1989-044 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to Board of County Commissioners' Resolution 89-44, OBJECTIONS 1. Section 1, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 Proposed: This act shall be known as the*"Voter Protection Act." Objection: The title is misleading. A more suitable title would be the "Voter Taxation Act" or "An act that creates the Bureau of Voting Systems Certification within the Division of Elections of the Depart- ment of State and establishes sixteen initial positions in the bureau at a cost of $669,000." THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR THE EQUIPMENT AND ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE NEW RULES AND TO DEAL WITH THE SIXTEEN INITIAL BUREAUCRATS IN TALLAHASSEE. 2. Section 4, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 Proposed: To add Section 101.015 Florida Statutes, Department of State to adopt rules establishing minimum standards for hardware and software for voting systems and requiring that voting systems in use on or after July 1, 1993, must meet the minimum standards. Objection: If a county's system does not meet the standards that are set by the Department of State by the deadline of July 1, 1993, who is required to pay for a new voting system and what is the estimated cost? THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. 4. Section 5, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 Proposed: To add "ballot cards" in the definition of F.S. 101.292(2). Objection: It is absurd to include supplies such as ballot cards in the definition of voting equipment. Used ballot cards cannot be reused, and thus they are clearly supplies. In F.S. 97.021, ballot cards are listed as an example of paper supplies.. In Florida only a governing body can purchase voting equipment. There is no need to involve a governing body in the purchase of consumable supplies for an election; those purchases should remain the responsibility of the supervisors of elections. If the supervisor of elections of a county is asked to run an election for a school board or municipality, then the governing body that called the election would be involved in the purchase of ballot cards, about which it knows nothing. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. 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 that no 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.