Hart Address at Jan. 3 Colorado Public Hearing

by Peter Lichtenheld, Hart InterCivic

published 01/03/2008

Hart InterCivic Address
Prepared by:
Peter Lichtenheld, Director of Marketing
Hart InterCivic, Inc.
Jan. 3, 2008


Hello. My name is Peter Lichtenheld. I am a Director of Marketing for Hart InterCivic. Thank you, Senator Gordon, for providing this forum for public commentary on the Colorado voting system situation. Thank you all for being here and caring about this process. I am here to support Hart InterCivic's 47 customers in Colorado, and to reassure our customers and the voters in Colorado that Hart InterCivic stands up to our promise – we provide voting systems that work. I am also here to voice Hart InterCivic's concerns with the Colorado re-certification process. We want this process to work for the good of Colorado's elections, just like everyone else in this room today.

We've talked with the County Clerks in Colorado, and what we've heard is that they want an election system that works and that will withstand the test of time. They do not want to replace or reinvent their system every few years. They want ease of use and accuracy for their voters. They want to be fiscally responsible with their election system investment. The Hart Voting System is flexible and reliable, and can meet our customers' needs.

Hart has successfully provided viable election solutions in Colorado.
- In August 2004 Hart InterCivic pioneered the push toward a more effective voting solution in Boulder County with our paper ballot system. Other Colorado counties were “still shopping” for a solution.
- In 2006 many Colorado counties were still deciding on HAVA-compliant voting systems, and Hart offered affordable solutions so that the smaller counties could readily meet HAVA requirements. Hart offered:
- Ballot programming and printing
- Right-sized software packages with lower maintenance fees
- Appropriate voting hardware to meet local needs.
- In 2006 Douglas County found Hart to be the right choice for an all-electronic solution, because of Hart's ease of use for the disabled, integration with our paper balloting systems, accuracy, integrity, and ease of election management. (By the way, our system is not a touch screen.)
- Voters in Colorado have used our system 6.0 product for several elections, and system 6.0 works, period.
- Systems 6.0 and 6.1, which share the same software, have been used in hundreds of elections in a half dozen states across the country. The voting equipment has NEVER been compromised, and results have proven accurate during EVERY audit and recount conducted.

The election regulatory process is broken.
- Hart InterCivic sold equipment and software that works. We passed federal and Colorado state certification rules that were in place at the time. Since then, the certification review mandated by court order has impacted both the interpretation of what existed previously in Colorado Rule 45, and the rewriting of many parts of Rule 45 – the rules changed.
- The testing process must be transparent. Voting System Providers must be given the threat models and testing requirements well ahead of time so that we can design systems that will meet the requirements.
- Along with updated requirements, certifying entities should fund their mandates, as there are costs associated with system development and deployment, and those costs must be passed on to the voting system customers. It is worth noting however, that Hart, as well as our competitors in this industry, is a commercial enterprise, and we will work directly with our customers collaboratively and fairly, as always.

Re-certification testing in Colorado was flawed.
- Considering the facts already listed - that the Hart system in use in Colorado has been used in hundreds of elections nationwide and has resulted in zero unresolved election recount or audit discrepancies - we are left questioning the validity of the test procedures used in this re-certification effort in Colorado. We question their relevance in real-world deployment of the Hart Voting System.
- Rule 45 was changed in March of 2007, when systems were already in place and working – as stated earlier, you can't change the rules without also expecting to change the systems that will need to meet those rules. Changing the systems takes time, effort, and financing.
- Some testers had experience with only one system – the one system that passed all areas of testing.
- No tester had experience or training with the Hart system.
- County Clerks, the true Colorado elections experts, were not involved in the testing. The County Clerks of Colorado are the real heroes in this story.
- Testing procedures were not shared with the Colorado County Clerks or the Election System Providers.
- Test results have not been provided in a manner that is concise or clear – Election System Providers have been given access to reams of testing documentation and no clear summary descriptions of what failed, why it failed, how it was tested, and how failures were accomplished.
- What is clear is that this Colorado re-certification process is very different from the reviews of voting systems that were conducted in California, Ohio and other states... and the outcomes are different also. Hart, for one, has products that work in other states - those same products that work in Colorado. No one should falsely alarm the public over the integrity of elections conducted on the Hart Voting System. Voters have voted on our system with confidence for thousands of elections, and they can continue to do so.
- There have been claims of high failure rates of Hart paper ballot processing. The Hart Voting System is accurate to the tolerances allowed by federal law (zero errors per 1.5 million ballot positions for the paper system). More importantly, we have designed the system to ensure that every vote counts. Any paper-based system is going to have to deal with issues of voter intent when an incomplete mark is made on the ballot. Our system allows jurisdictions to preview ballots for stray or questionable marks before scanning and to view exact images of ballots after scanning. The Hart Voting System meets Colorado Election Code, specifically,

27.1.1 Blank Ballot.

27.1.7 Vote in Optical Scan Ballots. A correctly voted optical scan ballot [occurs when a voter, using a readable marker, fills in or connects the minimum number of ovals/arrows per race, question, or issue, not to exceed the maximum allowable votes per race, question or issue, without extending the vote mark beyond the parameters of the instructions.]

27.4.2 Central Count Optical Scan Procedures

11.5.4 Post-Election Audit

THE HART VOTING SYSTEM MEETS ALL OF THESE ELECTION CODE SECTIONS ON READING PAPER BALLOTS CORRECTLY.

Hart InterCivic is concerned about the re-certification process in Colorado. We want our customers to be able to conduct successful elections with the Hart Voting System, and we want voters to feel confident that their votes are recorded as they intended. Fundamentally, elections are public events run by public officials who are charged with carrying out secure, accurate, reliable and accessible elections. Hart InterCivic's mission has always been to support the elections officials we serve, and the voters they serve. We will continue to do so, as we have for many years, in the spirit of cooperation and collaboration with our customers and certifying entities.

Thank you for your time today.

###