CRT Teleconference
Thursday, July 20, 2006

Participants: John Wack, Alan Goldfine, David Flater, Sharon Laskowski, Steve Berger, Wendy Havens


1) Administrative Updates: John Wack
2) Test reports (comparison): David Flater & Stephen Berger
3) Reconciliation of aliases and over-votes in write-ins: David Flater
4) FYI: retiring the term "ballot format": David Flater
5) Any other items.
6) Meeting Action items

Administrative Updates:

JW- Updates everyone on the House of Representatives Joint Science/Administration Committees' hearing yesterday in which Dr. William Jeffrey gave testimony on voting system standards and related issues. (His testimony has been posted at: In addition to Dr. Jeffrey, the following witnesses provided testimony:

  • Ms. Donetta Davidson - Commissioner, Election Assistance Commission;
  • Ms. Mary Kiffmeyer - Secretary of State for Minnesota;
  • Ms. Linda Lamone - Administrator of Elections, Maryland State Board of Elections;
  • Mr. John Groh - Chairman, Election Technology Council, Information Technology Association of America; and
  • Dr. David Wagner - Professor of Computer Science, University of California at Berkeley.

The full hearing web cast is available for viewing at:

Discussion on Test Reports:

David Flater along with Steve Berger discussed and compared their draft notes regarding voting system test reports. There were numerous issues that were reviewed and David Flater put together an action items list that has been appended at the end of these meeting minutes.

Other items:

Agenda items deferred to next CRT telcon:

3) Reconciliation of aliases and over-votes in write-ins,
4) Retiring the term "ballot format";

Next scheduled meeting is on Thursday, August, 10th @ 10:00 AM EST

Meeting Action Items:

  • SB to revise his outline to separate Technical Data Package, Voting Equipment User Documentation, Test Plan, Test Report, and Public Information Package from one another, to make it integratable with DWF working draft.

  • SB to remove line items found to be redundant.

  • SB to review VVSG'05 TDP content with BH to determine which subsections remain relevant.

  • SB to write memo and coordinate with STS regarding proposal for test lab to maintain custody of the build environment and act as EAC's deputy in ensuring that no unauthorized changes are incorporated into the voting system. (Revises witness build requirements.)

  • SB to call BH regarding publication of election management practices and determine their relevance to the test report or PIP (indications where certain practices are necessary for the system to meet requirements).

  • SB to forward example of requirements for attestation in test report.

  • SB to clarify "label" requirement.

  • DWF to move requirement "include a reference to the specific section or sections of the Voting Equipment User Documentation where the voting variations that the voting system was found to support are documented by the vendor" from Test Report to Implementation Statement.

  • DWF to add signature requirement(s) to Implementation Statement.

  • DWF to add test report requirement or placeholder for warrant of accepting change control responsibility (attestation that vendor will implement changes as required for certification). (Still a little fuzzy on this.)

  • DWF to make changes to reflect that EAC will be in the loop during the testing campaign: include test report revision history ("predecessory configurations and test reports that are connected to the current evaluation"), TDP and system change notes in Test Report for EAC.

  • DWF to add requirements about use of photos for (1) system hardware identification (coordinate with STS setup validation) and (2) illustration of correct system set-up.

Notes (not actionable until outline is integrated):

  • Desire to chunk according to the specialties of reviewers and order based on EAC workflow.
  • Desire to keep all potentially confidential information in one easily redacted chunk (though the determination that it is actually confidential is not ours to make).
  • Desire to keep all setup validation type information in one easily accessible place, to be used by several parties including end users.



Link to NIST HAVA Page

Last updated: July 25, 2007
Point of Contact

Privacy policy / security notice / accessibility statement
Disclaimer / FOIA
NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department