EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2010-05

2005 VVSG Vol. I, Sections 1.7 

Testing & Certification Program Manual Section 4.4.2.3 

Date: 

August 18, 2010 

Question(s): 

Which program requirements control with regard to the testing of modifications to an 

already EAC certified system? 

Section of Standards or Guidelines: 

2005 VVSG, Volume 1, Section 1.7 

If a modification to a system qualified or certified to a previous standard is 

submitted for a national certification 24 months after the EAC’s final adoption of 

the VVSG 2005, every component of the modified system will be tested against the 

VVSG 2005. 

Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Section 4.4.2.3 

The modification will be tested to the version or versions of the VVSG/VSS currently 

accepted for testing and certification by the EAC. This requirement, however, does not 

mean that the full system must be tested to such standards. If the system has been 

previously certified to a VVSG/VSS version deemed acceptable by the EAC (see Section 

3.2.2.2.), it may retain that level of certification with only the modification being tested to 

the present version 

Background:

On July 23, 2010 California Secretary of State Debra Bowen sent a letter (attached) to the 

EAC regarding a possible conflict between the VVSG and the EAC’s Voting System 

Testing and Certification Program Manual (Program Manual). In her letter, Secretary 

Bowen requested an interpretation from the EAC regarding the possible conflict. Under 

the EAC’s Program, Secretary Bowen is not considered a proper requestor of an RFI. 

However, the EAC, at its own discretion, has deemed that this possible inconsistency is 

necessary of an interpretation. The EAC believes that this interpretation is necessary due 
2

to the importance of modifications to certified systems and the possible confusion the 

conflicting sections could create. 

Interpretation: 

Upon review EAC has decided there is a conflict between the sections of the 

VVSG and Program Manual noted above. Given this conflict, the decision is to 

follow the policies and procedures as outlined in the Program Manual. This 

decision is based upon three distinct reasons. 

First, as noted in section 1.3 of the Program Manual, the express purpose of the 

Program Manual as adopted by the Commission is to, “provide clear procedures to 

Manufacturers for the testing and certification of voting systems...” As such, the 

Program Manual is the controlling document when it comes to programmatic 

policies and procedures. The issue identified is procedural and appropriately 

handled by the policies outlined in the Program Manual. 

Second, in adopting the Program Manual and the policies within, on December 7, 

2006, the Commission showed a clear intent to supersede all previous 

programmatic policies with those outlined in the Program Manual. The 2005 

VVSG was adopted on December 13, 2005, almost a year prior to the adoption of 

the Program Manual. This is further evidenced by Section 1.3 of the Program 

Manual which states in part, “The procedural requirements of this Manual 

supersede any prior voting system certification requirements issued by the EAC”. 

This statement shows a clear and unambiguous attempt by the Commission to 

place all programmatic procedures under the umbrella of the Program Manual. 

Finally, in this specific instance, it is in the best interest of the EAC’s program for 

the modification procedure in the Program Manual to dictate this process. In order 

for the EAC to run an effective program that is of value to the States, there must 

be a focused and efficient modification process in place. Requiring all systems to 

be tested end-to-end each time there is a modification to the system would make 

the EAC’s program unusable for most jurisdictions. Full end-to-end test 

campaigns currently can take anywhere between six months to two years to 

complete the rigourous testing process. Both time and cost restraints make this 

kind of program structure unfeasible. Therefore, the modification process 

currently in use, as outlined in the Program Manual, is the appropriate procedure. 

Conclusion: 

Modification testing is an integral part of the EAC’s voting system certification 

process. The current process allows improvements to already certified systems to 

get to the field for use in elections in a timely manner. To force systems 

undergoing a modification to be subject to full end-to-end testing is not realistic 

for the EAC’s program to operate effectively. It is important to keep in mind that 

under the current structure a system that is certified to the 2002 VSS can not 

obtain 2005 VVSG certification without undergoing full end-to-end testing to the 
3

2005 VVSG. Therefore, a system can not receive an easy path to 2005 VVSG 

conformance by simply having modifications tested to the 2005 VVSG. 

Effective Date: 

Immediately upon publication and distribution.