Can an SoS legally disseminate information known to be false?

[Wilms]

In an email sent out by the CA SoS (and signed: "Sincerely, Elections Web Mail Representative ") the following claim was made.

The recent Diebold certification decision comes after the touch screen and optical scan systems have met the most rigorous federal and state standards.

In addition, both the independent panel of experts from the University of California and the federally-approved Independent Testing Authorities have indicated that the Diebold AccuVote Optical Scan and the AccuVote TSX systems can safely be used for our elections, with the additional security and use procedures we have in place in California.

So I wrote back.

The independent panel of experts from the University of California that you go on to cite have stated, unambiguously, that the machines DO NOT meet federal standards.

From their report:

"Interpreted code is contrary to standards: Interpreted code in general is prohibited by the 2002 FEC Voluntary Voting System Standards, and also by the successor standard, the EAC's Voluntary Voting System Guidelines due to take effect in two years. In order for the Diebold software architecture to be in compliance, it would appear that either the AccuBasic language and interpreter have to be removed, or the standard will have to be changed."

It seems if the EAC can turn Shelley's office upside-down, they could step in here and review the paper-work.

Oh, wait. The EAC, in consort with the ITA's and NASED, are the ones who certified Diebold's equipment to begin with. My bad. :eyes: