You wanted to know what type of electronic voting machine Venezuela used in its recent election and whether it is a model that Connecticut could use.

SUMMARY

In its August 2004 national referendum and October 2004 regional elections, Venezuela used the SAES3000—a direct recording electronic voting machine (DRE) designed by Smartmatic Corporation. The SAES3000 is part of Smartmatic's integrated voting system called Smartmatic Automated Election System (SAES). SAES is a device-networking platform that (1) allows a large-scale connection of devices and (2) counts, tabulates, awards, and communicates election results. It uses phone lines or cellular or satellite communication to transmit data to tabulating servers located in a distributed network or in a central location. The SAES3000 supports the use of an electronic voting pad or a touch-sensitive screen. Venezuela used the latter. According to Smartmatic, the DRE's other features include (1) results tabulation without human intervention, (2) multiple auditing tools, (3) vote encryption and storage in seven different locations, and (4) a voter-verified paper trail.

In Connecticut, the secretary of the state is responsible for approving and purchasing voting machines. When doing so, she is bound by both federal and state laws that dictate voting system standards. Any DRE would have to meet those standards to be considered for use in Connecticut. This includes accessibility for the blind and visually impaired and the SAES3000 does not have this capability. (However, Smartmatic recently acquired Sequoia Voting Systems, a major domestic DRE manufacturer. With their joint technologies, Smartmatic plans to produce a DRE that meets the accessibility requirements and use it for Venezuela's fall elections.)

To comply with the 2002 federal Help America Vote Act's (HAVA) (P. L. 107-252) requirement for voting machines suitable for use by all voters, regardless of disability, the secretary issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for DRE vendors in December 2004. By the February 2005 deadline, she had received proposals from seven vendors, but not Smartmatic Corporation.

FEDERAL AND STATE VOTING SYSTEM STANDARDS

Under § 301 of HAVA, the technology and administration of every voting system used in federal elections must meet uniform and nondiscriminatory requirements by January 1, 2006. Among other things, systems must (1) permit voters to verify their selections, notify them of overvotes, and allow them to change their votes or correct an error before casting the ballot; (2) have a paper audit capacity; (3) be accessible to all individuals with disabilities and allow voters to vote independently and in private through the use of at least one direct recording electronic or properly equipped voting system at each polling place; and (4) provide alternative language accessibility as required by the Voting Rights Act.

During the 2005 session, the Connecticut General Assembly passed PA 05-188 (An Act Concerning Voter Registration, Certain Nominating Procedures, Campaign Accountability, A Voter Guide, Push Polling and Electronic Voting Machines) establishing similar requirements. DREs used in elections or primaries occurring on or after July 1, 2005 must, among other things:

1. produce a contemporaneous individual, permanent, paper record (“voter record”) of each elector's selections and a voting machine-generated, individual, permanent, paper record (“machine record”), each with an identical voting machine-generated unique identifier that can be matched against the other and that preserves the secrecy of each elector's ballot;

2. permit electors to verify their voter record, or to hear an audio description of their record, and make changes before casting their ballot;

3. void the first voter record and produce another if an elector changes his ballot, and provide that person with another opportunity to verify his selections; and

4. secure the secrecy of each elector's ballot.

Beginning July 1, 2007, the DREs also must (1) ensure accessibility to blind or visually impaired individuals by providing each elector with an audio description, if desired, of their voter record in addition to an audio description of the electronic summary screen and (2) comply with any additional accessibility standards the secretary adopts through regulations.

State law further requires voting machines to be accurate, efficient, afford secrecy, and maintain a specified ballot layout. The machines must (1) provide facilities for voting for candidates of at least nine different parties, (2) come with a locking device that prevents illegal movement of its voting or registering mechanism, (3) prevent electors from voting on candidates or propositions when they are not eligible to do so, (4) prevent them from voting twice for the same candidate or voting for two candidates to the same office, and (5) directly register or record all votes cast on them (CGS § 9-242).

KS:ts