Presentation of ES&SJohn Groh, Senior Vice President of Government RelationsOctober 15, 2007

Topics

• Overview of important facts

• Our Company

• AutoMARK

• Federal qualification/state certification processes

• Timelines

• ATS and SysTest remarks

• Summary

• Conclusion

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

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

• Help America Vote Act(HAVA)

• Ballot-marking deviceused 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

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)

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)

• 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

Engineering Change Requests

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

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

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

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

California Certification Timeline

CA SOS issues certification of

San Francisco Ranked Choice voting system

which includesPhase 2 AutoMARK

10/26/068/3/05

ES&S receives CA certification of

voting system involving Phase 1 AutoMARK

Firmware version 1.0.168 (1.0)

California Certification Timeline

CA SOS issues certification of

San Francisco Ranked Choice voting systemwhich includes

Phase 2 AutoMARK

10/26/068/3/05

ES&S receives CA certification of

voting system involving Phase 1 AutoMARK

Firmware version 1.0.168 (1.0)

AutoMARK A200/Phase 2 Notification and Awareness Timeline

ITA approves Phase 2 modifications

Feb 2006

July2006

ES&S submitsapplication to CA SOSinvolving Phase 2

Oct. 10, 2006

CA SOS testerexamines 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

April2006

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

AutoMARK A200/Phase 2 Notification and Awareness Timeline

ITA approves Phase 2 modifications

Feb 2006

July2006

ES&S submitsapplication to CA SOSinvolving Phase 2

Oct. 10, 2006

CA SOS testerexamines 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

April2006

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

SysTest Labs and ATS

• Brian Phillips, PresidentSysTest Labs Incorporated

• Gary Olivi, VP Technical Operations and COO, AutoMARK Technical Systems, LLC

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

• State was aware of modified hardware

• State certified modified hardware as part of San Francisco voting system

Summary

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