Open

Source:

Understanding
Its Application
in the Voting
Industry

A publication of the Election Technology Council


 Who We Are

The Election Technology Council (ETC) is a 501(c)6 trade association consisting of voting technology providers
in the United States. The current membership of the Council represents the voting system platforms for over 90%
of the registered voters in the U.S. and providers of other technology platforms such as electronic pollbooks and
voter registration/election management software.

The mission of the ETC is to promote the common interests of the election industry vendor community. The
goal of the ETC is to support policies that help voters exercise their right to vote and have their votes accurately
recorded, verified and counted.

Toward that goal, we support:

• Independent verification of electronic voting

• Training and deployment of sufficient poll workers and voting equipment to efficiently and
accurately serve the electorate
• Voting procedures and equipment that increase voter participation
• Long-term stability of voting procedures and the regulatory framework that oversees elections
• Transparency among regulatory and certification agencies
• Sufficient funding for the states to carry out federal mandates in the field of election administration

The objective of the ETC is specifically to:

• Educate and inform the public, regulatory authorities and customer interest groups of possible
implications and outcomes of public policy and regulatory requirements, as anticipated by the
vendor community. The efforts of the ETC will be focused upon the following organizations:
-Federal Regulatory authorities, including the EAC, TGDC, and NIST
-Federal Legislative authorities, including Congress and relevant committees
-Customer interest groups, including such organizations as NASED, NASS,
The Election Center, IACREOT, and NACRC.
-State level chief election officers
-Academia
-State level legislative bodies

It is important to understand what the ETC does not do. The ETC does NOT:

• Lobby for any particular type of voting process

• Lobby on any subject or situation that does not apply to all ETC members
• Collaborate on pricing or market division

For more information on the activities of the ETC, visit www.electiontech.org.


Executive Summary
In recent years, the potential for “open
source” software has been proposed for use in
voting systems. All too often, this proposal has
not clarified the term open source for the benefit
of policymakers or the elections community. For
the elections community, the frequent use of this
term, without an appropriate clarifying definition,
has resulted in confusion about its meaning
and viability for voting. In reality, many of the
proposals for open source are more appropriately
characterized as calls for software disclosure.
No individual effort has examined the practical
challenges of implementing open source software
in the current election administration environment
since the implementation of the Help America Vote
Act of 2002 which created a federal certification
process for voting systems.
It is clear that open source software plays a
role in the software industry marketplace, but the
potential benefits, as put forth by its proponents,
fail to capture the nuances associated with the
voting industry which differ significantly from the
standard commercial software marketplace. All
of the products offered for voting purposes must
be of sufficient quality to pass federal and/or state
certification requirements prior to their acceptance
and use in an election. In a pure open source
software development model, active testing of the
product by the end-user (i.e., election officials)
during its deployment is a critical facet of the
software’s development. In a proprietary model,
significant time and resources are spent in the
initial design of the software and hardware prior to
pursuing product certification and deployment.
Underlying this argument over open
source is the attempt to establish the principle
of transparency for products that are involved
in the American voting experience. Dr. Joseph
Hall (2007) describes a transparent system as one
that supports “accountability, public oversight,
comprehension and access to the entire process.”
(p. 2) These characteristics of a transparent process
represent a valuable foundation for discussions
over the viability of an open source model versus
a proprietary model. Unfortunately, the discussion
has too often focused on an “either/or approach”
rather than recognizing the separate challenges
associated with each environment.
Make no mistake, it is clear that open source
should be recognized as a potential product substitute
for proprietary software systems. Articles entitled
“Microsoft vs. Open Source: Who Will Win?”
help to illustrate the conflicting dynamic between
those who embrace the supremacy of open source
over proprietary platforms. However, rather than a
conflict model for these two product offerings, further
research should be done to explore the challenges
of offering an open source product in a regulated
environment. It is the current regulatory environment
which represents the most significant hurdle for the
use of open source software in the voting industry.
By understanding open source as a market
alternative to proprietary systems, it will become
evident that efforts to mandate its use without
sufficient product offerings would be unwise and
premature. Given the economic dynamics of the
marketplace, state and federal governments should
not adopt unfair competitive practices which show
preferential treatment towards open source platforms
over proprietary ones. Legislators who adopt policies
that require open source products, or offer incentives
to open source providers, will likely fall victim to
a perception of instituting unfair market practices.
At worst, policymakers may find themselves
encouraging the use of products that do not exist and
market conditions that cannot support competition.
Market dynamics should remain the ultimate
arbiter over whether an open source platform or
a proprietary product offering is the best solution
to fit the needs of an election jurisdiction. In an
effort to further educate those who are responsible
for providing oversight on the operation of voting
systems (i.e., federal, state, and local election
officials), it is important to identify the challenges
associated with an open source product offering and
how both open and proprietary systems differ in their
approaches and abilities to support state and local
election officials.
Without a better understanding of open
source, those who advocate it as a policy movement,
rather than a separate and distinct product offering,
may find themselves doing more harm than good.
David Beirne
Executive Director
April 2009
 “Microsoft vs. Open Source: Who Will Win?”, HBS
Working Knowledge. Harvard Business School, June 6, 2005.
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4834.html. 
 I. What is Open Source?
Open source software can be defined as
“software that is made available freely to all.”
(Hippel, 2003, p. 209) However, open source
development models, which produce open source
software, are defined as a process for software
developers who “voluntarily collaborate to
develop software that they or their organizations
need.” (Hippel, 2003, p. 209) In an effort to
reconcile these definitions, the term “open
source” will be used to refer to an environment
in which the software source code is available
for inspection, analysis, and programming
enhancements through a communal effort.
The Open Source Initiative outlines
various criteria governing licensing that must
be present for software to be considered open
source (see inset on page 5). Fundamental to
its criteria, open source is software that must
be freely exchanged and permits user generated
adjustments (OSI, 2009). Given the licensing
parameters outlined by the Open Source
Initiative, it is clear that open source is typically
used to describe a specific product offering and
its governing licensing terms. It does not refer
to simply disclosing software source code to the
general public.
For software that is generated through
private investment and subject to copyright and
intellectual property restrictions, but is then
made freely available for public review, the term
“disclosed software” is more appropriate. This
definition for disclosed software is also more
indicative of the intent behind advocacy groups
and legislation calling for open source software
in voting systems. The involvement of the
government in requiring the willful disclosure
of all proprietary software to the general public
calls into view the specter of intellectual property
rights and the potential for a government taking
in violation of the United States Constitution
(Hall, 2007). Based on the lack of currently
viable open source developed voting technology,
it is clear that advocacy groups are encouraging a
disclosed software model rather than a true open
source requirement.
Over the last twenty years, open source
 Open Voting Consortium, draft legislation for
State of California, www.openvotingconsortium.org/legis-
lation/draft., retrieved 2/20/2009.

