Indiana Voter Registration Association Conference

VSTOP Update on Electronic Poll Book RequirementsBrad King, Co-Director, Indiana Election Division

July 30, 2014

Electronic Poll Books

– May 2014 primary (used in at least 16 counties):– Blackford– Carroll– Cass– Clay– Elkhart– Floyd– Hancock– Johnson– Miami– Noble– Switzerland– Tippecanoe– Vanderburgh– Vigo– Wabash– Wayne

Electronic Poll Books

Opportunity for Post-Primary Feedback

• Quest-hosted county feedback: July 15 Web Service Framework 2.0 report

• VSTOP hosted epoll book county meeting: July 23• VSTOP and Quest notes attached

Feedback Overview

• Timing: Allow enough time for counties to conduct testing of epollbooks and SVRS connection. Don’t have Quest make last minute changes to Web Service Framework

Suggestions: State should impose deadlines for vendors to complete certification process before election. State should set earlier deadline for Quest to implement Web Service Framework changes.

Feedback Overview

Communication: Counties experienced confusion with information coming from vendor, VSTOP, IED, and Quest. Sometimes vendor information about epoll book compliance or state laws not reliable

Suggestions: Counties should use leasing agreements or their own purchase contracts to hold vendor accountable. Get it in writing from the vendor! State entities should coordinate communications with one another to stay on same page.

Feedback Overview

• Internet Connectivity: Some counties had connectivity problems that could impact synchronizing of data entered in epoll books.

• Suggestions:• Counties which used air cards had fewer problem.• Watch out for crowds of people with lots of cell phones!• VSTOP can develop minimum connectivity standards to

help clerks find best locations for voting sites.

Feedback Overview

• Acceptance Testing: In addition to timing problems, some counties did not have in-house technical support to conduct tests when epollbooks delivered. Had to rely on vendor. Counties indicated that Quest told some to disregard parts of acceptance testing.

• Suggestions:• VSTOP willing to provide training for county acceptance

testing so that independent review occurs. • Enforcement of certification deadlines and

communication among state entities will reduce confusion or miscommunication.

Feedback Overview

• Testing of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) components of epollbooks: Some vendors were required to have laptops and other “peripheral” parts of epollbooks sent to laboratories for testing.

• Suggestion: VSTOP was following “best practice” used for many years at federal level. Federal agency (U.S. Election Assistance Commission) has now switched to allow substitutions of approved COTS without further testing. VSTOP will follow suit.

What’s Next?

• VSTOP, Quest, and IED have meeting scheduled to determine:– which changes can and should be made to Web

Service Framework before November– what deadlines should be to allow enough time to

complete any necessary testing.• At least one vendor (Decision Support) is

having lab testing for epollbook upgrade, requesting certification. Ask your vendor.

Electronic Poll Book Pioneers

• Counties using epoll books have valuable experience to share with a county considering going to epoll books. Ask your neighbors!

• Indiana epoll book standards and certification process being studied as model by several other states, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Wagons Ho!

We’ll get there!