5/2/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5A.Section 6, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 Proposed: To add wording to F.S. 101.294 so that no governing body shall purchase any voting equipment unless__the purchase contract has been reviewed by the Department of State. [F.S. 101.294(3)] Objection: A governing body cannot purchase voting equipment unless if has been certified for use in Florida. There is no need for the extra wording; if the county wants the Department of State to review its contracts, it -may ask it to do so now. 5B.Section 6, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 Proposed: To add part (4) to F.S. 101.294 to allow the_ Department of State to negotiate and execute purchasing agreements and contracts under which any governing body may purchase any element of a voting system. Objection: If this is permissive, it's not necessary. If it's not permissive, it is an interference in the county's budgetary authority. If the Department of State negotiated and executed an invalid contract, who would be responsible for the damages? If the Department of State took such extra time to negotiate and execute a contract for used voting equipment that the equipment was sold to another purchaser, who would bear the extra cost if no other used equipment was available? THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. 6. Section 10, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 Proposed: To -add part (12) to F.S. 101,5606 so thatn.o electronic or electromechanical voting system shall by approved unless it is capable of providing records from which the system may be audited. Objection: A voting machine is an electromechanical system, strictly defined, because it is a mechanical system which operates on electricity- Counties using voting machines would have to buy a new voting system. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. 7. Section 11, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 In the bills, it states "Substantial rewording of section," see 101.5607. It is not a rewording. F.S. 101.5607(1).and 101.5607(2) remain the same, but many new parts are added --(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(d), and (2)(a) and'(2)(b). la Proposed: Requires that material from the vendor relating to an approved voting system must be filed with the Department of State by the supervisor of.elections, and if it is not on file, it may not be used in an election. Objection: It should be the responsibility of the vendor to file the material with the Department of State when the system is submitted for certification. Any updates should be filed when the vendor makes a change. A vendor may sell a system to many counties, and it should be his responsibility to see that each county has the updates and to so notify the Department of State.' Why add this to 101.5607 when there is a different statute covering -requirements for approval of voting systems, and that is F.S. 101.5606? lbProposed: Requires the supervisor of elections to send by certified mail within 24 hours a copy of the tabulation program which was used in the logic and accuracy testing. Objection: What is the purpose of this requirement when none of the other numerous items which must be submitted by supervisors have to be :sent by certified mail within 24 hours? There is no requirement that any of the items that must be sent to the supervisor of elections by the Department of State have to be sent by certified mail with 24 hours. Why add this to 101.5607 when F.S. 101.5612, Testing of Tabulating . Equipment, covers the other requirements for the logic and accuracy test? lcProposed: The Department of State may, at any time, review the voting system of any county to ensure compliance with the Electronic Voting Systems Act. Objection: This sounds like the Gestapo. It should read, " The Depart- ment of State may, at a time agreeable to the supervisor of elections, review the voting system of any county to ensure compliance with the Electronic V6ting Systems Act.