My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2018.01.29 CC Packet - Goal Setting
Hugo
>
City Council
>
City Council Agenda/Packets
>
2018 CC Packets
>
2018.01.29 CC Packet - Goal Setting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/20/2019 1:40:54 PM
Creation date
2/1/2018 2:49:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
1/29/2018
Meeting Type
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ASSISTIVE VOTING TECHNOLOGY <br />Position: <br />Washington County supports legislation that allows for alternative printed ballot styles to be used in the <br />voting process, specifically assistive voting technology that creates a marked paper ballot indicating the <br />voter's selection for each office by use of a touch screen or other electronic device. <br />Issue: <br />Assistive voting equipment allows all voters, regardless of their abilities, to vote privately and <br />autonomously. Currently, there are three assistive voting machines certified by the Office of the Secretary <br />of State for use in Minnesota. The most common, and the one currently used by Washington County for <br />assistive voting, is the Automark. The Automark is the only equipment compatible with the county's <br />existing election infrastructure. The Automark is no longer manufactured, is over ten years old, weighs <br />80 pounds, and takes up a significant amount of storage space. Because this technology is over a decade <br />old, voters who use it are frustrated by the slow push screen (not touch screen) technology. <br />Washington County and other counties across the state are interested in upgrading their assistive voting <br />technology with new technology that is compatible with our existing election infrastructure. One such <br />advancement in this technology does not print a voter's selection on a pre-printed paper ballot. Instead, <br />a voter's preferences are printed on a large receipt detailing their selection that is then fed into the ballot <br />tabulator like every other ballot. This receipt is considered an alternative ballot style and current <br />Minnesota law does not allow anything but a traditional paper ballot to be used when voting. <br />The proposed technology provides complete and total independence to voters of all abilities; results in an <br />easier -to -use assistive voting system for the voter, the poll worker, and elections administrators; reduces <br />the expense of pre-printed ballots; eliminates unclear voter intention since the voter's completed ballot <br />will clearly identify the voter's intent every time; and expands options in voting technology to ensure the <br />specific needs of each county and its voters are met. <br />Support and Opposition: <br />Support for these voting systems and the alternative printed ballots at the legislature has been mixed. <br />House 1569 and Senate 1141 files (90th Legislature 2017-2018) authorizing this type of voting system have <br />authors from both political parties including Karin Housley and Leon Lillie from Washington County. Some <br />legislators opposed to the bills are wary of the alternative ballot style due to fear that the ballot style may <br />cause voters to be identified. Provisions are included in the proposed legislation to address this concern. <br />House 1569 and Senate 1141 were supported by the Office of the Secretary of State, the Disability <br />Advisory Committee to the Secretary's Office and the National Federation for the Blind. <br />An equipment vendor competing with the county's existing vendor for market share in Minnesota <br />opposes this legislation and has lobbied in opposition. <br />Previous Consideration: <br />This legislation was introduced during the 2017 Legislative Session. It has authors in both chambers. It <br />was heard in the House, but not in the Senate. Washington County has not previously considered this <br />legislation. <br />21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.