Travis County Commissioners Court

Tuesday, October 19, 2010,
Item 22

Item number 22, receive briefing and take appropriate action on report from Travis County chief elections officer on recommendations from study group regarding current and future voting systems.

>> morning.

>> all right. Thank you and good morning. We appreciate this time before the court. We're here to talk about the county clerk's elections study group. We start this had work in April 2009. The four team members that were originally asked to help us with this study ended up being about 25 to 25 people who consistently came to meetings and consistently spent their time working on this project. What I want to do is give awe final update on what they have done, the recommendations that they want to provide to Commissioners' court. You have received their final report in e-mail format and if you want it in any other format, we'll be glad to send it to you. I need to give you a quick run down today on what they have done with one additional recommendation that they came up with on Monday, and present that information to the court. We started in April, as I mentioned, 2009, with the task of evaluating Travis County's current voting system and making recommendations for the future. We were not in any kind of crisis. The 45-member group represented a wide variety of interests and the diversity of our community and these wonderful communities representatives representatives from different parties, the league of women voters, disability members, the business community, security experts, community organization members, the media, and different government agencies who contract with the county clerk in order to do elections administration. The committee also included professors who were expert in math, computer science, government, education, public policy from the university of Texas and from the l.b.j. School of public affairs. We had a fine group of citizens who volunteered their time. Their mission, as stated, was that they were to ensure that Travis County voters had for the future an accurate, fair, secure, transparent to the public and accessible voting system. They were to determine a minimum and maximum time range as to when the replacement of the current voting system is necessary. And when the voting system was purchased in 2003 it was assumed that our current e-slate hart intercivic voting system would have a life typical of the technology of around 10 to 12 years. And we were coming up on that typical lifetime frame, so as I said once again, no crisis, no problem. We were just doing our work to make sure that we were getting ready for the future of when it came time to do the end of life work to transfer us to a new system. They were also asked to evaluate concerns regarding the existing electronic voting system and any other type of voting system that might be under consideration. These concerns included, but were not limited to ease of use for the voters. The intent of voter issues when you have a mark on a particular ballot. If you have to interpret it, under Texas law that's called intent of the voter. Accessibility. Access of count, transparency to the public. Efficient use of taxpayer money. We realize these systems get more expensive it seems every time we purchase them. And we also want to be able to have money to operate them ourselves. We believe in independence from the vendor. And we wanted to be able to maintain it ourselves too in the minimum of vendor involvement. And finally make recommendations to this August body regarding options for upgrading or replacing the current system as it grows older. This is a cycle we are going to be in now every 10 or 12 years we will be looking at replacing a voting system. That's what hava as done to us now. Instead of having a voting system that we really don't think much about, now it's on a regular schedule, regular route to get replaced approximately every 10 to 12 years unless of course we see technology help us out in the future and we're hopeful that that will be the case.

>> remind me of what the present system cost us?

>> the current system with two purchases, one of them was the initial and then we bought some extra pieces to be able to handle the additional crowds for the presidential election, so that entire grouping was 6.1 million. Most of that money came from the federal government.

>> and the annual maintenance cost is how much?

>> about 100,000 a year. Am I saying that right?

>> [inaudible - no mic].

>> 225. I’m sorry, I spoke wrong. $225,000 a year for the annual maintenance for all of it.

>> okay.

>> if you're looking at a 10 to 12 year investment, you're looking at a substantial investment, but it will last you 10 to 12 years.

>> a good long time. And we've babied this along taking care of it. We also bought this one because of its extra durability and we recommend putting that in our specifications for the next system, that we ask for the extra durability, the touch button system showed more fortitude than the touch screen system showed. And that made -- it made for a difference in our purchase. I think we should consider those sustainability issues when we go forward in the future looking at a system. Now, after many hours of study and discussion, that included an extensive review of the system that we currently use. We wanted our study group members to be fully informed about what the pros and cons were for the system that we have right now. And issues that were central to elections. For example, what do you mean -- what do we mean when we say security accuracy transparently, accessibility and ease of use for the voters? These aren't just words we throw around. And making a voting system available on the market now and for the future. So they studied everything about what we did. They took a rather extensive tour. They observed elections. They were excellent students, in other words, of the system that we have today. And they put forth a report to Commissioners' court making recommendations. And the summary of those recommendations was in the report that we sent to you about a month ago. The study group reported that they were impressed with the operations of the elections division, particularly with the emphasis that was placed on voting security. We have won national awards, the minute man award for paying very close attention to security. We care a lot about it. While many had concerns about all electronic voting in general, they found -- the members of our study group found that we had provided safeguards -- enough safeguards beyond those provided by law and incorporated numerous practices that we had really minimized the risk and that had been our goal step by step every time we see a potential loophole, we close the loophole. Every time we see a potential risk, we try to mitigate the risk, step by step. And because of how we had implemented electronic voting, the group stated it believed it is at least as secure, our current system, from most risks as any other system currently in use, even those that incorporate a paper ballot. Significantly the recommendations state that Travis County should move away from an all-electronic voting system to a system that has a paper ballot element for the voter and still uses an electronic tally to tally the votes from a particular election. They believe that this should be done as soon as an acceptable alternative is available on the market. Within the study group report that overwhelmingly supported this recommendation to you, to Commissioners' court, there were also two minority reports. One of the minority reports calls for a completely different approach to elections, and the other minority report calls for a continue situation of electronic voting. So I recommend you might want to read those two minority reports as well so you get a full picture of the entire group's message. After reviewing the current systems on the market, the study group sadly and with great impatience reports back to you what we found. And that was that there isn't anything on the market right now that is better than what we have. And we are most impatient with that finding. We had thought at first that there might be some good news out there, and after spending the summer studying thoroughly what was on the market, we have found that there is simply not anything available. Now, our latest -- that does not mean that that lasts forever, but the marketplace is showing new trends and new research and development for after the presidential election. They have many new products that are scheduled to be coming out 2013. And we have two vendors in particular that look particularly promising for the kinds of specifications that Travis County would want filled for 2013. That doesn't help us right this minute, but it does say there will be something on the market soon, we just are going to have to go through an interim period. So the study group asked me to work to influence the development of new election systems and to research what future election systems may look like. And we had already started that with our research over the summer. We took this challenge with a -- to heart, and I mean our hearts. And when we presented our findings to the study group and learned that the vendors were looking for products that would meet the requirements of the group, but not soon enough that we were going to be including it -- be able to make a recommendation to Commissioners' court by the presidential election, we were all a little disappointed with that time frame. But we understood that because most jurisdictions did not want to move prior to the presidential election, most of them indicated that they were wanting stability and consistency through the time frame, there was not a marketplace for vendors or the federal government to move quickly during this time frame. You begin to see a picture of the marketplace. All right. In brief we learned that vendors were planning new products that will likely meet the requirements of the group and also discovered alternative approaches that deserve future scrutiny, including bidding activity, to have publicly held open source voting software, and that's something that the group found very interesting for the future and we do hope to pursue more effort in that regard. And I’m very interested in that.

