Bill Just Passed in WI Giving Public Right to View Election Software

[Amaryllis]

Check out the percentage by which this passed:
"The bill passed the Assembly 91-4 and the Senate 29-2."

So, since the source code is proprietary, what exactly does this mean? All the vendors have to leave the state?

WTN News • Published 01/04/06
Voting machine source code must be made open
For entire article: http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2585

Madison, Wis. — Among the 15 bills governor Jim Doyle signed into law on Wednesday will require the software of touch-screen voting machines used in elections have its source code opened up to public viewing.

Municipalities that use electronic voting machines are responsible for providing to the public, on request, the code used.

Any voting machines to be used in the state already had to pass State Elections Board tests. Electronic voting machines, in particular, already were required to maintain their results tallies even if the power goes out, and to produce paper ballots that could be used in case of a recount. The new law also requires the paper ballots to be presented to voters for verification before being stored.

But of this bill's provisions, perhaps the more influential in a wider sense is the requirement that municipalities provide source code, and the more general condition that "the coding for the software that is used to operate the system on election day and to tally the votes cast is publicly accessible and may be used to independently verify the accuracy and reliability of the operating and tallying procedures to be employed at any election."

The bill passed the Assembly 91-4 and the Senate 29-2.

[Talismom]

1. This is very important and makes me feel hopeful for the first time

in many days!

[FSogol]

2. Will they have paper ballots after all of the electronic

voting companies leave? Why would they make their code public? Wouldn't that put them out of business?

[Amaryllis]

3. That's the question. They may just leave the state.

[FSogol]

4. Not a bad outcome, I suppose.

Maybe we can get open source verifiable e-voting.

[Wilms]

5. New Wisconsin Election Bill Not as Positive as Originally Reported

1/5/2006

New Wisconsin Election Bill Not as Positive as Originally Reported By Activists and Others
Contrary to reports, bill does NOT allow for examination of source code!
Original version -- which did -- was changed during amendment process to remove important clause!

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org and VoteTrustUSA.Org

Additional Reporting by Brad Friedman

The voting activist and election reform advocacy community was excited yesterday upon release of news about the signing of a new bill in Wisconsin, AB267, that originally included wording that would allow munipalities to "provide to any person, upon request, at the expense of the municipality, the coding for the software that the municipality uses to operate the system and to tally the votes cast". Indeed, The BRAD BLOG received many email reports last night about the "good news" concerning this bill.

The bill, as understood and reported by many, would have been the first time that voting activists would have been afforded the opportunity to actually "look under the hood" of voting machines by examining the source code used in the software in order to see what was really being done on the equipment supplied by Voting Machine Companies. So far, those companies have managed keep such source code secret and proprietary and away from the 'prying eyes' of the pesky public who has been forced -- by the corporate privatization of America's public elections -- to rely on such secret
software to accurately record and count their votes.

The apparent "good news," however, was incorrect, as The BRAD BLOG has learned. The language from the original bill was changed during the amendment process to strip it of the provisions that would have allowed the public inspection of the secret code!

The good news still left to report is that the bill, signed yesterday by WI Gov. Jim Doyle, will at least require a voter verified paper "record" for every vote cast. In theory, the measure would allow for a manual count or recount of votes in cases where the state determines such a count would be necessary.

snip

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002239.htm

Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x407937