Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-0445/1/89(WGC0RD)LEGAL(WGC/nhm) RESOLUTION NO. 89- 44 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL 1529 AND SENATE BILL 499 RELATING TO ELECTIONS. WHEREAS, Section 6 of House Bill 1529 amends Florida Statute 101.294 to -wit: "No governing body shall purchase or cause to be purchased any voting equipment unless such voting equipment has been certified for use in this state by the Department of State and the p�urchase contract has been reviewec�'fT t 5eepartmeni and WHEREAS, the Florida Association of Counties and the Florida Association of Supervisors of Elections were not consulted during the creation of election bills known as House Bill 1529 and Senate Bill 499; and WHEREAS, the amendatory language may involve substantial delay in the execution of purchase agreements for voting equipment already certified for use in the state by the Department of State; and WHEREAS, such de!ays may frustrate desired and necessary purchases for the Supervisor of Elections Office; and WHEREAS, the elections for federal, state, and county officials are paid for by the Boards of County Commissioners and administered by the Supervisors of Elections; and WHEREAS, such review of purchase contracts by the Department of State may be an improper interference with the home rule of a county as set out in Article VIII of the Constitution of the Florida; and WHEREAS, such review of purchase contracts by the Department of State may be an improper interference with the specific authority to expend funds, enter into contractual E 3. The Board of County Commissioners generally objects to the passage of House Bill 1529 and Senate Bill 499 or their committee substitutes and suggests that legislation on these bills be postponed until those who have the responsibility for paying for them and administering them have an opportunity to thoroughly review and discuss the proposed legislation. 4. The objections of the Supervisor of Elections of Indian River County, attached as Exhibit "A" to this resolution, are hereby incorporated by reference and adopted in their entirety. The foregoing having been moved by Commissioner Scurlock __ and seconded by Commissioner Eggert_'-- upon being put to a vote, was carried with a vote as follows: 2 RESOLUTION NO. 89- .......... z obligations, and purchase or lease personal property as set out In Florida Statute 125.01(3)(a); and WHEREAS, the authority which the legislation contemplates delegating to the Department of State, i.e., to review purchase contracts approved by local governing bodies, may be an improper delegation of the budgetary authority which resides in the County Commission to an executive branch agency by the Legislature; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: 1. The Board of County Commissioners is specifically opposed to the mandatory provision of Section 6 of House Bill 1529 requiring review by the Department of State of purchase contracts for the purchase of voting equipment previously certified for use in the state by the Department of State. 2. A revision to Section 6 of House Bili 1529 making Department of State review of purchase contracts voluntary rather than mandatory would be appropriate and supported. 3. The Board of County Commissioners generally objects to the passage of House Bill 1529 and Senate Bill 499 or their committee substitutes and suggests that legislation on these bills be postponed until those who have the responsibility for paying for them and administering them have an opportunity to thoroughly review and discuss the proposed legislation. 4. The objections of the Supervisor of Elections of Indian River County, attached as Exhibit "A" to this resolution, are hereby incorporated by reference and adopted in their entirety. The foregoing having been moved by Commissioner Scurlock __ and seconded by Commissioner Eggert_'-- upon being put to a vote, was carried with a vote as follows: 2 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. 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. . r Attachment to BCC Resolution , page 8. Section 14, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 (continued) 4bProposed: Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board adjourns or within 5 days after mid- night of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later. Objection: The meaning of the entire sentence is confusing because of the phrase, "whichever occurs later." However, it appears that the intent is to have the canvassing board be ready to accept requests for manual recounts for the five days after the election. Does this mean that vote tabulations are not official for five days? 4ePr2posed: The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. Objection: What criteria are supposed to be used by the canvassing board in order for it to make a decision that is on firm legal ground? I doubt if the members of the canvassing board --the judge, the county commissioner, or the supervisor of elections --will accept such sweeping authority with no basis whatsoever. 4dProposed: The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. Objection: In elections with many candidates for one office, the losers could get together and each could choose three different precincts to be manually recounted, so that in a municipality it would be necessary to manually recount all precincts. It is a time consuming process that is expensive, and it would postpone knowing the official final returns until the recounts were completed. It would be a serious interference in mailing absentee ballots and in preparing for the next election if the recounts were requested after the first primary or the second primary. If a statewide candidate requested a manual recount, all 67 counties would be affected. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. 9. Section 15, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 Proposed: There is created a Bureau of Voting Systems Certification within the Division of Elections of the Department of State which shall provide technical support to the supervisors of elections and which is responsible for voting system standards and certification. Sixteen initial positions are established in the bureau, and the sum of $669,000 is hereby appropriated to the Divsion of Elections from the General Revenue fund for purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act. Objection: Rather than creating such a far reaching bureau at one time, perhaps it would be more effective and less expensive to make a gradual approach. This would allow the Division of Elections and the supervisors of elections to absorb the changes and new rules gradually, to analyze the value to the voters and to the administration of elections in each county. There will have to be a corresponding increase in the number of employees in the supervisors of elections' offices to deal with the additional requirements by the Department of State and the Divison of Elections. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.