Supervisors’ budget committee pauses $12.6 million Sequoia voting-system contract amid open-source dispute
Loading...
Summary
The Budget & Finance Committee heard a resolution to award a $12.6 million, four-year contract to Sequoia Voting Systems but paused action after debate over whether the vendor must publicly disclose source code. Sequoia offered third-party code review and a public report but declined to post source code online; the committee continued the item to the call of the chair.
The San Francisco Budget & Finance Committee on Tuesday heard public and staff debate over a proposed $12.6 million, four‑year contract with Sequoia Voting Systems for a new voting system, but continued the item to the call of the chair after questions about source‑code disclosure.
John Arns, director of elections, told the committee the outstanding question was whether Sequoia would accept the open‑technology language proposed by advocates. "Sequoia still see that language as as asking for too much too soon," Arns said, adding that Sequoia was willing to allow a third‑party security and source‑code review and to have the resulting report publicly disclosed.
Sequoia representative Steven Bennett told the panel the company would cooperate on review but would not post source code on the Internet. "We are willing to, include language that, will will, have the source code reviewed," Bennett said. "On the Internet, no." He said the company would work with the city and the Secretary of State's office on an approach to open technology disclosure.
Members of the public, including representatives of the Open Voting Consortium, urged full public disclosure rather than a third‑party review. Brent Turner said attempts to build a bridge between Sequoia and the Open Voting Consortium had been limited; Jim Soper said withholding code meant votes were being counted "in secret." Alan Deckard said funding and liability for outside reviewers would be required if the committee relied on third‑party assessments.
After public comment, Supervisor Tom Ammiano moved to continue the contract discussion. The chair announced the item would be continued to the call of the chair without objection.
Next steps: the committee postponed final action and asked staff to continue negotiating contract language addressing security and disclosure. If the item returns, supervisors may consider revised language specifying either public posting of code, a defined third‑party review process with funding and scope, or other transparency measures.
