ST. PAUL, Minnesota, April 10, 2018 – Replacing aging election equipment across the state is an escalating need, and protecting the integrity of the ballot process is of the upmost importance to local jurisdictions.

Ramsey County officials are ahead of the curve with their choice and are pleased with the proven accuracy and security of the Verity® Voting system from Hart InterCivic.

“Verity allows us to run our voting system operations non-networked and unplugged. In the present security environment, that’s a real plus for us,” said Election Manager Joe Mansky, who led the upgrade in 2015 when Ramsey County became the first and largest user of Verity in Minnesota.

“The strength of this system is its security features,” Mansky said. “There is no networking, no modem, nothing connected to the outside world. Not even our county election servers are networked.” After the first election using Verity, “each ballot counter came back to headquarters completely under lock and seal and was opened there,” he explained.

Mansky, election manager for Ramsey County since 2002, is a knowledgeable voice in the election community. He has served in key roles, including 11 years as State Election Director in the Secretary of State’s office and as a member of the governor’s task force for election integrity.

“We are pleased to earn Joe Mansky’s respect in Minnesota as Verity delivers efficient, accurate elections. He is a forward-looking public servant who saw Verity and knew it was the right fit for Ramsey County’s future,” said Phillip Braithwaite, President and CEO of Hart InterCivic. Hart has worked with election providers across the U.S. for more than 100 years.

Nationally, Hart is a key stakeholder in election security and is actively engaged with many cross-functional initiatives and organizations including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, the National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Association of State Election Directors.

“We are participating in and driving conversations designed to continue to improve election security and strengthen voter confidence,” said Braithwaite.

In one recent exchange, Hart provided detailed responses to questions from U.S. senators, including Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., concerning technology and election security.

Senators: What steps have you taken or will you take in order to upgrade existing technologies in light of the increased threat against our elections?

Response: The most significant step Hart has taken to improve election security is to design and build an all-new voting system that incorporates the most modern security technology and security best practices. Verity is Hart’s latest-generation voting system and is available to election officials now. It has undergone rigorous testing by an independent, accredited Voting System Test Laboratory (VSTL) and has attained certification from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). Separately, Verity has successfully passed multiple states’ independent testing and certification processes. Verity has never failed a test at the federal or state level.

Braithwaite emphasized that Hart takes election security and voter confidence very seriously.

He said, “Hart’s election solutions have been proven in the field to be both accurate and secure, successfully capturing and tabulating millions of votes. We continue to raise the bar on election security and ensure our customers always have access to the best tools and techniques to operate secure, transparent elections. Security is an ongoing discussion, and we are dedicated to staying at the forefront.”

Hart’s Statement in Response to April 4, 2018 News Story by McClatchy DC

“14 states’ voting machines are highly vulnerable. How’d that happen?”

Hart InterCivic, Inc. is committed to election integrity and is proud of the role we play in the election technology space. We integrate security into everything we do, into all the products we build and into how we share best practices with customers. We are actively engaged in multiple industry-wide efforts to help improve election security.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) oversees the definition of federal voting system certification requirements. The EAC also oversees the thorough, independent testing process which determines whether a voting system meets those requirements, including those standards designed to ensure the system accurately records and tabulates votes. In addition to the federal certification process, most states maintain their own separate certification and testing procedures. Hart’s Verity® Voting system has passed multiple federal and many state certifications and has never failed.

Verity represents the very latest, most modern and secure voting system available today. It is the only all-new system that has been designed from scratch to ensure ease of use, reliability, flexibility and security. Hart is completely agnostic about the voting method a particular jurisdiction chooses. Our goal is to listen to and understand our customers’ needs and work diligently to provide solutions that work for them. Verity supports all types of voting from in-person polling places to convenience voting (e.g. early voting and vote centers) to by-mail voting. Verity supports all the voting methods used by our customers, including electronic, paper-based and hybrid solutions.

While technology, like Verity, is a critical part of election security, it is not the only requirement. True election security requires strong technology used by thoroughly trained election officials and staff, adhering to mandated processes by using well documented and scalable procedures. In other words, Security = People + Procedures + Technology. Hart works closely with our customers to ensure they are fully trained on the technology and to facilitate best practices and procedures around secure election operations (e.g. chain of custody, numbered and logged security seals, thorough User Acceptance Testing, thorough Logic and Accuracy Testing for every single election, post-election reconciliation and audits). Ultimately, it’s up to the jurisdiction to ensure all these pieces come together in a way that delivers secure, transparent elections and voter confidence.

Consistent with Hart’s commitment to accuracy and transparency, we want to address several of the errors and omissions in the article referenced above. While none of these reporting gaps impact Hart directly, and it is not our objective to be argumentative or combative, we believe it is important for election officials and the voting public to have a complete and accurate viewpoint on these very important topics. To that end, we offer the following constructive comments on various portions of the story:

1) The story includes quotes from a Hart customer in Texas regarding their recent purchase of a new voting system.

The federal and Texas state rules which govern voting system requirements, testing and certification do not prohibit the use of touch-screen voting systems.
The EAC, which oversees the federal certification requirements, as well as the testing and certification processes, is made up of a bipartisan group of commissioners.
The system purchased in San Jacinto County, Texas has undergone rigorous testing and examination at both the federal and state levels. The federal certification process is an open inspection process, whereby Hart provides all source code for every component of the voting system, and it undergoes careful review by test laboratories that must be accredited by both the EAC and the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). The EAC and the voting system test lab also have full access to a detailed Technical Data Package (TDP) describing the architecture and technical details of the entire voting system. There is nothing secretive about this process, and it includes common sense protections by the EAC and state authorities to prevent the release of sensitive information that could impact the integrity of the vote.
The EAC federal certification body publishes detailed information about certified voting systems and systems under test. Those documents are publicly available, at https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/system-certification-process-s/
The State of Texas Secretary of State publishes public, detailed information about certified voting systems. Those documents are publicly available, at https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/votingsystems.shtml

2) The story says, “Cyber experts, including a team from the nation’s premier technology standards-setting lab, have warned since 2006 that hackers can plant vote-altering malware in electronic machines and some now say the cyberattacks could occur at plants where the machines are made…But an obscure federal agency charged with issuing election guidelines for state and local officials rejected the experts’ finding in 2007, and 11 years went by before it recently took steps to reverse itself.” This account of federal oversight and the experts that have been relied upon is inaccurate and misleading:

As part of EAC certification, systems go through the “trusted build process,” performed by accredited Voting System Testing Laboratories (VSTLs). During this process, secure workstation and device images are produced and securely stored with the EAC. Each set is uniquely tagged with a secure hash of the certified software components and is stored securely with the EAC. At any time, any jurisdiction can verify that the software they are running locally is consistent with the official source code on file with the EAC to ensure that the deployed configuration matches the system configuration certified by the EAC.
The EAC is not “obscure.” It was created as a central part of the Help America Vote Act, which was a high-profile, national response to the 2000 federal presidential election.
The EAC did not “reject” any specific findings, and the “experts” cited in this article are completely unnamed.
The EAC relies on the expertise of a cross-functional body of experts that operate in association with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and more specifically, the EAC’s Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC).
The TGDC is also not “obscure;” all its findings and work product are publicly available.
Detailed information about the TGDC is available at https://www.eac.gov/about/technical-guidelines-development-committee/
When new systems are purchased, the jurisdiction goes through a thorough User Acceptance Testing (UAT) protocol to ensure that all software installed on the new system matches the software version that has been certified by federal and/or state authorities, and the UAT ensures that the system performs as expected. User Acceptance Testing is administered by the receiving jurisdiction, and vendors serve only as a resource to answer questions or address any issues. Jurisdictions will not accept and use a new voting system until they are satisfied that it has passed all UAT requirements.
Separate from and in addition to UAT, before each and every election, jurisdictions put their voting system through public Logic and Accuracy Testing (LAT) to ensure the system is capturing and tabulating votes accurately. Vendors are not involved in any way with LAT. Once the systems pass the LAT, they are physically secured by the jurisdiction until they are to be used.
At any time, any jurisdiction can verify that the software they are running locally is consistent with the official source code on file with the EAC to ensure the deployed configuration matches the certified configuration.
While there are many security features built in to the voting system (significant detail below), every jurisdiction is responsible for ensuring that no unauthorized access to the software or devices occurs before, during or after an election. Physical security measures and thorough procedures in accordance with best practices are essential (e.g. personnel security policies, strong chain of custody, numbered and logged security seals, post-election reconciliation and audits, to name just a few).

3) The story says, referring to certification testing, “Such assurances offer little consolation, because such “certification” tests cannot trace malware that deletes itself after tampering with vote totals, and because the vendors’ computer coding is proprietary and unavailable for public examination, said James Scott, a cyber security whiz who is advising U.S. intelligence agencies and Congress about voting security…” This reflects a lack of understanding of how the federal certification process works.

As part of EAC certification, systems go through the “trusted build process,” performed by accredited Voting System Testing Laboratories (VSTLs). During this process, secure workstation and device images are produced and securely stored with the EAC. Each set is uniquely tagged with a secure hash of the certified software components and is stored securely with the EAC.
At any time, any jurisdiction can verify that the software they are running locally is consistent with the official source code on file with the EAC to ensure the deployed configuration matches the certified configuration.
The federal VVSG standards also have rigorous requirements for audit logging capabilities in all voting systems, which produces a transparent record of all activity in the system. VVSG requirements for logging require voting systems to track, store and report each and every action associated with tasks such as creating an election/ballot, programming devices, reading captured vote data, adjudication of voter intent, tabulation of results, and reporting of results. Verity has extensive logging capabilities that exceed VVSG requirements. Verity’s plain language logs and reporting provide complete transparency and are protected from tampering through encrypted digital signatures. Logging cannot be disabled through any means.
When new systems are purchased, the jurisdiction goes through a thorough User Acceptance Testing (UAT) protocol to ensure that all software installed on the new system matches the software version that has been certified by federal and/or state authorities, and the UAT ensures that the system performs as expected. User Acceptance Testing is administered by the receiving jurisdiction, and vendors serve only as a resource to answer questions or address any issues. Jurisdictions will not accept and use a new voting system until they are satisfied that it has passed all UAT requirements.
Separate from and in addition to UAT, before each and every election, jurisdictions put their voting system through public Logic and Accuracy Testing (LAT) to ensure the system is capturing and tabulating votes accurately. Vendors are not involved in any way with LAT. Once the systems pass the LAT, they are physically secured by the jurisdiction until they are to be used.

