Election TidBytes

Quarterly Newsletter of Election Technology “Tidbits”

• • • • • • • •

Issue 5, May 2001

Inside this Issue:

· Earthquake Brings National Attention to Disaster Planning

· Noteworthy Studies on Election Technology Reform

· Parting Notes — Gary McIntosh Leaves WA Elections Head Post

· Local Official Provides Innovative Solution to Voting Booth Dilemma

· TidBytes Tip — For Disaster Planning

· Request for RFPs

· Keep Us Posted

Earthquake Brings National

Attention to Disaster Planning

It’s not a matter of if, but when. That’s the unfortunate reality of a disaster, which can disrupt your mission-critical operations in a nanosecond and impact your ability to provide required services. However, the good news is that you can plan for them. A plan is what saved the day in the minds of employees of the state of Washington’s Secretary of State. 

At 10:55 a.m. on March 5 this year, a major earthquake brought business to a halt in Olympia and surrounding cities including Seattle and Tacoma, Washington. There were more than 40 seconds of roaring sounds, hopping buildings, and swaying PC’s on desktops as the Secretary of State staff followed the steps of the earthquake response drills they practiced routinely during the past two years. Everyone knew what to do and did it, and “no one was hurt because we had a plan and practiced it,” reported David Elliott, Assistant Director of Elections. This is one of the keys to any business continuity plan; all members of the organization are informed about the plan and are involved in practicing it.

Disaster recovery planning, an integral part of a business continuity plan, is the advance preparation necessary to minimize loss and ensure continuity of the critical business functions of an organization in the event of a disaster. A disaster can be any event, caused by nature, human threat, computer program or mechanical failure—you name it, which creates an interruption in operations and the inability of an organization to provide critical business functions for some period of time.

The Washington Secretary of State’s office had prepared a disaster recovery plan for its employees and information systems. Every six months, all staff participated in an earthquake drill, practicing the steps to respond immediately if a quake hit. They were disciplined as a team in emergency preparedness, ready to respond to an emergency in a coordinated, timely, and effective manner.

Staff also maintains a backup strategy for its information systems providing daily backups of three individual networks, two of which are situated in separate locations offsite from the main office. The backups provide multiple redundancy and each system is prepared to quickly restore the operations of another network if necessary. Each network’s server also has its own UPS, an uninterruptible power supply, which provides a backup power supply with enough power to allow a safe and orderly shutdown of the central processing unit if there is a disruption or shutdown of electricity.

The earthquake damaged severely the Secretary’s main office in the Legislative Building. Following the quake, staff was evacuated and an alternate office was identified and quickly set up for continued operations. An employee contact list was prepared, and a newsletter was distributed on the Web and via email to each employee every six hours to provide updates on the situation and efforts to fully resume operations and the delivery of service to the public.

There was also no loss of the system’s data. Electricity went out in the Legislative Building during the quake, and operations were quickly restored on the other servers. The backup plan provided the required protection to allow business functions to continue, and the server’s UPS allowed for a systematic shutdown.

The lesson about this disaster is preparedness—everyone in the organization was prepared because the organization had a plan. David summed it up well. “We are fortunate that we exist as a virtual office as the place became less important than the people. The main office had to be closed immediately. Within three hours we were locked down and everyone went home to check damage and loved ones. Within two days we were able to pull together the necessities and serve the public. In spite of the fact that the main office remains closed, we’re still serving the public.”

Disaster planning in King County, located in Seattle about sixty miles north of Olympia, was also well in place. Bob Bruce, Manager of King County’s Records and Elections Division, reported that the department had a plan of what to do if an emergency struck during an election, the worst possible time for folks in elections. He said, “we learned a few lessons, but we were fortunate. While the buildings themselves took a beating, the information systems stayed up.” Since the Records Section was working with the end-of-the-month records, they had to continue working and were forced to relocate in order to do so. The data systems staff was able to quickly establish a temporary terminal in another building. After a short delay, they were back in business. In a public proclamation, the King County executive commended government employees for their efforts to prepare for such a disaster and for their immediate and effective response to the earthquake to maintain services to the public.

If you are interested in learning more about disaster recovery planning, call or write us at InfoSENTRY. Our certified business continuity planner will be pleased to provide quality assistance to meet your organization’s needs.

