CONTENTS
[1] Newsletter Highlights
[2] California Decertifies Voting Systems; Strict Requirements for Reinstatement
[3] TGDC Approves New Version of Voting System Guidelines; Draft Now Under Review at EAC
[4] USACM Releases Annual Report
[5] ACM Submits Comments on STEM Education to National Science Board
[6] About USACM
[An archive of all previous editions of Washington Update is available at http://www.acm.org/usacm/update/]
[1] NEWSLETTER HIGHLIGHTS
Below are highlights of the top stories from August. With Congress recessing early in the month, and most of official Washington on vacation, what little activity to report is focused on voting. The state of California took some strong action against voting systems used in that state, and the next iteration of federal voting system standards took a big step forward. There is more detail on each item below, as well as on our weblog at http://www.acm.org/usacm/weblog:
* The California Secretary of State, following an extensive top to bottom review of voting systems, decertified several voting systems used in the state.
* The Technical Guidelines Development Committee gives its final approval to the next edition of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines.
* USACM Releases its FY 2007 Annual Report, describing its activities from July 2006 through June 2007.
* ACM submits comments to the National Science Board on its proposed National Action Plan for education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education.
[2] CALIFORNIA DECERTIFIES VOTING SYSTEMS; STRICT REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED FOR REINSTATEMENT
Following the top-to-bottom review and the release of the associated reports, on August 3 California Secretary of State Debra Bowen changed the certification status of the voting systems subject to the review, as well as one system that was not submitted for the review. Bowen’s decision gives affected jurisdictions six months to adjust before the February 5, 2008 Presidential Primary.
You can read the formal decisions online. The affected systems are:
Withdrawal of Approval and Conditional Reapproval
Diebold Election Systems, Inc. GEMS 1.18.24/Accuvote-TSX/Accuvote-OS DRE and optical scan systems
http://sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ttbr/diebold.pdf
Hart Intercivic 6.2.1 DRE and optical scan systems
http://sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ttbr/hart.pdf
Sequoia WINEDS V 3.1.012/AVC EDGE/INSIGHT/OPTECH 400-C DRE and optical scan systems
http://sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ttbr/sequoia.pdf
Withdrawal of Approval
ES&S InkaVote Plus Precinct Ballot Counting System
http://sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ess_rescission_withdrawal.pdf
Four systems not included in the review were not intended for continued use in 2008.
In the case of the ES&S InkaVote System, used in Los Angeles County, it cannot be used in the upcoming February primaries or subsequent elections. This is a ballot counting - not a ballot casting - system. The failure of ES&S to participate in the review is sufficient cause to remove the certification, pursuant to California election code.
The other three systems have been stripped of their prior certifications and have been given conditional certifications for the upcoming primary and subsequent elections. Flaws, security vulnerabilities, and/or other problems were detected on all of these systems - both DRE and optical scan - that prompted the conditional certifications. The specific conditions are outlined in each of the documents linked to above. In general, the terms encompass nearly every aspect of the voting process, from early voting to post-election audits. Many of the requirements stipulate actions vendors must take within 30 to 60 days of the determinations. The vendors will be required to assume the costs of certain provisions, and will be required to take responsibility for the representations they make about their systems. Other items of note:
Senate Rules Committee Chair (and California Democrat) Dianne Feinstein indicated she would hold a hearing on the review, tentatively some time in September. As of this writing it has not been scheduled.
[3] TGDC APPROVES NEW VERSION OF VOTING SYSTEM GUIDELINES; DRAFT NOW UNDER REVIEW AT EAC
On August 17, the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) formally approved its draft of the next edition of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. After some final editing and adjustments, they forwarded this document to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) on September 4. That version is available online at:
http://vote.nist.gov/vvsg-report.htm
Running at 578 pages and approximately 1170 requirements, this is the first top-to-bottom rewrite of federal voting system guidelines since 1990.
