Disabilities Access and Voting Systems Task Force
of HAVA State Plan Committee
Minutes of Second Meeting
I. Date & time: March 28, 2003
9 AM – 12 Noon
II. Location: Room 308
Legislative Office Building
III. Attendance:
Task force participants: Orville “Bud” Fitch (Department of Justice); Christine Hanisco (NH Disabilities Rights Council); Rep. Michael Gilman (Chair, Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services); Cheryl Killam (Access Specialist, Governor’s Commission on Disability); Thomas Manning (Department of State); Carol Nadeau (Governor’s Commission on Disability); David Scanlan ( Deputy Secretary of State); Anthony Stevens (Assistant Secretary of State); Peter Thomson (Town Moderator, Orford); Michelle Tiffany (Concord Deputy City Clerk); Terry Voth (Granite State Independent Living); Sally Davis (NH League of Women Voters)
IV. Business:
The objective of the meeting was to develop a draft of the mission, vision, goals, objectives, and measurements for the portion of HAVA dealing with disabilities access and voting systems.
Provide that all voters in the State of New Hampshire have an equal right to participate in the voting process. An equal right to participation means the ability to enter the polling place easily and independently and to mark a ballot independently and privately.
The voting system and polling place shall be accessible for individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and visually impaired, in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and independence) as for other voters.
Comply with the federal constitution, federal statutes, state constitution, and state laws that address the requirements for accessibility.
New Hampshire should be a model for the nation in the area of voter participation.
The following goals and objectives shall be accomplished at least by the timelines established in law and sooner if possible.
Goals are general ends – broad statements of policy.
Objectives are specific measurable outcomes.
Measurements help determine whether objectives have been met.
1) Achieve voting system accessibility by January 1, 2006
a) Have at least one direct recording electronic voting machine (system that allows a voter with disabilities to independently cast a secret ballot) (“DRE”) at each polling place.
i) Roll out – implement for town meeting in the Spring of 2006 as a trial run for the fall primary.
ii) Use DREs in a small sample of jurisdictions in the Spring 2005 election.
iii) System must allow write-in voting
Measurement: Self reporting survey by each polling place?
b) Educate policy makers as to exactly what is being talked about and involve them in purchasing decisions.
i) Spring, 2003 demonstration.
Measurement: Spring, 2003 demo conducted?
c) Complete cost assessment – DRE machine at small towns versus telephone based interactive device centrally located serving multiple towns.
i) RFI for the multi-jurisdiction central computer based system.
(1) phone based
(a) address hearing issues
(b) vision issues
(2) Should provide equal alternatives to the DRE devices
(3) Consider providing a vote by phone alternative for absentee voters (available, but not required).
Measurements: Items 1,2 and 3 above completed as adopted.
d) A voting process that ensures that the voter using a DRE casts a private and secret ballot (i.e. if the output of the device is a paper ballot, the process at the polling place requires that sufficient voters use the DRE so that where the character of the ballot identifies that ballot came from the DRE, it would not identify an individual voter.) 10 of each type ballot including 10 of each major party as a standard.
Measurements:
i) Some system of reporting the volume of use of a DRE, as a measure of ongoing use – i.e., a means to ensure that at least 10 voters used the system if anyone used the system.
(1) Add to the Election Day report.
(2) Consider alternative/additional Election Day report to be filed within one week for data that is not time sensitive.
(3) Joint polling place monitoring program
e) Clear notification to users of over votes or under votes
Measurements:
i) Ballot Law Commission (“BLC”) certification of the system
ii) Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) certification
iii) Confirm regular optical scan system switched to reflect change in all polling places.
f) A device that permits the voter to verify the vote selected
Measurements:
i) BLC certification
ii) EAC certification
g) Permit the voter the opportunity to change the ballot.
Measurements:
i) BLC certification
ii) EAC certification
h) If the voter selects more than one candidate for a single office or more candidates than seats exist in a multiple seat race:
i) Notify the voter what he or she had done.
ii) Notify the voter about the effect of what he or she has done.
iii) Provide the opportunity to change the above.
Measurements :
(1) BLC certification
(2) EAC certification
i) Determine who should purchase the equipment and how does it get to the local polling place.
i) Article 28-a of the NH constitution (preventing state from mandating programs or responsibilities that would necessitate additional local expenditures unless fully funded by the state):
(1) State acquires
(2) State distributes to the towns and cities
(3) Provision is made for maintenance
(4) Memorandum of agreement between State and Towns/Cities?
(5) System for programming and maintenance prior to each election day
ii) Ownership issues
iii) Maintenance costs
2) Ensure the accessibility of each polling place by the Presidential primary for the 2004 elections. Utilize federal funds via federal HHS/state DHHS – non-competitive, NH share assuming all states apply, estimated at $50,000 - $60,000.
a.) Survey the accessibility of every polling place in New Hampshire during the fall of 2003.
iv) Task force will collate and analyze existing data to determine if a statewide survey is necessary.
(1) Consider organizing a statewide survey to occur on the day of the presidential primary.
Measurement: Collation and analysis of existing data done?
b.) Submit a grant request to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for funds to improve accessibility. ($13 million appropriated nationally in 2003.)
a. Cooperation from town and local officials –
i. Letter from the Attorney General
ii. Invite representatives of municipal government to the next Task Force Meeting. – meeting set up for April.
Measurement: April meeting conducted?
iii. Address changing polling places – try to survey the sites to be used in the future.
iv. Governor’s Commission on Disability (GCD) will be doing a training for local officials on ADA issues and will incorporate HAVA accessibility issues.
b. Establish the criteria for the distribution of funds. DHHS may be determining this.
c. Establish the ownership of the materials funded. DHHS will address.
Measurements:
Future monitoring of compliance.
i. Joint election monitoring program (all state and community groups doing monitoring coordinate process and sites to avoid duplication.)
ii. Disabilities Rights Center will be monitoring.
iii. GCD will be monitoring.
c.) Education of local election officials. Options include:
a. Work with the GCD to develop educational tools
b. Weekly newspaper articles and other media
c. Tools for local election officials – checklist for Selectmen/Moderators to ensure that the polling place is accessible.
i. Survey/self reporting mechanisms for compliance.
d. Provide contact information for Election Day problems that arise.
e. Notification system that allows a person in the parking lot to alert election officials that they need assistance with entering the polling place. (Staffing the parking area.)
i. Public building should have a fully accessible entrance.
ii. Available for exceptional circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
f. Training tool for law enforcement working polling places.
g. Fail-safe backup and phone number for voting system – how to find it.
i. Distribution system for replacement DREs.
h. Assured vendor support on Election Day, with toll-free number.
i. Formal training and incentives for poll workers and election officials on operation, troubleshooting voting systems, and counting the result.
i. June 13, 2003 election workshop
ii. Up to 20 regional and city workshops by SOS/AG in Fall/Winter of 2003.
Measurements: Workshops conducted?
j. Video training, manuals
i. Target November 2004 General Election
d.) Education of voters with disabilities regarding their rights, and the existence and use of voting machines. Potential venues include:
a. Public service announcements (“PSA’s”).
i. PSA’s for presidential primary re: changes to NH law, availability of resources, etc.
1. 1-800-vote NH (e-mail address for voter inquiries).
ii. Voting systems: 2005 for towns/cities participating in early use of DREs
iii. Voting systems: Statewide for 2006 elections
b. Mock elections, trials/demonstrations with DREs in libraries, schools, malls, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes, and access expo.
i. 2005 demos?
c. Community publications
5) Budgeting for upgrading of equipment.
Hardware & software.
6) Setting standards for when a polling place should (must) have more than one DRE.