At the civil law seminar, there was a good deal of discussion about the HAVA grant and isuues surrounding the purchase or lease of the new voting machines. I had not had a chance to visit with my county clerk about the issue so most of the discussion was lost on me. However, once I returned, there was a proposed purchase agrement laying on my desk from a vendor for me to review with a recommendation from the clerk that this is the system she prefers.
I was also told that we are receiving significantly more funds than originally thought to cover the cost of this equipment.
1. Do we need to bid or RFP these items? I believe we do if they have not been provided thru an approved vendor who has already sought bids or been approved by the TBPC.
2. Other than the general language to protect the county in the agreement, what are the other issues with which you are dealing?
It appears we will qualify for enough reimbursement to completely cover the cost of the new system.
Sorry I'm so dense in this area, I have just now begun to try and get my hands around this issue. Any thoughts would help.

It is my understanding that the State has negotiated contracts with five or so "approved" vendors and that a county can simply choose one and sign the contract.

Up here, we have a committee that includes the county clerk, county judge, a commissioner, both the Republican and Democrat county chairmen, our election judge, the tax-assessor collector and his elections deputy, and me. It is my understanding that you are supposed to have public "try-outs" for these machines and try to invite all of the disabled (if that is the p.c. term nowadays) and similarly situated groups to get their blessing on which machine works best. We are having our "showcase" this Wednesday. I don't know a whole lot about HAVA, but it was my understanding that for getting these grants and also for avoiding later problems about whether you have complied with the Act, this public input is important.

I hope this answers at least part of your questions. I am sort of flying blind and hoping that our clerk and tax assessor can steer us in the right direction. I am just thankful for the state-negotiated contracts.

I attended the "event" when the SOS presented the check to our commissioners. Upon questioning by the clerk, he agreed that the monies offered were more than enough to cover certain aspects of the program. However - neither the funds, their interest, or the "left over" can be used for such things as the scanners (you have to have one and are strongly encouraged to have a second) nor, I think he said, for the maintenance agreement. Those high dollar items are yours........

Also - there has been some talk that, if the feds change the requirements, there would be no more money - what are people doing - leasing or buying?

I believe we are going to buy....We are looking to make sure the scanner etc. may be purchased with the funds provided as well as the maintenance.
I was not sure if there were any other issues that were tossed around at the conference.
At the time I wrote the prior post, I had not found the approved vendor provision...I guess we need to see if the one we liked was on the list.
Thank again!

Speaking of HAVA, while I was off at the seminar, someone left a copy of an email in my office talking about how the Haskell County Commissioners Court had voted not to comply with HAVA. Of course it came with a note asking why I had not advised our court that they had a choice! Is compliance with HAVA optional?

The Sec of State was specifically asked if the funds could be used for the scanner(s), and his response was an emphatic no. It can only be used for the precinct machines and training.

The articles I've seen on HAVA indicate a federal mandate to all counties as a result of the chad fiasco. If it is optional, I'd sure like to know!

My County Clerk gave me a packet of stuff from the SOS office - basically "be sure your legal department considers this and that when negotiating and executing the contract / lease". Said packet is somewhere on my desk - or in my office - or mixed up with the San Antonio stuff - or........

When it resurfaces, I'll share it - or your clerks should have a copy!

There was an idea about having the "big guys" share their contracts for this and putting them on the website for us to - uh - borrow............!

I don't think that HAVA is optional, or it might be optional in all elections but federal elections (questions of federalism and comity). I am sure that some federal funds are tied to compliance with HAVA.

Regardless, from my understanding, the electronic scanner that our county uses will no longer be "supported" after the November, 2005, election. I don't think that it will be able to be certified by the Sec'y of State, either. Thus, optional or not, our county is put in a position that we have to buy these gizmos that tell you if your chad is hanging before you leave the voting site.

I imagine that someplace like Haskell County might still be small enough to hand count their ballots. Therefore, they may not be running into the technological obsolescence issue that a larger county such as Hale or Midland would have.

Lisa, when you say "scanner" do you mean a central count tabulating machine or are you referring to a scanner for ballot by mail only? It is my understanding, from my County Clerk, that HAVA will only pay for the latter and not the former.

It is my understanding that the system requires a central counting machine to "scan" the ballots, and that a recognition of the propencity of such devices to break down at the wrong time requires a back up machine. Neither of these machines can be purchased through the HAVA funds, nor can their maintenance or programming come from that money.

