EAC - Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

Name : | Jill LaVine
Organization : | Registrar of Voters, County of Sacramento
Post Date : | 9/30/2005
Section Comments
Section : | 2.2.7
Page no. : |
Line no.: |
Comment : | THE VOTING PROCESS SHALL PRESERVE THE SECRECY OF THE BALLOT. B. Throughout the guidelines the vendor is encouraged to conduct some realistic usability tests on the final product using subject representatives of the general population and report the test results to the voting system test lab according to the Common Industry Format (CIF). From these test there are plans to put requirements in place with specific performance benchmarks. This is a concern. I have learned that no two people with or without disabilities will agree 100% on any requirement. As these tests are being done, and as performance benchmarks are made, it is the person with the loudest voice that will be heard. Not always is the loudest person the one with the best answer. SUGGESTION: My suggestion is to make sure there is a cross section of consideration and representation for all types of disabilities. Take the time to consider and measure all disability needs when finding solutions and not depend on just those with the loudest voice to have the best answer. Otherwise, the performance benchmarks will end up with a skewed result toward just one type of disability. [Statements submitted at EAC public hearing, August 23, 2005, Denver]