Conformity Magazine - June 2008 - (Page 26)

NVLAP’s long history of laboratory accreditation has prepared it well to assess voting system test laboratories It was not until 1990 that the U.S. had a national standard (VSTL) as to their management and quality practices. for voting equipment. The standard, written by the FEC However, the specific technical requirements needed in a in cooperation with NASED, was created to fill a need VSTL were new ground for NVLAP. Specifically, NVLAP recognized at the time. Before that, individual states each was challenged when trying to evaluate the effectiveness created their own requirements and qualified voting systems of specific test methods proposed by the labs for their in a variety of ways. The result was a wide ranging mix of thoroughness and effectiveness. Further complicating the requirements and certification tests. Recognizing that this situation is the fact that NVLAP was assessing laboratories diversity was both duplicative at the beginning of the EAC’s and inefficient the FEC created certification program. This the 1990 Voting System meant that the laboratories did It was not until 1990 that the Standard (VSS), and in 1994 not have any examples of their NASED inaugurated a program U.S. had a national standard work to be examined. The initial to qualify equipment to it. recommendations from NVLAP for voting equipment. The were therefore, of necessity, In 2002 the FEC published the more an assessment that a standard, written by the FEC first and only update to the 1990 laboratory could potentially do VSS standard. After the EAC in cooperation with NASED, good work, in contrast to an was created, it adopted the 2002 assessment that a laboratory was updated VSS standard as its first was created to fill a need doing good work. standard for voting equipment. New Standards Nonetheless, NVLAP made In 2005, the EAC published its that, individual states each its first recommendations for first standard, the Voluntary accreditation to the EAC, and Voting System Guidelines created their own requirements the first VSTLs were accredited. (VVSG), replacing the 2002 As the program moves forward, and qualified voting systems in VSS. A phased implementation NVLAP is gaining experience was announced, with equipment a variety of ways. in the specific marks of quality being qualified under either evaluation. The EAC is learning standard until December how to feed its concerns about 2007. The EAC continued to testing effectiveness into the work with NIST on revising NVLAP process. The EAC reviews both the final test reports the standards, and in 2007 a draft revision of the VVSG from the VSTLs and receives continual information on how was delivered to the EAC and is now undergoing a public voting systems perform in real elections. The VSTLs are comment and review. performing evaluations, thereby creating work products that can be examined in order to judge the delivered quality of At this time, no equipment has yet been certified to the 2005 their work. VVSG. The equipment in use today was either certified to the 1990 or 2002 VSS standard. Also, participation in the national certification continues to be voluntary. While most states do participate, approximately 10 states opt to run totally independent programs. Introduction of NVLAP With any certification program comes the need to qualify and monitor the laboratories. The EAC assigned that responsibility to NIST’s National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). NVLAP has a long and successful history in laboratory accreditation. Operating under a series of Mutual Recognition Agreements with other countries, NVLAP assesses laboratories to ISO 17025, the international standard for laboratory accreditation. ISO 17025 has two major components, a set of requirements on lab management (including quality and documentation control) and a set of requirements for technical competence in the scope of accreditation. 26 Conformity JUnE 2008 recognized at the time. Before Changes in State Certification Individual states have been far from inactive. State legislatures have been quite prolific. In addition, state and local election officials have used their authority to implement a variety of reforms. In light of the high state of controversy surrounding elections, some election officials have started running elections on the assumption that there will be lawsuits. Changes have been made to collect evidence and retain documentation so that, when an election is challenged, the election official has the evidence to prove the election was run properly. A great advantage of this extra evidence (some of which is gathered using high tech forensic methods) is that, should election fraud occur, there is ample evidence to prove it. Controls on software used in elections have become much tighter. Many jurisdictions now routinely check all voting

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Conformity - June 2008

Conformity - June 2008 Contents Editor's Note 700 MHz Auction Raises a Record $20 Billion FCC Modifies PCS and AWS Power Limit Rules for Broadband Wireless Commission Designates Spectrum Test Bed FCC Releases Report on Wireless Competition Commission Proposes $5 Million Fine for Slamming Using EDX for Non-Destructive Detection of Lead in Consumer Products ESD Open Forum Challenges in Testing - Improving Election Security and Accuracy Part 1 Challenges in Testing - Human Body Model: The Hidden Challenges High-Speed Signal Integrity Considerations for ESD Components Focus On...EMC Components Buyer's Guide FCC Levies $2.6 Million Fine for Junk Faxes FDA Updates Guidance on its Product Review Process EU Issues Updated Energy Star Regulations EU Repeals Directive on Veterinary Electro-Medical Equipment New Product Announcements Updated Standards List for the EU's PPE Directive CPSC Announces New Effort to Keep Out Hazardous Products CPSC Actions in the News IEC Standards Update UL Standards Update Product Reviews Telcordia Standards Update From Our "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" Department Looking Back: Items from Past Issues of Conformity Advertisers

Conformity - June 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.