Clarifying points on election security

I read Hearst Connecticut Media’s recent op-ed (“State needs to share election security results,” Jan. 18) regarding e-poll book security with interest, and feel it is necessary to clarify a few points. The UConn VoTeR Center was able to have complete access to the e-pollbooks, code and networks of three different manufacturers only after agreeing that the results of the testing would not be made public — had the VoTeR Center not made that agreement, they would not have been able to thoroughly evaluate the e-pollbooks in the way they did.

There is a reason why Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act law, one of the most expansive in the country, specifically exempts “trade secrets,” “records when there are reasonable grounds to believe disclosure may result in a safety risk … includ[ing] security manuals or reports,” and, most importantly, “records of standards, procedures, processes, software and codes, not otherwise available to the public, the disclosure of which would compromise the security or integrity of an information technology system.” It is likely that the Legislature was contemplating exactly this scenario when one or more of those exemptions were adopted.

It is also worth noting that while the op-ed correctly points out that the funding for the purchase of e-pollbooks has been approved by the Legislature and the Bond Commission, the op-ed neglects to state the reason why the funds have not been disbursed: the Legislature passed a law requiring that the secretary of the state certify one or more e-pollbooks before any bond money is distributed. As no product has yet been certified, no bond funds have been disbursed.

Finally, in response to Sen. Wyden’s request for the complete evaluation, although we were unable to share with his office exactly what he requested, we did ask the UConn VoTeR Center to prepare a more general letter that could be shared. They did so, and we shared it with Senator Wyden’s office last week.