1989-044 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attachment to BCC Resolution 7. la page 2 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 mand new partsare added --(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(d), and 2 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? 1cProposed: 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 Voting Sysfems Act. 1dPro osed: Section 119.07(3)(r) applies to all software on file with the Department of State. Objection: None. 2aProposed: The department of State may develop software for use with an electronic or electromechanical voting system. Objection: It will be interesting to hear the vendors' reactions when they learn that they must submit copies of their software, the programs, operating manuals, tabulating cards, printouts, etc. in order to get their systems certified by the Department of State, only to find out that the Department of State may develop software for use with an electronic or electromechanical system and go into competition with the vendors. NO MENTION IS MADE OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. 8.Section 14, HB 1529 & CSfor SB 499 In Section 14, there are numerous and far reaching new parts of 102.166, Florida Statutes regarding manual recounts. 4aPr2posed: Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot, or any political party whose candidates names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. Objection: It would be reasonable to suppose that every losing candidate, Political committee, and political party would file a request for a manual recount when no reason whatsoever is required and the cost is paid by the local governments. There are provisions currently in this statute allowing protests to be filed if error or fraud is alleged, and there is no need to make wholesale changes that are so broad.