A New Electronic Voting System
For the
State of Louisiana

The League of Women Voters of Louisiana have carefully reviewed the Request for Proposals (RFP # 2198751) for the Voting System for the State of Louisiana and the subsequent addendums with the following findings:

1.      The RFP #2198751 does not make any reference requiring the voting system selected under the RFP to meet the 2002 Federal Voting System Standards ("FVSS"). The only language which refers to any compliance with the voting system standard is the requirement that the voting system meet the HAVA requirements, specifically section 301(a)(5) which requires the system to meet only the error rate requirements of the 2002 FVSS.  A vendor asked the State of LA point blank whether or not the system needed to meet the 2002 FVSS and the State referred in its answer to a question which discussed meeting the HAVA requirements, therefore avoiding (dodging) the question.

2.      The RFP #2198751does not address optical scan vendors.  “The need for inclusion of such systems in the RFP #2198751is cost-based as well as reliability-based. It is appalling that Louisiana should not be afforded this preferable option in the RFP process... whether or not it is deemed to be the best option, once compared with the alternatives is another question. But to fail to allow it on the table is a great injustice to the state's voters and to the state's fiscal capacity,” according to Pamela Smith, National Coordinator of VerifiedVoting.Org 

3.      A search for objective third party voting machine studies/analysis with the assistance of Dr. Barbara Simons, Former President, the Association of Computer Machinery, has failed to produce support for the difference (400 vs. 200) in the number of voters processed per machine as designated in the RFP #2198751 for the vendors:  1 machine per 400 voters for full face machines vs. 1 machine per 200 voters for touch screen machines.

4.      Crucial to the success of any electronic voting machine is the education of the user, The Louisiana Voter.  Provisions for public education on use of the machine for the voter are absent in the RFP.

 Questions asked/Action requested:

1.        The LWVLA requests that the provisions be rewritten in RFP # 2198751to clearly state that any electronic voting machine selected under this RFP shall meet the 2002 Federal Voting Systems Standards.

2.      The LWVLA questions why vendors with optical scan technology were not pursued to offer proposals.  If it is too late to expand RFP #2198751, will the SOS Elections Division commit to fully investigate and pursue proposals from all voting machine technology vendors, if an RFP for voting machines is offered again in the next 5 years?

3.        Since no third party objective independent studies could be found to support the RFP’s requirement that full face machine vendors propose 1 machine per 400 voters and touch screen machine vendors propose 1 machine per 200 voters for touch screen machines, the LWVLA asks that the number be standardized for both vendors.   The number could be 1 machine for every 200 voters; 1 machine for every 200 voters; or split the difference and make the number 1 machine for every 300 voters.  By standardizing the number, any perception of preference for one vendor over other vendors would be avoided and would likely avoid potential lawsuits and may save the State monies which could be used for Voter education and/or modernization of the State’s Voter Registration system.

4.        What provisions have been made to educate the voters on the new voting machines, the lack of which could be the single biggest impediment to speedy voting at the precincts on Election Day?

Thank you and always,
Share the Spirit of League,
LWV of Louisiana

Jean Armstrong, President
LWV of Louisiana
LWV of Louisiana Education Fund