4) The story continues to quote Mr. Scott, “…the next foreign attack on U.S. voting machinery will likely be initially directed at an equipment vendor’s server before migrating to county systems and voting sites…He said the malware can poison vendors’ update servers with a “decimalization feature” — a program to manipulate the vote outcome as desired…Then you add a second layer to the exploit that geo-targets that malware to hit swing regions of swing states…It embeds in the touch-screens and carries through to the central (vote-counting) tabulator at the state level before destroying itself upon final tabulation…” This quote reveals a serious lack of understanding about how modern, air-gapped election infrastructure works.

An “air gap” is a security measure employed on one or more computers to ensure that secure components are physically isolated from unsecured networks (hence the name, to signify the lack of connection). Hart voting systems in use by jurisdictions across the country are not connected to the internet, not connected to the Hart network, and not connected to other I/T systems within the jurisdiction. They are like an island surrounded by walled fortifications, and they require an authorized and authenticated election staff member to physically access them to control all aspects of the system.
Hart voting systems that are owned and used by jurisdictions across the country are not updated by a central server pushing out updated code. There is no central server and there are no pushed updates. There is no connection between Hart’s infrastructure and our customers’ voting systems. We cannot access them remotely and we cannot update them remotely.
For Hart customers, system updates include air-gapped delivery of the new federal and state certified software directly to the workstations and devices within a specific jurisdiction.
Hart is not aware of any “…central (vote-counting) tabulator at the state level…” in any state. Typically, all tabulation is completed at a local jurisdiction level and results are reported to the state.

5) The story continues, “While Homeland Security officials have alerted the vendors about such a threat, Scott said, he’s seen little effort by the manufacturers to build a defense.” Again, this is either intentionally misleading or reflective of very little effort at research.

Hart InterCivic has made a huge investment in the research and development of the nation’s only all-new voting system platform – Verity – and it has been certified by federal and state authorities multiple times since its introduction in 2015.
The Verity Voting system embodies best practices for security, accuracy, and reliability – for every component and for all data – at every step of the election workflow.
From the outset, security has been a core design goal for Verity. Indeed, this is one of the greatest benefits of Verity’s status as a uniquely modern voting system; throughout the design, development and testing process for this all-new system, unlike older, first-generation voting technology, Hart has been able to leverage the most up-to-date technologies and best practices for security.
Verity employs a “defense-in-depth” strategy, whereby security architecture and code is reused by all applications, whether on the desktop or on voting devices. In this manner, Verity security covers physical, electronic, software and policies for Verity customers, across the system.
Throughout the system, the code implements controls for:
1. Authorization
2. Authentication
3. Auditing
4. Non-repudiation
5. Validation
6. Tamper resistance/evidence
Select examples of security features of Verity software:
1. Systems running Verity software are not connected to the internet (air gap).
2. Verity software cannot be remotely accessed by Hart or anyone else.
3. Systems running Verity software operate in “kiosk” mode, which means the user can only access those functions required by the software. This prevents user access to the operating system and prevents installation of any unauthorized programs or files onto the system. The system is “locked down” to prevent intentional or accidental misuse by the operator.
4. Application whitelisting prevents unauthorized executable code from being executed in the voting system.
5. The Verity system includes two-factor authentication to secure access to critical functions throughout the election.
6. All election-related data is secured with NIST/VVSG-compliant cryptography.
7. Throughout all phases of operation, all Verity system components maintain complete audit logs. Every Verity application thoroughly logs all user authorization/authentication, data entry, user interaction, vote adjudication and system events.
8. Election managers can print or export audit logs from each application, using easy-to-use report ﬁltering to access the precise information to be audited.
Select examples of security features of Verity devices:
1. Verity devices utilize specific physical features to prevent physical tampering. Access controls include:
  1. Keyed locks;
  2. Tamper-evident seals;
  3. Port protection – all ports on Verity voting devices are physically shaped in non-standard ways and accommodate only Hart-proprietary cables and devices to prevent unauthorized users from inserting standard, commercial-off-the-shelf cables;
  4. Non-standard electrical wiring in strategic areas;
2. External cards, drives or other devices can NOT be inserted by voters into any Hart voting device, nor can executable code be hidden and run from voting system media cards.
3. Strong chain of custody processes within jurisdictions prevent data manipulation as data is being transferred from the voting devices to a central count facility.
4. Multiple redundant data backups ensure any attempts at manipulation are detected.
5. Cast vote record data is protected through encrypted digital signatures using NIST-compliant FIPS 140-2 cryptographic modules.
Hart is actively engaged in conversations and activities related to election security. We are plugged in to the broad community of stakeholders, actively participating in knowledge sharing, best practice sharing, and discussions on the latest security technology and procedures. Some examples include:
1. Department of Homeland Security – Hart is a founding member of the new DHS Sector Coordinating Council (SCC) composed of industry representatives to act as a voice on election cybersecurity and to coordinate with the sister organization, the DHS Government Coordinating Council (GCC). Together, these two groups partner in identifying potential security risks and implementing the measures to eliminate those risks.
2. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) – Hart meets regularly with the EAC and actively participates in their industry-wide initiatives.
3. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) – We were one of only two manufacturers to appear at the meeting of the NASEM Committee on Science, Technology and Law on the Future of Voting (Denver, Dec 8, 2017).
4. Election Center – A member of Hart’s leadership team serves on the Security Committee. We participate in national conversations about cybersecurity at conferences sponsored by The Election Center (Joint Election Officials Liaison Committee), which include a diverse array of election stakeholders (state and county officials; election administrators; technology and security experts).
5. National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) – Hart regularly exhibits at NASS events, engages in conferences, attends substantive sessions on election topics including security and produces a bi-annual white paper submission.
6. National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) – Hart regularly exhibits at NASED events and participates in conference sessions that cover election security and related topics.

