brennan center for justice

California; the bill does not mandate a searchable database that new election officials couldreview before each election; and because the bill could not provide a method for electionofficials and whistleblowers to anonymously report problems that might not technicallyfall within the definition of “defect, fault or failure” (such as the problems in PulaskiCounty, Arkansas, described on page 14 of this report), it would not necessarily resultin the sharing of information about some kinds of problems that still result in the loss ofhundreds and thousands of votes.Create a Voluntary DatabaseWhile the EAC has previously indicated that it does not believe it has the authority or resources tofacilitate the understanding and resolution of problems with non-EAC certified voting equipment,we can think of no legal reason why – even absent additional authorization from Congress – itcould not create a searchable database to which election officials, voters, and vendors could report.In the alternative, if the EAC determines it does not have the resources to create such a database,election officials, through organizations such as the National Association of Secretary of States, theNational Association of State Election Directors, , the National Association of County Recorders,Election Officials and Clerks, or the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, ElectionOfficials and Treasurers could sponsor such a database. There would be no way to force vendors toreport to this database, or to provide election officials with whistleblower protections for makingvoluntary reports – two important suggestions for the mandatory clearinghouse detailed in thisreport – but it could still lead to a much better resource for election officials than currently exists.Election officials using the same equipment could also create user groups where they could shareinformation about their systems electronically.Officials we interviewed wanted to see a database that vendors would be required to reportto, but many said they viewed a voluntary database as a good first step. For instance,Cuyahoga County, Ohio Board of Elections Director Jane Platten stated that “an exchangeof all information about anomalies, malfunctions and failures of voting systems is not onlymuch needed, but should be a requirement.” However, she added that “taking the small stepof creating a voluntary exchange of information would in my opinion have a huge impact onelection administration and operations.”Pressure Vendors to Voluntarily Post Information on Their Own Sites This YearOne drawback of the three previous recommendations – in addition to the largerrecommendation of the creation of a central, mandatory, and federal database – is that each willtake time to implement, and probably cannot be accomplished in time for this fall’s election. Bycontrast, vendors could significantly reduce the risk of a repetition of past problems with theirsystems by creating their own databases, and offering election officials who use their machinesaccess to them. As already noted in this report, because there is such high turnover amongelection officials, a new county director might not be aware of product advisories or softwarepatches sent by a voting system vendor to her predecessor three years earlier. Nor is she likelyBrennan Center for Justice | 41