ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, PROCEDURES, AND ETHICS

MINUTES OF THE joint meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

and

senate committee on government affairs

Seventy-First Session

February 20, 2001

The Joint Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics and Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 3:52 p.m., on Tuesday, February 20, 2001. Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

Mr. Bernie Anderson

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. Bob Beers

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Vivian Freeman

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Senator Ann O’Connell

Senator Terry John Care

Senator Joseph Neal

Senator Bill O’Donnell

Senator Jon Porter

Senator Dina Titus

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Richard Perkins, Speaker

Bob Price, Vice Chairman

Senator William Raggio

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Tom Collins

Assemblyman Don Gustavson

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst

Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary, Assembly

Sharon T. Spencer, Committee Secretary, Senate

Robert E. Erickson, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Research Director

Vance A. Hughey, Principal Research Analyst

Kathy L. Steinle, Geographic Information Systems Specialist (GIS)

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS:

Dean Heller, Nevada Secretary of State

OTHERS PRESENT:

Joe Taggard, Regional Sales Vice President, Election Systems and Software, Inc.

Sheree Noell, Account Executive, Sequoia voting Systems

Dana LaTour, Sales Representative, Global Elections Systems

Larry Lomax, Representative, Clark County Registrar’s Office

Alan Glover, Nevada Association of County Clerk & Election Officials

Judy Cox, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, State of Nevada

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked that Speaker Perkins be excused, and because the Committee on Taxation was still in session, the Elections, Procedures, and Ethics committee members would arrive sporadically. She then, on behalf of herself and Senator O’Connell, welcomed the other members of the joint committee, the speakers, and visitors seated in the gallery. Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated by mutual agreement it was in the best interest of the elections and reapportionment hearings to start with a joint hearing. That allowed all involved to become familiar with the new technology in voting, especially when dealing with congressional information and funding that was available to upgrade precincts with new voting equipment, requesting an overview of what was old and new on the market and available for the precincts throughout Nevada.

Joe Taggard of Elections Systems and Software, Inc., (ESS), a company located in Omaha, Nebraska, described the voting equipment offered by ESS. Since conception, ESS served approximately 2,500 individual voting jurisdictions throughout North America as well as two internationally. In Nevada, ESS served Douglas, Elko, Esmeralda, Eureka, Lander, Lyon, Mineral, Nye, Pershing, Storey, and White Pine Counties with a variety of equipment. Some counties used the single punch card voting equipment that produced the Nevada chip (or the Florida chad). ESS represented counties with central tabulators that produced high-speed tabulation of paper optical scan ballots. The product line consisted essentially of support for Legacy Systems such as punch card voting, the most frequently and often used system in the United States. The two largest voting jurisdictions were the combined Cook County of Illinois and the City of Chicago, and Los Angeles County, California. Both of those jurisdictions used single punch card voting systems.

ESS also served a wide variety of optical scan users on a precinct or central counting environment basis. Many urban counties provided a precinct tabulation unit at each precinct, i.e., Washoe County being one. The results were tallied centrally, which led to more rapidly totaled results, but also provided electors with the familiar paper ballot where votes were immediately seen and recounts fast and simple.

Mr. Taggard then explained the new touch screen technology or the Direct Record Electronics (DRE), an electronic representation of the old traditional lever machines used and remain in use essentially east of the Mississippi. Full-face machines were used in Clark County, Nevada, the size being reduced to become touch screen size machines much like the laptops being used by several of the legislators on the dias. Riverside County, California, installed and used 4,000 to 5,000 touch screen machines during the 2000 presidential general election.

Mr. Taggard presented a brochure (Exhibit C) put out by ESS, opting to provide more in-depth information (Exhibit D) on another day when time restraints were not so strict. He provided a CD-ROM (Exhibit E) that defined the methodology involved with the Touch Screen Ibotronic Voting System. The videotape (Exhibit F) showed the operation of a Central Count Optical Scan High-Speed Reader, the equipment used in nine of Nevada’s counties.

