Scott Hilkert, Managing Principal NIST Workshop on a Common Data Format for

1. Application of Lessons Learned in the Illinois EDC Project Toward Emerging Election Data Standards and System Guidelines Scott Hilkert, Managing Principal NIST Workshop on a Common Data Format for Electronic Voting Systems. Oct 29 - 30, 2009

2. Presentatoin Topics • Background of Illinois Election Data Collection project. • Primer on Election Systems and Data Paths Between. • Challenges Faced in EDC Project. • Inconsistency in Contest Naming • Inconsistency in Precinct Naming • Suitability of Raw Machine Data for Reporting • Relevance to Common Data Workshop

3. Illinois EDC Project Background • Sponsored by EAC Grant awarded to 5 states. • Objective: Devise a means of automatic election data reporting for the 2008 General Election • Objective: Report election results data at the precinct level. • Applied to the 2008 General Election • Illinois Project Started late, Limited functionality in place for March 2009 reporting deadline • Grant extended, final software to serve as proof-of-concept for Electronic Canvass. • Focused on Data Paths 1 & 2 on the following slide.

4. Election Systems and Data Flow

5. Election Systems and Data Flow

6. Election Data Flow Highlights 1 Data exports from vote tabulation systems. (VTS) All 4 major Vendor systems represented in Illinois 2 Data exported from VR or election management systems (EMS) Typically the Statewide VR System 3 Data used to configure vote tabulation systems for each election. Lack of consistent naming and usage was a challenge 9 EMS / VTS System Boundary Inconsistency across boundary was a challenge

7. Election Data Collection Software • Accepts Standard Export Files from each county tabulation system. • Separate TranslactionPlugin developed for each of 4 major vendor systems (Hart, ES&S, Sequoia, Premier) • Accepts Data Export from Statewide Voter Registration System. • In “bottom up” states, Statewide VR data is derived from separate county systems. • Local survey data is also combined. • Data must be mapped and merged as it moves up the reporting hierarchy on following slide

8. Election Data Reporting Hierarchy

9. Challenge : Inconsistency in Contest Naming • Data from separate county systems must be correlated and merged. • Requires mapping of contest and choice names to state standard conventions: • For example, Illinois 17th Congressional District spans 12 whole counties and portions of 2 more counties. Example names for this contest: • “US House of Representatives” • “Representative in the United States Congress,” • or simply “Congress.” • Note that none of these identified this as the 17th.

10. Challenge : Inconsistency in Contest Naming • A name mapping feature had to be developed (See screen shot on following slide) • Also required for Party name and Choice names. • This required significant staff hours to manually analyze and configure the data mapping. • Had the naming conventions used to program the systems (Data Flow #3) been standardized, the manual mapping process could have been avoided.

11. Contest Mapping User Interface

12. Remedies? : Inconsistency in Contest Naming • Establish standard codes or short names for major contests (Replace old FIPS codes) • Train and educate local election jurisdictions on VTS programming and usage conventions • Incorporate standards and guidelines into VTS Vendor products and documentation.

13. Challenge : Inconsistency in Precinct Naming • Caused by the EMS / VTS system boundary discussed earlier. • Limits ability to correlate voter registration data, ballot request data with votes cast data. • A similar name mapping interface had to be developed. • Very ineffective for 1000’s of Precincts. • Remedies similar to that of previous mentioned challenge.

14. Challenge : Suitability of Raw Machine Data for Reporting • Small discrepancies encountered between VTS export files and official canvass reports. • Provisional and other ballot types added to Canvass in external process. • Date of export uncertain • Some adjustments are inevitable. • Remedies?: • Establish standard VTS usage guidelines for ballot types. • Encourage use of VTS exports with Official Canvass • Data standards must track manual adjustments separatly from original machine counts.

15. Challenge : Suitability of Raw Machine Data for Reporting • Small discrepancies encountered between VTS export files and official canvass reports. • Provisional and other ballot types added to Canvass in external process. • Date of export uncertain • Some adjustments are inevitable. • Remedies?: • Establish standard VTS usage guidelines for ballot types. • Encourage use of VTS exports with Official Canvass • Data standards must track manual adjustments separatly from original machine counts.

16. Relevance to Common Data Workshop • Inconsistent Data Format between the 4 systems was actually the least of the challenges faced. • Data usage and naming conventions should be promoted along with any emerging data standard. • EAC Sponsored Technology initiatives can help.