6) The story says, “[some] counties use [touchscreens] as accessible voting machines for the handicapped to mark their ballots.”

The 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) includes specific provisions to support the needs of voters with disabilities, including accessibility, privacy, usability and security. These provisions cover both voting system functionality and administration of elections by local jurisdiction officials. Hart’s Verity voting system meets or exceeds all HAVA requirements for voters with disabilities and Hart ensures our customers are trained in proper deployment of the system to meet voter needs.
While it is accurate that some accessible voting devices include a touch screen, it is an error to equate “touchscreens” with devices used by voters with disabilities. Not all voters with disabilities use touchscreens; many voters use audio-tactile interfaces (ATIs). Many accessible voting devices with touchscreens are used to mark a paper ballot that is printed out and do not record the vote on the touchscreen marking device.
Regarding terminology when referring to disabled voters, Hart encourages the McClatchy team to review this excellent resource on appropriate terminology: http://nda.ie/Publications/Attitudes/Appropriate-Terms-to-Use-about-Disability/

7) The story says, “On March 21, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kirsten Nielsen ended years of federal equivocation about paperless touch-screen machines.”

There has been no “federal equivocation” about touch-screen machines; on the contrary, they have been repeatedly accepted for use and regulated for decades.
Functional standards for electronic voting devices, without prohibitions on the use of Direct Record Electronic systems (DREs), include:
1. Federal Election Commission (FEC) Voting System Standards of 1990;
2. FEC Voting System Standards of 2002 (VSS 2002);
3. The federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) v. 1.0 (2005);
4. The VVSG v. 1.1 (2015);
In addition, the EAC has recently accepted the TGDC’s recommendation of VVSG 2.0 Guidelines, and although those Guidelines have not yet been formally adopted, they also include standards for both paper-based and electronic devices.

8) The story states, “In December 2006, a team of as many as 20 computer experts at the National Institute of Standards and Technology reported, after exhaustive testing, that they could find no way to verify the accuracy of votes cast on paperless touch-screens…In a recommendation to the Election Assistance Commission…NIST’s team wrote that the machines’ vulnerability ‘is one of the main reasons behind continued questions about voting system security and diminished public confidence in elections.’ By then, however, most of the federal grant money had been spent, much of it on tens of thousands of touch-screens.” This is not an accurate representation of what NIST actually said.

On the heels of misleading efforts by some media sources to misconstrue what NIST said, NIST issued this statement in 2006:
1. “Recent news accounts discussing the vulnerabilities of electronic voting systems contained in the report titled Requiring Software Independence in VVSG 2007: STS Recommendations for the TGDC said NIST on its Voting Technology page, “have raised the question of whether the report’s recommendations represent the official position of NIST. This draft report was prepared by staff at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) at the request of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) to serve as a point of discussion at its Dec. 4-5, 2006, meeting. Prepared in conjunction with the Security and Transparency Subcommittee (STS) of the TGDC, the report is a discussion draft and does not represent a consensus view or recommendation from either NIST or the TGDC.” [emphasis added]
2. Source: http://www.govtech.com/security/NIST-Clarifies-Import-of-Voting-Machine.html

9) Incredibly, the story continues, “In 2007, rather than addressing NIST’s recommendation, the Election Assistance Commission shelved it.”

As pointed out already, the NIST comment in question was simply a discussion point and not a recommendation. Because of prior misleading reporting, NIST had to issue a specific statement pointing that out.
Actual 2007 NIST recommendations are available to anyone who searches for them here: https://www.nist.gov/document-7110
Note that the document above is stored on a NIST website and they contain the recommended standards for all types of voting devices.

10) The story goes on to quote an unnamed government official, “It was knowingly wrong for Congress to appropriate funds for new systems before better standards could be written and reckless on the part of the EAC to then vote down NIST’s update to the standards.” Once again, this is misleading and incorrect.

New standards were written and adopted in conjunction with the Help America Vote Act’s appropriation of federal funds. Those standards were the VVSG 1.0 (2005) guidelines.
Around 35 states found them sufficiently valuable and rigorous to make compliance with VVSG a pre-requisite for state certification examinations.
As explained already, the EAC did not “vote down” NIST’s “update to the standards”.

