Verified Voting Logo
Edit Your PreferencesContact VerifiedVoting.orgAbout VerifiedVoting.org
Verified Voting HomeJoin - Help us do this work!Donate - Help us do this work!Take Action Today!Endorse the resolution!
Printer Friendly Version

See information for:

The Verified Voting Foundation engages in educational activities permitted by IRC Section 501(c)(3). Please visit VerifiedVoting.org for info about 501(c)(4) lobbying activities. You can also visit Vote Trust USA, a project of the Verified Voting Foundation. Also, check out our blog and twitter feed.

E-Mail This Page

Home   »  States with Escrow Provisions


States with Escrow Provisions

by Pamela Smith, PresidentVerified Voting Foundation
March 12th, 2007

Some states examine voting system software, in particular the source code that provides instructions to the voting system hardware--and keep a copy in escrow--as part of that state's requirements for certification of the voting system.

Voting systems are often modified and updated. A state may require escrow to help provide a framework for ensuring that the state-approved version of a system is the one being used in actual elections locally. A prohibition on unauthorized versions of voting system software may not prevent their use, but it should provide a legal guideline which vendors – and local jurisdictions – must follow.

Such requirements vary from state to state; the requirements may not be contained in statute but instead in rules promulgated by the chief election official. For example, California's former Secretary of State was able to task the voting systems technology advisory board with review of a particular voting system component because of a rule he established that voting system vendors must escrow source code not only with a third-party escrow facility but also with the Secretary of State.

Some states establish that the software must be disclosed in certain circumstances. The conditions for such disclosure vary. In most cases, this means the state is required, or reserves the right, to examine the software to try to determine if it functions as the vendor has represented. Although the vendor must still provide the code in order to accomplish this, it is not the same as an escrow provision. For example, a state that requires disclosure of the software for the purposes of initial testing for certification may just leave it at that, and not require re-testing for every modification. In such cases, local jurisdictions could well be using different versions of the system software than that which was originally tested and approved, and no “approved version” would be escrowed.

States for which we have found escrow (or related) provisions include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin and Washington. Please see the attached PDF document "Escrow Provisions" for details and links.

There may also be states considering such provisions in pending legislation. We welcome learning about those bills as well. Please write to observer@verifiedvoting.org if you have information to share about such provisions.
Thanks go to Joe Hall for his early review of this draft document and helpful comments.


Announcements

August 26, 2010
On India’s Electronic Voting Controversy
August 25, 2010
Pac-Man for president: Hack highlights e-voting flaws
August 6, 2010
Voting Technology Research Gets In-Depth
July 27, 2010
State Election Officials: Recountable Process A Must for Overseas Voters
July 20, 2010
Online Voting: All That Glitters Is Not Gold (Unless You're a Vendor)
June 21, 2010
Voting Without A Net In South Carolina
June 17, 2010
Voting results in New Jersey should not be mysterious
June 16, 2010
Verified Voting Calls for Recountable, Auditable Voting Systems Following South Carolina Primary
June 16, 2010
Voting integrity groups call for investigation of South Carolina voting systems in wake of unexpected primary results in Democratic US Senate race
June 15, 2010
On the South Carolina Primary
May 23, 2010
Benefits, risks of e-mail ballots weighed
May 4, 2010
PA - Team 4: Security Concerns About Voting Machines Remain
April 26, 2010
California Assembly committee endorses UC Berkeley statistician's election auditing method
March 8, 2010
Feds Move to Break Voting-Machine Monopoly
March 2, 2010
Is the Internet the Right Place for Our Ballots? Election Administration and Voting Rights Thought Leaders Weigh in on the Future of Overseas Voting at Summit 2010
February 25, 2010
Minnesota Civic Groups Refute Recount Claims
February 17, 2010
Groups and Election Officials Warn Department of Justice that Voting Machine Vendor Merger will Inflate Costs to Taxpayers, Threaten Election Accuracy and National Security
February 11, 2010
Fla. justices uphold local election law
February 3, 2010
NJ Judge Issues Mixed Order on Use of E-voting Machines
February 1, 2010
Ruling Issued in Rutgers–Newark Law School’s Constitutional Litigation Clinic Challenge to NJ's Electronic Voting Machines

Get E-Mail Alerts




Important Links

  • VVBlog: Check out the latest news and commentary at our blog.
  • Election Day Problems?
    Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE
  • Find Your Polling Place: Vote411.org
  • Questions? Contact Us
  • Vote Trust USA - national resource for state-based organizations supporting verifiable elections, a Verified Voting Foundation project


  • "The core of our American democracy is the right to vote. Implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. And I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all of that is being called into question." (more here)

    Kevin Shelley, former
    California Sec. of State





    Verified Voting Foundation, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.

    © Copyright 2008, Verified Voting Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved, although reprint permission granted for nonprofit purposes with attribution to Verified Voting Foundation, Inc.


    Privacy    Site Map