EAC - Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

Name : | Harvard "Larry" Lomax
Organization : | Clark County Nevada
Post Date : | 9/30/2005
Section Comments
Section : | 6.8
Page no. : |
Line no.: |
Comment : | Thank you for the opportunity to be here and participate in this discussion. I am Larry Lomax, the Registrar of Voters in Clark County, Nevada, probably better known as the home of Las Vegas, Nevada. We are one of the few counties in the country that has actually used the voter verifiable printer. We used the VVPAT developed by Sequoia Pacific on our touch screen machines for the 2004 primary and general elections and for the 2005 municipal primary and general elections. In those four elections, approximately one half million voters voted on machines with the printer attached, so we have some first hand experience both with how the printer performed and the voter’s reactions to it. I appreciate the challenge that faced the individuals who were tasked to create these standards. However, having had first hand experience with the printers, after reviewing this draft I have two initial observations: first, these standards need some tweaking to ensure they achieve the right balance between what theoretically may seem to be the ideal solution and the limitations practical constraints place on the user…those of us tasked to actually conduct the election; second, the Volume I overview states the Voting System Performance guidelines are supposed to “describe the requirements for electronic components of voting systems.” It appears to me that the draft often drifts into areas other than “electronic components” and is not always as clear as it should be as to what the actual requirements are. In ten minutes, I cannot go into much detail, but let me provide some examples. [Statements submitted at EAC public hearing, June 30, 2005, New York]