Working Groups and Work in Progress

Note regarding drafts of standards and draft materials: only 1622 members are given access to drafts and draft materials until the working group has approved them to be made publicly available.

1622 Glossary

The 1622 series of standards require use of a common, consistent glossary of terms, thus the 1622 Glossary serves this purpose. Many of the terms in this glossary originate in existing versions of the Election Assistance Commission's VVSGs (Voluntary Voting System Guidelines), but other terms have been created specifically for the 1622 standards or originate from other sources (sources for all terms will be noted in the glossary). A ancillary goal is to create a glossary of election terms that will be useful to the community at large and thus can include cross-referencing to other uses of the terms (e.g., if a particular state uses a term differently).

See the 1622 Glossary.

Working Group & Standard for Election Results Reporting Data Interchange Format - 1622.2

Reporting of election results from vote-capture devices to local jurisdictions and from local jurisdictions to the state level typically requires many exchanges of data between election management systems that may use different proprietary formats. This requires significant investment by states in software to support such data exchanges and may lock a state into using proprietary approaches or their own in-house solutions. Additionally, news media, election results analysts, post-election auditors, and the general public want election results to be reported quickly and according to a standard that they can use easily. Thus, the purpose of this standard is to provide a common format for election results and information so that manufacturers of voting equipment can integrate this format into their product lines and so that local election offices and media as well as other groups can develop software to facilitate their own importing and reporting and analysis of election results.

See further information on 1622.2.

Standard for Event Logging Data Interchange Format - 1622-3

From the current draft PAR: This standard defines common data interchange formats for event records for voting systems. Voting systems, including election administration systems, election management systems, vote capture devices, and tabulation devices, record events, both human and machine, in the voting process using the equipment. This standard specifies the common data elements for event log export, and an implementation of this standard using OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards) EML (Election Markup Language) data elements and structures. This standard will also include the manner in which codes in event logs for voting systems are described.

See further information on 1622-3.

Recommended Practice for Election Modeling - 1622.4

This guideline defines a core model of election data that supports the end-to-end process of administering an election. The model will consist of data objects common to elections, the relationships between the objects, and the minimum required attributes of each data object. The model will be documented using Unified Modeling Language (UML) notation to better support visualization and to avoid prescribing an implementation format for the data. The UML notation may also be accompanied by additional diagrams, annotation or commentary that explains specific aspects of the model or its notation.

See further information on 1622.4.

Election Systems Usability & Accessibility - 1622.5

This standard defines the requirements for usability and accessibility for voting systems. Voting systems include election administration systems, election management systems, vote capture devices, and tabulation devices that present voting information to voters, poll workers, election officials, and any other users. This standard specifies the requirements needed to make a voting system functional, acceptable, usable and accessible by all, including those with disabilities, while maintaining appropriate levels of voter security and confidentiality. The standard defines the user experience by leveraging user interface and interaction design best practices, existing accessible and universal design standards, and by examining workflow and user needs through human factors systems engineering.

See further information on 1622.5.

Recommended Practice for Voting Methods Mathematical Models - 1622.6

Voting Methods Mathematical Models formally and precisely defines voting methods as mathematical models. Voting methods are methods of casting, tabulating, mathematical evaluation, or counting votes, to determine the outcome of elections. Examples of voting methods include but are not limited to plurality voting, plurality with runoff, ranked choice, approval voting, straight-party voting, and multi-party endorsement. This recommended practice satisfies the need for formal and precise mathematical reference models for voting methods where no common standard set of mathematical models exists today. The purpose of the standard set of Voting Methods Mathematical Models is to facilitate elections integrity through a common and precise definition of voting methods as mathematical models. Each voting method is unambiguously defined as a mathematical model its specification, characterization and properties are precisely known in support of accurate and reliable analysis of elections data. Precisely known mathematical characterization of systems components enables robust and correct voting systems and facilitates their development, analysis, and testing.

Standard for Voter Registration Data Interchange Format - 1622-1

Historically, voter registration database systems and election equipment such as election management systems use import and export functions to transfer data between each other and to other state level systems. However, these systems may have their own formats that require translation into each of the other systems' formats, which incurs additional expense to states and localities as well as for use in other election-related purposes. As these systems generally have the capacity to interoperate through import/export functions, it is beneficial to specify a common data format that can be used by any state, locality, or for other election-related purposes.

See the IEEE approved project authorization request (PAR) for 1622-1.

Other Standards Under Analysis

Standard for Election Auditing

Miscellaneous

Class diagram for common election subsystems and their data flows