RE: Mail In Ballot problems...

["Paul Tiger" <tigerp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The person to ask about how many voters  were required to include copies of
an ID would be Tom Halicki (thalicki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx), Boulder County
Elections Manager. Tom is a member of this list.
I recall that the number of voters required to provide ID was less than a
hundred voters.

However, copies picture ID is a misnomer. I suggest that you read the back
of the voter registration form to understand this. A slip of paper with the
last four digits of your social security number will suffice. The only
voters required to provide ID were FIRST TIME VOTERS.

See the Boulder Clerk's site registration form at
http://www.co.boulder.co.us/clerk/elections/PDFs/newreg.pdf

The verbiage in question says:

FIRST TIME VOTERS
WHO REGISTER BY MAIL

If you are registering to vote for the first time
in the state of Colorado and are mailing this
registration application, a copy of one of the
following forms of identification information
is required to be submitted with the mail-in
registration form:
* A valid Colorado driver's license; or
* A valid Colorado Department of Revenue
identification card; or
* A valid U.S. passport; or
* A valid pilot's license with photograph issued
by the Federal Aviation Administration; or
* A valid employee identification with a
photograph issued by the U.S. Government,
Colorado state government, or any county,
municipality, board, authority, or other
political subdivision of the state; or
* A valid U.S. Military Identification card
with photograph; or
* A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement,
government check, paycheck, or other
governmental document that shows the
name and address of the elector; or
* At least the last four digits of the person's
social security number.

Paul Tiger

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter or Alison Richards [mailto:aprichards@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:12 AM
To: paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx; APRichards@xxxxxxxx; MorsonB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Mail In Ballot problems...

From:  Peter Richards

Date:  Sunday, 16 Nov. 2003    07:00 am

Paul, et al...

Re:  information on overweight ballots...

The ballots do not all weigh the same  !!

 There was a story on NPR (National Public Radio) confirmed by my pal Jim
Beers, the News Director of KUNC, in Greeley, CO. that 'all' of the City
and County of Denver ballots were being rejected as overweight, because
they weighed over 1 ounce, but people had only put 37 cents postage on
them.  They needed 60 cents postage, because of being over 1 ounce.

The Denver elections people had a deal with the Post Office, that they
would pay all additional charges for postage, just get the ballots to us
before 7 pm on 4 Nov. 2003.  That apparently settled the Denver
problem...  I do not know what the additional charges bill was from the
Post Office.

This was about 10 days before the 4 November 2003 election.

I then went and weighed my personal City of Boulder ballot, and found
that the  weight was 'right on the line'.  If one returned the
instruction sheet, as Evan  R. mentions in his email, that threw the
weight over 1 ounce, and a total of 60 cents postage was required.

With the instruction sheet the total ballot weight was 32 grams,  with
out the instruction sheet, the  weight was 28 grams.  Greg Avery at the
Daily Camera also confirmed all this on their 'official' postal scales
they have.  32 grams is more than one ounce,  so the postal machines
kicked them out, into the short postage pile.

How many of these there were,  I do not yet know,  but will be able to
figure out.

This was all confirmed, via email, with the Bouder County Elections
people, and Congressman Udall's Westminster office.
I brought Udall's office into this because of the suggestion from others
that they would have the power and authority to break into the Post
Office bureaucracy, which they partially did.  This story is not over...

Boulder County elections people also have an account with the Post
Office,  they will pay any additional overweight charges, just get the
ballots to us on time...  They did the same on the earlier mail ballot,
in Nov. 2001.

There were many  overweight ballots,  I do not know the actual number
yet.  I have been emailing Nancy Jo Wurl (#2 in the Boulder County
Elections office) about this,  she will be telling me what the bill was
from the Post Office for overweight ballots, soon I hope.

Except now they have to recount everything...

The real issue was would all the overweight ballots get to their
respective elections people by the 7 pm deadline on election day??  We do
not know the answer to that question yet ...

The other reason for an overweight ballot was people who were voting for
the first time, had an additional piece of paper to enclose - I am not
exactly sure what that was.    Maybe some poll watcher folks can inform
us...