>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]

>> ... To only election day and only -- and not for early voting, and perhaps that would be a good choice. Well, the committee considered that option, and they also considered another option. They considered an option where we would have -- and I am sorry I’m thinking about the two or three different things aonce so I apologize if I’m stumbling a little bit. We would call this offering a paper ballot on election day only along with the regular electronic voting that we're doing for election day, we would call that a hybrid system. Hybrids have become legal in subsequent years since Travis County bought its current system, and it is -- it is used by other jurisdictions so it's not unheard of, but the question is would that be something that our voters might be interested in. So the committee took that under consideration. The other option that was offered to voters was that we had been planning in Travis County to go forward and offer our voters another benefit, a different kind of benefit. The benefit that we had been planning on was to offer voters vote centers. And what vote centers represent is that if you are planning to vote on election day, you would still be in an electronic environment, but you would be relieved of any kind of restriction that says you have to go to a particular neighborhood polling place. In other words, election day voting would be turned into what looks very similar to early voting. With early voting, you can vote anywhere you want, if you recall, on election day, voting only once, but you can go to any one of the early voting locations. Election day would become a similar model. Instead of having a precinct that you absolutely must show up at in order to cast your ballot, that you could go to any precinct and cast your ballot and you wouldn't necessarily be disallowed if you happen to show up at a wrong precinct that was in your neighborhood or if you were in a commuter situation and you were across town and you needed to vote because you couldn't get home, that you could vote as a matter of convenience in another neighborhood precinct on election day. So we asked the committee, and after much consideration and thought, the committee had decided that given that the paper ballot interim with a precinct ballot counter on election day was going to cost 1.2 million and was only going to cover just election day and not do anything about the issues of how do we present a paper ballot in an early voting environment, the group decided that for the money it was probably better to wait until we had a fully conceived, fully integrated paper ballot system in the future. One that was presented to us rather than go with an interim solution for paper ballot only on election day and only for that group of people who votes on election day. And that rather what they would like to do is wait until we can have a fully conceived, fully planned paper ballot system and instead go forward with the idea of continuing our electronic voting system the way it is today until such time as the market offers us a fully conceived paper ballot system. And in the meantime, take advantage of vote centers. And the committee, the study group, rather, asked us not to make very many cuts in the number of polling places our first time out for vote centers which we had agreed to do. So we had decided to continue forward on the plan to purchase the new system, but implement vote centers for election day. So the vote center adoption can begin and what we would like to do is have a group of people help us decide if there are any locations for election day that could be cut that are redundant within neighbors, if there were anywhere that we could create a big box mega site where people could come on election day, but the idea is for the constitutional amendment election we would be able to people a benefit while we're waiting to purchase a fully integrated paper ballot system for the future that we would offer our voters vote centers for the constitutional amendment election. That is what we had to offer you today.

>> what date is that?

>> okay, all right.

>> you say the constitutional amendment election. What date?

>> 2011.

>> what month?

>> November 2011. Now, vote centers are not allowed to be used during primary elections because they tend to be disruptive of the convention process. So what the law says about vote centers is that you can't use them in a primary. We're not trying to create any kind of problems with vote centers. We are merely trying to make it easier for voters to vote. Let me give you a quick example. Let's say you are a voter and you show up in what you think is your neighborhood precinct to vote at 6:30 on election day and you discover oh, the line has changed or we've had redistricting or something, you know, you've made a mistake and you can't get across to your place because of traffic in time before 7:00. If you try to vote a provisional ballot, it won't be counted. You are kind of stuck. You've waited too late in the day, you are not going to be able to cast your ballot. Wouldn't it be better if you could cast your ballot right there in your neighborhood polling place. That's our idea is try to make it easier on voters no matter where you go on election day, your vote is going to be counted. You only get to vote once, it will be double checked, but the idea is to make it as easy as early voting is to vote on election day. All right, now, several of the study group members are with me today, and they would like to address the Commissioners court on their thoughts about our current voting system, about the process of the study group, which is truly an amazing -- these folks took a terribly emotional issue that was very, very complicated. They had to do a lot of study to get the facts right before they could give you a fully informed recommendation. Well thought out. And they would like to -- some of them would like to address you today. They know that they are going to keep their comments to you to about three minutes. That's what they've been advised. So for those who would like to, I have a couple of members who are dashing off to meet -- to address another meeting and so I do have one member who has asked to be first just simply because she's got to dash off to a meeting. And then, judge, I will offer a motion to accept the report after you have had the opportunity to hear from some of the members of the county clerk's election study group. Would those of you who would like to make a comment feel free to come and join me at the podium at this time.

>> you all heard our new county judge, obey her.

>> while we're waiting, let me just say that the overwhelming recommendation was to proceed with our electronic voting system and offer vote centers. The hybrid was overwhelm beingly voted down because it limited options for the future and because it was so expensive to offer as an interim measure. So with me, let's let annette lavow, who is with the Austin independent school district go first, and then just as you wish you may make your comments.

>> good morning, judge and Commissioners. It's a pleasure to be in your meeting room this morning. I was in my own late last night, and out of respect to your time con trains, I will be very brief. I as a member of not only the committee that our county clerk has described but as a member of prior committees to bring you previous incarnations of equipment, I am here this morning to concur in the recommendation of the committee. I’d like to give you the assurance that the work we did was laborious, indepth, careful, lengthy, et cetera. And I would say that we looked at all options that were -- that we should have looked at and that what we're presenting you this morning is the one that I believe is most economical from a financial perspective. I’m always available to answer questions about this or my prior service and I stand today with the recommendation of the committee. Thank you.

>> thank you for your service, annette.

>> any questions? Thank you.

>> we'll let you go, annette.

>> bruce represents the republican party.

>> judge and Commissioners, I’m republican presiding election judge so I work with the elections division and mainly in counting of the ballots. The study group recognized a year ago that there was no system available to take -- that incorporated all the voting advantages that we wanted to bring to the voters here in Travis County. A year later it looks like there is development of systems that would work. We thought in addition to what dana said about that that it would be prudent not to adopt a short-term band-aid approach that would be expensive and actually possibly inhibit adoption of a new system in 2013. So I think that was part of the thinking of the study group, that we didn't want you to spend a lot of money to buy something that would only -- that possibly could only be used for a few years and might be actually used against the new system. So that's why we thought that it would be good for the recommendation that dana made. As presiding election judges, we see many ballots thrown out on election. I don't mean a large percentage, but is there are considerable ballots where people don't go to their correct precinct on election day and it's confusing because you can go in early voting and vote anywhere, but on election day you have to go to your own precinct. So that's an advantage. It does have one down side in that if I were thinking about committing voter fraud, I would want to go somewhere where I wasn't recognized, and one of the advantages of having a local voting place is that your neighbors and friends are there during the election and they would be suspicious of somebody that they didn't possible know and tend to ask questions. That's one of the down sides from the republican standpoint. I think that would add to the reasons why we would like to see a positive voter i.d. Law because if you can prove your identity, then you should get to vote and it shouldn't be dependent on the precinct. We think that there is a possibility for cost savings by reducing the number of polling places. That is something that's going to take a lot of work. It's not going to be an easy thing because to get both the political parties or all the political parties to agree as to how the precinct should be changed or whether you change precincts or just places that are voting, combined for voting several precincts. How you do that is likely to be a lot -- somewhat divisive and by not doing much in 2011 I think it gives us an opportunity to get started early because it may take a fair amount of time. But it would be nice to have that all in place by 2013 when you are looking at buying things because it would significantly reduce your costs if close to half the voting places would be eliminated by then.

>> well said.

>> questions? Thank you.

>> thanks, bruce. Appreciate it. Jim collins.

