Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-89-31RESOLUTION NO. R-89-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL 1529 AND SENATE BILL 499 RELATING TO ELECTIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Section 6 of House Bill 1529 amends Florida Statute 101.294 to-wit: and "No governing body shall purchase or cause to be purchased any voting equipment unless such voting equipment has been certified for use in this state by the Department of State and the purchase contract has been reviewed bY the Department of State." WHEREAS, the Florida ASsociation of Counties and the Florida Association of Supervisors of Elections were not consulted during the creation of election bills known as House Bill 1529 and Senate Bill 499; and WHEREAS, the amendatory language may involve substantial delay in the execution of purchase agreements for voting equipment already certified for use in the state by the Department of State; and WHEREAS, such delays may frustrate desired and necessary purchases for the Supervisor of Elections Office; and WHEREAS, the elections for federal, state, and county officials are paid for by the Boards of County Commissioners and administered by the Supervisors of Elections; and WHEREAS, such review of purchase contracts by the Department of State may be an improper interference with the home rule of a county as set out in Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of Florida; and WHEREAS, such review of purchase contracts by the Department of State may be an improper interference with the specific authority to expend funds, enter into contractual obligations, and purchase or lease personal property as set out in Florida Statute 125.01(3)(a); and WHEREAS, the authority which the legislation contemplates delegating to the Department of State, i.e., to review purchase contracts approved by local governing bodies, may be an improper delegation of the budgetary authority which resides in the County Commission to an executive branch agency by the Legislature; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, that: 1. The City Council of the City of Sebastian is specifically opposed to the mandatory provision of Section 6 of House Bill 1529 requiring review by the Department of State of purchase contracts for the purchase of voting equipment previously certified for use in the state by the Department of State. 2. A revision to Section 6 of House Bill 1529 making Department of State review of purchase contracts voluntary rather than mandatory would be appropriate and supported. 3. The City Council of the City of Sebastian generally objects to the passage of House Bill 1529 and Senate Bill 499 or their committee substitutes and suggests that legislation on these bills be postponed until those who have the responsibility for paying for them and administering them have an opportunity to thoroughly review and discuss the proposed legislation. 4. The ob3ections of the Supervisor of Elections of Indian River County, attached as Exhibit "A" to this resolution, are hereby incorporated by reference and adopted in their entirety. 5. This Resolution shall be effective upon final passage. The foregoing Resolution was moved for adoption by Councilman _~_~_~_~_f__~. ~do~u~ · The motion was seconded by Councilman ~,~r /~/~K~i~Y and, being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Mayor Richard B. Votapka Vice Mayor Robert McCarthy Councilman Frank Oberbeck Councilman Lloyd Rondeau Councilman Robert McCollum 2 The Mayor %hereupon declared %his Resolution duly passed and By: ATTEST: Kathry~/M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA Richard B. Votapka, Mayor Approved a~o Form and Content: Charl~8 lan Nash, Ci%7 Attorney Attachment to Board of County Commissioners' Resolution 89-44. OBJECTIONS 1. Section 1, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 Proposed: This act shall be known as the' "Voter Protection Act." ~ection: The title 'is misleading. A more suitable title would be the "Voter Taxation Act" or "An act that creates the Bureau of Voting Systems Certification within the Division of Elections of the Depart- ment of State and establishes sixteen initial positions in the bureau at a cost of $669,000.# THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR THE EQUIPMENT AND ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES NECESSARY TO COMPLY WIT}{ ALL THE NEW RULES AND TO DEAL WITH THE SIXTEEN INITIAL BUREAUCRATS iN TALLAHASSEE. 2. Section 4, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 ~osed: To add .Section 101.015 Florida Statutes, Department of State to adopt rules establishing minimum standards for hardware and software for voting systems and requiring that voting systems in use on or after July 1, 1993, must meet the minimum standards. Objection: If a County's system does not meet the standards that are ~et by the Department of State by the deadline of July 1, 1993, who is required to pay for a new votin~ system and what is the estimated cost? THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. 4. Section~5, HB 1529 & CB for SB 499 Pr__~osed~ To add "ballot cards" in the definition of F.S. 101.292(2). O_~ection: It is absurd to include supplies such as ballot cards in the definition of voting equipment. Used ballot cards cannot be reused, and thus they are clearly supplies. In F.S. 97.021, ballot cards are listed as an example of paper supplies.. In Florida only a governing body can purchase voting equipment. There is no need to involve a governing body in the purchase of consumable supplies for an election; those purchases should remain the responsibility of the supervisors of elections. If the supervisor of elections of a county is asked to run an election f6r a schoo~ board or municipality, then the governing body that called the election would be involved in the purchase of ballot cards, about which it knows nothing. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. 5A.Section 6, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 Pr_~osed: To add wording to F.S. 101.294 so that no governing body sha] purchase any voting equipment unless, the purchase contract has been reviewed by the. Department of State. [F.S. 101.294(3)] Objection: A governing body cannot purchase voting equipment unless if has been certified for use in Florida. There is no need for the extra wording;.if the. county wants the Department of State to review its contracts, it may ask it to do so now. 5B.Section 6, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 Proposed: To add part (4) to F.S. 101.294 to allow the Department of State to negotiate and execute purchasing agreements and contracts unde~ which any governing body may purchase any element of a voting system. Objection: If this is permissive, it's not necessary. If it's not Permissive,. it is an interference in the county's budgetary authority If the Department of State negotiated and executed an invalid contract, who would be responsible for the damages? If the.Department of State took such extra time to negotiate and execute a contract for used votin~ equipment that the equipment was sold to another'purchaser, who would bear the extra cost if no other used equipment was available? THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL. GOVERNMENTS. 