I agree the USPS was the biggest bottleneck in the mail in election,
which is why I am still following up on these factual questions...

Given the incredible volume of 'junk mail' that the USPS handles, that
makes it all the worse for the 'first class' mail that needs to get
through, and which the USPS is paid handsomely to deliver, and forward,
etc.  They are trying to mix two very different quality levels of mail,
in part saying they need the revenue.   I would argue it makes things
worse.

If that was a good idea,  you would see FedEx and UPS hauling junk mail
too...

Bye,  Peter


On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:26:54 -0700 "Paul Tiger" <tigerp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
writes:
> I'd love to know where this information about overweight ballots
> comes from?
> All the ballots should weigh the same. The ballots are the same
> physical
> dimensions, even while they may have different things printed on
> the. Every
> voter in BC only got one ballot card, it doesn't matter how many
> issues
> existed. The ballots weigh the same.
> Now there where a few idiots that enclosed notes: love letters;
> commentary;
> and hate mail. If those ballots weighed more it certainly was not
> the fault
> of the clerk.
>
> One of the first rejected ballot envelopes to come through the
> process was
> covered with scribbles; had no ballot inside (you could tell by the
> feel);
> had a sheet of lined notebook paper inside with magic marker all
> over it.
> There was a circle around the stamp with a line to a comment that
> said "Poll
> Tax". It was entirely amusing, but since it had no signature on the
> outside
> it was never opened. Too bad, because it was fun and I would have
> liked to
> read the rest of the note inside it.
>
> Back on topic: I my mind the USPS was the biggest bottleneck and
> pain in the
> ass. Before the mailing of the ballots the clerk sent out something
> like
> (Tom would know) a 170K piece mailing of a post card to confirm the
> mailing
> addresses of BC voters. Right off we had problems with deliveries of
> those
> cards. Some came back in batches, leading us to believe that the
> USPS was
> just being lazy.
> When ballots went out to confirmed addresses (confirmed by the post
> card
> mailing returns from the voters themselves) we had returns of
> undeliverable
> mail. Voters called in to ask where their ballots were? Some said
> things
> like, "We've lived here for 20 years and we are getting junk mail,
> but no
> ballot."
> Ballots would not have been sent to known dead addresses, and were
> all
> clearly marked as not to be forwarded. Yet some were forwarded and
> others
> that went to confirmed addresses were returned. Still others were
> marked
> with the forwarding addresses, and returned, as they were supposed
> to. But
> if a voter had confirmed their address and information by filing in
> and
> returning the post card, then why would the ballots then be returned
> by the
> USPS, if they were sent to the correct and confirmed addresses?
>
> Just to make it clear for those that don't understand about
> forwards: If a
> ballot is forwarded to a new address the 'ballot style' would need
> to change
> or voters would be voting on issues in precincts where they did not
> live.
> Some people don't understand this, and thought that they should
> have
> received their ballots for their old addresses at their new ones.
>
> There was a wide disparity in how the USPS handled ballot mailings.
> This
> happened in 2001 as well. While some people may think that the USPS
> is
> trustworthy, I am way more skeptical. Neither rain, nor sleet, nor
> snow; you
> can always rely upon the USPS to deliver the right mail to the wrong
> address
> or visa versa.
>
> Paul Tiger
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter or Alison Richards [mailto:aprichards@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 6:21 AM
> To: paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ralphs@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx; laura@xxxxxxxxx; AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx;
> MorsonB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Mail In Ballot problems...
>
> From:  Peter Richards  303 449-2825
>
> To:  Ralph and Paul
>
> Cc:  Joe Pezzillo,  Laura Price, Al Kolwicz,  Berny Morson (Rocky
> Mtn.
> News)
>
> Date:  Sat.,  15 Nov. 2003
>
> Re:  Main In Ballot problems...  continuing... ??
>
> Below is an email about continuing problems with the US Postal
> Service
> and ballots dribbling in for the 4 November 2003 election...  I am
> not
> sure who is saying what to whom, in the emails...  the way they are