>> thank you. I am jim collins. You know me as an assistant county attorney. I serve on the election study group but not in that capacity. I wasn't representing our office. I served individually. Over the last couple of months and this morning you've heard several speakers talk about the process of the election study group, and I have wanted many times to offer a slightly different perspective including this morning. I can't speak for the rest of the group, but I know that I was not hand picked. I was, in fact, self-selected. When I heard that the group was being formed, I went to dana and I asked her if I might serve on that group. And she graciously agreed. I think perhaps she might not have known entirely what my motivation was when she agreed that I serve on the group, but she did. So I wasn't hand picked. I chose to be on there. There were a couple of reasons why I did. In the early 1980s when I was relatively new in the county attorney's office, there was a -- a series -- there was a democratic primary election in which there were many, as I recall somewhere over 100 separate allegations of criminal activity in the democratic primary. I was the lawyer in the office because at that time I was the only republican lawyer in the office. Gary, I’m not any more. I’m not a republican any more, but at that time I was a republican. And they chose me because of that to conduct the investigation of these literally hundred or so criminal allegations. And as a result of that, I became pretty familiar with how the paper ballot system in Texas worked. And I became pretty familiar with the possible ways that a paper ballot system could be rigged. As a result of that investigation. Part of my motivation was that. I felt like I had some expertise in elections because of that. But another part of my motivation was that I was very skeptical about the electronic voting process. I came to the election study group with a -- a -- almost a convention that probably it was not secure. One of the things that we did during that process that dana offered was an opportunity for all of us to essentially investigate the security system surrounding the voting system that we have, the electronic voting system that Travis County has. I’ve taken a lot of depositions, I’ve cross-examined a lot of witnesses, I think I’m reasonably good at pinning witnesses down on the facts. I got every question that I had answered. I got the see everything that I wanted to see. I don't want to talk about the security system that is in place and how it works because I’ll leave that up to you to decide what you want to know about that and you can go investigate it yourself if you -- if you want to know that, but I came to a firm conclusion as a result of that that the current electronic voting system that we have is at least as secure as the log that relates to paper ballot voting systems. In both cases they can both be rigged, but in both cases it requires a conspiracy of many people acting together. And paper ballot systems could be rigged if you have a conspiracy of 50, 60 people who have all decided we're all going to violate the law together, they can do it and they won't be caught. Taken same thing is true of this electronic system. But I came away with the conclusion and I want to assure you and I want to assure the voters of Travis County that the system we have is, as far as I’ve been able to tell using every skill that I have has a lawyer, at least as security, at least as safe as any paper ballot system. And in fact is more accurate in terms of the counting of the ballots than paper ballot system ever was. So that's my perspective on it. I wasn't hand picked, I came to it with a great skepticism about the security and I left the process with a comfortable feeling that while no system is ever going to be perfect, this system is as good as any we've ever had in Travis County. Thank you.

>> thank you.

>> any questions for mr. Collins? Thank you. Yes.

>> my name is shirley

>> [inaudible] and I have been

>> [inaudible] for the past 12 years. I was here when we used the optical scan and can verify what jim just said is that even in optical scan, it was shocking to me coming from a different state at the error rate that occurred in that equipment. It was very -- it was 20-year-old equipment. It was very affected by the humidity in the room or how humid the day was whether the ballots could be count accurately or not. So it was very appalling to me that we had to constantly find the balance between just getting the election done and getting it counted versus trying to have 100% accuracy in the system. Fortunately I never had a really close election so I was always relieved that there was no possibility that we could ever be challenged about the accuracy of our count because there was always such a big vote difference. I want to thank you personally for allowing me to serve on this task force, appointing me to that position. I served on the original task force when we bought the current voting system. I thought I knew a lot about elections, thought I knew a lot about equipment until this -- this round. It was probably the most educational process that I’ve been through. What I was particularly grateful for is that we welcomed opposing viewpoints. Oftentimes it was contentious, and for me that was really a plus. I really felt blessed to be able to hear the different sides. There is a great deal of passion when it comes to the voting system and to be able to hear that and discuss it was really gratifying for me. I know that our current system works well because we get very little complaints. We are required by law to be in our office for 12 hours on election day, and rarely do we have anyone ever call us. Probably the biggest complaints we get is exactly what has been described to you today about people showing up at the wrong center and trying to vote and not realizing that either it's had to move, we've had to move the facility or they are just in the wrong place, and that's very frustrating for the voters. What our goal has always been in working with dana and her staff is to try to lock in as many permanent voting places as we could. You know, using city facilities, using county facilities and things because I think we do a great disservice to our voters when we ask them to figure out on election day where they should go. So I’m really pleased that the county works really hard in locking down those facilities and trying to keep them as stable as we can. We know that that's not always possible and many of the buildings are beyond our control, but that certainly is a goal and we appreciate that. I just can't tell you enough how much I learned in the whole process, and the fact that I think now Travis County, because you have been award winners in the high -- highly secure elections that you conduct, you can influence the industry. You can set the standards for what this equipment should look like and how we might be able to -- to manage it better. There's always room for improvement, but what is very impressive is that any time there is an issue, dana's staff comes up to the challenge and says is there a better way that we can do this, is there a way that we can be more transparent. And voting is all about perceptions. If people perceive that it's conducted in a secure manner, that it's conducted by a staff that's very ethical and has high integrity, their comfort level with the process is in proportion to their perception. I think you are bless to do have an outstanding elections staff. We certainly from our perspective were delighted to be able to contract with us because we recognize in only conducting one election a year that we were amateurs and that elections are very sophisticated and need to be conducted by a professional staff. And certainly dana and her staff rise to that level. So again my appreciation for allowing me to be a part of it. I don't think you've seen the end of sort of that stakeholder process as you proceed with the acquisition of new equipment, you'll seek further input from all of us to try to find that balance between, you know, achieving the highest perception of secure elections and the cost effectiveness, being accessible, all of the things that were in the mission statement. It is a challenge to find that balance. If you err on one side or the other, if you get out of balance, then I think you make mistakes. And so trying to maintain that balance -- as we know, democracy is expensive and you really see it in an election process. If you calculate the cost per ballot voted, it's pretty extraordinary, but it's the system we all love and cherish. So thank you again.

>> what's your name again?

>> shirley gentry.

>> shirley is the city clerk with the city of Austin.

>> I did remember that part. Thank you very much.

>> any questions of shirley? All right. We've been joined by --

>> do you have any others that you want to --

>> I was just about to say are there any other study group members who would like to make a comment, yes, please come forward.

>> let me ask you these two questions. We were visited by several persons for four or five meetings and they advocated for a paper ballot only system. Did the committee have an opportunity to look at that option?

>> yes, it did.

>> and what did the committee decide and why?

>> the committee voted overwhelming decided not to have -- are you referring to hand count paper ballot?

>> just a paper ballot system.

>> period.

>> a manual -- yeah. I wasn't sure if we could even have a calculator, but yes, it was all hand tallied. The committee overwhelmingly rejected that approach as being not even -- not functional, notten possible to do. Only in the tiniest of communities is it possible to hand count with any reputable or reasonable way of getting a tally done correctly and with any kind of a time frame. In your report, in your study group report, there is an entire chapter on hand counting, and it talks about the amount of people and the amount of time that it would take Travis County to do a one pass through, a very kind of modest sized election, and it -- the error rate for hand counting at that level is also extremely high so you would not want to have one pass, you would want to have two passes, and we didn't even calculate that. There were 9,000 people involved and there was never any budget submitted or recruiting plan submitted for how you would seat and train and pay for 9,000 people to count the ballots, and there was also not included in their proposal to do a hand count any way to then collect it all back together, do that final summary so that you could get results, which might be weeks later and certainly not on election night when everybody wants their tallies. So we found it to be an unrealistic, irresponsible -- the proposal, I want to use strong words to say that hand count is simply not responsible in a jurisdiction our size. You know, with due respect to the persons who presented it, the proposal is simply not doable.