products have been offered and represent a
clearly identified alternative to product platforms
that are governed by traditional proprietary
claims. Products such as Apache software
for servers, the Linux operating system, and
various file sharing/communication software
platforms represent some of the more successful
open source projects to date (Woods, 2005).
All of these platforms benefit from the lack
of a regulated environment and possess an
established community of contributors who
are users of the products and benefit from its
operation.
One voting system provider that is
often used as an illustration of the viability
of open source in voting products, is from a
company named Software Improvements. In
2001, the electronic voting software (referred
to as eVACS) used by the Australian Capital
Territory Electoral Commission was made
publicly available under the GNU general
public license (GPL), one of two popular
licenses available for open source platforms.
While Software Improvements was lauded for
its open source licensing, it decided to begin
restricting access to its source code in an effort
to protect its intellectual property investment.
Carol Boughton, Software Improvements’
Managing Director at the time, was quoted as
saying, “We need to find a way that still ensures
transparency and access, but protects our
intellectual property.” (Deare, 2004, p. 1) Under
its revised licensing, Software Improvements’
software would be available to only authorized
persons. While the eVACS software was
not developed in an open source model, its
licensing did incorporate an initial open source
approach towards its disclosure (Deare, 2004).
The example of Software Improvements
illustrates the conflicting nature of transparency
and marketability, but it also illustrates how
the attempt to disclose software has been
misconstrued as open source. While lauded as a
pioneer for its licensing and software disclosure,
the company had to examine its long-term
viability. The resulting decision of Software
Improvements to restrict access to its software
is a rational approach to a problem and points to
the need for an examination of the characteristics
 Open Source Criteria
The following is a list of criteria associated with
open source software:
1. Free Redistribution: The license
shall not restrict any party from selling or
giving away the software as a component of
an aggregate software distribution containing
programs from several different sources. The
license shall not require a royalty or other fee
for such sale.
2. Source Code: The program must
include source code, and must allow distribution
in source code as well as compiled form.
Where some form of a product is not distributed
with source code, there must be a well-
publicized means of obtaining the source code
for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost
preferably, downloading via the Internet without
charge.
3. Derived Works: The license
must allow modifications and derived works,
and must allow them to be distributed under
the same terms as the license of the original
software.
4. Integrity of the Author’s Source
Code: The license may restrict source code
from being distributed in modified form only
if the license allows the distribution of “patch
files” with the source code for the purpose
of modifying the program at build time. The
license must explicitly permit distribution of
software built from modified source code. The
license may require derived works to carry
a different name or version number from the
original software.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups: The license must not discriminate
against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields
of Endeavor: The license must not restrict
anyone from making use of the program in a
specific field of endeavor.
7. Distribution of License: The
rights attached to the program must apply to all
to whom the program is redistributed without
the need for execution of an additional license
by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a
Product: The rights attached to the program
must not depend on the program’s being part of
a particular software distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict
Other Software: The license must not place
restrictions on other software that is distributed
along with the license software. For example,
the license must not insist that all other
programs distributed on the same medium must
be open-source software.
10. License Must Be Technology-
Neutral: No provision of the license may be
predicated on any individual technology or style
of interface.
(Source: Open Source Initiative, www.opensource.org/
docs/osd, retrieved on March 4, 2008.)
for both open source and disclosed source
software models and their impact on a company’s
viability. In fact, there remains a multitude
of licensing options available for open source
platforms, but some are characterized as being
less than true open source if they do not adhere
to the licensing terms embraced by the Open
Source Initiative (Woods, 2005).
It is the dueling nature of transparency
and marketability which continues to cause
debate within the open source community and
those who attempt to use open source products
as a foundation for future software enterprises
(Woods, 2005). Much of this internal conflict
within the open source community can be traced
to its beginning and the ideas embraced which
are more indicative of a social movement rather
than a series of product offerings.

 Disclosed vs. Open: Clarifying
Misconceptions
The issue of transparency and security
of voting system software are foremost on the
minds of advocates when it comes to a policy
discussion on what is characterized as “open
source.” It is conceded that a pure open source
development model may yield comparable
benefits in the long-term. However, taking a
software product that was once proprietary and
disclosing its full source code to the general
public will result in a complete forfeiture
of the software’s security. The subsequent
disclosure of software to the general public
will become dependent on the existence of a
robust improvement process to address any
identifiable shortcomings within the software.
The subsequent improvements will also become
entirely dependent on the quality of the software
source code reviewers in whether or not all
potential bugs have been identified. Although
computer scientists chafe at the thought of
“security through obscurity,” there remains
some underlying truths to the idea that software
does maintain a level of security through the
lack of available public knowledge on the inner
workings of a software program (Wheeler,
2005). However, if proprietary software is
ripped open through legislative fiat, whatever
security features exist are completely lost until
such time that the process improvement model
envisioned by the open source community has
an opportunity to take place (Hall, 2007).
If we apply this approach to the use of
voting systems and the desire to maintain the
utmost security, the difficulty of transitioning
to an open source or disclosed software
environment is revealed. Elections occur
each year, not every two to four. By forcing
the openness of proprietary software to the
general public, all security is sacrificed for the
sake of transparency. While laudable based on
perception, the pursuit of widespread public
disclosure of proprietary software without
consideration of a product improvement model
would have a significant negative impact
on market conditions. In a statement before
the California legislature in 2006, Deirdre

Mulligan and Joseph Hall illustrated the
difficulties surrounding the use of an open source
model in a regulated industry such as voting:
“Given the fact that any modified voting system
software must be recertified at both the federal and
state level, it would also be difficult for a company
to optimize or customize open source voting
software for their customers when they would
have to have the resulting product certified.” (p.
8) In a subsequent article entitled “Transparency
and Access to Source Code in Electronic Voting,”
Dr. Hall also acknowledges the danger associated
with opening proprietary software to full public
disclosure. “Since computer scientists have yet to
find a method for writing bug-free software, public
disclosure of the system source code will inevitably
result in disclosing vulnerabilities…In the case of
voting systems, disclosing information on known
vulnerabilities arguably helps would-be attackers
more than system defenders.” (Hall 2007)
Dan Wheeler, computer scientist and
author, summarizes the challenge of transparency
and security best with the following observation:
“When a program began as closed source and
is then first made open source, it often starts
less secure for any users (through exposure of
vulnerabilities), and over time (say a few years)
it has the potential to be much more secure than
a closed program.....Just making a program
open source doesn’t suddently make a program
secure, and just because a program is open
source does not guarantee security.” (Wheeler,
2005) This observation perfectly describes the
hazards associated with disclosing proprietary
software without consideration for an appropriate
transition. It also underscores the need to pursue
an appropriate balance of respecting the role of
intellectual property and transparency when it
comes to voting system software. Given the critical
nature of voting system software to our nation’s
institutions, it is possible to protect intellectual
property while instituting government controls for
the deposit and subsequent investigation of voting
system software should the need arise in close
election contests.
History of Open Source
In the 1960s and 1970s, much of the
software used in computers was a result of
collaborative work within academic institutions
(Hippel, 2003). This communal approach to
software development was seen as an expression
of the university culture and the free exchange of
ideas. This all changed when the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) licensed the
fruit of these labors to a commercial firm who
subsequently restricted access to the software.
In response, Richard Stallman from MIT’s
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory founded the
Free Software Foundation in 1985. The Free
Software Foundation was meant to protect these
communal software development efforts from
future commercialization and ensure continued
free access to software products (Hippel, 2003).
The General Public License (GPL) was
developed by Stallman as a means of protecting
the future work of software developers. The
GPL ensured that source code would remain
publicly available and all subsequent software
improvements would also remain open for
contributions. The initial “free software”
movement was recast in 1998 as “open
source” in an effort to make this new software
development environment more palatable to the
private sector. Open source was now a reference
not just to source code and its availability, but
the actual licensing and distribution of the
software product itself (Perens, 2005).
From the initial pursuit of the “Free
Software Foundation” to its General Public
License and now the Open Source Initiative,
which attempts to balance the need for
commercialization of open source products, the
issue of licensing remains a point of contention
for those involved in the software community.
The initial evolution to open source began more
as a social movement and has now morphed
into a potential business approach and series of
alternative product offerings.
The remaining core difference between
existing open source software offerings and the
voting systems industry is the strict external
regulation of voting system products. It is
the contrast in upfront design requirements
associated with a commercial voting system
product offering versus the continuous software
Popularity of Current Open
Source Projects
Given the needs of an open source project
to garner a sufficient number of contributors, further
examination needs to be done on the most popular
open source projects available and how voting system
software offerings might be able to garner such a robust
support system and project leadership.
SourceForge.net is an online portal of current
open source projects. Below is a listing of the most
popular open source projects (based on total number of
downloads since the project’s inception) available on
sourceforge.net:
Software Name (total # of downloads)
1. eMule (479,794,489)
2. Azureus (333,971,772)
3. Ares Galaxy (188,730,107)
4. 7-Zip (61,424,644)
5. FileZilla (56,675,227)
6. GTK+ and The GIMP installers for Windows
(55,814,803)
7. Audacity (55,378,880)
8. DC++ (54,733,104)
9. BitTorrent (51,974,805)
10. Shareaza (46,805,022)
Source: http://sourceforge.net as retrieved on 2/20/2009.
Below is a listing of current open source voting software
efforts currently underway and the number of downloads
for each:
1. OpenSTV (8,184)
2. FREE e-democracy project (2,446)
3. evm (2,434)
4. EML Voting Project (916)
5. Verifyable Electronic Voting (688)
6. SOLON-free election program (323)
7. electronic voting platform (155)
8. osdv-sharp (0)
9. Open Source Democracy (0)
10. Secure Electronic Voting System (0)
Source: http://sourceforge.net as retrieved on 4/8/2009.
Based on the current lack of popularity for the open
source voting applications, the recruitment and viability
contributors to a voting system project will remain a
significant challenge. At a minimum, this points to a
need for other incentives to assist with recruitment and
retention of open source contributors.

