|
Questions 3 & 4 are procedural ones that I can
answer. In both cases, under both HAVA and state laws, the
voter must provide a signature and some kind of ID (the list is on the back of
the new voter registration forms). Whether provisional or mail-in, the signature of the
voter is on the outside of the envelope. So if the voter is found not to be
authentic, or another ballot for them turns up, it gets denied. Bad ballots are
never opened, and that has always been true. Provisional ballots can be taken or submitted
anywhere. The polling place, the clerk’s office, or by mail. A lot of research
goes into a provisional to make sure that the voter can vote, before the ballot
packet is opened. I believe that there have been people who have voted
provisionally in an attempt to vote in more than one jurisdiction. Diligent
work by people who care makes the difference. Technology helps, but election
workers have to care to bother to use it. In Boulder they do, in Montrose they
don’t. it is the three rules of real estate brokerage: location, location,
location. Boulder cares, other places may not give a rat’s ass. In 2004 all of the voter registration records will be
on-line with the state (SoS), not the counties. There are pros and cons. One of
the pros will be that the clerk in Pitkin (Aspen) will be able to tell if a
voter voted in Boulder as well. This can’t be done now. Is this happening? You
bet. When I was last in Aspen I met a man who told me that
he votes in Kansas and in Colorado. HAVA isn’t just about boxes and blinky
lights, it is about procedures that will be enforced everywhere. Or maybe not … Paul Tiger -----Original
Message----- After attending most of
the Hart Interactive voting machine session on 10/14, I would like to express a
generally very positive impression of their voting system, but with two main
qualifications, plus two questions. 1. The voting
machine should be purchased as capable for all 4 main ballot types,
especially the Ranked Vote type (IRV) application. Either
the voting system should be delivered with this capability working, or
have a contracted provision for installing all application types when
& if requested by Election Commission owner. The future program
installation fee needs to be specified and should be modestly low. (Note that the Instant
Run-off Voting machine capability could save much expense, if the
2nd ballot event for future run-off elections will someday be
required. For example, the Denver Mayor race requires a run-off vote,
(when applicable), so that they can reliably determine which candidate is
supported by the majority of the voters.) 2. The paper ballot
receipt for the Hart Interactive looks basically good, as the voter can
(voluntarily) look thru a window to check their voting on the paper ballot
receipt, which has also a anonymous serial number for each voter.
However, this feature needs to be specified properly. I'd strongly
recommend to require this official, original paper ballot
receipt for each & every voter's record, along with a 2D bar code.
Thus a scanned hand count could be done by scanning the bar codes quickly on
the ballot receipts, which are probably contained conveniently on a long
roll. The accuracy/reliability of the bar code can be ensured
by sample-checking it sufficiently with the adjacent text on the ballot
receipt. In addition, the accuracy/reliability of the digital voting
record data in the memory cards can also be sample checked sufficiently by
comparing it to the paper receipt voting record for the same serial number. 3.
Question: Is there a significant danger of mailed absentee ballots
being cleverly intercepted and fraudulently completed, (without
detection)? Would it help to require the voters to sign their name
and write in their SS# and then cross-check the SS#'s, if this could be
made legally acceptable? 4. Question:
Does the Provisional Ballot feature enable anyone who is a resident (but not on
the voter registry) to vote provisionally? Is the provisional
ballot later disqualified if the resident did not register to vote previously,
or what grounds would the provisional ballot be rejected? For
example, could the many thousands of unjustly disenfranchised voters
in Florida in 2000 been able to vote provisionally and probably been
approved later with this system, hypothetically? This does not
appear to be a voting machine question, however. Many thanks again for
your all's good work, JCBollinger (as a concerned citizen) [|>] snip |