>> is there any urban county of comparable size that has a paper ballot only system?

>> absolutely not. No. Any jurisdiction that was presented to us was a few hundred people at most, yes.

>> last time we were lucking in that the federal government had grants available for voting systems do. We expect that to continue during the next two or three years?

>> well, we are certainly in touch with rush holt's office and adam ambrosia, who used to be with the Texas -- excuse me, the election assistance level has moved to the federal rules committee. Any funding would come out of there. So we've got our, you know, finger on the pulse of where any legislation might come from for that. There's certainly been talk, rush holt says all the time we don't want money to be a barrier to getting people what they are asking for, and he believes that what people are asking for is some sort of paper trail. Certainly a paper ballot is a form of a paper trail. So I’m hoping that the next round of proposals to come out of his office, to come out of the rules committee will include paper ballot solutions that would include funding and funding for the testing of those systems so they can be back out on the market quickly. He very much wants to provide funding again. We just have to get the rest of congress to go along. We need for our economy to pick up again much those are the kinds of things I think would be more helpful in getting us help in the future. I can't promise it, I’m hopeful.

>> of the current system cost, how much of that was from federal funds and how much would Travis County provide?

>> I think most of it, 4.5 was federal. 4.5 was federal.

>> [inaudible].

>> oh, and -- yes, and the entire community helped pay for it.

>> how much for Travis County? When you -- so an entire community in Travis County, city of Austin, Travis County, others who use election equipment.

>> correct. All paid for it, yes.

>> but the feds provided --

>> 6.1 minus 4.5 came from federal government and the difference between 6.1 and 4.5 all the cities and schools helped pay for the remainder and we had it paid off quickly within a couple of elections.

>> 6.6 or 6.1?

>> 6.1.

>> any questions for dana?

>> I was just curious, I had understood that there are jurisdictions in germany that have paper ballot only and I was wondering how that works.

>> I’m glad you brought that story up because I believe you've seen pictures of it. I’m not sure if you have read that story thoroughly, but if you read it, what it says is is that -- and I don't know why we're talking about the federal government in germany in a Travis County courthouse or Commissioners court, but, okay. The story says in there that the federal government isn't the one that hand count their ballots. The story is all about the littler jurisdictions, the cities that hand count their paper ballots. The federal government in germany does not. And if you read the story, it's a little misleading, I think, to give you that -- that article because what it does is -- the little bitty townships in germany do hand count, not the federal government.

>> so the larger political subdivisions do use electronic systems.

>> of course. Of course. They are just like us. They are large urban jurisdiction with a need for electronic support in providing an accurate ending tally.

>> thank you for that clarification.

>> you are quite welcome.

>> any questions for dana? Others have come to give comments. Please come forward. We have two chairs left. Mr. Reeferseed will be first, mr. Smith next.

>> thank you, sir. I just wanted to say right off that this idea of vote centers for constitutional amendment elections, they are not for primaries, what a losing idea. I mean they are only for convenience for mistaken voters who go to the wrong place and what we pay for that is to sabotage nonprogramable, nonhackable paper balloting which I can remind ms. Dana debouvier there has been technology for that for decades. Systems that work right now, they exist right now, paper ballot technology has been around for decades. It's available right now. We don't have to pay for some idiotic machine. We just have to get volunteers like me, I’d be happy to witness the ballot -- the -- make sure that the ballots stay -- unlike these machines, we can't keep track of any of the ballots or we don't have any real way to look at them or make sure they stay in the right place or anything. It's a total hoax. So these technologies are available to count votes, to take possession of ballots, to keep more than one person -- it's not impossible and I know a lot of other people who would happily, happily volunteer to do this. And why is it now secure, this firm conclusion that there's at least a secure -- it's total hog wash. It can't be as secure. He was saying the one person was saying you need at least 50 to 60 co-conspirators to compromise paper ballottingss, so it must be true with those electronic voting schisms. It can be a kid. It's the kids that can do this kind of stuff. Self-awarding, self-congratulatory, everybody thinks we're so great in Austin, I can testify, I ran for office here in Austin in the year 2000. My votes were compromised. I didn't get -- I got relatively zero recognition for the many, many votes that I did get and also not directly related to here, but I’ve witnessed how voting machines are compromised in other places like iowa in particular with the Ron paul campaign, I saw literally hundreds of kids coming in and going out every day, working real hard and finally when they got those electronic voting machines, dr. Paul came in like fourth. It was a total -- great proof what dr. Paul went through this last cycle was great proof all this stuff is total hog wash ms. Dana debouvier is trying to push down our throats. Paper balloting is not expensive compared to these incredible machines like you all were talking about, judge. You were saying how many millions? It's insane. And we don't have to reinvent honesty in paper balloting every ten years. We can do this one time and get this right and it's not only germany, it's -- and it's not only little towns in germany, it's a movement that's taking part all over the world. And the countries that are now become democratic, the newly acquired right to vote in east -- in eastern europe, in these countries that are now experimenting democracy, they are not messing with these idiotic machines. They are going with paper ballots. And with people who witness the ballots and we can sit there and watch them being counted and it's not -- it's not rocket science. We can do that and we can save money and we can justify, we can verify our -- our way of doing business and having a government and all the rest if we would just rely on common sense and throw away these voting machines and these scheming mealy mouthed traitors who I don't know why they want to do this. I guess they are devoted to keeping us silent and never allowing us to decriminalize ourselves and never allowing us to throw away this idiotic tax system and never allowing us to fondly say no to killing babies.

>> anything else on this topics, mr. Reeferseed?

>> I guess that pretty much covers it.

>> mr. Smith.

>> judge, Commissioners, my name is clint smith. I’m with the gray panthers. I’ve been a member of the study group over the last year and a half or so. First I want to thank my leader for the information she's provided and the group and the staff of the county have provided. I think that you -- obviously we have seen a highly proficient, very efficient high-tech system. And I -- I had just two or three comments to make really. I particularly was very interested in serving on this group because I was -- in 1964, I was on the staff, executive staff of the civil service commission, as a matter of fact, on a personal note, I was very close friend friends with a number of people involved in the civil rights movement in baltimore and washington. We had when the civil rights -- when the voting rights act of '65 had passed, civil rights had responsibility for assisting the department of justice in the training. I think I mentioned that before in testimony here. And we were much concerned about training of the voting examiners and others who went out across the country. So it is a good opportunity and I was very interested in having an opportunity to serve here. And I think clarence mitchell, I guess in thinking about clarence, I would almost say let's reason together now about this. First I want to say as far as gray panthers are concerned, and I also represent senior advocacy coalition, in other words, seniors are very much interested about access to voting booths. In some ways, you know, in 1964, '65, we were concerned about the need for access to the voting booth by minorities, women, any number of groups. There we were dealing with institutional racism. Today and when we talk about germany, for example, we have in many ways the same problem many of us feel, a lack of access or barriers to the voting booth. All I have to do is mention the recent supreme court decision which opens the gates to unlimited funds by these corporations. So here we're dealing in many ways with corporate governance and the influence of money and corporate impact. We see that right here locally. Many of us are very much concerned with a lack of responsiveness and apparent obvious accountability by elected officials. I could cite any number of hearings before the city of Austin, we had people there to testify or raise questions about the issue of water and the decisions being made.

