U. S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

 OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100 

 Washington, DC. 20005 

December 6, 2007 

Mr. David Beirne 

Executive Director 

Election Technology Council (ETC) Sent via e-mail: dbeirne@electiontech.org

14173 NW Freeway, #239 

Houston, TX 77040

Dear Mr. Beirne: 

Thank you for your letter of November 16, 2007, sharing ETC’s request that the EAC expedite 

the certification process. While the EAC will always strive to improve the efficiency of its 

program, it will never certify a voting system that has not been thoroughly and rigorously tested. 

Anything less would be a disservice to both the voters of this country and to our election officials 

who rely on the voting systems we certify. 

While, as you note, our certification process is in its infancy, the EAC takes exception to the 

characterization that “delays in certifying systems through the EAC-administered certification 

process are negatively impacting the ability of the industry to deploy State required 

enhancements to their products for the 2008 Primary Election Calendar.” Your letter attributes 

these delays to the following: 

1. “Interpretations requested from the VSTL’s in the application of the Voting Systems 

Standards (VSS) which have delayed adoption of test plans;” and 

2. “The unpublished draft VSTL Program Manual which will address many of the 

outstanding issues/concerns regarding the certification process and provide clear 

procedural requirements to the VSTL’s and manufacturers.” 

The EAC disagrees with your assessment that these items have caused delays in the process. 

Allow me to address these issues in the order you present them. 

First, as of the date of your letter, the EAC has answered six requests for interpretation (RFI). 

We have no outstanding requests for interpretation at the present time. The average 

response time to the six RFIs was 47 days. The most recent three RFIs averaged a 15 day 

response time. I think you will agree that not only has our response time improved greatly over 

the course of the year, but that a 15 day response timeframe on a complicated technical question 

is outstanding. These facts seem to indicate that the RFI process has added little, if any, 

additional time to the certification process. In fact, some of the delays in testing have been 

caused by the manufacturers’ failure to follow the requirements of our program (see 8.14.07 EAC 
notice of non-compliance to Elections Systems and Software Inc., 9.11.07 EAC Notice of NonCompliance to Sequoia Voting Systems Inc.) or because of a failure to timely provide the 

information necessary to approve a test plan. 

 

Second, you have claimed that because the EAC has not yet published its Voting System Test 

Laboratory Accreditation Manual (Laboratory Manual) there are outstanding issues regarding the 

testing process. As previously noted, the EAC presently has no outstanding questions regarding 

the Testing and Certification Program. While the draft Laboratory Manual will provide helpful 

guidance and detail for our Voting System Test Laboratories (VSTL), at present the requirements 

of the program are adequately laid out in the EAC’s Testing and Certification Program Manual 

(Program Manual), as well as the “letter of agreement” and “Certification of Laboratory 

Conditions and Practices” that are signed by each VSTL prior to accreditation. Additionally, the 

EAC has issued five Notices of Clarification to address questions over the Certification program 

as they arise. In many cases, it has become apparent that some voting system manufacturers 

have either not yet familiarized themselves with our Testing and Certification Program Manual, 

or assume they are operating under old NASED Qualification program. Please refer to the EAC 

web site at http://www.eac.gov/voting%20systems/voting-system-certification/correspondence

and note the resources that have been expended reiterating EAC policy that was approved last 

year. The EAC encourages the Election Technology Council to advise all its members of the 

importance of reviewing the policies and procedures contained in the Certification Program 

Manual so that systems move through our process in the most efficient manner possible. 

While the EAC is committed to continually assessing and improving the voting system 

certification program, product certification is a process involving several parties, in which each 

must do their in order for the process to run efficiently. 

Sincerely, 

Thomas Wilkey 

Executive Director