| 49. | For the November 2004 general election, how was your state involved, if at all, in local jurisdictions' selection of voting method (e.g., paper, lever, punchcard, DRE, optical scan)? | ||
| (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) | |||
| 1. | State required local jurisdictions to use one specific voting method | ||
| 2. | State provided list of voting methods from which local jurisdictions were required to choose | ||
| 3. | State required method chosen by local jurisdiction to be approved by the state | ||
| 4. | State was not involved in method selection | ||
| 5. | Don't know | ||
| 50. | For the November 2004 general election, how was your state involved, if at all, in local jurisdictions' selection of specific voting equipment (i.e., manufacturer/make/model)? | ||
| (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) | |||
| 1. | State required local jurisdictions to use specific equipment | ||
| 2. | State provided list of equipment from which local jurisdictions were required to choose | ||
| 3. | State required equipment chosen by local jurisdiction to be approved by the state | ||
| 4. | State was not involved in equipment selection | ||
| 5. | Don't know | ||
| 51. | For the November 2004 general election, if local jurisdictions used any of the following systems for the first time, did your state require or not require that the voting system be qualified by the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED)? |
| (CHECK ONE IN EACH ROW) |
| Required | Not required | Don't know | N/A | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a. Punchcard | |||||
| b. Optical scan | |||||
| c. Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) | |||||
| 52. | For the November 2004 general election, did your state purchase voting systems to be used by local jurisdictions or require that jurisdictions' voting systems be certified by the state? | ||
| (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) | |||
| 1. | Purchased voting systems to be used by local jurisdictions | ||
| 2. | Required local jurisdictions' voting systems to be certified by the state (GO TO QUESTION 54.) | ||
| 3. | Neither of the above (GO TO QUESTION 54.) | ||
| 4. | Don't know (GO TO QUESTION 54.) | ||
| 53. | Did any of the following factors influence your state's decision when determining the types of voting system to purchase? |
| (CHECK ONE IN EACH ROW) |
| Yes | No | Don't know | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a. HAVA requirements (e.g., accessibility of voting equipment for individuals with disabilities) | ||||
| b. HAVA funding | ||||
| c. State requirements | ||||
| d. Consultation with other states or local jurisdictions regarding system or vendor performance | ||||
| e. Vendor demonstrations | ||||
| f. Perception of a success or failure in another state or local jurisdiction | ||||
| g. Costs effectiveness and performance of former system | ||||
| h. Affordability | ||||
| i. Voters' ease of use | ||||
| j. Other factor (specify below) | ||||
| k. If applicable, briefly describe other factors: |
| 54. | For the voting system used for the November 2004 general election, did the state perform or were local jurisdictions required to perform each of the following types of testing? |
| (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY IN EACH ROW) |
| State performed | State required of locals | Not required | Don't know | N/A | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a. Logic and accuracy (or readiness) testing to determine whether voting equipment was functioning properly (for instance, correct ballot installation, tallying, and transmission) | ||||||
| b. Security testing, for example, identification of system vulnerabilities, review of required controls, and attempts to overcome system protections | ||||||
| c. Election day parallel testing (DRE equipment only) on election day by randomly selecting a voting machine, pulling it from operational use, and running predefined votes cast with known results, then comparing the actual and expected results | ||||||
| d. Post-election auditing of voting equipment to determine whether election results were reliable | ||||||
| e. System acceptance testing upon system delivery from the vendor | ||||||
| f. System acceptance testing on changes and upgrades | ||||||
| 55. | For the voting system used for the November 2004 general election, did your state require or not require local jurisdictions to perform any other types of testing on their voting equipment? | ||
| (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) | |||
| 1. | Required (describe below) | ||
| 2. | Did not require | ||
| 3. | Don't know | ||
| a. If other types required, please describe: |
| 56. | The management of elections is increasingly complex and can involve many types of expertise. For the voting system used for the November 2004 general election, who performed each of the following possible functions, if at all? |
| (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY IN EACH ROW) |
| State officials | Local jurisdiction officials | Other (independent consultants, vendors, etc.) | Not performed | Don't know | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a. Identified voting system requirements | ||||||
| b. Acquired systems, components, and services | ||||||
| c. Established policies and plans for operating systems and equipment | ||||||
| d. Designed and developed applications, data files (including any ballot definition files), and other system components | ||||||
| e. Tested systems and components to ensure compliance with requirements | ||||||
| f. Managed system operations | ||||||
| g. Provided technical support, repair, and service for operational equipment | ||||||
| h. Monitored and evaluated security and privacy controls | ||||||
| Full Report: GAO-06-450 | Table of Contents | Previous | Next |