Election Data Standards Requirements: Getting on with what we’ve got John L. McCarthy, volunteer Verified Voting Foundation Common Elections Data Format Workshop National Institute for Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, Maryland October, 2009

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 2 of xxx Printed Overview & Review Background for election data standards Who needs & uses election data? (clients) What kinds of election data are required? When are election data needed for what purposes? What objectives would data standards help meet? How are these needs currently being met? –in the United States? –In other countries? What characterizes good data format standards? Why can’t we simply use EML (& extend as necessary)? –OASIS Election Markup Language (dialect of W3C XML)

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 3 of xxx Printed Who needs & uses election data (& how)? Potential clients for election data standards Voting systems vendors and system developers –component communications, system integration, testing, reporting Election officials – local, state, and national (EAC, …) –ballot definition, testing, reporting, aggregation, auditing Election management consultants & contractors –systems integration, contract work for election officials News media (TV, radio, print, web) –reporting results, predicting outcomes & analyzing trends Candidates, political parties & organizations –deciding whether to concede, claim victory or dispute results Citizens, citizen organizations & academic researchers –pre and post election auditing, analyzing detailed results

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 4 of xxx Printed What kinds of election data are required? Election districts & district boundaries Voter registration information & eligible voter lists Candidate nominations & approved candidate lists Referendum options and approved options lists Ballot definition information (for each jurisdiction) Election vote records, counts, results, and statistics Cast Vote Records (CVR) for each individual ballot –including outcomes for each voting opportunity (choice) –e.g., vote recorded, blank, too many choices, unrecognized Logs from each individual piece of voting equipment Audit information pertinent to all the above categories

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 5 of xxx Printed What detailed components are needed for vote tabulation audits? GEOGRAPHIC IDENTIFIERS –State, County –Sub-county jurisdiction(s), if any (e.g., city, township) –Precinct –Other Aggregation Unit Identifiers (e.g., state assembly district, water district) Voting Method (early, absentee, in-precinct, provisional, Ballot Type and/or party (for primary elections) FOR EACH CONTEST –Contest (e.g., Governor, State Assembly, City Council, Water Board) –Choice (candidate or position Y/N) Summary records typically contain counts for each choice and some systems’ cast vote records for individual ballots may show how each choice was counted -- vote, blank, too many choices (overvote), or unrecognized mark. SoS’s & others also need standards for various types of election audit reports

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 6 of xxx Printed When are election data needed? Preceding an election –system development & testing –logic and accuracy testing & test results –jurisdiction boundaries, ballot types, voting places –ballot design and contents (candidates, ballot measures, etc.) –registered & eligible voters During an election –problem reports –individuals who have voted Election night –detailed vote counts by polling place, type (in-person, absentee), candidate, ballot measure choices, overvotes, undervotes –Individual Cast Vote Records (CVR) for each ballot Before certification of final results –audit results, including resolution of any discrepancies found

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 7 of xxx Printed Objectives that election data standards can help us achieve Timely & Transparent Reporting –aggregation within local jurisdictions & from local to state –to media, interested organizations & the general public –to help support pre and post-election auditing Lower costs & improved Accuracy –Improve transparency & testing of ballot definition –connect registration, pollbooks, and reporting –facilitate transition to electronic record-keeping Interoperability –between components from a single vendor –among different components from different vendors Auditability –detailed data available immediately following each election –machine-readable reports broken down in arbitrary ways

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 8 of xxx Printed How are these needs currently being met? In the United States… –very little standardization data exchange via poorly documented proprietary formats election management systems produce human readable reports –some exceptions CA SoS media feed 2008, 2009 IL translation programs for EAC data collection grant program In other countries –Council of Europe recommends EML for interoperability (2004) –Australian Electoral Commission EML Media Feed (since 2007) –UK e-voting pilots and CORE registration project use EML –Belgium uses EML for local elections in Flanders (2006-7) –Others?

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 9 of xxx Printed What kinds of data and metadata do current commercial vote tabulation systems provide? Human Readable Reports e.g., Hart-Intercivic (Crystal Reports)

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 10 of xxx Printed What would characterize good election data format standards? Machine-readable, structured components –separate elements for each distinct type of information (e.g., state, county, precinct, type, contest, candidate, undervotes) –easy to render into different formats –modular structures/schemas for different kinds of data (e.g., ballot definition, geography, tabulation results, …) Well-defined and documented data elements & structures –preferably defined by & data verifiable via formal schema Quasi-human-readable –data volume does not require serious compression (e.g., ASN.1) –easy to render into different human-readable & machine formats Compatible with tools for translation, rendering & storage –e.g., XML: style sheets, schema, databases; web services; XSLT Developed through standards consensus process –input and discussion from all stake-holders, trial use, etc.

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 11 of xxx Printed Doesn’t EML (Election Markup Language) meet most if not all of these requirements? Dialect of XML (current lingua franca for data exchange) Developed by OASIS Technical Committee (since 2001) –participation by vendors and election experts –currently completing work on version 6.0 (still time for feedback!) –OASIS will propose EML 6.0 as ISO standard early in 2010 Flexible, extensible, modular framework –version 6.0 includes new elements & features to support US voting –V 6.0 meets most known election requirements Already used by a number of organizations & jurisdictions –California & Australia media feeds, etc. –ES&S, Hart-Intercivic (EDX XML variant), EDS, IBM, more in Europe For more info, see tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=election#expositoryhttp://

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 12 of xxx Printed What are primary objections, barriers, and counter-arguments to use of EML? Too new ? –development of multiple versions since 2001 –used successfully in growing number of jurisdictions Competing approaches & standards ? –IEEE Voting Systems Electronic Data Interchange Project 1622 temporarily deactivated because TC "failed to achieve balance" –Comma-delimited spreadsheet format No schema to enforce data input requirements Require multiple tables to supported nested repeating groups Would have to develop table and column definitions, etc. Too complex and/or missing features ? –can ignore modules that are not applicable –Easy to extend and add new features using XML (e.g. audit reports) Implementation costs ? –3 major vendors already use EML or XML in significant ways –Lots of tools to support XML development and use

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 13 of xxx Printed The need is urgent…Now is the time to act Election auditing requires a single standard set of formats –statement from last week’s meeting on election auditing at ASA States are beginning to implement electronic reporting –California 6 county experiment & plans to expand to statewide –Illinois plans statewide integrated voting & elections system Need for national archive of election data –for policy makers, legislators, academic researchers –current election day survey data is inadequate not timely, detailed data not easily available in standard formats EAC data collection grant project results can provide insights If EML is deficient, we can propose revisions for v6 –but should do so in the next couple of months

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 14 of xxx Printed Opportunities for participation Election Data Standards list (& google sites wiki) Try new election data software & help improve it –Auditing software from CO (McBurnett), UC Berkeley (Stark), … –VTS translation software from IL? EML & enhancements for version 6 –OASIS Elections & Voter Services Technical Committee –Joe Hall, David Webber, others – NIST, TGDC, VVSG –Urge EAC and/or NIST to become active members of OASIS TC –create documentation & guidelines to facilitate adoption

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 15 of xxx Printed Thanks to …. Verified Voting Foundation & President Pam Smith Election Data Standards and Auditing Lists American Statistical Association & Steve Pierson David Webber, OVS/OASIS John Sebes, Open Source Digital Voting Foundation Neal McBurnett, Boulder, Colorado Scott Hilkert & Catalyst Consulting associates, Chicago participants in last week’s election auditing meeting

John L. McCarthy Election Data Standards Requirements – October 2009 NIST Workshop slide 16 of xxx Printed Example XML data fragment