't have that entire statute available and asked if "optical scanning machine" is defined elsewhere in that statute. MS. GLAISER indicated that it is. Number 0709 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report CSHB 459, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, returning to the issue of the definition of optical scanning machine, stated, "It doesn't make ... any sense to define optically scanned ballot if you don't define optical scanning machine." He indicated that [after looking at a copy given to him by the committee aide] that Title 15 is general and "covers the whole thing." Number 0765 REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that optically scanned ballots could only be used in optical scanning machines; therefore, he said, "It's an amendment that I'm not sure gets us anywhere." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that this issue could be considered on the House floor, since the House State Affairs Standing Committee is the last committee of referral for HB 459. Number 0832 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee of the previously stated motion. He asked if there was any objection. There being none, [CSHB 459 (STA)] was reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|