anyone know the status of cook co. il. purchase of bbv machines

[mopinko]

does anyone know what is happening with this story? anyone trying to stop it? i am so shocked that david orr is not railing about this.

[FogerRox]

1. Last I heard Cooke was ready to buy Sequoia Advantage DREs

[mopinko]

2. that's about as much as i know

our county clerk, who supervises elections, is regarded as the most honest man in cook county government. yet this seems to be a foregone conclusion. maybe they are gonna steal it for the good guys, here, but still.

[garybeck]

5. is Sequoia still Sequoia?

didn't they get purchased by another company?

[hedda_foil]

3. I don't know if the Cook County Board has approved yet but ...

The deal is for Sequoia , with one VVPAT-DRE per precinct to comply with HAVA's disabled access requirements. We will NOT have BBVs as our primary voting system, and even the DREs have a paper trail that can be recounted, though with a lot more trouble than the opscan ballots.

[FogerRox]

4. the advantage does not have a printer

[Bill Bored]

7. I think it's the AVC Edge -- not the Advantage

And Op Scan for the non-accessible voting.
<http://www.sequoiavote.com/productguide.php?product=AVC%20Edge&type=Introduction>

[AtLiberty]

6. It's a done deal...

Sequoia Touchscreen

Are there no election reform activists in Chicago?

[mopinko]

8. yeah, hedda_foil is in cook county

do you know something that she does not know?

[adolfo]

9. Have you tried calling them directly?

[mopinko]

10. nah. i wanted something to talk about. nt

[FogerRox]

11. The Edge is not HAVA compliant-- it fails a good part of section 301.

& it lacks 2002 certification.
Go to your County election officals with
1)HAVA title III section 301 &
2)NASED list

Heres the section 301 advisory
http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20Advisory%2005-004%20(%204%20page%20fit%20).pdf

Heres the NASED list of qualifying voting systems
http://www.nased.org/ITA%20Information/NASEDQualifiedVotingSystems12.03to7.05.pdf

[Bill Bored]

12. 12/5/03?

The NASED list is over 18 months old. Have there been no new certifications since then?

The other link is broken. Enclose it in <>s and it should work.

Question:

Roger, I think you're onto something important here but if the federal cert. is voluntary for the states, does this really matter?

I know many states have agreed to abide by these standards, but if they are voluntary, is this binding? Why can't the states just flip-flop? If they do, what law are they breaking?

[FogerRox]

13. EXCUSE ME ----- HAVA -------------- is not voluntary

What ever HAVA says -- states have to do -- its federal law.
HAVA cites many different laws- this is a common practice. HAVA cites FEC 3.2.1 error rate requirements- HAVA cites the Voting Rights act of 1965--HAndicapped americans etc etc etc.
Law makers do this all the time--

One of the main goals of HAVA was to take a bunch of handicapped law that had no Federal enforcement, and give the law some teeth-- there was no enforcement of many of these fed laws-- HAVA does this-- title IIII section 401 mandates enforcement by the DOJ-- of title III sections 301-302-303.

Have you read the overview by DR. Janow? posted by Kathy Dopp?
I did the research that led to DR. Janow writing his overview.
Ironically the EAC came up with an advisory about the same time.

Bill read the NASED list--- Automark certs dated for June, 2005----

That is the newest NASED list-----

edited for addtional content

[Pig Farmer]

14. Hey kids, make sure you have the right info

Here is the latest list of certified DREs:

http://www.nased.org/ITA%20Information/NASEDQualifiedVotingSystems12.03to7.05.pdf

At least have the right data before you start.

But Fog R's point is still valid: Sequoia's Edge is not 2002 as of July 2005.

PF

[Pig Farmer]

15. Give us details...

Where does the Sequoia fail HAVA?

[FogerRox]

16. Oky dokey

SOrry 'bout broken link- try this :
http://www.nased.org/ITA%20Information/NASEDQualifiedVotingSystems12.03to7.05.pdf



Sequoia Advantage- First off, most of this list of certified equipment on the NASED pdf is certified under the 1990 standards.
Most vendors would love to have that 2002 certification if they could get it. GO to the Accupoll, Avante, Liberty or Automark web sites, they trumpet their 2002 certs.


Lets start with Wheelchair access:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=385849

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=386253

Then consider that the Advanatge uses the venerable Z80 processor--
Is that the one used in the commador 64 -- I forget-- any body know for sure?

Then consider that Sequoias own PreLAT (logic & Accuracy test-- to be administered as a simulated vote prior to an election.)
for the Edge and Advantage is markedly different.
EDGE-- in excess of 100k candidate selections
Advantage- up to 50k keystrokes

Last week I asked Dr Chung of Avante about that--
he said it was most likely that would be 2 keysrokes= ballot positions. SO there may be a 4 fold difference in the PRE LAT between the 2 sequoias- the Edge and the Advantage.

This point concerning the Pre-LAT speaks to the error rate standards cited by HAVA, title III, section 301. A Vendor is only allowed one error in 3.1 million during the ITA testing process.

Additionally the Advantage write in ballot feature does not comply with HAVA. The part about verifying the ballot before cating it.

[Pig Farmer]

17. OK, let me get this straight

You claim the Sequoia Edge is not HAVA compliant.

You back that statement with a buch of statements referring to the Sequoia Advantage.

Take a look at their web page, www.sequoiavote.com. Advantage and Edge are just a little different.

So, let me ask again: Please back up your assertion that the Sequoia *********EDGE******** is not HAVA compliant.

PF

[FogerRox]

18. Oh sorry-- The Edge--- DOH !

I've done so much on the Advantage, maybe I put my transmission into Automatic---

Unfortunatly all I can say about the Edge- is that it hasnt been certified to 2002 standards, And Sequoia has a prototype of a new Edge. Which I believe to be their attempt at a DRE that meets 2002 standards.
Additionally the WinEDS software-- used in the tabulator- IIRC- does have 2002 certs-- see the NASED List, so Sequoia has been somewhat active. And now that I think about it the Edge is set up on a non adjustable stand, that may be too hi to meet wheelchair access requirements.. yeah thats the ticket.

Plus if the Edge was able to pass the test for the 2002 standards, dont you think they would do so= I think they would--

Lemme see what I can dig up--

----Roj runs away scratching his head----

[FogerRox]

19. A Great big HAVA kick

[Bill Bored]

20. Thanks for the kick.

I'm working on your other thread:
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x385691>
which might put it more succinctly.

The question is: Why can't they just recertify to the 2002 specs?