11) The story quotes Susan Greenhalgh, policy director for the National Election Defense Coalition who called it, “…’scandalous’ that EAC ignored NIST’s warnings all those years.” This statement does not reflect the reality of how the EAC and NIST continue to collaborate closely.

NIST continues to work regularly and closely with the EAC’s Technical Guidelines Development Committee, and indeed, both NIST and the EAC recently celebrated the EAC’s acceptance of the TGDC’s recommendation for VVSG 2.0 Principles and Guidelines: https://www.eac.gov/news/2017/05/01/eac-standards-board-unanimously-approves-the-17-core-voting-system-principles/
Mary Brady, Voting Program Manager at NIST, provides regular updates on the cooperative work being done between the EAC and NIST. An example is here: (note that Slide 4 is titled “Together…Making it Happen” and refers to the partnership between several groups, including NIST and EAC).

AUSTIN, Texas, March 20, 2018 –The secure and easy to use Verity® Voting system from Hart InterCivic wins praise from new election partners in Texas, including those debuting the technology during the busy primary season.

“Verity is so easy,” said Aransas County Elections Administrator Michele Bennett. “I used to spend half a day or even a whole day prepping and backing up voting machines. With Verity, I spent 40 minutes total. What a savings of time and manpower.”

“The voting process was seamless, and there was not one complaint from the public. Of course, voters absolutely loved the tablet, too,” she said. “Verity won everyone over.”

Polk County’s election went smoothly as well, according to County Clerk Schelana Hock. “Hart is a wonderful group to work with,” said Hock. “Our project manager was a true blessing during our first election with the new equipment. He was a great trainer and always available to answer any questions.”

Hock said, “Everyone loved the new voting equipment. The election workers said it was much easier opening and closing the polls than with the equipment we used in past elections.”

Building on experience gained in its first Verity election last November, Denton County delivered its first primary using the system this month. Elections Administrator Frank Phillips said, “Our election went very well. We had a lot of new poll workers, and they came up to speed quickly with our hands-on training. I spoke with one of my experienced election judges who said he and his team love Verity and that they get tons of positive comments from voters.”

“Hart is always johnny-on-the-spot with customer service; they’re really responsive,” Phillips added.

Home-grown in Texas and designed with input from election officials across the state, Verity fits the ways Texans vote – whether electronically or using paper ballots. More than half of Texas voters already use technology from Austin-based Hart InterCivic. Hart’s first-rate customer service has reinforced the decisions of many jurisdictions to upgrade or switch to Verity.

“We bought the system in January, and Hart assured me that the March 6 election would go smoothly. They weren’t kidding,” said Hopkins County Clerk Debbie Shirley, who credited Hart’s training and hands-on approach for a trouble-free election just weeks after purchase.

“Hart’s project manager was right here with us, taking care of details before questions came up. He gave us confidence, and the entire process ran well.”

“We applaud the growing number of jurisdictions in our home state who have chosen Verity. This secure modern voting technology will continue to provide value for many years,” said Phillip Braithwaite, President and CEO of Hart InterCivic, an Austin-based company with more than 100 years of experience providing election solutions.

Verity is certified federally by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), and it is Texas certified. Since the Texas Secretary of State certified the latest release of Hart InterCivic’s Verity® Voting system in December 2016, Hart has shipped more than 7,000 Verity devices across the State. First federally certified in 2015, the secure and efficient system is also in use in numerous counties throughout the U.S.

Braithwaite expects more Texas announcements in the coming months.

Learn more about Verity in Texas: https://www.hartintercivic.com/texas/

On March 7, 2018, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar and U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen sent a letter to all three leading manufacturers of voting systems used in the United States. Their letter raised two specific questions about certain (non-election) software companies’ practice of allowing their source code to be reviewed by Russian entities: whether any of that software is used in our election systems and whether any elements of our voting systems are submitted for that type of review. They also asked a third, more broad-reaching question about what we are doing to deploy modern technologies to increase election security.

Hart InterCivic takes the topic of election security very seriously and we are happy to engage in this important conversation. Please see our response below.

March 9, 2018

The Honorable Amy Klobuchar
United States Senate
302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen
United States Senate
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Klobuchar and Senator Shaheen,

Thank you for your letter seeking information regarding the security of voting systems in the United States and details regarding Hart InterCivic’s voting systems.

Below are Hart’s responses to your questions:

1) Have you shared your source code or any other sensitive data related to your voting machines or other products with any Russian entity?

Response: No. Hart has not and will not share any sensitive information in this manner. We only share sensitive information about our voting systems as required for testing and certification by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and by certain U.S. state election divisions which have similar testing and certification protocols.

2) To your knowledge, has any of the software that runs on your products been shared with any Russian entity?

Response: No. None of the software referenced in your letter as having been shared with Russian entities is used in any of our voting systems. Beyond the specific lists of software referenced in the articles in your letter, none of the software used in Hart’s voting systems has been shared in this way.

3) What steps have you taken or will you take in order to upgrade existing technologies in light of the increased threat against our elections?

Response: The most significant step Hart has taken to improve election security is to design and build an all-new voting system which incorporates the most modern security technology and security best practices. Verity is Hart’s latest-generation voting system and is available to election officials now. It has undergone rigorous testing by an independent, accredited Voting System Test Laboratory (VSTL) and has attained certification from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). Separately, Verity has successfully passed multiple states’ independent testing and certification processes. Verity has never failed a test at the federal or state level.