 Open Source Life Cycle
OpenSourceLifeCycle
Figure 1: The Open Source Life Cycle

Idea/Need

Experiment/Proofof
Concept

PublicPrototype

CommunityFormation

Incremental evolution
Incrementalevolution
throughareleasecycle

Release1.0(orhigher)
( g )

Stagnation/
Evolution/stability abandonment

Source: Woods, D. (2005) Open Source for the Enterprise, p. 17, Figure 1-1.
Open source projects rely on a
core set of contributors in order to remain
active and mature as a process building
towards a functioning product. Each project
begins with the initial determination of an
idea or need which can originate from any
one person or community. The next step
in the process is the initial development
for a proof of concept to determine the
feasibility of the project, leading directly
into the initial public prototype. The
public prototype’s development is the core
infrastructure surrounding the project and
consists of the initial steps at programming
for the new software program. The intent
of the public prototype is to assist in
the creation of a community around the
prototype with a clear understanding of
the original project’s proof of concept.
Through time, the initial prototype is opened
for review and contributions are made by
others within the community. Each subsequent
addition to the software program is released
reflecting an incremental evolution in the
product development. After this initial core
development, the project will either become
stagnant or will continue to evolve and mature.
Stagnation or abandonment of open source
projects may occur through a perception
of completion for the project, poor project
leadership which removes incentives for future
contributors, or simply through lack of interest
(Woods, 2005).


improvement cycle indicative of an open source 2. The amount of effort exhibited by the
model that provides the most significant point of contributor must be recognized;
divergence in comparing the two models (Woods, 3. The performance of the contributor
2005). must be seen as a signal of the
contributor’s talent.
(Lerner, 2003, p. 114)
II. Accountability in an Open These three conditions point to the need for
Source Model a pure open source platform to recognize
An open source model relies upon a series contributors for their talent and skills in lieu
of contributors as part of its communal approach of the financial incentives associated with
for reviewing software and building toward a full a proprietary undertaking. Robert Hahn
product offering (Reid, 2004). Since open source (2002) provides a succinct examination on the
arguably diminishes the monetary incentive for personality characteristics of an open-source
contributing to an open source software project, contributor:
what are the motivating factors for those who “Programmers often flourish as part
wish to contribute? Forrest Cavalier divided of communities that prize cooperation and
contributors into three different types: openness. Status within the community is
1. Need-driven consumer: has self- largely derived from showing how good one is
interest, no technical knowledge, at programming--which requires showing off
but reports defects the source code-- and how committed one is to
2. User-developer: capable and furthering the collective effort--which requires
genuinely interested in product, providing source code for others to work from.”
motivation comes from a specific need or (p.2)
for pursuit of recognition Due to the volunteer nature of an open
3. Core developer: active in source model, the issue of accountability in this
development, has ability to environment provides a stark contrast to the
foster credibility for project within accountability within a traditional proprietary
community. (Siedlok, 2001, p.36-37) offering. In commercial product offering, the
In a publication from Eric von Hippel and Georg individual company is held accountable for
von Krogh (2003), the characteristics of open delivering a product that meets all applicable
source contributors were further examined. standards and for meeting project milestones.
Hippel and Krogh found that most of those users Contract requirements are often used to establish
who downloaded open source software are “free performance milestones and clearly delineate
riders” in that they do not actively contribute to a the responsibilities of a provider. Within a
project. Of those who do contribute, most do so corporate structure, liability is clearly delineated
from a personal motivation that is tied towards to the company. In an open source environment,
learning and pure enjoyment from programming. a volunteer group of collaborators will not be
Open source contributions typically come so clearly subject to financial liability or have
from users of the software rather than software a clear line of accountability. It is possible
manufacturers (Hippel, 2003). that a hybrid approach could be undertaken for
The obvious question surrounding the an open source project which is launched in
initial viability of an open source platform is partnership with a private company, but the issue
“How do you recruit and maintain an initial core of intellectual property investment and concerns
set of contributors?” In the report, “Dynamics over the long-term viability of the company’s
of Open-Source Contributors,” three conditions product will likely trigger a need to adopt a
were outlined for the successful recruitment of more restrictive licensing approach, one more
contributors to an open source project: indicative of a traditional proprietary model.
1. The contributor’s performance must be
visible;