Mr. Taggard indicated there was a push that focused greater emphasis for change within the next 18 to 24 months across the United States, changing to one or two of the technologies available. Primarily seen, because of cost and the permanent vote record option, was the precinct based Optical Scan System. Counties implementing the Touch-Screen Direct Record Electronic system on a jurisdiction-wide basis, based solely on the capital investment required. He felt there would be multiple voting system technologies within voting jurisdictions as precincts moved into a new paradigm throughout the United States. He stated it would not be unusual, for instance, to see Clark County using full-face DRE machines in their precincts, smaller touch-screen machines in early voting, and one of the optical scan appliances to count the mail-in absentee ballots.

Assemblyman Anderson indicated he was familiar with the old machines as while in college he was the Election Board’s Chairman, for which he was in charge of programming the back of various voting machines. He emphasized the security of the voting machine being central to the overall question of the validity of the election itself and the questions that inevitably followed. He asked what the time span was in terms of storage should there be a loss of power, electronic transfers, etc.

Mr. Taggard answered that in the case of a punch card system, either single or multiple, and the optical scan system, there was a permanent record of each cast ballot. Though secret, it was something that was auditable and could be recounted. In the case of the electronic voting systems, the ballot image was written in at least two, often times three areas within the unit in Flash E Prompt that remained undisturbed by an electrical malfunction. In the case of a recount, those ballot images were printed out. More importantly, in terms of equipment multiple uses, the equipment was generic. What made it election specific was the programming within each individual or the specific drive unit. The results of an election were archived by uploading the results of each unit after producing the official canvas, which withstood the official period for recount or contest.

Chairman Giunchigliani inquired if there was still some form of paper backup that archived or if it was through technology. Mr. Taggard answered the backup was accomplished either way. Both afforded the opportunity of providing a paper canvas.

Chairman Giunchigliani recalled discussions regarding a bill generated in a subcommittee chaired by Senator O’Connell about the issue of maintaining a form of paper tracking. That form of tracking gave comfort to elections officials because anything could be programmed into electronic technology, one of the main concerns at that time. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the technology allowed for precinct changes in the Optic Scan equipment. Mr. Taggard responded the result at the precinct level was the same as with the DRE touch-screen technology.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if it was up to the local elections officials to make the appropriate changes should there be a change of precinct or boundary line. Mr. Taggard emphasized one should not confuse redistricting and voter registration with how the equipment was programmed for elections. As election administrators, they were informed about the make-up of the precinct, i.e., if the lines were changed, taxing districts were changed, voters had moved in and out.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked, if as election administrators, they tested for voter preference via a focus group. In response, Mr. Taggard stated every election administrator performed a voter survey to assure the system was easily used, for readability, physically user-friendly, and accessible to all voters. What seemed to him to be the most prevalent request of voters was voting quickly and departing. Because of that voter response, he was vitally concerned about the system used.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if most were motivated toward the ATM version of voting. Mr. Taggard answered in the affirmative.

Sheree Noell, representing Sequoia Voting Systems, presented information on the AVC Edge (Exhibit G) voting machine. There were 4,000 units installed in Riverside County, California for the November Presidential election. Her company also promoted the Optec Eagle (Exhibit H), the key to that mechanism being the flexible ballot. She pointed out that all optical scan systems were very similar in nature. Voting was accomplished by connecting an arrow, filling in a bubble, etc. The ballots were printed, for instance, on a 3¾-inch ballot, reducing paper costs as well saving the nation’s resources.

Ms. Noell returned focus to the touch-screen. The election definition ballot layout generated results cartridge software. The software was in the cartridge and the voting system itself was void of brains without the cartridge. The Edge had unlimited capabilities, counting over 65,000 ballot types in multiple languages. One Edge model was used for early voting. There was an audit trail, an unalterable, random record of all votes cast, with a printed report available. The Optech IV-C (Exhibit I), a high-speed ballot counter also took a flexible ballot system, reading about 400 cards per minute.

Ms. Noell agreed with Mr. Taggard’s impression that jurisdictions had multiple types of systems. It was important to realize that the vendors in attendance were large companies, but that in the future many different forms of equipment would emerge. But, without the backing and experience in elections, fallacies
would occur. She invited the joint committee members and gallery to stop and vote to get a feel of what was offered in the electronic voting field.