>> anything relevant to the voting system?

>> yes, it is. Because the decision -- council met a week later and voted as though nobody had ever intended those meetings or raised objections. Our concern is our voices are not being heard. I’m not qualified to discuss the merits of voting machines. We feel we need a more accountable system. Part of that could be done with paper ballots, some combination, whatever. But the obvious question in our mind is when we believe we have documented questions of fraud, perjury, forgery, of the kind of information I have brought before you and testified by allysa chambers a couple weeks ago, we cannot get that investigated, we can't get it heard, we've come before you and we've asked for hearings on a number of issues which impact on voting rights. I consider some of those issues a question of abuse of power. Under the voting rights act of 196 5:00 if that is implemented, and the question is who do implement it in the county, we have the right to subpoena open hearings after investigations. Bottom line who administers voting right act of 1965 in the county. Thank you.

>> thank you.

>> [applause]

>> may I ask one question, though of mr. Smith. Are you aware Travis County actually was a party to uphold the voting rights act at a time when a municipal utility district that was conducting an election was trying to dismantle it?

>> yes, I recall that. I would also mention too that the voting rights act was just reauthorized by congress in '06 for another 25 years. We could get into the whole issue and we've raised this question how in our current study, judge, again relevance to the study. How does the help america vote act tie in or what is the relationship with the voting rights act of 1965? Now, in the report you have that is appendix a. The question has never been answered but I think it has relevance. Because if the 1965 voting rights act is being implemented here in Travis County, then we should have a right to come we've had to come and talk to you in terms of citizens communication. Under the voting rights act we should have these issues investigated, have open hearings and considered overall by the he want did of justice.

>> and I will direct this to the attorneys in the room, but I believe --

>> we're getting off the election equipment which is the item before us. It was not the body to deal with the issues you raised. Three, you were on the committee. We're giving stuff and it says 45 were on the committee, 29 voted, 5 voted your way, I guess, 24 did not. And we are you accused of not listening to residents. We've got a document where 24 say one way, five say the other -- the other five are clearly in the minority.

>> my question, judge, why can't we get the question answered that I asked, the relatives of the 1965 voting rights act. We never got a response.

>> I never understood the question you were asking. If you reduce it to writing, send it to me, but I don't think the Commissioners court has jurisdiction over that. Ms. Renek, let's move on.

>> I will give it to you in writing. It's also in appendix a.

>> but a specific question. Ms. Renek. You were on the committee too, right?

>> yes, I was on the committee. I represented vote rescue.

>> you had an opportunity to have your say. As did I guess any other experts who testified before the committee.

>> yes, sir.

>> okay.

>> good morning. Judge Biscoe and Commissioners. My name is Karen renek, founder and director of a nonpartisan integrity group called vote rescue. Vote rescue was started in 2005 to bring awareness to both the voters and our government officials who were totally unaware of the serious security flaws discovered in the electronic voting systems swept into massive use throughout every state in the country after the passage of the help america vote act of 2002. This act has done nothing to help america. It has in fact done everything possible to harm and undermine the very foundation of all our rights as sovereign citizens. Our right to vote. It is said that it is this one right alone that protects all of our other rights. I don't think this is the way america -- it works in america anymore. We were once the home of the brave and the land of the free. But now we are the home of veterans and the land of the lace -- home of convenience and the land of the lazy. Somewhere in the distant passed we allowed ourselves to be convinced voting was maximizing convenience and rushing to get results which now means by the time of the 10:00 news. And now with early voting we stretch out what used to be a single day of shared celebration of citizenship and community spirit to nearly two full weeks of meaningless, soulless, wheel twirling and button pressing on the computer. Early voting has destroyed and voting centers that were just introduced today to the court will further destroy the essence of what it means to vote side by side with our neighbors on election day. More than any other convenience sold to us, it appears to us that the primary goal of our election officials is how do they make the process as convenient and streamlined for them as possible. I would tell you that it is always the election officials that our legislators have to make happy, it is never the voters but god for bid we don't know what we're talking about, we're just the voters. The unwashed masses that have to be herded through the voting chutes to get the job done and totals spit out in record time. Over five years we at vote remember have been waving our arms to get attention about the unsafe voting machines. We came to realization a what we were fighting for because the right of all people to she through casting of a ballot. It isn't about being able to safely walk into a polling place and cast a ballot, it's about casting the ballot and truly knowing for certain that your vote was counted as it had been cast. Knowing that no one or no one manipulated computer program waiting in the shadows or was waiting in the shadows to steal your voice and change it to a voice that isn't yours anymore. It's not about trusting someone else to tell you your voice was heard without a hitch, it's about knowing by seeing. With this said, I’m here to tell you that despite all the good intentions of the many good people involved in the latest reincremation of the clerk's should I group it failed and therefore the recommendation that's been presented by the county clerk should be rejected by this court. Many of the reasons why the clerk's recommendation should be rejected are fully explained in the report of alternate findings and recommendations of the election study group that was supported by four citizen groups, not individuals, that were members of the study group. Separate copies of our report have been sent to every member of the court and since it is a part of the clerk's final report, we will assume that you all have read or will read it. So I don't need to repeat the details of what we have clearly stated in our report. Originally the study was called a citizens group about that description fell to the way side the moment the clerk revealed her plans to double the number of participants and personally pick from among her base of arrest dent supporters and professional colleagues who whether they will admit it had great difficulty separating who the clerk is to them personally and the difficult task of thoroughlyly analyzing the pros and cons of the voting system we currently use as well as the other options that we might move to in the future. Taking a critical view of the present voting system currently advocated and executed by the clerk and her staff is still seen by many people in the so-called established activist community as tantamount to treason. How dare we criticize the system supported by the person that has come to -- that has come to personify as the keeper of all knowledge and forth rightness about elections. For this reason alone we've had a very difficult time getting many smart people in our community to separate the personality from the process. These are two very distinct things that should always be kept at arms length. Foremost should be knowing that we have an electoral system that meets all the criteria to do what it is supposed to do which is to give the people their right to decide to whom they give their consent to hold the reigns of their government and when certain elected officials fail in meeting the desires of the voters the system must allow the people to honestly within with certainty remove them from their duties and put others into these positions of great power through the use of the ballot box in the open, not a black box or in a back room. That's it plain and simple. So the criteria that the study group was entrusted to use in evaluating the current and possible future voting systems for Travis County in order to, quote, ensure that Travis County voters have an accurate, fair, secure, transparent to the public accessible voting system, the clerk is right when she says that these are words that should not be just thrown around. But these criteria were never truly analyzed by the group because if they had, this is what they would have concluded. The only criteria from the list above is that the current voting system machines in Travis County, the only criteria that it meets is that it is accessible. Otherwise they are not accurate because the count is done secretly inside the machine so there's no way to know if they are. It's unfair to count ballots out of public's view so it's not fair. And the machines have been proven to be vastly insecure and have been taken out of service in numerous states for these reasons. And finally, they are casting and tabulating functions are totally nontransparent. That is invisible to the public. One out of five of these criterias is a horrendous score but it seems to satisfy the county clerk. A growing coalition of concerned citizen groups called the hand count coalition has been telling the court for months that the recommendations of the election study group were railroaded by the lookedder, the clerk whose very appointment as leader amounted to asking a bank to audit itself. In addition some of the 45 members of the group were picked by the clerk and were her long-time friends and colleagues. Additionally most of her selected members were participants representing only themselves as individuals not constituents, groups of voters. I want to remind you we have our report of alternate findings and recommendations who were written by coalition members who represent groups, not individuals. So in closing, I would like to say in response to some of the remarks that were made is that first I’d like to say that I think there needs to be perhaps another discussion about the -- about the decision that was made by the court in germany. It was -- it was a decision that found that voting electronically was unconstitutional in that country and therefore banned electronic voting and we can bring certainly numerous documents if not the german officials and people who brought the case in germany to you at a future time. I also want to say that voting is not about perception. That is totally the opposite of what voting is.