 Figure 2: Contrasting Commercial Project and Open Source Project
Development Cycles
Commercial/Proprietary Development
Define
Design
Requirements
Open Source Development
Define
Design
Requirements
ParallelDevelopment
Source: Siedlok (2001), “Characteristics and applicability of Open Source-based Product Development Model in Other
than Software Industries.” p. 39. obtained from, Lighthouse Case Studies, 1999, Open Source Software. A Grassroots
Development Model, Alliance for Converging Technologies.
Figure 2 illustrates the commercial/
proprietary and open source development models.
The most striking contrast between the two models
is the need for parallel development for an open
source product offering versus the linear line of
development in the proprietary model.
In a proprietary model, the requirements
for software are defined based on initial feedback
from potential consumers and market demand.
This feedback is incorporated into the design phase
and the process is dedicated towards taking the
product design into the implementation phase.
This model is linear with the aim of deploying an
initial product based on the intense attention given
to the product’s design.
In an open source model, the software
requirements are defined and incorporated into
the initial design with attention given to the
need to solicit user feedback during actual field
testing. During this same period of field testing,
parallel development and new design features are
integrated into the software solution.
While both models incorporate continuous
product improvements, the commercial model is
front loaded with time and resources dedicated
10
Field
Implementation Integration Support
Testing
FieldTesting Support
Integration
toward the development of a viable product.
The open source model incorporates product
improvements during its initial design,
but relies significantly on the parallel
development process prior to the product’s full
implementation.
In a commercial setting, there is
substantial risk presented if the design phase
fails to adequately capture the needs of the
market. If so, the market will not deem the
product a success and the product will fail
unless the process begins again. With a linear
model for development, the commercial
product offering lends itself towards a finite
process that is driven by external factors such
as product certification and customer support.
The open source model, with its
continuous nature and framework, will require
substantial project leadership to determine
adequate points of completion for the next
product enhancement in order to achieve
product certification and customer delivery.
These models capture the complexities and
illustrate the challenges an open source model
would confront in a regulated industry.
III. Applicability to
Voting Systems
Since 2002, the barriers for new voting
system providers to enter the market have
significantly increased due to rising federal
certification costs. In addition to federal
certification costs, any potential provider must
also secure state certification and incur this
additional cost prior to securing any purchase
agreements for the products. The initial capital
outlays just for federal product certification
alone can surpass $4 million dollars which
does not include the start-up costs associated
with research and development (Beirne, 2008).
In addition to the problems illustrated with
establishing a sufficient community of open
source contributors, the financial challenges
associated with an open source project are
substantial.
It is not impossible for an open source
project to receive adequate financial support for
the initial development of a software product, but
this would likely have to be a continuous funding
source either through individual sponsorships or
a corporate partnership (Hall, 2007). If history
is a lesson in this regard, the direct involvement
of a corporation may result in licensing which
is less than fully transparent as witnessed with
Software Improvements out of Australia. In a
proprietary model, the financial risks associated
with achieving certification, or potentially facing
decertification, is born by the manufacturer. In
an open source model, the financial risks are
dispersed and may remain unclear as to who will
be the responsible party to shepherd the product
through both state and federal certification and
ultimately responsible for preparing all of the
necessary documentation required.
In a pure open source development
model, the number of contributors across a wide
spectrum collaborating for a mutual pursuit may
yield benefits over the long-term. However,
it can be argued that the communal nature of
an open source project and the length of time
associated with its development undermines its
full potential (Reid, 2004). The combination of
contributors exhibiting specialized knowledge
in particular areas of software and the lack of a
strong management core can lead to problems
with the management of the project leading to
this significant increase in product development
time (Woods, 2005).
Dan Wheeler (2005) provides a good
summary on the difficulties of an open source
model. Wheeler points to three critical success
points for any open source endeavor:
1.) It has to be reviewed.
2.) The people reviewing the code must
know how to write a secure program.
3.) Once found, the problems need to be
fixed quickly and distributed. (p.7)
Although Wheeler points to the potential
advantage of open source and its ability to be
fixed immediately, this doesn’t translate well
to a voting industry environment in which the
immediacy of fixing software is dependent upon
certification programs either at the federal or
state levels.
Deploying product improvements on a
reasonable schedule is a critical area of support
for current voting system providers and would
remain an area of concern for an open source
environment. It is likely that an open source
project would be concerned with marketing
a core software solution, but would lack the
structure to support products as they are fielded
by local election officials. In addition to
software support, the issue of accountability in
such an open source environment remains an
area for further research.
For the sake of argument, let us assume
that an open source voting system is developed,
marketed and deployed in the United States.
Let’s also assume that a state legislature requires
a new feature to its ballot tabulation function
such as instant runoff voting. Unfortunately, the
open source voting system described does not
have this capability; therefore, a product upgrade
must be pushed through state and federal
certification. From an open source product
standpoint, who would be the responsible party
for generating this enhancement and financing
the certification effort? The outstanding answer
to this question illustrates the underlying