Assemblyman Hettrick confirmed that The Edge machine truly recognized up to 65,000 different ballots, and asked if during early voting in different precincts would the various ballots also be recognized. Ms. Noell pointed to the card activator on display. The poll worker inserted the electronic card, which in turn provided the correct ballot for the election in question. The voter was given the appropriate card to insert into the voting machine, which then pulled up the requested ballot type.

Assemblyman Hettrick then asked the cost of the machine. Ms. Noell reported the cost was $5,500 for either the Optical Scan or the touch-screen.

Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated that the ballot in her district was based on two different county commissions. She understood the ballot was laid out based on county commission districts in early voting, and what she found on the ballot when she went in early to vote was that her name appeared in one area on one machine and in a different area on another. She stated her name was so far down on the screen there was nothing lit above or below it. Her question was, would the new machines be different than the larger screen. Ms. Noell answered it was actually variable by state and determined by ballot rotation. She did not know if Nevada had ballot rotation.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani called upon Mr. Larry Lomax, Clark County Registrar’s Office, who answered in the affirmative regarding ballot rotation in Nevada. She understood also that Clark County was moving into using the touch screen rather than just the DRE models.

Ms. Noell indicated both voting machines were DREs, one being the touch-screen versus the Advantage DRE. Chairwoman Giunchigliani reiterated the cost was around $5,500 per machine and then asked about training and programming, having heard the poll workers were to be trained. Ms. Noell stated there were a variety of options such as the company programming the machines, training the poll workers to do the programming, most dependent on the size of the jurisdiction. Most representatives present had recent history with both large and small jurisdictions, which needed completely different voting machines and programming. Smaller jurisdictions tended to request preprogramming, where larger jurisdiction preference was to do their own.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if Ms. Noell’s company gave credit to jurisdictions that were using their product when it came time to upgrade. Ms. Noell indicated there was flexibility.

Assemblyman Hettrick asked when purchased, would the number of machines needed be based on voting sites or by population. Ms. Noell stated there was a ratio used between current voting booths, i.e., one touch-screen system would replace 2.5 voting booths, adding the touch-screen was actually quicker to vote on than a punch card. In addition, only one optical scan vote counter was needed per polling site.

Senator Neal asked how the efficacy of the voting machine was tested. Ms. Noell answered the testing was done electronically or with predetermined ballots after the information was entered by hand. She emphasized a lock and accuracy test was always done prior to the election. Senator Neal then asked about malfunction frequency. Ms. Noell said there were malfunctions on occasion and at that point a self-mechanism within the machine automatically shut it down and that specific machine was not reopened for polling at that time. When asked how the malfunction was recognized, Ms. Noell stated that a prompt was flashed on the screen when there was a problem, at which time the poll worker shut down the machine in question.

Senator Neal created a scenario with a 15-candidate ballot, voted for half, and a malfunction occurred. Ms. Noell stated they had not seen a mid-ballot malfunction but had seen machines not boot on Election Day. Once on line, there were generally no problems. Senator Neal asked if the machine was subject to lost votes if unplugged. Ms. Noell answered the machines had battery backup and would not lose cast votes prior to the malfunction. Also, there was a tabulator on the back of each machine where the number of votes cast was recorded and during a power failure reset to the recorded number. Senator Neal then asked about an over-vote on the Edge Machine. Ms. Noell stated it was impossible to over-vote on the Edge Machine, inviting Senator Neal to view the process upon adjournment.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the information just shared was of vital importance due to the diverse technology changes. She asked if there were many jurisdictions already attune to such technology within Nevada versus other states and how would the companies handle a national push toward getting all jurisdictions set up with the new technology. Ms. Noell stated it would be virtually impossible, even in the ensuing ten years. Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what strategy local governments or Congress, providing Congress came up with funding, needed to take into account for the blending of
the jurisdiction needs to avoid a crunch of installing all optic and touch-screen systems, and the company’s ability to provide the machines to all jurisdictions. She felt it would be best to install the electronics in areas where there was more possibility of voter fraud than not. Ms. Noell stated it was not feasible to offer the touch screen to counties with less than 1,000 voter population.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if a coordinated effort, when a county wanted to upgrade to new technology at a reduced cost, was being anticipated rather than government mandating, “You must use ‘X’ machine.”

Mr. Taggard returned to the witness table and shared there were about 11 Congressional legislators that had introduced bills regarding matching dollars for upgrade of voting systems. His company lobbied to make the funding retroactive. For instance, if a Nevada county wanted to upgrade to the new technology within the next 18 months, they should be not penalized for doing it because the matching funds were not available until 24 months down the road. He stated the sponsors of those bills would provide to the companies letters across the board for all vendors saying that the matching funds would be retroactive to alleviate the possibility of delayed decisions. They had already been asked if a credit would be received because of what was previously purchased to be applied toward the purchase of a newer technology. These counties were also interested in trying the new technology at minimal cost. In terms of all being completed within the next two years, it was his belief it was virtually impossible with any modicum of propriety and correctness to which the voters were entitled.

Senator Neal asked the amperage of the Edge Machine. Ms. Noell indicated she would obtain the information. Mr. Taggard offered the Eagle used less than one ampere and the amperage was significantly less on the touch-screen machine. Senator Neal asked what would happen if the amperage were less than required. Mr. Taggard answered there was an internal battery backup in the touch-screen technology that would carry for two to seven hours of continuous operation. There is an external battery available for the Eagle that provided up to 14-hours of continuous operation. With the 18,000 Eagles installed throughout the world today, only 100 had external battery backups. The Eagle also had a battery in the memory pack that preserved the vote total, including the partially voted ballot Senator Neal referenced should there be a power loss. Also, the Eagle would indicate on printout that it did not count that half ballot. Senator Neal bought up the problem of static electricity and its effect on electronic equipment. Mr. Taggard indicated all parts of electronic voting equipment were coated with anti-static materials, those corrections put in place due to the problems that arose in factory.

Dana LaTour, Western Sales Representative for Global Election Systems, based in Reno, Nevada, presented information and a brochure entitled Global Election Systems (Exhibit J), on the products offered by her company. She shared her residence in Nevada had been nine short months, the same period of time she had been with Global. Prior to that she was the Election Administrator for 14 years in the State of Alaska. One of her final tasks in Alaska was in 1997, when assigned to converting the entire state of Alaska from a combination ballot to the new ballot tabulation system. The end result was that Alaska purchased the Global Accu Vote Precinct Tabulation System. She complimented Mr. Taggard for his overview of the industry across the board. Global had been in business since 1991, its predecessor being Computer Election Systems when in the 1970’s punch card voting came onto the scene. They were set up in 875 counties throughout the country, the company being based in McKinney, Texas. The two major products were the Accu Vote Precinct Tabulation System displayed during the meeting, and a touch-screen technology used successfully in both Los Angeles County and Alameda County in California for early voting during the 2000 general election. She offered, as had Mr. Taggard and Ms. Noell, she would be more than happy to return at a later day when time restraints were not so confined for the committee itself to demonstrate the equipment to legislators and the public.

Assemblyman Anderson asked the cost of the Global equipment. Ms. LaTour stated the Accu Vote Precinct Tabulators listed for about $6,500. The Accu touch listed for $3,900. She shared also that the committee had received presentations from the top three election companies in the country.

Assemblywoman Freeman asked about matching funds. Mr. Taggard stated there were four bills at the federal level, two in the House and two in the Senate that were different. Two dealt expressly with equipment while the other two dealt with equipment and funding statutory agencies that determined the requirements the voting systems must meet. Another bill combined the Federal Election Commission with several other agencies to make one “super” agency to oversee voting on the federal level in terms of standards and guidelines. California had an assembly bill for approval of from $2.5 hundred million to $3 hundred million. Another bill introduced by the California governor’s staff in the amount of $40 million was for implementation of the new electronic systems in one small, one medium, and one large California county. The larger amounts were matching funds and he believed that would be one to one; i.e., $1 from the state and $1 from the county, first-come, and first-serve. Federal legislation reviewed over one billion dollars was tri-part, which broke down to $1 federal matched by $1 state, matched by $1 county, as stated in the Scope Act. The states moving quickly toward statewide solutions were Michigan and Florida,
both having legislation on the floor. Florida asked vendors to come forward and present proposals enabling utilization of precinct based optical scan voting in Florida for the 2002 election, though they wanted to use it for only one year, with no guarantee of future use.

Assemblywoman Freeman stated that too often the counties see the Registrar of Voters as strictly a clerical office and they are not funded adequately. Would there be any kind of requirements from federal to mandate local and state governments that they access the dollars to bring the technology up to date?

Mr. Taggard explained such was the argument in California where the registrars and county clerks said, “Give us the ability to make a choice of all available systems; do not dictate to us what we want.” He was not privy to the federal view on that subject but felt that mandated federal edicts implied what should be funded or it was illegal. He felt it would be 12 to 24 months before disposition of such mandates.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Bob Erickson, Research Director, to present an introduction to redistricting. She also suggested to the committee an early adjournment to allow the members and gallery to vote on the electronic machines before returning to the floor of the Assembly for Senator Ensign’s presentation.

Bob Erickson presented a printed report entitled Reapportionment and Redistricting (Exhibit K) and the redistricting and reapportionment atlas entitled Legislative Commission’s Committee on Reapportionment and Redistricting (Exhibit L) to the committee. He stated the interim study committee was made up of eight members; four from each house, and during the five meetings conducted, came up with the above-entitled reports. The covered material was the Census Bureau results, the final count for Nevada being 1,998,257 as of Census Day 2000.

The detailed breakdown of the populous locations throughout the state would not be available until sometime in March. According to federal law, the information was provided to the states no later than April 1. In the meanwhile, there were two products used, the report and map atlas, both being the basic materials used for reapportionment. He shared there were computer workstations within the Legislative Building; one public workstation in Room 1199, and the other public workstation in the Sawyer Office Building in Las Vegas. Redistricting affected all legislative seats, the University of Nevada Board of Regents, and the State Board of Education. Through the Census 2000 report, Nevada had three representatives in Congress, affirmed upon release of
the figures to the president at the end of 2000. Mr. Erickson indicated that due to the time constraints put on the committee because of Senator Ensign’s presentation at 5:15 p.m., his office was more than willing to return to speak to the joint or separate committees.

Kathy Steinle of Information Systems gave a very brief demonstration of the Autobound Software package that was loaded on all of the redistricting workstations. She began with a view of downtown Las Vegas. The color-coded view on the screen gave a breakdown of Democratic and Republican population in the area. Also, there was available a breakdown of nationalities within the area, voting age populous, plus racial status. The Active Matrix at the bottom of the map was the table of population numbers by districts showing projected population growth. Also included in the matrix was voter registration and election data (Exhibit M). When the final Census 2000 data arrived on April 1, it was input, providing a more accurate picture of the precinct redistricting. Ms. Steinle then proceeded to demonstrate how the Autobound System would adjust districts according to the population and calculate in the Active Matrix the population changes for the districts. The Map Atlas provided by Mr. Erickson was built using the Autobound System. Training on the use of the system was offered to legislators and staff by the LCB Information Systems staff. Two staff were assigned to the caucuses and two to the public Autobound System computers.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the Active Matrix showed registered voters as active, inactive or as a combination of both. Ms. Steinle stated when the data was collected, they asked for only active registered voters. At the time, it was discovered some counties did not distinguish between active and inactive. Others were unable to provide only active voter statistics. All county capabilities were documented since the collected data covered the years 1996, 1998, and 2000. Also collected was information from the 1996 Presidential election, 1998 U.S. Senate election, and the 2000 National election. Each county provided seven data sets.

Senator Neal stated that under no circumstances could voter registration be used for the purpose of redistricting, but must be based solely on population.

Chairwoman Giunchigliani indicated she was checking a law changed last session as she was not sure if all districts were able to report separately. That factor was a concern of county clerks because of wanting accurate figures on voter turnout. Larger districts reported separately and Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested a listing of counties unable to report separately.

Senator Neal commented on the Reapportionment and Redistricting Bulletin, that on page 16 the case sited Stewart v. O’Callaghan. He felt it should read Milspa v. O’Callaghan as heard by a three-jurist panel in December 1972.

Mr. Erickson indicated he would turn that question over to the legal counsel, Scott Wasserman, for comment. Mr. Wasserman was sure the citation was correct but would double check.

Meeting was adjourned at 4:49 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Ann Van Nostrand

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

DATE: