This web page lists public comments by Organizations from the Secretary of State's website, with selective highlights from each.
Disclaimer: These highlights are by Jerry Berkman, not by the Secretary of State's office.
This letter asks that the review be expanded to include review of the Federal certification process; it does not comment on the current Draft Criteria.
As an example of the problem, it includes documentation on how Diebold has "defrauded the Federal certification rules and process". Specifically, when Diebold was certified by Wyle Labs, Diebold withheld Windows CE source claiming it to be COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) software, and thereby exempt from examination. The letter contains about 12 pages of discussion and documentation for that issue.
They are concerned about possible decertification of DREs with no replacement possible by 2008.
"The criteria listed for certification ... fails to consider the existing rights of current voters with disabilities."
"we recommend temporary certification status and a phase In model for the implementation of the fine accessibility criteria you so accurately list in the top down report."
They are concerned about possible decertification of DREs with no replacement possible by 2008.
They believe the criteria for disability are an improvement, but that "they should be included in future state testing."
The cover letter states these are his own opinions, not those of any organization he belongs to (but signs as if they are from Coloradoans For Voting Integrity). So this should really be in the comments by indivuals section.
He wants all election information public, in unedited form on the internet. He wants a paid "devils advocate" to be members of board making decisions on elections.
This is long ... More later.
OVC supports the top-to-bottom review.
The letter asks for more examination of election administration procedures in the Counties, and also views the source code review as inadequate.
She is concerned that decertifying systems will eliminate accessibility for 2008.
"all Registrars of Voters must be required to report periodically on election night precinct by precinct results to the public."
Her first theme is "Continuity vs. Chaos". She says:
"While it is true that there will always be a small faction of discontent voiced, whether through a desire to garner public funds for organizational web-sites, for name recognition or other motives that have geometrically increased due to use of the Internet as a bully pulpit to persuade those in power ..."and:
"Hopefully, at a more appropriate time in 2009, and with the cooperation of NASS [National Assoc. of Secretaries of State], he assistance of trained Independent Voting Examiners could be sought who have no affiliation with voter organizations advocating whether or not to use currently-certified California voting systems. It is imperative to eliminate the perception or reality of conflicts of interest or bias in the process of any objective review of our voting systems."
Verified Voting first states it strongly supports the draft criteria. Then it includes a list of suggested wording changes to clarify and strengthen the draft criteria, plus other suggestions.
They object to II.2.f(2), which allows a bypass of the non-visual verification of the contents of the VVPAT.
This letter was prepared by the Voting Rights Task Force of the WDRC, endorsed by the WDRC and by East Bay for Democracy, both chartered Democratic Clubs.
Major suggestions include: