Vote-PAD, Inc. Files Claim against California Secretary of State
October 16, 2006. Asserting that the Secretary of State violated California State Law and Constitutional protections, Vote-PAD, Inc. today filed a formal claim against the Secretary’s Office with the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board.
The Vote-PAD, recently used in the Wisconsin primary election, is a non-computerized device designed to help people with disabilities hand mark a paper ballot. Six California counties were hoping to use the Vote-PAD this November, but on August 25, 2006, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson refused to certify it for use in California.
Vote-PAD, Inc., developer of the device, claims that the certification process, which was created by the Office of the Secretary of State specifically for the Vote-PAD, violated a number of State and Federal protections. The company charges that the process was:
“a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitutions of both the United States and the State of California, a breach of contract, a violation of the California Administrative Procedures Act, a violation of the Election Code provisions governing voting system certification, and an abuse of discretion in the Secretary’s authority to certify voting systems.”
Ellen Theisen, President of Vote-PAD, Inc., said, “With no guidelines or regulations to follow, the Secretary’s staff just made everything up as they went along – the joint application process with the counties, the test plan, the method of evaluation, and even the criteria they used to recommend denial. What they came up with was unprecedented and contrary not only to usability testing principles but to common sense as well.”
“Furthermore,” Ms. Theisen added, “their ad hoc plan was administered by people unqualified to conduct usability testing, their record-keeping was haphazard, and their analysis of the data shows a lack of due diligence.”
The claimant is seeking one of three remedies:
1) A valid certification test of the Vote-PAD conducted as soon as possible at the State’s expense, or
2) Prompt certification of the Vote-PAD, based on a valid evaluation of the data collected in the test conducted during the summer; also at the sole expense of the State, or
3) If the State rejects the other remedies, compensation in the amount of $33,277.65 to Vote-PAD, Inc., for expenses associated with the certification testing process.
“The actual cost of the Secretary of State’s invalid testing of Vote-PAD is incalculable,” Ms. Theisen said. “If the denial of certification is allowed to stand, it denies California counties and their disabled citizens a verifiable, auditable, cost-effective way to cast their ballots.”
“We believe the State also owes compensation to the counties that requested the certification of the Vote-PAD and were eager to use it in November, since the boondoggle has forced them to settle for expensive and unreliable electronic equipment instead. But that’s not part of the claim we filed.”
Read the details supporting the claim here: http://www.vote-pad.us/CA-BOEClaimAttachment.asp
This media release is here: http://www.vote-pad.us/Media/ClaimRelease.htm