> snipped...
>
> What is your source of this information?
>
> Can you document it?
>
> Boulder County Commissioner Paul Danish is talking about printing a
> list,
> somewhere, of all voters who did NOT vote in the last election,
> (this is
> public information,) out of all folks who were mailed ballots, for
> people
> to double check that their ballots were received.  The point of
> this
> would be to document problems with the Post Office in getting
> ballots
> back to the respective election officials...
>
> The Boulder County re-count (headline in Daily Camera today) only
> intensifies this issue...
>
> I am most interested in following up on the election problems of the
> most
> recent election, and think the other members of the CVV group can
> handle
> the issues of future problems.
>
> I have a major contact (now retired) in the Post Office,  who is
> equally
> skeptical of their ability to deliver ballots, especially those
> with
> problems....  i.e. overweight ballots...
>
> Congressman Udall's office may be able to get to the  bottom of this
> Post
> Office problem.... if we can document problems.
>
> Best,  Peter
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:43:34 -0700 "Paul Tiger"
> <tigerp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> writes:
> > So we can talk about counting by hand - not a DRE issue, but we
> can't
> > talk
> > about absentee? Absentee is always going to take place.
> >
> > You'd better spend some time reading elections laws before you
> > decide that
> > you can go off in whatever direction suits you.
> >
> > Yeah this is about DRE. If you want to spend more time discussing
> > this, lets
> > get it off this list and stop bothering people with it.
> >
> > FOCUS
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 3:50 PM
> > To: paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Another Tactic? Absentee ballots
> >
> > Dear Paul:
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:03:13 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> > >Ralph,
> > >
> > >You snipped off part of my reply. I said that people should hand
> > carry
> > their
> > >ballots back in because we can't trust the USPS.
> > >Ballots that were sent long before the election are still
> arriving
> > at the
> > >clerk's office. Voters are saying that they sent ballots as long
> as
> > ten
> > days
> > >before the elections and the clerk is just getting them, or
> still
> > hasn't
> > >seen them.
> > >
> > >The BIGGEST breakdown in mail ballot elections is the postal
> > service.
> > >Absentee balloting is the same as mail-in balloting.
> >
> > Paul, this is neither the time nor the place to debate
> > mail-in/walk-in
> > balloting.  We're fighting the DRE problem now.
> >
> > The biggest problem with mail-in ballots and/or walk-in ballots
> is
> > the lack
> > of security both outbound and inbound.  The USPS is merely one
> > problem among
> > many.
> >
> > >
> > >Paul Tiger
> >
> > Ralph Shnelvar
> >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx]
> > >Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:40 AM
> > >To: paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >Subject: Re: Another Tactic? Absentee ballots
> > >
> > >On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:23:02 -0700, you wrote:
> > >
> > >>PT> I like this idea, if we could make it work in a voting
> > population as
> > >>PT>large as Boulder County's. You might be able to pull this
> off
> > in a
> > >>PT>smaller county. In areas east of midwest counties and
> townships
> > are
> > >>PT>rather small and twisting the arms of the clerks is easier
> to
> > do with
> > >>PT>such a protest.
> > >
> > >This is my first posting here.
> > >
> > >Paul Tiger and I - both Libertarians - often take opposing
> views.
> > >Unsurprisingly, this is going to happen again.
> > >
> > >[snip]
> > >
> > >>
> > >>paul tiger
> > >>
> > >>Mcgrath, Bob___PI_Mkt wrote:
> > >>
> > >[snip]
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>>One idea posted there was to urge all voters to obtain
> absentee
> > ballots
> > to
> > >>>bypass the machines.  Thoughts?
> > >
> > >I suggest that people read Sunny Maynard's (Green Party) and my
> > article in
> > >the Sunday Denver Post:
> > >        www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~75~1734196,00.html
> > >
> > >The last thing that we need is to promote mail-in balloting.
> > While
> > >electronic voting offers high-tech opportunities for fraud,
> > mail-in
> > >balloting offers both high-tech and low-tech opportunities for
> > fraud.
> > >
> > >Ralph Shnelvar
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>