>> [applause] in fact and this scares a lot of people, voting is about distrust. I’ll just conclude with a statement by one of our reveered forefathers, benjamin frankly when he says that distrust and caution are the parents of security. For these reasons we ask the court that they reject the recommendations that are brought to you today by the county clerk. Thank you.

>> [applause]

>> thank you, ms. Renek.

>> vicky carp she co-director of vote rescue and part of the Travis County election study group as well as the hand count coalition. I’m not surprised to be here today speaking in opposition to the county clerk dana debouvier. She presents the county's election study group report and their quick vote recommendation done last Wednesday in about 15 minutes that Travis County voters should continue to use the same insecure, nontransparent trade secret protected paperless unconstitutional voting systems that we've been using for approximately three more years. Having participated in the study group all of last year from about I believe it was February through October 2009, never missing a meeting, including being the co-presenter for vote rescue's presentation on hand counted paper ballots as a voting system last September 23rd, I must admit I was shocked and astounded at the way the clerk and her staff conducted the most recent session of the study group last Wednesday, October 13th. After spending one hour and 42 minutes presenting on election topics that had no immediate bearing on Travis County, at 18 minutes until the meeting was scheduled to end at 4:00 p.m., ms. Dana debouvier raised the most important issue of the day, the question leading to which option for election systems over the next three years should be recommended to this court today for Travis County. Continued use of our current electronic systems, and adding vote centers, or allowing voters to have the choice of voting on a paper ballot on election day if desired. Then counting these ballots with scanners. The options were raised, discussed briefly and then going slightly over time past 4:00 p.m., there was a rush to vote. I requested another meeting of at least an hour to allow for detailed discussion of these options and for more questions and comments to be made, but discussion and questions were cut off and we were forced to vote with just the option of having the ability to discuss amongst ourselves and potentially email in a vote by the next day in order that a recommendation could be brought to this court today. So in what amounted to about a 15-minute discussion, the fate of elections in Travis County for the next three years was decided in a rushed vote with a majority of about a dozen people who do not represent me nor many of the other Travis County voters that I know so I’m here this morning to object to this recommendation on behalf of the hand count coalition which represents 12 local citizens groups and probably thousands of voters in Travis County. We remain incredulous that our clerk and the election study group effectively continue to force Travis County voters to vote on these privatized corporate controlled paperless voting machines that are counting our votes in secret. I repeat, that these computerized voting machines are count our votes in secret, no differently than if you were conducting elections with hand counted paper ballots but if the ballot box was taken into a back room to be counted and someone came out and announced the winner. I’m asking is there anyone on this court right now who could guarantee me that my vote is being counted as cast on these machines? Is there? I didn't think so. So the difference between me and perhaps members of the court is that while you may be willing to trust dana debouvier and her election staff when they tell you your votes are being counted as you cast them, I am not. I’m not willing to trust anyone when it comes back to what Karen was saying that elections are about distrust. It doesn't matter who the clerk is or the election staff is, we shouldn't have to rely on anyone to tell us votes are being properly counted. It's a subject very sacred our vote and I want to know personally it was counted properly as I cast it. When a close city council race in west lake decided by a handful of votes was unable to hold a recount, the county clerk was quoted as saying it was illegal to hold elections with hand counted paper ballots when actually it is still part of the Texas code and still being used in several Texas counties. In our view the clerk has allowed this court to be misled by an opinion in 2008 by elizabeth wynn of the secretary of state's election division who interpreted to mean hydride locations are illegal in state of Texas. A hybrid election held with two different voting systems such as parent ballots counted by and they would like or optical scan countiers and touch screen voting machines. Ms. Wynn delivered that opinion to the court in 2008 asking the court to consider a hybrid election for number of 2008. County officials did nothing to correct the record the truth is which stated today and last Wednesday at the last study group meeting that several years the election code was modified in Texas allowing for hybrid elections which had been held in many counties across the state since that time. I personally witnessed ms. Dana debouvier misleading a t.v. Reporter in 2008 by saying hand counted paper ballots have the highest error rate when in fact a 2222 study concludes that in fact hand counted paper ballots have the lowest reporter roar rate. Compared to dre's --

>> [applause]

>> such as the

>> [indiscernible] which has the highest error rate. By far the worst transgression on the part of the clerk is her insistence on defending the three times of testing that we use in Travis County and our elections are insecure hands with these machines because of this testing

>> [one moment please]

>> > ... And he is a software and computer expert. So let's see, we have someone who is not reviewed the software but assures us that it and the machines it runs are safe for our votes versus the computer expert who has reviewed it appear states the machines can never be safe against undefectable fraud. I believe the doctor and my question for the court is why don't you.

>> [applause]

>> thank you, ms. Harp. Now, at this time we will ask that you give us any comments that are new and different. I don't know that it helps the court to hear the same thing repeatedly. Yes, if you would give us your name.

>> my name is I thought they were race crazy and I thought they were crazy because I have been an election judge several times. I’ve been an alternate judge. I’ve been involved in the election process and I just couldn't see how anybody could expect to you have hand counted paper ballots. I also had a blind trust and it never occurred to me that these elections could be hacked in any way. I mean it just didn't occur to me. How could that be possible. You've got these machines, they were computers. I’ve been conditioned to trust computers and it really did make me think. One of the eye opening -- probably the eye opening experience was I went to a presentation by a man, I don't remember his name, but he was the head of i.t. Security for american express and deutsche bank and was an i.t. Expert and he says there is no way to guarantee an election if you are using any electronic system. He said we know that. We can't even make our system secure. And I thought wow, that's pretty interesting. And then I watched the movie, it was a h.b.o. Documentary called hacking democracy and that really did blow me away. I don't know if you have seen the movie but you really should. It showed they had a mock election and it showed people putting their ballots -- it showed you how they voted, it showed people putting their ballots into the machine and it showed the results of the election were totally opposite of what the ballots had been cast. And what scares me is -- and yes I know, you know, you hear hand counted paper ballots, wouldn't we be moving backwards and I think maybe it's true that our precincts couldn't be or voting precincts could not be as large. We might not be able to have 3,000 votes in a particular precinct, but we could maybe have smaller precincts. And I think that if people had the perception that their elections -- or their votes were being cast or counted as they were being cast I think you would get a lot more volunteers. I’ve had to try to get volunteers to help me run an election. I know how hard it is. I think there's enough impassioned people especially right now you would get enough volunteers to help. I don't think it's that hard. And as far as counting, when I think about the counting, if you count in full public view as required by our constitution, if you do that and you post the results at each precinct level, it is so easy to check when you look at the district tallies. Let's see, my precinct, 329, cast 500 votes for mr. Briscoe and 500 for ms. Eckhardt, whatever, I can verify, I can look at a piece of paper and verify that my votes from our precinct were accurately reflected in the district, state, national, whatever level I want to check. It's verifiable and we have the paper ballots. If they are counted in full public view and that ballot box has never left the site of witnesses, I think you would be okay. I do shudder at the thought of having another electronic election, especially a presidential election. I really think we have enough time to do something about this before the next presidential election. I wouldn't support any kind of electronic voting system, even one with a paper trail because it's my understanding even if you have a paper trail, you can get that paper trail to say one thing, but the machine is actually counting another. So that doesn't do it for me. I also think it's true that any election system is corruptible, but with the hand -- if you have hand paper ballots, you can't steal thousands or millions of votes in a matter of seconds. It takes a lot more planning, a lot more accomplices and I think it's a lot easier to steal an electronic election than it is a paper ballot election.