6. Section 10, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 Proposed: To add part (12) to F.S. 101,5606 so that no electronic or e~ct~.omechaSical voting system shall b~ approved unless it is capable providing records from which the system.may be audited. Objection: A votin~ machine is an electromechanical-system, strictly defined, becauge it is a mechanical system which operates on electricit' Counties using voting machines would have to buy a new voting system. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. page 2 Attachment to BCC R~solution 7. S~ection 11, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 in ~he 'b~lis~ it states "Sub~t'an~-~l rewording of section, see 101.5607 It is not a rewording.' F.S. 101.5607(1).and 101.5607(2) remain the same but many new parts are added--(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(d), and ~2)(a) and ~(b). la ~: Requires that material from the vendor relating to an approved voting system must be filed with the Department of'State by the supervisor of elections, and if it is not on file, it may not be used in an election. Objection: It should be the responsibility of the vendor to file the ~ate~ial--with the Department of State when the system is submitted for certification- Any updates should be filed when the vendor makes a change. A vendor may sell a system to many counties, and it should be his responsibility to see that each county has the updates and to so notify the Department of State. Why add this to 101.5607 when there is a different statute covering requirements for approval of voting systems, and that is F.S. 101.56067 lbPr0posed: Requires the supervisor of elections to send by certified ~ail Within 24 hours a copy of the tabulation program which was used in the logic and accuracy testing. objection: What is the purpose of this requirement when none of the Othe~ numerous items which must be submitted by supervisors have to be :sent b~y cert~fied mail within 24 hours? There is no requirement that any of the items.that Rust be sent to the supervisor of elections by' the Department of State have to be sent by certified mail with 24 hours. Why add this to 101.5607 when F.$. 101.5612, Testing of Tabulating Equipment, covers the other requirements for the logic and accuracy test% lcProposed: The ~Department of State may, at any time, review the voting system 6f any county to ensure compliance with the Electronic voting Systems Act. Objection: This sounds like the Gestapo. It should read, "The Depart- ~ent of ~tate may, at a time agreeable to the supervisor of elections, review the voting syste~ of any county to ensure compliance with the ElectroniC--VOting-Systems Act. ldPropo~ed: Section 119.07(3)(r) applies to all software on file with the bepartment of State. ~: None. 2a~: The'department of State may develop software for use with an electronic or electromechanical voting system. Objection: It will be interesting to hear the vendors' reactions when %hey iea~n that they must submit copies of their software, tile programs, operating manuals, tabulating cards, printouts, etc. in order to get their systems certified by the Department of State,. only to find out tha the Department of State may develop software for use with an electronic or electromechanical system and go into competition with tile vendors. NO MENT~~ON IS MADE OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. 8.S_eection 14, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 In SeCtion 14, there are numerous ~.%nd far reaching new parts of 102.166 Florida Statutes regarding manual recounts. 4aPro~osed: Any'candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any politic. committee that"supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the hallo or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot m file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. Objectio~nn: It would be reasonable to suppose that every losing candida ~olitical committee, and political party-would file' a request for a manual recount when no reason whatsoever is required and the cost is paid by the local governments. There are provisions currently in this statute allowing protests to be filed if error ~or fraud is alleged, ar there is no need to makD wholesale changes that are so broad. Attachment to BCC Resolution ~, pge 3 8. Section 14, HR 1529 & CS for SB 499 (continued)~ 4bProposed: Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior t6 the time the canvassing board adjourns or within 5 days after mid- night of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later. Objection: The meaning of the entire sentence is confusing because ~f the phrase, "whichever occurs later." However, it appears that the intent is to have the canvassing board be ready to accept requests for manual recounts for the ·five days after the election. Does this mean that vote tabulations are not official for five days?' 4cProposed: The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. Objection: What criteria are supposed to be used by the canvassing ~oard in order for it to make a decision that is on firm legal ground? I doubt if the members of the canvassing board--the judge, the county commissioner, or the supervisor of eleCtions--will accept such sweeping authority with no basis whatsoever. 4d~: The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. Objection: In elections with many candidates for one office, the loser~ could get together and each could choose three different precincts to be manually recounted, so that in a municipality it would be ~ecessary to manually recount all precincts. It is a time consuming process that is expensive, and it would postpone knowing the official final returns until the recounts were completed, it would be a serious interference in mailing absentee b~llots and in preparing for the next election 'if the recounts were requested after the first primary or the second primary. If a statewide candidate requested a manual recount, all 67 counties would be affected. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. 9. Section 15, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 Proposed: There is created a Bureau of Voting Systems Certification within the Division o~ Elections of the Department of State which shall provide technical support to the supervisors of elections and which is responsible for votin~ system standards and certification. Sixteen initial positions are established in the bureau, and the sum of $669,000 is hereby appropriated to the Divsion of Elections from the General Revenue fund for purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act. Objection: Rather than creating such a far reaching bureau at one time perhaps it would be more effective and less expensive to make a gradual approach. This would allow the Division of Elections an~ the superviso of'elections to absorb the changes and new rules gradually, to analyze the value to the voters and to the administration of elections in each county. There will have to be a corresponding increase in the number of employees in the supervisors of elections' offiCes.'to deal with the additional requirements by the Department of State and the Divison of Ele6tions. ~' THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.