Government Technology

    Digital Communities
    Industry Members

  • Click sponsor logos for whitepapers, case studies, and best practices.
  • McAfee

Will California Counties Develop Public Voting Systems?



February 25, 2013 By

On Feb. 25, California Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) announced a new bill that would let counties in the state develop, own and operate their own public voting systems.

SB 360, which would subject such systems to approval and certification by the California Secretary of State, would allow California counties, most of which purchase their voting systems from one of five private vendors, take control of public voting technology, according to a press release.

Because the vendors offer a variety of systems and upgrades, the result is a complex system of various technologies throughout the state. The private vendors also consider their technology proprietary; they limit public access to both the operating software and hardware. This means that state election officials and the public are dependent upon these companies, which are not required to notify federal election officials or the public when their voting systems malfunction, or have vulnerabilities or defects. 

“Allowing counties to develop, own and operate voting systems will increase voter confidence in the integrity of our elections,” said Senator Alex Padilla.  “A public voting system will be more transparent, instill public trust and be more accountable than our current systems."

Los Angeles County already is looking to develop its own system after concluding that private vendors could not meet the unique needs of its 10 million residents and more than 500 political districts. In 2009, the Los Angeles County Registrar/County Clerk launched the Voting Systems Assessment Project with the goal of replacing its 30-year-old system.  


View Full Story

| More

Comments

Nic Jay    |    Commented March 11, 2013

I find it interesting that the Beta version of electronic voting is rarely tested on innovative voting practices, such as on governmental budgets, on bills, or other policies or even in something like a city council meeting. well, here is to hoping that voting had something to do with civic engagement.


Add Your Comment

You are solely responsible for the content of your comments. We reserve the right to remove comments that are considered profane, vulgar, obscene, factually inaccurate, off-topic, or considered a personal attack.

In Our Library

White Papers | Exclusives Reports | Webinar Archives | Best Practices and Case Studies
Digital Cities & Counties Survey: Best Practices Quick Reference Guide
This Best Practices Quick Reference Guide is a compilation of examples from the 2013 Digital Cities and Counties Surveys showcasing the innovative ways local governments are using technological tools to respond to the needs of their communities. It is our hope that by calling attention to just a few examples from cities and counties of all sizes, we will encourage further collaboration and spark additional creativity in local government service delivery.
Wireless Reporting Takes Pain (& Wait) out of Voting
In Michigan and Minnesota counties, wireless voting via the AT&T network has brought speed, efficiency and accuracy to elections - another illustration of how mobility and machine-to-machine (M2M) technology help governments to bring superior services and communication to constituents.
Why Would a City Proclaim Their Data “Open by Default?”
The City of Palo Alto, California, a 2013 Center for Digital Government Digital City Survey winner, has officially proclaimed “open” to be the default setting for all city data. Are they courageous or crazy?
View All