Representative examples of safeguards that are used to protect the security of elections conducted using Verity:

All Verity components operate in a closed workflow that is not connected to any other non-Verity software infrastructure.
- Verity is not connected to the internet.
- Verity is separated by an “air gap” from online elements of election management such as voter registration systems/databases and Election Night reporting systems.
- Verity software cannot be accessed remotely by Hart or anyone else.
All election data is secured with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)/Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG)-compliant Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 140-2 cryptography.
Multiple, redundant data backups protect against data loss and provide comparisons to test against attempted data manipulation.
Verity systems run in “kiosk” mode, which limits users’ access to only those elements of the system they are authorized to use. No user has access to operating system files, and no other programs or files can be loaded onto systems or devices running Verity software.
Verity employs “whitelisting” security which prevents any and all unauthorized software from running on the voting system.
Verity election management software requires two-factor user authentication.
Verity devices are protected with tamper-evident security seals. Voters cannot insert external cards, drives, devices or cables, and no executable code can be hidden and run on the devices.
Verity tracks every user action, including logins, data entry, ballot resolution steps and other system events, providing comprehensive, plain-language audit logs that make it easy for all stakeholders to monitor how the system is used.
Verity supports the most thorough and sophisticated post-election auditing to provide complete transparency into the accuracy of election results.

Election security requires more than using modern technology with the latest protocols. It also requires properly trained election staff using well-defined processes. Hart assists our customers in conducting secure elections by providing thorough training on all aspects of the system and by sharing best practices for procedures such as managing and documenting equipment chain-of-custody and using and logging physical security seals.

We also provide instructions and training in conducting tests to validate our customers’ voting systems are operating properly throughout the ownership lifecycle. Tests include user acceptance testing, logic and accuracy testing prior to each election to ensure the system performs as required, and post-election audits to assure stakeholders that results are accurate. Hart stays in constant contact with our customers to ensure we are sharing the latest intelligence and best practices regarding election security.

Finally, Hart is actively engaged in multiple broad efforts at analyzing and improving election security in the U.S. We meet regularly on these topics with the EAC, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM), the Joint Election Officials Liaison Committee (JEOLC) of the Election Center, the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), and the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED). Hart is a founding member of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Sector Coordinating Council which partners with its sister organization the DHS Government Coordinating Council to identify potential security risks and implement the measures to eliminate those risks.

We appreciate your questions and the opportunity to provide this information. We are committed to continuing to do our part to protect the integrity of the election process.

Sincerely,

Phillip Braithwaite
President and Chief Executive Officer

HEMPSTEAD, Texas, Feb. 20, 2018 – Commissioners in rapidly growing Waller County, on the western edge of the Houston metropolitan area, voted Feb. 7 to adopt the most up-to-date voting technology available in the U.S., the Verity® Voting system from longtime election partner Hart InterCivic. Verity is a federally and state certified system designed from the ground up to be easy to use and secure with all new hardware and software.

Waller County officials recognized that equipment purchased with HAVA funds more than a decade ago was due for replacement. Like many election decision-makers throughout Texas and nationwide, they decided it made good fiscal sense to update to the most secure and efficient modern system – Verity.

Verity will debut in Waller County in November 2018 with Hart participating side-by-side during and long after the transition. Election officials look forward to the efficiencies of the new technology, designed and manufactured in Austin. Verity is user friendly and easy to learn for poll workers, who also welcome the lightweight, compact design for simple transport and setup.

In addition, the system’s removable tablet and accessibility features accommodate all voters, including those with disabilities or requiring voting at the curb. Voters also appreciate Verity’s intuitive touchscreen tablet.

“We appreciate Waller County’s confidence in Hart and in Verity. Our relationship dates to 2005, and we look forward to serving the County in the years ahead,” said Phillip Braithwaite, President and CEO of Hart InterCivic, an Austin-based company with more than 100 years of experience providing election solutions. “Verity’s technology is modern and versatile; it will serve the County well for many years.”

Waller County joins a growing number of Texas jurisdictions moving to Verity. Since the Texas Secretary of State certified the latest release of the system in late 2016, Hart has shipped more than 7,000 Verity devices across the State. Federally certified in 2015, the secure and efficient system is also in use in numerous counties throughout the U.S.

Braithwaite expects more announcements throughout 2018 as jurisdictions refresh their election technology across Texas and nationally.

Learn more about Verity in Texas: https://www.hartintercivic.com/texas/

NASHVILLE, Tennessee, Feb. 16, 2018 – The Tennessee Secretary of State’s Office, through the Office of Coordinator of Elections, announced this month it has certified the newest release of the Verity® Voting system from Hart InterCivic. More than 75% of Tennessee counties vote electronically, and this much-anticipated Tennessee certification of Verity clears the way for election officials to begin upgrading electronic voting systems with Verity – the secure, modern system that is tailored to the way Tennessee votes.

