Government Technology

E-Vote: California Counties Respond to Secretary of State's E-Voting Machine Decision


You May Also Like

August 13, 2007 By

California State Association of Counties (CSAC) Executive Director Paul McIntosh responded today to the recent Secretary of State's review of voting machines.

"As the voice of California counties, we are deeply concerned about the methodology used in the top-to-bottom review process, as well as the secretary of state's subsequent decisions based on those findings," said McIntosh in a release. "We do not believe that these results reflect a realistic and accurate evaluation of our electronic voting systems, all of which have passed comprehensive federal testing standards as well as California's more rigorous thresholds for security, accuracy and reliability.

"California counties have made a significant investment into these voting systems to ensure that they are secure, accurate and reliable. And, the Office of the Secretary of State previously certified all of the systems. Now, our counties must respond to an 11th-hour decision, based upon a flawed analysis, that could threaten the smooth and efficient running of upcoming elections. This decision was made without any consultation with those responsible for actually conducting elections -- our county elections officials.

"The veracity of any election -- no matter what type of equipment is used -- comes down to the integrity of the individuals responsible. County elections officials in California have always been, and will continue to be, above reproach.

"CSAC will provide additional comment once we have an opportunity to analyze the secretary of state's decision and its potential impacts."


You may use or reference this story with attribution and a link to
http://www.govtech.com/e-government/E-Vote-California-Counties-Respond-to-Secretary.html


| More

Comments


Add Your Comment

You are solely responsible for the content of your comments. We reserve the right to remove comments that are considered profane, vulgar, obscene, factually inaccurate, off-topic, or considered a personal attack.

GovTech Papers and Case Studies View Library


Sponsored Links



Phone RSS

Government Best Practices

» A New Model for Human Resources
» Abandoning the High Cost of Enterprise Content Management



Government Technology
Public CIO
Emergency Management
Digital Communities