diff --git a/index.md b/index.md
index e3cf122..4a0b7a1 100644
--- a/index.md
+++ b/index.md
@@ -455,6 +455,145 @@ Generates human-readable results reports from the results data from the vote
 totaler (e.g. printable results and results posted on the Department website).
 
 
+### 2.2. Other Voting System Projects
+
+This section includes information about some of the other voting system
+projects that are either (1) open source and have been or plan to be used in
+a US jurisdiction, or (2) are or were being developed by a jurisdiction in
+the US.
+
+Special attention is paid in this section towards whether the various
+projects are open source because that determines whether and to what extent
+the source code will be available for use in San Francisco's project.
+
+
+### 2.2.1. New Hampshire - Prime III
+
+[TODO]
+
+
+### 2.2.2. Los Angeles County - VSAP
+
+Los Angeles County has been planning or working on its [Voting Systems
+Assessment Project](http://vsap.lavote.net) (VSAP) at least since 2009, when
+it held an event at Caltech on September 16, 2009. VSAP is a project for Los
+Angeles County to develop its own voting system using a “voter-centered
+approach.“ The project is led by Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County
+Clerk (RR/CC) Dean Logan.
+
+There is conflicting evidence as to whether any of the VSAP system will be
+open source and, if so, how much. On the one hand, press coverage of the
+project frequently mentions that the system will be open source, and Mr.
+Logan says it will be open source when he speaks publicly and is quoted in
+the media. For example, in [this
+tweet](https://twitter.com/LACountyRRCC/status/904871828799209472) he says,
+“Encouraging to see movement in this direction. #LACounty advances
+#opensource in #votingmodernization effort too.“
+
+Los Angeles County's April 24, 2017 RFI [internal link] also supports the
+view that it will be open source. For example, on page 24, it says:
+
+> Accordingly, RR/CC is considering a Copyleft type of license such as GNU
+General Public License (GPL) or OSET Public License (OPL), that promotes
+“forever free” provisions, however it has not ruled out the use of more
+“permissive” open source licenses, such as the Mozilla Public License Version
+2.0 (MPL), the Apache License, Version 2.0 (ALv2), the BSD 3.0 or MIT
+licenses. Whatever the chosen license, the transparency and ability to share
+the IP and the technology would need to be ensured.
+> ...
+> LA County is seeking candid feedback from the vendor community on the
+intellectual property approach for VSAP.
+
+On the other hand, there is no obvious mention of open source on VSAP's main
+website (e.g. on its [“Principles“](http://vsap.lavote.net/principles/)
+page). Moreover, Los Angeles County's 54-page Phase 1 RFP [link internally],
+which was issued five months after the RFI on September 18, 2017 to
+prequalify vendors, does not mention open source. The Phase 1 RFP also
+describes a new “Tally System“ the County is working on:
+
+> A new Tally System is required to capture and process ballot images so that
+vote selections on paper ballots can be digitally counted. This includes
+votes cast on BMD ballots at Vote Centers, as well as on Vote By Mail
+ballots. Similar to the ECBMS, RR/CC is currently developing the software
+required for the new Tally System in anticipation of a pilot in June 2018.
+
+However, even though the County is currently developing the Tally System, as
+of October 2017, none of the code for the Tally System appears to be publicly
+available, let alone open source. In addition, on page 41 of the RFP in
+Section 6.2 “Non-Disclosure Agreement,“ the RFP says—
+
+> Prime Contractor-Led Teams who are prequalified as a result of this RFP
+Phase 1 will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) as part of
+RFP Phase 2 prior to receiving County IP.
+
+The requirement to sign an NDA seems inconsistent with the technology being
+open source.
+
+Finally, in response to an October 5 question on Twitter about whether
+VSAP will be open source, Mr. Logan [replied](https://twitter.com/LACountyRRCC/status/916114599241330689):
+
+> Open source platform for UI and tally; publicly owned design specs and
+code. More detail in RFI docs at http://vsap.lavote.net
+
+And in a [second reply](https://twitter.com/LACountyRRCC/status/916381787605000192):
+
+> Tally stack is all open source; details of licensing for custom code will
+be in Phase II RFP & was discussed in RFI; all publicly owned.
+
+So if “platform“ and “stack“ refer to things like the operating system,
+database, programming language, etc. but not the code itself, it seems
+possible that none of the code will be open source but instead simply be
+“publicly owned.“ It would be helpful if Los Angeles County can provide a
+clearer guarantee if this interpretation isn't correct.
+
+
+### 2.2.3. Travis County, Texas - STAR-Vote™
+
+In 2012, Travis County, Texas started researching and designing a new voting
+system it called STAR-Vote™. The County spent over $330,000 in its research
+and design phase.
+
+In October 2016, Travis County issued a detailed 208-page RFP [link to the
+RFP] covering the first phase of STAR-Vote, which was the “in-person voting
+module of the STAR-Vote system.“ The RFP made frequent reference to open
+source software. For example, on page 5:
+
+> The STAR-Vote system requirements were developed from the ground up with
+the purpose, among other objectives, of specifying an entire voting system
+developed under the open source code software model.
+
+However, the commitment to open source seemed uncertain because the RFP said
+the code would start out not as open source but as disclosed source,
+and possibly be made open source later. For example, on page 37 (note the
+phrase, “with a view toward ultimately ...“):
+
+> Source code for all modules would be published, but usage rights for actual
+elections as well as derivative rights (as in using the code to create a
+derivative voting system) would be controlled by Travis County (and/or
+consortium) with a view toward ultimately releasing usage and derivative
+rights under a “suitable” (as determined by Travis County and/or consortium)
+open source license that would allow and encourage preparation of third-party
+derivative work, recognizing that voting systems must be state and federally
+certified;
+
+The RFP was accompanied by an additional 16-page “Statement of Intent“
+document [link to the SOI] which sought $25 million (initially a minimum of
+$15 million) for an entity (likely a non-profit) called the “STAR-Vote
+Entity.“
+
+On September 28, 2017, Travis County [announced][star-vote-press-release]
+that the County would not be pursuing STAR-Vote. From their Final Report
+[link to a copy of the final report] (6 pages):
+
+> In a nutshell, we have run into too many obstacles. There has not been
+enough funding, time, or support to bring STAR-Vote into the phase of being a
+start-up, through development and the legally-required certification process
+and then into use.
+
+
+[star-vote-press-release]: http://www.traviscountyclerk.org/eclerk/Content.do?code=star-vote-a-change-of-plans
+
+
 ## 3. Assumptions
 
 This section lists certain assumptions the committee has made while drafting