challenges of operating an open source product
in a regulated environment and the lack of a
clear line of accountability for maintaining an
open source product.
11
 iv. Summary
Commercial and Open Source software
solutions must be recognized as separate and
distinct product offerings. Each is characterized
by its own unique management structures and
trade-offs when it comes to accountability.
The term “open source” must be properly
distinguished from “disclosed” software Too
often the term “open” has been used incorrectly
to convey a policy slogan rather than a true
product substitute.
Open source software has successfully
navigated its inherent structural challenges to
offer products that are widely seen as clear
substitutes for other commercial products.
Most notably, these substitutes have occurred
with software that has been able to establish a
robust community of contributors, but operate
in an unregulated environment in which the
continuous product improvement associated
with open source can be freely implemented.
These open source products are typically found
in areas with widespread impact and a large
number of users. Platforms associated with
file sharing, web servers, communications,
and operating systems are examples of these
successful projects. In contrast, current open
source voting system projects suffer from the
lack of a robust contributor base and must
operate in a regulated environment.
In recognition of the historical pursuit
of open source software as a product substitute
for commercial offerings, state and federal
policymakers need to avoid creating unfair
trade practices by favoring one type of product
offering over another. While the challenges
confronting an open source environment in a
regulated industry are significant, they are not
impossible to overcome. Various licensing
options are available to open source products
which may lend themselves toward the
development of viable voting system solutions,
but this should be done through the normal
confluence of events associated with market
conditions, not through legislative fiat.
While open source should be
recognized for its potential, the consistent
mischaracterization of “disclosed” software
as “open source” must be put to rest. Widely
distributing proprietary software into the public
12
domain may address perceptions regarding
transparency, but the average member of the
public lacks the technical knowledge necessary to
review the software in question. If policymakers
attempt to strip the intellectual property from
voting system software, it raises two important
areas of concern. The first is the issue of property
takings without due process and compensation
which is prohibited under the United States
Constitution. The second area of concern is
one of security. The potential for future gains
with software security will be lost in the short-
term until such time that an adequate product
improvement model is incorporated. Without a
process improvement model in place, any security
features present in current software would be
lost. At the same time, the market incentives
for operating and supporting voting products
would be eliminated. For these reasons, open
source should be recognized for its potential as
a substitute and not as a requirement for current
voting systems.
We visited Dr. Hall’s comments on the
principle of transparency in the American voting
experience with accountability, public oversight,
comprehension and access to the entire process
as expressions of this transparency. Open Source
products, just like their proprietary brethren, have
failings in these areas. The level of accountability
present within an open source product offering
is weakened due to its diffuse contributor base
and lack of clear liability. Public oversight is
arguably just as diminished in an open source
environment since the layperson is unable to read
and understand software source code adequately
enough to ensure total access and comprehension.
If a third party is charged with this oversight
function to remedy this situation, this is would
be no different than any other regulatory process
that institutionalizes an oversight function.
However, effective oversight does not need to
be predicated on the removal of intellectual
property protections. Providing global access to
current proprietary software would undermine the
principles of intellectual property and severely
damage the viability of the current marketplace.
Works Cited Perens, B. (2006). The Emerging Economic
Paradigm of Open Source. Retrieved on
Beirne, D. (2007) Broken: the regulatory March 4, 2008 from http://perens.com/Articles/
process for the voting industry. The Economic.html.
Election Technology Council. Retrieved Siedlok, F. (2001). “Characteristics
March 1, 2009 from http://www.electiontech. and applicability of open source-based
org/ETC-BROKEN.pdf. product development model in other
Deare, S. (2004, November 8). Evoting pioneer plays than software industries. (Masters Thesis,
politics with open source. LinuxWorld University of Durham Business School, 2001).
retrieved on January 26, 2009 from http:// Retrieved February 25, 2009 from http:
www.linxworld.com.au/index opensource.mit.edu/papers/siedlok.pdf.
Hahn, R. W. ed. (2002). Government Policy toward Wheeler, D. (2008) Secure Programming for
Open Source Software. Washington, D.C.: Linux and Unix HOWTo, “Is Open Source
AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Good for Security? Retrieved on March 4,
Studies. 2008 from http://www.dwheeler.com.
Hall, J. L. (2006) Transparency and access to Woods, D. and Guliani, G. (2005) Open Source for the
source code in electronic voting. Retrieved Enterprise. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media,
March 1, 2009 from http://josephhall.org/ Inc.
papers/jhall_evt06.pdf.
Hall, J. L. (2007) Contractual barriers to
transparency in electronic voting. Retrieved
March 8, 2009 from http://josephhall.org/
papers/jhall_evt07.pdf.
Hippel, E. von and Krogh, G. von (2003).
Open Source Software and the
“Private-Collective” Innovation Model
Issues for Organization Science.
Organization Science, Vol. 14, No. 2 March/
April 2003. Retrieved on March 2, 2009 from
opensource.mit.edu/papers/hippelkrogh.pdf.
Lerner, J., Pathak, P.A. and Tirole, J. (2006). The
Dynamics of Open Source Contributors. The
Roots of Innovation, Vol. 96, No. 2. Retrieved
on March 2, 2009 from http://econ-www.mit.
edu/files/3023.
Open Source Initiative(OSI) (2007). The open
source definition. Retrieved March 4, 2008
from http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd.
Mulligan, D. K. and Hall, J.L. (2006)
Prepared statement before the senate
elections, reapportionment &
constitutional amendments committee
“open source software-does it have a
place in california’s electoral system?.
Retrieved March 1, 2009 from josephhall.org
nqb2/media/Mulligan_Hall_OSHRG_
Statement.pdf.

