RE: letter to the editor, 11/11

[kellen carey <kcarey636@xxxxxxxxx>]

I believe that HAVA mandates that punch card and lever style voting machines cannot be used in 2004.  I have read in newspaper articles and heard that, but I didn't find that in my 4 hours (with about a 3:1 daydreaming/mind wandering to actual reading/assimilating ratio) of studying the extraordinarily tedious HAVA a week ago.

 

If that's the case, that is probably the main reason for the rush to decide.

 

Another reason is that Boulder County's punch card system is falling apart, and has been for some time.  It is now almost 30 years old and I don't think the manufacturer exists any more (for maintenance or replacements.)  Even if the manufacturer does exist, there is little sense in enhancing a punch card system soon to be outlawed.  Better to put money into something that will be around awhile. 

 

Another reason could be money.  If Boulder County doesn't go electronic voting,and most of the rest of the country does and NIST expeditiously establishes very solid, secure electronic voting standards (highly unlikely), Boulder County (conceivably) could lose out on federal financial assistance. 

 

Then we have the County Clerk attacked for foolishly writing off $500,000-? due to a too scrupulous fear heightened by a few nervous nellies.    

 

Not all counties in the US are in this predicament, i.e. punch card system or lever style.  Only 5 in Colorado have this problem.  Seems those 5 counties should have gotten together and presented a united front in demanding of the Sec. of State a delay in the deadlines.  Actually, seems every county in the state should demand a delay in implementation until all, or most, of the technical, procedural, and financial kinks to HAVA are resolved.

 

Convincing the County Clerk that hand-marked paper ballots with some combination of optical scanning and sample batch testing by hand counting seems the best thing to do, and works both short term and long term.  If DREs ever become secure they can always be introduced at a later time.

 

kell

"Mcgrath, Bob___PI_Mkt" <bob.mcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Then why is there the rush to obtain equipment by Jan. 1st, 2004?  Is it a rush to get the federal dollars in time for the Nov. 2004 election? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Tiger [mailto:tigerp@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 4:18 PM
To: bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: letter to the editor, 11/11

January 1^st 2006 is the correct date for the HAVA drop-dead date.

 

Paul Tiger

 

-----Original Message-----
From: kellen carey [mailto:kcarey636@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 4:12 PM
To: bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: letter to the editor, 11/11

 

Ms. Rhodes has indeed written an intelligent and useful letter.  However, she somewhat mispeaks when she says HAVA "has mandated that all 50 states have computerized voting machines by 2004 elections."

 

HAVA mandates only that all precincts have an (meaning at least one) ADA-compliant voting machine for the disabled.  That means DREs because DREs are the only technologies currently capable of allowing the disabled to vote privately and unassisted.

 

There is no mandate that all other voting equipment (i.e. for the 98% "abled" voters) be any particular method/technology, as long as it is not punch card or lever style voting equipment.  Paper ballots and handcounting are perfectly acceptable under HAVA.

 

Also, I don't think the deadline of 2004 (for ADA compliant voting equipment) is correct; I think the correct time by which these systems must be up is by Jan 1, 2006.

 

Please let me know if I am wrong.

 

kell

Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'll invite Donna to tomorrows meeting. She's a longtime friend of
mine...

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Laura Price wrote:

> There is a wonderful letter to the editor in the Camera today that echoes many
> of our sentiments. Not sure if Donna Rhodes is involved with CVV, but thought
> I should share this piece...laura.
>
> http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/letters_to_editor/article/0,1713,BDC_2491_2417818
> ,00.html
>
> VOTING
>
> Electronic systems vulnerable to fraud
>
> I challenge the Daily Camera to do some real investigative journalism, to be
> bold, question authority, and uncover the truth about the push for computerized
> voting in the next major election. It is possible that the greatest voter fraud
> in American history is set to take place in the next presidential elec! tion, and
> it will make the last one seem trivial in comparison, unless we citizens do
> something about it.
>
> The "Help America Vote Act" has mandated that all 50 states must have
> computerized voting machines for the 2004 election and Boulder officials are in
> the process of selecting ours. On the surface it appears to make voting much
> easier, but it makes fraud much easier too. The law does not require a printout
> or ballot of our vote and the computer manufacturers are discouraging the use
> of this available technology. Why would anyone be against a verifiable paper
> trail, a check system of sorts? Here are just a few of the problems encountered
> in 2002.
>
> In Scurry County, Texas two Republicans won by a landslide when polls had been
> predicting the Democratic candidates to win by a large margin. The county clerk
> demanded a recount both manually and electronically using ! a new computer chip
> and indeed the Democrats did win. A faulty chip was to blame that counted
> Democratic votes as Republican. They did not demand a recount in Comal County,
> Texas when three Republican candidates received the exact same number of votes ?
> 18,181. How likely is this coincidence?
>
> In Georgia, the first state to use all-electronic voting, a Republican governor
> was voted into office; the first one since the end of the Civil War, and pre-
> election polls showed the Democratic candidate to be in the lead.
>
> Voters in Florida reported touching the screen to vote for the Democratic
> candidate for governor and having the computer screen show that they had voted
> for the Republican incumbent, Jeb Bush.
>
> In Nebraska, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel was the former CEO of ES&S, the
> voting machine manufacturer that supplied all the voting machines for the state
! > of Nebraska. For more information on this subject check out
> www.blackboxvoting.com.
>
> Talk to our local officials about their options in selecting a computerized
> voting machine for us. Get informed, demand a verifiable paper trail and make
> your vote count!
>
> DONNA RHODES, Boulder
>

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard