My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2019.01.23 CC Packet - Goal Setting Session
Hugo
>
City Council
>
City Council Agenda/Packets
>
2019 CC Packets
>
2019.01.23 CC Packet - Goal Setting Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/25/2020 2:36:09 PM
Creation date
1/23/2019 1:18:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
1/22/2019
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
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, and equipment in use is over <br />ten years old. Because of this aging technology, voters who use it are frustrated by the poor usability. <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 paper receipt is considered an alternative ballot style and current <br />Minnesota law does not allow anything but a traditional 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; and expands options in voting technology to ensure the specific <br />needs of each county and its voters are met. <br />Support and Opposition: <br />Bills introduced that authorize these voting systems and the alternative printed ballots have had authors <br />from both political parties and support from the Washington County legislative delegation. This legislation <br />is supported by the Office of the Secretary of State, the Disability Advisory Committee to the Secretary's <br />Office, the National Federation for the Blind, the Minnesota Disability Law Center, many Minnesota <br />counties, and the Minnesota Association of County Officers. <br />An equipment vendor competing with the county's existing vendor for market share in Minnesota has <br />opposed this legislation in the past. <br />Previous Consideration: <br />Washington County actively supported this legislation in 2018. Legislation authorizing this equipment was <br />introduced during the 90`" Legislature (2017-2018) and included in the 2018 House Omnibus Election Bill. <br />No Omnibus Election Bill was passed in the Senate during the 2018 session. <br />No Action: <br />Absent legislative action Washington County and several other counties in the state would not have the <br />option to replace assistive voting equipment with updated technology compatible with their election <br />infrastructure. <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.