|
|
|
|
"How am I to get in?" asked Alice again, in a louder tone.
It was a Queen of Hearts sort of a day in California on August 9, 2006. The Secretary of State's advisory panel was hearing public comments regarding the pending certification of the Vote-PAD, a non-electronic assistive device designed to help voters with disabilities mark and verify a paper ballot independently. Voting integrity advocates held signs supporting the certification of Vote-PAD. They told of countless failures of computerized voting systems. They spoke about recent discoveries of easily hackable "back doors" into the vote totals on those systems, which have been certified. By contrast, "Vote-PAD is no more hackable than a #2 pencil," said one. Notwithstanding this and the letters praising the Vote-PAD from dozens of people with visual and motor disabilities, the Secretary of State's staff was recommending against certifying the Vote-PAD for use in California.
With no training or experience in usability testing, the Secretary's staff and computer voting system consultants conducted "usability" testing on the Vote-PAD. This event marks the first time the Secretary has ever used people with disabilities to test a voting device intended for use by people with disabilities, despite the fact that it has certified numerous such systems. During the test, participants were not allowed to vote independently on the Vote-PAD, but were instead subjected to an artificial voting environment where they were frequently interrupted by staff during the voting process. From this critically flawed testing, the Secretary concluded that they would not be able to vote independently. "We appreciate the participation of the people with disabilities, and we believe they performed quite successfully, given the unrealistic, trying conditions to which they were subjected," said Ellen Theisen, President of Vote-PAD, Inc. "Especially considering that in a recent Rice University usability test conducted on able-bodied, experienced voters, 16% of the ballots contained errors," she added. Two human factors experts, Dr. Valerie Rice and Noel Runyan, submitted written testimony stating that the testing process put together by Secretary of State's staff violated basic principles of usability testing. These experts pointed out that any results would be unreliable. The Secretary ignored the testimony of these experts and agreed with his non-expert staff's negative assessment of the results. Friday, August 25, 2006, Secretary McPherson signed a letter denying certification to Vote-PAD, thus denying California voters a paper-based, accessible alternative to computers. The Registrars in six California counties wanted to provide the Vote-PAD to assist their voters with disabilities. Instead, they will be forced to use computerized voting machines, which have never been tested for accessibility by Secretary McPherson, and which have been the subject of great concern regarding their security and reliability. Now, these registrars are at risk of being embroiled in the lawsuits recently filed in California by disabilities organizations and voting integrity advocates opposing the use of the computerized voting machines.
The Vote-PAD was developed in cooperation with people with dexterity impairments and people with visual impairments, whose advice and suggestions we gratefully included in the design.
Patent Pending
|