2 | P a g e
Certified System before Modification:
Unisyn Voting Solutions OpenElect 1.0
Certificate ID: UNS10121966-OE
Unisyn Voting Solutions OpenElect 1.0.1
Certificate ID: UNS10121966-OE-WI
Anomalies and/or Additions addressed in OpenElect 1.1:
The Unisyn OpenElect 1.1 modification provides enhancements to the Ballot Layout Manager,
including expansion to support ballots lengths of 11, 14, 17, 19 & 21 inches; support for single
sided ballots; ballot measures can extend the full width of the ballot page; creation of sample
ballots; and other ballot formatting enhancements.
Unisyn OpenElect 1.1 enhancements were also made to the OpenElect Central Suite
applications in the following areas: Tabulator, Election Manager, and OpenElect Voting Central
Scan applications. Supporting changes were also made to the OVI (OpenElect Voting Interface)
and OVO (OpenElect Voting Optical) firmware. Security enhancements were also added to
continue to extend the system's security features and capabilities.
The OpenElect Central Suite of applications was expanded with the addition of a new
application: the Adjudicator. This new application allows a jurisdiction to evaluate ballots with
questionable markings and change them if need, in accordance with the perceived intent of the
voter.
Unisyn also introduced a 15” LCD touchscreen as an option for OVI units.
Mark definition:
The Unisyn Open Elect 1.1 system will consistently recognize a contiguous mark that is placed
fully within the designated target area and fills 20% of the total target, or alternatively, a 1mm
wide line across the full length of the target area. Both types of marks must be made with a
marking device with sufficiently low reflectance in the visible red band and is of sufficient
density/color such that the scanner registers it as black. Most blue, black and green ballpoint
pens and markers also meet necessary reflectance requirements and may be used.
Tested Marking Devices:
Various commercially available marking implements were tested on the Unisyn OpenElect 1.1
scanner to determine their acceptability and readability when used with the Visible Spectrum
scanners used. Forty-six pens and pencils were tested, based on the following
criteria:
A. A prior indication of mixed results regarding scanning success using older technology
(with either PDI or competitive scanners).
B. Writing implements reported as problem markers by several State Lotteries.
C. Common writing instruments used throughout the U.S. and Canada.