{"id":5135,"date":"2007-10-04T20:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-05T03:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bradblog.com\/?p=5135"},"modified":"2007-10-05T16:19:13","modified_gmt":"2007-10-05T23:19:13","slug":"daily-voting-news-for-october-04-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bradblog.com\/?p=5135","title":{"rendered":"‘Daily Voting News’ For October 04, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org<\/a><\/i><\/p>\n

<\/a>Late last Friday, without any media, the California SoS released the last set of reports from her “Top-To-Bottom Review.”\u009d While not the same dynamite as the reports on security and code review, they are important reports that in part highlight the failure of the old NASED-sponsored voting system qualification and ITA system. The Sequoia report relates the following:<\/p>\n

The qualification testing reports do not provide enough information to determine independently whether the testing laboratories evaluated the voting system under all applicable voting system standards.<\/p>\n

The test reports prepared by the three independent testing authorities (ITAs) that evaluated the Sequoia system are incomplete in several major ways. First, one of the ITA reports did not provide any documentation that it had tested the system for adherence to all applicable requirements of the 2002 Voting System Standards (VSS).<\/p>\n

Second, the ITA reports as a whole provide little information about how the system was tested to determine its compliance with the VSS.<\/p><\/div>\n

This is an echo of the information provided in the Diebold and Hart Intercivic reports. <\/p>\n

Why were these reports kept buried for a month after the rest of the reports were released? Why was there no media release?<\/p>\n

The rest of today’s notable voting news stories are linked below…<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n