>> [applause] let's see. Oh, I also think they should have a study and invite experts from the i.t. Field such as dan walllock who understand the systems and I think if he came to testify before the same committee that they may change their opinion about a few things. It's one thing to have pre-conceived ideas in your head, it's another thing to get expert opinions from somebody who really knows what the systems can't or can't do. In closing, I think integrity of our elections is sacred. We need to do anything and everything we can to make sure every vote that every citizen casts is counted as it was cast and I would ask you to reject dana debouvier's recommendation.

>> [applause]

>> yes, ma'am. New and different.

>> good afternoon, judge Biscoe and Commissioners. My name is ray nadlera and represent the fluoride coalition. I haven't had a chance to study that report so I won't address that directly, but I would like to ask how long have electronic voting systems been in use not just in Austin but generally, how long has that method of voting prevailed, can anybody tell me.

>> about 25 years.

>> okay. About 25 years. Now, when I was in elementary school in the early 1950s, new york had a population of 5 or 6 million, chicago, los angeles, philadelphia and several other cities had a population of millions, and somehow they managed, so so much more the theory that it can't be done. It can be done. The other comment I want to make is that I have been one of those people who have experienced flipping of my vote through voting machines and I didn't know that I would be sitting here today when this happened to me. I think it was probably in the last presidential election. And I unfortunately can't say, document it with certainty except to say that I cast my votes page after page and I came to the last page where it says cast your vote, and I don't remember whether there is actually a prompt that suggests that you go back and review your vote or whether I did it on my own, but I did go back page by page and I was shocked because a bunch of the votes I had cast had been replaced by other votes. And, of course, I corrected them, you do have the opportunity to correct them if you notice this, but I suspect a lot of people are in a hurry, especially if they've cast the straight vote and they just want to go to that end cast vote and be done with it. So this was an unsettling experience and a neighbor of mine, of ours reported the same thing a few days later. I guess I should -- I should have mentioned this was during early voting at the university of Texas location where I always vote. And I -- I will mention just in passing that I agree with Karen renek in that this early voting through a driver's license only has trivialized the voting process everywhere and that having voting centers will just exacerbate that. Those are my thoughts and thank you for the opportunity.

>> thank you very much.

>> [applause] yes, sir.

>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. I’m bilstedham with the Travis County green party, member of the study committee. I would like to say in response to the county Commissioner in terms of the process first that the staff are all to be commended on their communication with us and their professionalism. The election study group I would have you take a closer look at in the sense that it was not a representation of the citizens of Austin. And to say that the decision of the majority of the people there for the county clerk's report, that's a misrepresentation in terms of whether or not that's a representation of the citizens of Austin. The majority of the -- and I would like to reiterate the majority of the times the meetings I was able to attend because this was during the legislative session and I was representing the green party for the legislative session, the majority of meetings were a series of presentations on the election system which were very educational, however, in this last meeting which was not on the schedule and was called after this election process is started, you know, only a minimal amount of time was left for these important votes to take place and I would say over the course of the election study group there was a very small amount of time that was given, a minimum amount of time that was given in terms of being able to have real discussion on these issues. The statement that I would like to make, democracy demands accountability. The sanctity of our election system must not be based on money, perception, time or convenience. The Travis County clerk is the expert on election systems. She knows exactly what she's doing. The mission of the election study group under their -- the stated mission failed. Our systems are not transparent or verifiable. By recommending a policy of secret vote count and if you as Commissioners grant the extension of this policy you will be held couplable denying citizens their right to hold all political offices accountable in Travis County. People will have no way of knowing their votes were counted as cast. No record will exist and no recount will be possible. How perfect for the rich and powerful to have such willing servants in their bid to enslave the ignorant masses. I say ignorant masses in that people do not have the information that they need to be able to look at this system closely. Or if it's available, it is not readily available and people just don't have the time right now. The economy has dropped out of the bottom. People of Travis County, this is more than unacceptable. It is an offense against every person who has lived and died to defend the rights of people to defend -- to determine their own fate based on the rights and responsibilities provided by the constitution and most recently the voting rights act of 1965. Travis County Commissioners, if you choose to continue to use unaccountable machines, you will be directly responsible for crimes against our rep and citizens that you and the county clerk vow to respect and represent. Our constitutional right to elect representatives that will do the bitting of citizens, not corporate persons can be accomplished by using pen and paper, voting boxes kept observable. The e-slate machines could be used in a hybrid system. Using machines to produce a ballot that is then verified by the voter and dropped into a box to be hand counted. Training and hiring thousands of ballot counters will not only stimulate the economy, it will stimulate public participation in this citizens democracy. Last week I submitted a letter to the department of justice. I wrote, I am writing to you today to request the department of justice intervene on behalf of the citizens of Travis County under title 18 of the u.s. Code which guarantees citizens an investigation. Into matters they see investigated with regard to addressing grievances to Travis County Commissioners court this regard to secret voting by the clerk's division. Concealing votes is in direct -- to the 1965 voting rights act. In conclusion, if the county clerk wants the election study group in Travis County to buy into a silicon valley marketed branding strategy which was one of the presentations given at the latest meeting, the trademark statement at the bottom of the power point presentation stated trust the vote, trademark. I would say that it would be more important to take in the marketers' state goal and call it know the count. We need to use a hand counted paper ballot system open and observable until an equally verifiable and transparent voting system could be developed which as we are told by the clerk and the vendors that she gives so much trust to that won't happen until after the 2012 elections. There is no reason to wait for electronic boxes that hide the count. Money that would be surely wasted. Versus a paper and pen and people open system. Commissioners and citizens, the county clerk is setting you up to allow yet another election to be open to theft of thousands of votes invisibly and undetectable. Thank you.

>> [applause]

>> thank you. Now, we are out of time. We have a full afternoon of work --

>> excuse me, sir. At this time this is the only hearing we've had.

>> at this time I will impose a two minute limit on the final three speakers before me. I suggest that you let us know whether you support the recommendation or oppose it and whatever your position is why. These three right here will be the final three speakers. Each will be given two minutes. Ms. Clark.