Top of page

· · · · ·

Noteworthy Studies for Election Technology Reform

The hoopla over the technology of the last election appears to be fading among much of the political leadership. The President has signaled that he has little interest in “election reform.” Congress and the legislatures appear to have relegated much of the impetus to study commissions or future committee hearings. Congress has other money issues on its mind than funding new systems in states and counties. Campaign finance reform is the watchword. Money is tight in many states and localities, slowing down the drive to purchase new voter registration systems, new vote tabulation systems, and technology training for election officials.

However, two new studies show that underneath the decline of the hoopla are strong trends that might push future changes. A recently released academic study deals with the accuracy rates of voting equipment. And a public opinion poll shows that the American voter is more ready than many election officials are to use the Internet in crucial election activities.

Most academic studies on election management seem to have as much relevance to what goes on in elections offices as do the latest ratings of the Grand National Archery Society. However, the report with the officious title of “Residual Votes Attributable to Technology: An Assessment of the Reliability of Existing Voting Equipment” (The Caltech/MIT Voting Project, Version 2, March 30, 2001) is light years better than most academic studies. Its primary finding is in its conclusion: “Paper ballots, lever machines, and optically scanned ballots produce lower residual voter rates on the order of one to two percent of all ballots cast over punch card and electronic methods over the last four presidential elections. Since we are dealing with elections where more than 100 million ballots are cast, this is an impressively large number.”

We know. We know. The findings offend everyone using punch cards and DRE systems. However, this study is more thorough than many others. It even faced down a study by a vendor who published results showing that DRE systems were more accurate. That vendor later “retracted” and corrected its study in face of the Caltech/MIT research.

Obviously, the voter tabulation technology war is not over. It is like arguing over whether Ford or Chevy pickup trucks are best. You tend to argue most strongly for the one you own. There undoubtedly will be other studies. And the folks from Caltech/MIT will weigh in with their own recommendation for future tabulation technology. However, we encourage everyone to take a look at the latest study. It is available on the Web at:

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~voting/CalTech_MIT_ Report_Version2.pdf.

The second study is a public opinion poll of how randomly selected Americans viewed the role of the Internet in elections. While many of our friends in the election community quietly check into the status of their retirement plan when the subject comes up, the American voter has clearer ideas of the role of the Internet in elections.

The Information Technology Association of America released a poll in late March 2001 indicating that 69 percent of the 1000 Americans surveyed believed using new technologies would produce more accurate results. One third of the people surveyed, about 32%, thought the Internet should be used for voting. That sounds like a small number. However, keep in mind that just fewer than 70% of Americans report having access to the Internet. So, these results actually point out that a pretty hefty chunk of Americans who have access to the Internet are inclined at least to consider the Web as a voting technology.

Now, while using the Internet to vote is still down the road for most of us, here is a finding of the survey that you can expect to have a more immediate impact on your elections office. In response to another question, 71% of those interviewed said that local election boards should establish Web sites containing voter registration status, sample ballots, and polling locations. So, while there are a lot of reasons to avoid a rush to online voting, there is a basic level of voter expectation for elections offices to provide real information, databases, and “e-lection” services over the Web.

We recommend that you start now if you plan to have a real Web site designed, programmed, tested, stress tested, secured, and implemented by the Fall 2002 elections. Call InfoSENTRY if you would like assistance in this development process.

Top of page

· · · · ·

Parting Notes

Changes in personnel are a way of life. However, that doesn’t make it any easier on the department when the director decides to depart. Such is the case for the Elections Division of Washington State’s office of Secretary of State. Director Gary McIntosh recently announced his resignation. Gary has held the reins in this office since 1988. Also as past president of the National Association of State Election Directors, he recently passed the presidential gavel on to his successor, Ann McGeehan of Texas.

Recent headlines in the local newspaper read “Elections head recruited to design future of voting.” Yep, you guessed it, Gary is headed outside of state government to work with a Washington State firm specializing in Internet voting. Gary will certainly be missed; however, he‘ll remain a vanguard in the election community. We wish him the best!

· · · · ·

Local Official Provides Innovative Solution to Voting Booth Dilemma

Here is an article submitted to us by Dan English, the Clerk in Kootenai County, Idaho. Dan highlights his effective and efficient solution to purchasing new voting equipment.

As a new clerk in 1995, I accepted the decision of the previous clerk to migrate from a punch card to an optical scan voting system. My staff and I faced an all-too-familiar dilemma of the need to purchase new equipment. The vendor suggested we could just use our votomatics by changing out the portion where the punch mechanism went and converting that to a flat surface. That was a bit easier said than done, but we did it. And we ended up with the same number of voting booths—rather heavy, clunky aluminum suitcase voting machines—that the poll workers had to set up, often with legs falling off and usually needing help to carry them around.