“This latest release builds on Hart’s promise to continually expand and improve upon Verity and demonstrates our strong commitment to meeting jurisdictions’ needs in Tennessee and across the U.S.,” said Phillip Braithwaite, President and CEO of Hart InterCivic. “Hart has a strong heritage in Tennessee through our partner, Harp Enterprises. Election needs in the state have informed Verity’s advances, and Tennessee counties are now free to replace aging equipment with the newest comprehensive system certified in the U.S. that provides both electronic and paper voting.”

Unlike other direct record electronic (DRE) voting systems, Verity Touch with Controller uses a centralized approach to setting up and managing individual voting devices. A single console monitors and controls as many as 12 voting terminals connected using a unique “daisy-chain” configuration. This reduces the chance for error and cuts costly, repetitive tasks for elections staff and poll workers.

The system’s easy-to-use touch screen is familiar to voters who have come to expect the latest technology. Advanced accessibility features allow all voters to cast their ballots privately and independently.

Additionally, the new Verity AutoBallot option integrates electronic poll books with electronic or paper-based voting. By automatically selecting the proper ballot style based on the check-in process, AutoBallot ensures accuracy and speeds up the voting process to reduce long lines at the polling place.

These features and every other Verity function were carefully vetted during the Tennessee certification process. Combined with the rigors of federal certification by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), Tennessee’s process assures election stakeholders that the system will deliver trustworthy results on behalf of the state’s voters.

For more information on the Verity Voting system, please visit www.hartintercivic.com/voting-solutions/verityoverview/.

CENTER CITY, Minnesota, Feb. 14, 2018 – When Chisago County voters cast their ballots in the August Primary Election, they will vote on the secure, easy-to-use Verity® Voting system from Hart InterCivic. State grant funding is available to Minnesota jurisdictions that choose to purchase the tech-forward system.

“Choosing Verity to replace our aging voting system made sense fiscally,” said Bridgitte Konrad, Chisago County Chief Deputy Auditor-Treasurer. “Hart was able to provide a configuration that fits our needs exactly. The equipment is sturdy and compact, so it will be easy to store and deploy. Almost no maintenance is required; that’s a savings as well. Working with Hart’s staff has been a pleasure. They’ve been very responsive, and their enthusiasm for the Verity system played an important role in our decision.”

As an all-new system, Verity uses the latest security protocols. In the polling place, voters can choose to mark their ballots by hand or to use an accessible ballot marking device called Verity Touch Writer. Voters then cast their votes by inserting the ballot into the Verity Scan tabulator.

“Most importantly, I believe our voters will appreciate the intuitive experience of voting on Verity. We’re eager to get started,” Konrad said.

“Chisago County joins a growing number of jurisdictions across the nation moving to Verity,” said Phillip Braithwaite, President and CEO of Hart InterCivic, an Austin-based company with more than 100 years of experience providing election solutions. “We look forward to working with the County to ensure the success of their elections for many years ahead. While Hart is new to Chisago County, we have served Ramsey County since 2015. Minnesota jurisdictions’ election needs are part of Verity’s DNA,” he added.

Braithwaite expects more announcements in the coming months.

For more information on the Verity Voting system, please visit www.hartintercivic.com/verityoverview.

ROCKPORT, Texas, Jan. 31, 2018 – Aransas County, an area battered by Hurricane Harvey last summer, is replacing its damaged voting system with the most up-to-date technology available in the U.S. in time for the March 6 election. Delivery of the Verity® Voting system started within days of the County Commissioners’ Jan. 22 vote, thanks to a long and supportive relationship with election partner Hart InterCivic.

Elections Administrator Michele Bennett praised Hart for their help preparing the County for the upgrade and fast-tracking testing and training to prepare for early voting, which begins Feb. 20. “I’ve worked in elections for 11 years (including in another county), and I didn’t feel comfortable with anyone else.”

“The fact that the company is based in Texas was a huge deciding factor. Knowing that we can call Hart and they can get help to us in a matter of hours is very comforting,” she said.

“Aransas County will not miss a beat in implementing Verity for their upcoming election,” said Phillip Braithwaite, President and CEO of Hart InterCivic, an Austin-based company with more than 100 years of experience providing election solutions.

“The County has endured an emotionally catastrophic event because of Hurricane Harvey, and as their election partner since 2005, we are privileged to help in their recovery. Our team is in place, and with Verity’s long product life, Aransas County residents can be confident in their elections for many years to come,” he said.

Verity is a federally and state certified system designed from the ground up to be flexible, easy to use and secure with all new hardware and software. It is designed and manufactured in Texas.

Bennett is looking forward to the efficiencies that Verity will provide for her office, such as faster ballot preparation and less programming work between elections and runoffs. She also appreciates that the compact, lightweight Verity Voting equipment is easy to store and to transport to Vote Centers.

She predicts voters will embrace Verity’s user-friendly, intuitive touchscreen. “Even our older voters are familiar with touchpads, and they will like the option to enlarge text for reading the ballot.” Bennett also pointed out the advantage of the system’s lightweight, removable tablet for curbside voting. Verity’s accessibility features accommodate all voters, including those with disabilities.

