1. Presentation of ES&S John Groh, Senior Vice President of Government Relations October 15, 2007

2. Topics Overview of important facts Our Company AutoMARK Federal qualification/state certification processes Timelines ATS and SysTest remarks Summary Conclusion

3. ES&S Position AutoMARK -- federally qualified and California certified Non-functional, de minimis hardware modifications were approved through federal process NASED considered hardware modifications part of existing qualified and certified system State was aware of modified hardware State certified modified hardware as part of San Francisco voting system

4. Our Company Mission Maintaining voter confidence and enhancing voting experience Providing secure, accurate and reliable voting solutions History Over three decades, ES&S has had successful track record of producing quality results Compliance with federal and state certification processes First company ever to receive certification of voting equipment under 1990 VVSS and end to end voting system under 2002 VVSS

5. Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Ballot-marking device used by voters with disabilities and other special needs Well-received by voters and election officials Certified and installed in 29 states The AutoMARK Voter Assist Terminal

6. Federal Qualification Process Overseen by NASED (National Association of State Election Directors) States accept and rely on NASED qualification Evaluation Testing Review Independent Testing Authorities (ITAs)

7. Independent Testing Authorities Function of the Independent Testing Authorities (ITAs) Approved and accredited by NASED Conduct extensive qualification testing Provide detailed reports to NASED Technical Committee as part of qualification process Consider and review hardware changes to already approved voting systems Review submission of engineering change requests (ECRs) Determine action required (if any)

8. Modifications to hardware (on previously qualified systems) Do not involve modifications to software or firmware Reasons for ECRs Service and manufacturability COTS, end of life, equivalent hardware parts Engineering Change Requests

9. If review finds changes are de minimis (not involving form, fit, or function) No new voting system is created No new NASED qualification number is assigned Previously qualified voting system viewed as unchanged and unaffected Historical practice of states, including CA, did not require notice of de minimis hardware changes

10. AutoMARK Phase 2 (A200) Reasons for non-functional modifications to previously CA certified AutoMARK hardware: Ease of preventative maintenance Manufacturability NASED/ITA approved de minimis hardware changes No new NASED qualification number was assigned Existing voting system was viewed as unaffected and unchanged for voters, poll workers and election officials

11. Federal Certification Timeline 3/27/06 through 7/27/06 AutoMARK Production Hardware model A200=Phase2 6/1/05 through 3/27/06 AutoMARK Production Hardware model A100=Phase 1 12/16/05 All Engineering Change Requests Evaluated and Approved AutoMARK A200=Phase 2 1/10/06 Electromagnetic Compatibility Qualification Signoff and Review on AutoMARK A200=Phase 2 AutoMARK NASED Qualified # N-1-16-22-001 Firmware version 1.0.168 (1.0) Hardware model A100=Phase 1 6/1/05

12. Federal Certification Timeline 3/27/06 through 7/27/06 AutoMARK Production Hardware model A200=Phase2 6/1/05 through 3/27/06 AutoMARK Production Hardware model A100=Phase 1 12/16/05 All Engineering Change Requests Evaluated and Approved AutoMARK A200=Phase 2 1/10/06 Electromagnetic Compatibility Qualification Signoff and Review on AutoMARK A200=Phase 2 AutoMARK NASED Qualified # N-1-16-22-001 Firmware version 1.0.168 (1.0) Hardware model A100=Phase 1 6/1/05

13. California Certification Timeline CA SOS issues certification of San Francisco Ranked Choice voting system which includes Phase 2 AutoMARK 10/26/06 8/3/05 ES&S receives CA certification of voting system involving Phase 1 AutoMARK Firmware version 1.0.168 (1.0)

14. California Certification Timeline CA SOS issues certification of San Francisco Ranked Choice voting system which includes Phase 2 AutoMARK 10/26/06 8/3/05 ES&S receives CA certification of voting system involving Phase 1 AutoMARK Firmware version 1.0.168 (1.0)

15. AutoMARK A200/Phase 2 Notification and Awareness Timeline ITA approves Phase 2 modifications Feb 2006 July 2006 ES&S submits application to CA SOS involving Phase 2 Oct. 10, 2006 CA SOS tester examines Phase 2 units as part of San Francisco RCV certification CA SOS staff determines that Phase 2 units are “unchanged” from Aug. 3, 2005 California certification which involved Phase 1/A100 units Oct. 11, 2006 CA SOS certifies San Francisco RCV voting system involving Phase 2/A200 units Oct. 25, 2006 April 2006 ITA delivers report to NASED referencing Phase 2 Aug. 2006 NASED tech. comm. (including CA examiner) qualifies new voting system including both Phase 1 and Phase 2 units

16. AutoMARK A200/Phase 2 Notification and Awareness Timeline ITA approves Phase 2 modifications Feb 2006 July 2006 ES&S submits application to CA SOS involving Phase 2 Oct. 10, 2006 CA SOS tester examines Phase 2 units as part of San Francisco RCV certification CA SOS staff determines that Phase 2 units are “unchanged” from Aug. 3, 2005 California certification which involved Phase 1/A100 units Oct. 11, 2006 CA SOS certifies San Francisco RCV voting system involving Phase 2/A200 units Oct. 25, 2006 April 2006 ITA delivers report to NASED referencing Phase 2 Aug. 2006 NASED tech. comm. (including CA examiner) qualifies new voting system including both Phase 1 and Phase 2 units

17. SysTest Labs and ATS Brian Phillips, President SysTest Labs Incorporated Gary Olivi, VP Technical Operations and COO, AutoMARK Technical Systems, LLC

18. Summary AutoMARK -- federally qualified and California certified Non-functional, de minimis hardware modifications were approved through federal process NASED considered hardware modifications part of existing qualified and certified system Historical practice was that states, including CA, did not require notice of same as they were not considered a “change” to a voting system

19. State was aware of modified hardware State certified modified hardware as part of San Francisco voting system Summary

20. Conclusion ES&S acted in good faith and has always complied with what we understood to be the practices and procedures relating to the certification process ES&S respectfully requests that the Secretary of State make a no cause determination