While the TGDC members (especially the chair, outgoing NIST Director Dr. William Jeffrey) most likely feel relief after a long, 23 month process, this is closer to the halfway point than the finish line. As EAC Chair Donetta Davidson outlined in her remarks at the meeting, the EAC will take its time in reviewing the document. The Commission anticipates receiving the draft in September. From there the draft will be prepared for printing in the Federal Register for a comment period of 120 days. This would run into approximately February of 2008. During this comment period the TGDC will brief the EAC, as well as the Commission’s Standards and Advisory Boards, on the guidelines.
Following the review of the first set of comments, the EAC will revise the guidelines and return them to the TGDC, most likely in May or June of 2008. Once the TGDC has reviewed the comments and revised the guidelines, it will be submitted for a second public comment period of 120 days. So, all told, it probably be early 2009 before the guidelines are made official.
Look for a Federal Register notice about the voting guidelines sometime in September. You can review relevant documents at the TGDC and/or EAC websites.
http://vote.nist.gov/
http://eac.gov/
[4] USACM LOOKS BACK AT FY 2007
Each year ACM’s Policy Office staff and USACM’s leadership compile USACM’s annual report for the past fiscal year (which ended June 30). In this year’s report you will find descriptions of our work on electronic voting, privacy, and security; the testimony provided by our members; and discussions of our activities to educate Congress about different technology policy issues.
You can read the FY 2007 USACM Annual Report at:
http://www.acm.org/usacm/annualreports/USACM%202007%20report.pdf
[5] ACM SUBMITS COMMENTS ON STEM EDUCATION TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Responding to a draft plan presented in early August, ACM, through its newly created Education Policy Committee, submitted comments on the National Science Board’s National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System. The action plan is available online at:
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/edu_com/report.pdf
The report is the work of the National Science Board’s Commission on 21st Century Education in Science, Technology, Education and Mathematics (STEM). Their website is:
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/edu_com/index.jsp
The main recommendations of the report focused on two challenges for STEM education: improving coherence in STEM education across disciplines and across levels of government, and ensuring a supply of well-prepared and highly effective teachers. The Plan recommends the creation of a non-Federal National Council for STEM Education to coordinate efforts, and seconds the recommendation of the Academic Competitiveness Council to form a STEM Education Committee in the National Science and Technology Council. That Committee would be focused on federal STEM Education programs.
The ACM recommendations emphasized the need to include computer science in STEM Education matters. Citing the increasing demands for computer science-trained employees and the decline in computer science enrollments, ACM argued the need to include computer science as a STEM discipline, and the need to make sure effective standards were in place for STEM education teachers.
This was the first action by the newly formed ACM Education Policy Committee, chaired by Robert Schnabel from Indiana University. We haven’t highlighted the committee yet because it is still ramping up its work. Look for more material from ACM about the committee’s actions in the coming months.
The public comment period for the plan ended on August 30. A final plan will likely be released in a few months. Given that some of the recommendations require legislative action, it is unclear how many of the final recommendations will ultimately be implemented.
[6] ABOUT USACM
USACM is the U.S. Public Policy Committee of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). ACM is an educational and scientific society uniting the world’s computing educators, researchers and professionals to inspire dialogue, share resources and address the field’s challenges. ACM strengthens the profession’s collective voice through strong leadership, promotion of the highest standards, and recognition of technical excellence. ACM supports the professional growth of its members by providing opportunities for life-long learning, career development, and professional networking.
For more information about USACM and ACM, see:
http://www.acm.org/usacm/about.html
BACK ISSUES
For earlier editions of the ACM Washington Update, see
http://www.acm.org/usacm/update/
SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE
To subscribe to ACM’s Washington Update newsletter, send an e-mail to
listserv@acm.org with “subscribe WASHINGTON-UPDATE “First Name” “Last Name”
(no quotes) in the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, simply include the “SIGNOFF WASHINGTON-UPDATE” command in an
email to listserv@acm.org.
Trackbacks
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://usacm.acm.org/usacm/weblog/wp-trackback.php/536
None at this time.