On January 15, 2002 Mike Hoversten as a representative of ES&S demonstrated the Model 100 optical scan ballot counter version 4.5.5. Chris Nelson, state election supervisor, viewed the demonstration on behalf of the State Board of Elections. Cindy Callies, Miner County Auditor, and Diane Larson, Deputy Sanborn County Auditor, also attended a portion of the demonstration.

The test deck used for the demonstration contained 330 cards. It was decided to run 9 repetitions for a total of 2970 ballots. The demonstration had to meet all of the requirements of ARSD 5:02:09:02.01. Those requirements are as follows:

• It enables the voter to vote in absolute secrecy.
  • The ballots used in this system are voted in a ballot booth and with the use of privacy sleeves the ballots remain secret until they go in the box or are placed in the scanner.
• It enables the voter to vote a ticket selected from all the candidates.
  • Voters can vote for all candidates with this system.
• It rejects all of a voter's votes for any office or on any measure if the voter has cast more votes for the office or the measure than the voter is entitled to.
  • The scanner listed over voted races as such and did not count those votes.
• It accommodates all measures to be submitted to the voters in the form provided by law.
  • The optical ballot accomodates all measures which need to be voted on.
• It processes 3,000 ballots at a rate of 15 ballots a minute for a central counting unit.
  • ES&S requested that this unit be certified as a central count unit. The demonstration showed that ballots could be fed at a rate of 15 ballots per minute. 2970 ballots were processed.
• It processes 750 ballots at a rate of 10 ballots a minute for a precinct counting unit.
  • ES&S requested that this unit also be certified as a precinct count unit. The demonstration showed that ballots could be fed at a rate of 15 ballots per minute. 2970 ballots were processed.
• It allows no more than one percent of ballots to be rejected by the machine because of ballot feeding errors during a demonstration.
  • After about 1000 ballots had been run through the machine, it began rejecting ballots randomly. When a ballot was rejected, the machine stopped, gave an error message of "missed orientation" or "multiple ballots" and returned the ballot to the operator. These errors occurred irregardless of what orientation was used to feed the ballot. The errors appeared random but became more frequent to the point the machine was barely useable. An ES&S technician was telephoned to determine the problem and we were advised that a sensor(s) must have gotten out of adjustment. A second scanner had been brought to the demonstration so a decision was made to remove the program card from the faulty scanner and insert the card in the new scanner. This was done and counting resumed. No further problems were encountered throughout the remainder of the 3000 ballots.
• It accurately counts every ballot for each position voted.
  • The final ballot count on the machine was 2969. This was one ballot short of the 2970 which should have registered. Likewise each race on the ballot was one vote short of what should have been recorded for that race. The uncounted ballot occurred during the 7^th repetition of the ballots. It is unclear why there was an uncounted ballot.

The test deck of ballots used for the demonstration contained perfectly marked ovals. "Voter error" was not a consideration during the demonstration.