Aransas County, with about 17,000 registered voters, joins a growing number of Texas jurisdictions moving to Verity. Since the Texas Secretary of State certified the latest release of the system in late 2016, Hart has shipped more than 7,000 Verity devices across Texas. Federally certified in 2015, the secure and efficient system is also in use in numerous counties throughout the U.S.

Bennett is optimistic about the County’s ongoing recovery.

“We needed the Verity upgrade for the voters of Aransas County,” Bennett said. “We’ve been through a lot.”

“One of the things that led to us getting Verity was the hurricane, but we are coming out ahead. We need to look past the devastation and focus on the good things that are happening. Every day, more improvements happen. We’re just going to keep going forward.”

Braithwaite expects more Texas and national announcements throughout 2018.

Learn more about Verity in Texas: https://www.hartintercivic.com/texas/.

SULPHUR SPRINGS, Texas, Jan. 23, 2018 – Hopkins County is on the fast track to replace an aging voting system with the most up-to-date technology available in the U.S. in time for their March 6 election. Commissioners voted Jan. 12 to upgrade to the Verity® Voting system from Hart InterCivic, a trusted election partner with the County for more than a decade. Acceptance testing and delivery begin this week, and County Clerk Debbie Shirley is confident that with Hart’s help, the timeline will work.

“Not only is Verity an awesome system, but the people at Hart are great. When you trust the company you deal with, you know they will be there for you. Hart is the best at what they do,” Shirley said.

“Choosing Verity is a win/win decision for Hopkins County. Voters are going to love the convenience of the touchscreen. In my office, we love a time-saving, efficient and easy to learn setup,” she said. In addition to the voter-friendly, intuitive interface, the system’s lightweight, removable tablet and accessibility features accommodate all voters, including those with disabilities.

Shirley, who plans to retire at the end of 2018, sees the move to Verity as part of her legacy after 44 years working for the County. “I love my job, and I want to leave the best system possible in place for the public. By making this transition now, I can help the Election Office do their best throughout the years with this new, convenient system.”

“The County is investing in good equipment and good voting,” she added. “At some time, this 13-year-old equipment was going to start costing time and money with no return. Plus, Verity is designed to handle Vote Centers.” Convenient Vote Centers are increasingly popular in Texas, replacing individual precinct polling places. Older voting systems were designed before Vote Centers were allowed in 2006, while all-new Verity is designed and manufactured in Texas with Vote Center functionality to make convenience voting easier, more efficient and secure.

Verity is certified at the federal and state levels; it is designed from the ground up to be flexible, easy to use and secure with all new hardware and software. Shirley is looking forward to easier programming with Verity, along with easier transport of the lightweight, compact units to the County’s 12 Vote Centers.

Early voting begins Feb. 20, and Shirley is confident that her workers will be trained and ready thanks to hands-on help. “Hart always comes through. I’ve been with them for years, and they will make it happen,” she said.

“Hopkins County is on a fast track to modernizing local elections. We appreciate their confidence in Hart and in Verity. Our team members are laying the groundwork for a successful election in March and many more in the years ahead,” said Phillip Braithwaite, President and CEO of Hart InterCivic, an Austin-based company with more than 100 years of experience providing election solutions.

Hopkins County, with about 22,000 registered voters, joins a growing number of Texas jurisdictions moving to Verity. Since the Texas Secretary of State certified the latest release of the system in late 2016, Hart has shipped more than 7,000 Verity devices across the State. Federally certified in 2015, the secure and efficient system is also in use in numerous counties throughout the U.S.

Braithwaite expects more Texas and national announcements throughout 2018.

Learn more about Verity in Texas: https://www.hartintercivic.com/texas4verity.

ST. PAUL, Minnesota, Jan. 17, 2018 – The Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office announced last month that it has certified the newest release of the Verity® Voting system from Hart InterCivic. The completion of the rigorous vetting process means that Verity, the most up-to-date, easy-to-use election technology in use in Minnesota, now offers newly certified functionality. State grant funding is available to Minnesota jurisdictions that choose to purchase the tech-forward system.

“This latest release builds on Hart’s promise to continually expand and improve upon Verity and demonstrates our strong commitment to meeting our customers’ needs in Minnesota and across the country,” said Phillip Braithwaite, President and CEO of Hart InterCivic. “This Verity version is the fastest yet.”

Among Verity’s new features, the cost-efficient Verity Print on-demand ballot printing device and a host of other enhancements such as faster ballot production and improved recount and reporting features will benefit Minnesota jurisdictions.

Verity Print, an on-demand ballot printer in a compact, portable case, saves on the guesswork and waste of pre-printing ballots. The menu-driven device is designed specifically to be easy to learn and easy to use for poll workers. Unlike other on-demand ballot printing solutions on the market, Verity Print does not impose per-click charges.

As with Verity’s previous version, the new release allows all voters to cast the same type of ballot; no segregated ballots affect equal access or impede certification. Voters also benefit from shorter lines at the polling place, since Verity does not use combination devices that can cause bottlenecks.
First federally certified in May 2015, Verity’s modern, holistic design compares favorably to other systems available in Minnesota, which include components introduced as many as 11 years ago. Verity is already in use in Ramsey County and has been selected as the voting system of choice in more than 60 localities nationwide.

For more information on the Verity Voting system, please visit www.hartintercivic.com/verityoverview.