13
Current ETC Board Member Companies
(Listed Alphabetically)

Election Systems & Software (ES&S) - www.essvote.com

tel: 402.593.0101 | webmarketingpr@essvote.com
Election Systems & Software, Inc. is the world’s largest and most experienced provider of total election
management solutions. ES&S is a proven expert in the field of elections, providing safe, secure, fully integrated
voting solutions. For nearly 40 years, ES&S - as an election-only company and the industry leader - has grown
to support a customer base of more than 1,700 jurisdictions in the United States. The company offers its
customers a full suite of voting solutions and services, meeting the needs of jurisdictions both large and small.
Our proven solutions help customers fulfill important elements of the election process from beginning to end
– from voter registration to results reporting. ES&S views elections as an end-to-end process that includes
people, quality voting systems, and election best practices. All are key elements of successful elections.

ES&S voting systems represent the latest in next-generation technology, including paper ballot-based
solutions, such as the ES&S AutoMARK - an accessible ballot marking device - and the intElect DS200
which combines the very best attributes of a paper-based system with the flexibility and efficiency of a digital
environment.

Hart InterCivic - www.hartintercivic.com

tel: 800.223.HART | info@hartic.com
Hart InterCivic, Inc. is a leading national provider of election and IT infrastructure management solutions
exclusively serving state, local and education markets. Hundreds of jurisdictions use the Hart Voting System to
conduct secure, accurate and reliable elections whether in-person or by-mail. Millions of votes are cast each
year using Hart’s eSlate and eScan polling place voting systems and Ballot Now central scanning / by-mail
solution. The company also provides ballot production and printing services. Hart InterCivic is a privately held
corporation based in Austin, Texas.

Premier Election Solutions - www.premierelections.com

tel: 800.433.VOTE
Premier Election Solutions, Inc., is headquartered in Allen, Texas and has offices and personnel throughout
the United States and in Canada. Premier Election Solutions provides high-quality voting technology to
jurisdictions of all sizes, along with comprehensive service and support capability, and is committed to elections
accuracy, security and integrity. A leader in fully auditable, paper-based voting systems, ballot printing and
electronic poll book solutions, Premier serves some 1,800 jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada, including
statewide deployments in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland and Utah. For more information on Premier
Election Solutions, visit Premier on the Web at www.premierelections.com, or call 1-800-433-VOTE.

Sequoia Voting Systems - www.sequoiavote.com

tel: 510.875.1200 | info@sequoiavote.com
Sequoia Voting Systems is an American-owned election technology company with major offices in Denver,
Colorado; Jamestown, New York and Oakland, California with over a 100-year history of providing accurate,
reliable and innovative voting solutions dating back to the nation’s first lever-based mechanical voting
equipment in the 1890s. Sequoia provides comprehensive election technology products, customized
training options, ballot layout and printing services and complete implementation and support programs to
its state and local government customers throughout the United States. Sequoia’s product suite is includes
a comprehensive election management system, precinct-based optical scan voting units, high-speed central
count optical scan ballot readers, and full-face and paginating touch screen electronic voting equipment with
optional printers that produce voter verified paper records. Sequoia’s voting equipment is currently used by
hundreds of jurisdictions throughout 17 states and the District of Columbia.

14
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

15
 Working Together for Secure and Accurate Elections

Election Technology Council

14173 NW Freeway, #239
Houston, TX 77040
713.896.9292
info@electiontech.org
www.electiontech.org

16