Open Source Code in voting machines makes progress in NY & CA.

[annabanana]

Dear Friends of Open Voting:

Today, resolutions were introduced in New York and San Francisco that are very welcoming to Open Voting. In addition, Open Voting was well represented yesterday at a California Secretary of State hearing regarding ES&S.

The New York State Board of Elections introduced (by co-chair Douglas Kellner) a "RESOLUTION CONCERNING FEES FOR TESTING OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE" that, if passed, will make it possible for a voting system utilizing open source software to be certified with the State underwriting the examination fees. Since the software is public, the public should be willing to pay at least for the certification (estimated fees of $300,000 for a precinct based optical scan system). The certification cost has been a large barrier to open voting and this could potentially remove that barrier.

Also, today, at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting, a resolution was introduced and referred to committee that urges the Mayor and Director of Elections to proceed with the procurement of a voting system based on open source software.

Here is the wording of the New York State Board resolution:

*********
RESOLUTION CONCERNING FEES FOR TESTING OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE

The State Board of Elections may elect to waive the fee for examination of voting systems set forth in Section 6209.4(G) if a voting system vendor meets all of the following:

1) The vendor submits an application for examination fee waiver including a sworn affidavit stating that the voting system software and documentation are offered under an open source license or free software license.

(a) The open source license shall meet with the Open Source Definition as set forth by the Open Source Initiative which requires:
(i) free redistribution,
(ii) source code,
(iii) derived works,
(iv) integrity of the author’s source code,
(v) no discrimination against persons or groups,
(vi) no discrimination against fields of endeavor,
(vii) distribution of license,
(viii) license must not be specific to a product,
(ix) license must not restrict other software,
(x) license must be technology-neutral.

(b) The free software license is a matter of liberty, not price, and shall meet with the Free Software Definition as set forth by the Free Software Foundation which requires:
(i) freedom to run the program, for any purpose;
(ii) freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs;
(iii) freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor;
(iv) freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits; and
(v) freedom to access the source code is a precondition for these freedoms.

2) The vendor has paid the application fee set forth in 9 NYCRR § 6209.4(F).

3) The application for examination fee waiver is supported by no less than three public statements of support from organizations or individuals with demonstrated expertise in voting systems and/or software security during a thirty day public comment period.

4) The waiver of examination fees would apply only to the cost of examination of free software and/or open source systems available for use by any person or corporation owning or being interested in any voting machine or system.

The State Board shall retain the discretion to (a) revoke any examination fee waiver granted under this subsection, and (b) immediately order the termination of the examination if it finds the testing demonstrates that the submission obviously does not meet one or more of the requirements of section 7-202 of the Election Law or 9 NYCRR Part 62.
*************

The NY Board meetings are broadcast live and archived on their web site.
http://www.elections.state.ny.us /

Here is the copy of the San Francisco resolution.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosage...
This is the most direct expression of the desire to move to open voting, that says, in essence, "Let's buy such a system." They make reference to previous events and resolutions leading up to this statement.

In other news, the California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, held a hearing yesterday to discuss ES&S's alleged violations of California state law. According to ES&S, everything was done correctly. A few registrars showed up in support of ES&S, but many people said that we need to move to a different way; we need a public voting system fully open to public scrutiny like the open voting people have been advocating. Here's an article that was in the San Francisco Chronicle today. The comments posted here mirror what many people said yesterday at the hearing:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/1...

These events yesterday and today represent steps in the right direction. With your support, we can ensure a transition to a fully public voting system that we can trust.