At the risk of over-simplifying a complex issue, here is my understanding of what HAVA requires:
(1) All voters must be advised of any over- or under-votes after making their selections, but before casting their ballot, while maintaining their privacy. This can technically be accomplished for paper ballots by installing a scanner at each polling place. But HAVA funding is not available for this solution. The HAVA-preferred solution is Direct Recording Electronic voting equipment (known as DRE's) which are typically touch-screen devices that present an electronic ballot and record the votes in its memory.
(2) All voters must be able to cast their vote with the same degree of independence and privacy, regardless of disability. This means that blind, deaf, or mobility-impaired voters must be able to vote without human assistance...and must be advised of any over- or under-votes, as described above. HAVA requires that there must be at least one accesible voting device at each polling location. There are automatic ballot-marking devices available which would allow the use of paper ballots...but HAVA won't pay for them. Again, the HAVA-preferred solution is a DRE, which provides for audio translation of the ballot for the sight-impaired, sip and puff tubes for the mobility-impaired, and other solutions for other disabilities.
(3) To deal with mail in ballots, you will still need the ability to count paper ballots. Small counties may be able to hand-count these ballots, doing away with the need for scanners. Larger counties may need a central scanner for these ballots, but will not need the capacity to deal with 10's of thousands of ballots. HAVA will not pay for these scanners, but the expense is minimal compared to the cost of outfitting each polling place with a HAVA-compliant DRE.
(4) HAVA will pay for DRE's, for a portion of the cost to train election workers on the new equipment, and to train voters on the equipment.
(5) Keep your eyes on HB 758, which, if passed, will allow qualifiying counties to combine precincts into "super precincts," reducing the number of polling places significantly. Reducing the number of polling places will reduce the number of DRE's that will be required to meet HAVA requirements. (HB 758 also requires that you have the ability to do real-time voter qualification, which appears to require computer hook-ups at each polling place to check voter registration. This is an expensive proposition, in and of itself, but is on the horizon for all of us.)
(6) In short, HAVA does not directly require that you purchase DRE's and abandon paper ballots, but after a long and exhausting exploration, we (Lubbock County) have not been able to come up with any other viable way to comply with the new rules AND qualify for HAVA funding. We (Lubbock County) have been allocated approx. $1.5 million in HAVA funds toward an estimated expense of approx. $3 million.
(7) There are (at last count) four (4) vendors whose DRE systems have been certified as being HAVA-compliant.
(A list is on the Sec'y of State's website: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/cert_accessible.shtml)
Each vendor has a state-approved contract available through the state procurement system. If you use that contract, you do not need to do an RFP or bid process.
(7) There are many other issues and nuances involved in HAVA compliance. For example, doing away with paper ballots also does away with the paper trail that a paper ballot system generates. With DRE's, all you have is the record of votes stored in the machine's memory. On the one hand, this should do away with the need for recounts. On the other hand, it will do away with the ability to do recounts. DRE's are expensive to purchase and will require climate controlled storage and some way to move them around, other than the back of a pick-up or the trunk of a car. On the other hand, you will not need to store huge volumes of paper ballots.

The list of issues goes on and on...

It is my understanding that we are going to a totally paperless system as well(welcome to the digital age).

The folks in our county who administer our elections are cautiosly excited about going digital. From a technical standpoint, the DRE's solve lots of problems and should make the actual administration of an election very efficient. There is an underlying apprehension, however, about relying on a system that does not provide for a paper audit trail. What do you do when the machine says no votes were cast for a candidate, but voters come forward to say they did cast votes? How do you do a recount when all you have is the electronic record? There is talk of legislation (both federal and at the state level) which would allow what is known as a "voter verified paper audit trail," which would generate a printed record of each vote cast. In the systems we have seen, the paper record is viewed and approved by the voter under glass, but is spooled up inside the machine when the voter hits the button to accept his/her vote, and used only in the event of a challenge. There will be a cost (approx. $500 - $1000) to retrofit the DRE's to add this feature, which, as of this moment, has not been approved for use by the Sec'y of State. Only time will tell whether voters will have faith and confidence in the new electronic systems, absent a voter verified paper audit trail. They seem to be working fine in several of the larger counties around the state. If you want to see who has what, there is a list at:
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/bycounty.shtml
I have found that the Elections Administrators across the state have been very forthcoming in discussing the pros and cons of the systems they are using. Good luck!