>> judge, I’m here representing the league of united latin american citizens district 12. As was noted before, the league has passed a resolution national level for open and honest public elections with hand counted paper ballots. We are not deviating from that, not one iota. I said before when I appeared before you before that there was a hearing for the elections hearing committee and that had to do with precisely what is being recommended today, which is the centers, super centers or super precincts. I totally am against that simply because there are a lot of factors still that have not come forward with good information. Representative anchia asked of those four pilot programs that were being here in the state for specific information and I’m going to ask the court to put down specific things that need to be looked at if we're going to go to any kind of centers. What was proposed at the meeting, I am one of the study group members, was that -- they voted for this, yes, but with zero, zero, in other words, if there was going to be a center created, none of the other precincts were going to be left out. We still would hold a precinct election at those particular precincts. That was my understanding. Now, rafael anchia, the state representative, asked specifically time and time again what was the minority participation. And to my signature there listening to the remarks of those election administrators for those particular counties, I’m dumbfounded that they didn't take the time to even look to see there was a rodriguez that voted -- buds.

>> [buzzer sounding] -- or jiminez that voted and could give the representative at least something a feedback of minority participation. And I’m going to ask and I have talked to dana earlier that the league of united latin american citizens district 12 be represented at any one of these particular junction if they are going to go to super centers. Appreciate it.

>> thank you.

>> [applause] yes, sir.

>> good morning. My name is russell doyle. I’d like to speak in opposition to the recommendation and urge the commission to invite dr. Dan walllock, probably the best qualified expert on this subject before you make a decision. I don't see any harm in waiting to make a decision until you talk to the person with the best information on the subject. And it may inform your decision greatly. There was also the chief technician for e-hart, came out against them. He said these are easily hacked. You cannot rely on this thing. There was a lot passed that basically denied his attorney any compensation and his attorney dropped out. That's probably why you haven't heard from this person but we could probably bring him here potentially. I urge to you withhold judgment until you can get expert qualified testimony. That's it. Thank you.

>> [applause]

>> thank you very much.

>> james bennett, resident of Travis County. May I ask that my two minute be split to me one minute and her another minute?

>> no, sir, we'll just give her two minutes. We'll make her the final speaker.

>> well --

>> you don't need any time?

>> that's awful sweet. All I have to say is why don't we to the county clerk, why don't we have a receipt from the machines that says what we voted so we can prove what he we voted? You can speak. Thank you.

>> you have two minutes, ma'am.

>> thank you, your honor. I find -- nancy robbins, a Travis County voter. I find it very disturbing that members of the commission that was put together to look at this do not understand our form of government. Ms. Shirley gentry stated that we have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic which means it is your job to protect the rights of the minority. And the minority here today represent far more people that you might realize. We cannot verify that our votes are elected. Perception is not reality. As a photographer, I can tell you I can make things look all kinds of ways and that's not the reality presented before us. When we talk about perception of security, I talk to people all over the state. I travel all over the state. I took time out of my three commission only jobs to be here today. To talk to you about this. Every single person I have talked to, virtually no one understands that there are problems with these machines and when they do understand and they hear what I have to tell them, they are appalled and horrified and want to know why we are using them. Federal money is still our money and the most effective, accurate way that we can count our votes is by hand counted paper ballots. I urge you to reject the findings of the commission and take another look at this. I believe that we have a duty here and that you have a duty here. You have been entrusted because we elected you, you are aware that these problems are here, that they exist. We are trusting you to give them full understanding, bring in the experts needed with the information, I mean all due respect for the lawyer, I’m sorry, I missed your name, he's not a technical expert. I understand that. He feels secure, but I do not. I appreciate your time today. Thank you very much.

>> [applause]

>> thank you. Dana, one minute.

>> okay. Thank you, judge. The planned vote at 4:30 in the afternoon is typical of the group and the planned timing of the vote yielded 25 people in favor of the -- of the plan to continue with our current system until one that fits our needs comes on the market, probably after the presidential election by all our research. And five people voted against that and voted in favor of a paper ballot hybrid system that would be used as an interim and that cost 1.2 million. I don't think that the republicans, the democrats, the other members on the group would agree that they don't represent the community. I would ask the -- you can see how exciting and passionate this particular topic is with elections and certainly one of the reasons that the committee decided to go with purchasing a paper ballot system for the future is because of the passion behind this issue. People want a paper ballot. The hand counted part is what was so rejected so obviously and so grandly by the group itself. They were simply not willing to take on the hand counted part. They did not think it was responsible. The committee. And I think just about anybody you talk to will say, you know, in a community as large as urban as ours, we need help making sure that we've done it accurately and quickly in order to get the word out. Part of having faith and trust in your system is being able to know within a reasonable amount of time who won the election. So the study group does not absolutely support hand count, but they do support having a paper ballot and purchasing a paper ballot system for Travis County as soon as possible, and that is the proposal that is before you today. And judge, I would like to ask that the Commissioners take action today to accept or approve the study group's report and recommendations and with that, that includes the idea that we --

>> ms. Porter, is the clock running? Dana, let me do the motion. I move that we accept and approve the study group's report and recommendations which includes move to a paper ballot system with electronic tally as soon as possible.

>> second.

>> that we implement this after the 2012 presidential election for the reason stated by the study group. In the interim we continue to use the current system. That we add vote centers as soon as possible with no adverse impact on polling precincts so at the appropriate time we'll review that. That the county clerk continue to write and refine voting system specifications, that that be completed as soon as possible. That the Commissioners court be kept informed. And let us express our full appreciation to all members of the study group. That's a long motion, multi part. Is there a second?

>> I will second that very long -- that very long motion. If we can get the paper verified system sooner than 2012, I would like to see it sooner if only.

>> me too.

>> that's friendly. Now, concerns were brought to us two years ago, and to be honest I’m not sure that I understood all of them. And the same people were bringing the concerns. But that didn't render them any less valid. What it meant to me, though, was that there was no universal opposition. When I chat with people about their votes, nobody seems overly concerned t vote rescue people are the ones coming to Commissioners court are the ones overly concerned I thought two years ago. I don't know how you put together a perfect study group. When I look at this one, it's got a cross-section of residents of our community, representatives of various parties, some elected officials, some regular citizens, so I assume that they gave good faith effort to reviewing this situation as objectively as they could and then making the appropriate recommendations. What's clear to me is that no system is perfect whether it's electronic or perfect and seems the hybrid gives us the best opportunity to deal with the objections sha you're that n raised and that's the direction the study group recommended we move in and in my view this motion gets us continuing to go in that direction.

>> to buy a paper ballot system.

>> right. And wherever we land two or three years from now, we simply ought to be ready to provide the necessary funding in order to get it done. Any more discussion on the motion?

>> I just ditto what you said and I would like to point out and thank dana for the group that you did put together because it is comprehensive. And while there was some questions about should they have met longer, what more information could be out there, I would like to point out of those absent when the vote was taken on option 1 and 2 -- options 1 and 2, that if everyone who was not present, which is highly unlikely, would have voted no, it still would have carried by a majority of the vote. So I think it's a strong indication of the research that was done and the positions that are out there in the community.

>> may I just comment on the process also, going into this I had concerns about the stakeholders group and therefore placed both a volunteer that I selected as well as one of my staff members to participate in the study group, although my staff member was a non-- did not vote. To at least assure myself that the procedures and the result were -- the procedures were fair and the result was fair reflection of the content of the discussion. And I am satisfied that the process was quite fair and that the recommendations were well vetted. Thank you to all the participants.

>> all in favor of the motion? The court approves the motion unanimously. Thank everybody concerned. We have a full afternoon and we'll have to postpone some items. Move that we reses until 1:00.

>> second.

>> thank you. That passes by unanimous vote.

The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.

Last Modified: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:33 PM

Tuesday, October 19, 2010, Item 22

Tuesday, October 19, 2010,
Item 22