The county was experiencing a lot of growth that resulted in huge bottlenecks at some of our precincts. There were simply not enough of the converted votomatics to go around. As you would expect, voters were quite unhappy about the unreasonable amount of time waiting in line.

We considered buying more votomatics, but even reconditioned models cost from $200-$300 per unit. It seemed like there had to be a better way. We researched what was available and found a few other tabletop models that appeared to be regular booths without the legs. I really liked the concept of tabletop voting and thought a particularly nice benefit would be to allow voters, especially the elderly, to sit while they voted. As an added bonus, we recognized that most of our regular polling sites had a ready supply of tables and chairs that would accommodate our set up needs.

So I brainstormed with my election staff to come up with a solution that would be simple, inexpensive, lightweight and easy to use. I came up with a design with two-sided 1/2" Melamine (a common computer table material) for the platform and lightweight corrugated plastic sides for the privacy shields. And we created a tote bag for individually transporting and storing the voting booths. We designed a bright and colorful logo of a ballot box and incorporated the Election Center motto "Gatekeepers of Democracy" for the front of the tote bag.

Initially we made a few hundred of the new tabletop voting booths and put them out at precincts along with the regular votomatics. We hoped to see what the poll workers and voters thought, while still giving them the option to use the more familiar equipment. At the next cycle we had workers wanting more of the tabletops and suggesting we forget the old booths. So I had enough booths made to provide about one per 100 registered voters and sold off our old votomatics for more than it cost to almost double our supply of voting booths. We have found that by having ample supplies of these booths, we can immediately provide additional booths when needed. Our long lines have largely gone away and people seem very happy with the experience of sitting down to vote. We really feel they have been a great success for our county. I thought we might need to have some extra lighting on them, but due to the all-white reflecting surfaces of the base and sides we haven’t had to supplement the existing light in the polling place. We have now had well over 150,000 votes cast using these booths.

We have also discovered additional benefits of our tabletop voting booths. They take up much less storage space compared to the votomatics or even other tabletop models we've seen. They have also saved a great deal of money for delivery per election cycle. In most cases, the poll workers can put them in their cars for delivery to and from the polling sites.

Anyone interested in getting more information about these voting booths can contact me at 208.683.8804 or e-mail at dane@nidlink.com.

Top of page

· · · · ·

TidBytes Tip

The lead story about Washington State election officials restoring their operations in a short amount of time after an earthquake shows the benefits of business continuity planning. Here are some tips about how your office can prepare for a calamity that will interrupt your access to your computers and your facilities.

1: Make a list of your top three business functions, such as payroll, voter registration, and vote tabulation.

2: Ask yourself how you can keep those operations going if you have to leave your facilities within one hour and not return for at least two weeks.

3: Make a checklist of what you would need at another facility to get back in business.

4: Develop a plan for starting those three top business functions in the new facility.

5: Practice at least once a year operating in the new facility. The folks in Washington State have had the opportunity to “practice” this procedure for real!

Top of page

· · · · ·

Request for RFPs

InfoSENTRY Services would like to receive your RFPs. Please include us on your mailing list when you prepare an RFP for any of the services listed below that are needed on a project to update or install a new voting, voter registration or other election management system, or integrate your election information on the Internet.

InfoSENTRY’s experienced professionals continue to provide quality elections information systems consulting services to state and local elections officials across this grand country. To maintain the focus on your specific needs, we offer our services independent from software and hardware vendors. Some of our services include:

needs assessments and requirements analyses preparation

RFP and contract preparation

proposal evaluation and vendor selection

project management

software testing and quality assurance reviews

system security reviews and network vulnerability assessments

disaster or business continuity plan preparation

Keeping in mind that your resources are precious and limited, we customize our services to meet the unique requirements of your office. Our dedication to deliver excellence is paramount in all of our engagements. Please call InfoSENTRY if we can assist you in successfully implementing your next elections system project.

· · · · ·

Keep Us Posted

There is always something great happening in the elections community. In the last two issues of this newsletter we have presented interesting articles of innovative programs and solutions that have provided a benefit to both the elections office and the public. If you would like us to help you get the word out about some technical bit of news in your office or state, let us know or send us your article. Please contact us at:

InfoSENTRY Services, Inc.

2 Hannover Square, Suite 2330

Raleigh NC 27601

Telephone: 919•838•8570

www.infosentry.com

M. Glenn Newkirk: glenn_newkirk@infosentry.com

InfoSentry Home Page

· · · · ·