RE: commissioners presentation this thurs

["Paul Tiger" <tigerp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That's very nice Neal, but you guys keep missing the point. Boulder has NO
legal method to do elections with. It must be replaced by something. It
would be great to just do color the dots balloting at the polls, and we can
do that.
But our card punch system becomes illegal on Jan 1st, and it doesn't work
anyway. So despite whatever the state may try to do with the fed over DRE,
Boulder will still need to replace its system with something.

Remember that there are five CO counties that must entirely replace their
systems. We might be able to avoid installing DREs, but the law says
otherwise. Application of an extension will most likely be granted ten
minutes after the deadline (Jan 2006).

Paul Tiger

-----Original Message-----
From: Neal McBurnett [mailto:neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 11:24 AM
To: Joe Pezzillo
Cc: bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: commissioners presentation this thurs

Thanks for working on that, Joe!

I talked with Brian Mooty 303.894.2200, ext x6626, in the Secy of
State's office on Friday the 21st about this stuff, since Drew Durham
(x6314) was out of town.

He confirmed the email that Drew had sent

 The state of Colorado will ask that the implementation date for DREs
 specially equipped for individuals with disabilities be extended to
 January 1, 2006.

He thought that all the states would be doing so, and that we could
count on it being approved, given the lack of standards, funding, and
the general uproar.

I think you should have a slide "Hold off on DREs until 2006" based on
that.

I think you should have a slide on "What are Other Election Officials
Doing" and include the Los Alamos and California stories prominently,
along with continued investigations in Maryland etc.

The other question, I think, is what advice to give in terms of
centralized vs distributed optical scanning, and which vendor to pick
for that purchase, since they will have the inside edge for providing
an "integrated system" for 2006.  Suggesting a "go slow" option for
now, meaning just buying a limited number of machines for centralized
counting, would seem to minimize spending now and maximize
opportunities for the best system for the years to come.  I would ask
Linda, Tom and the commissioners to look for willingness to disclose
the code to citizens, as underscored by HR 2239, which Udall is
co-sponsoring as of Nov 21.

Ending with "Summary - Paper Ballots and Wait for Better Solutions in
2006"

Neal McBurnett                 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/
Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged.  GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60


On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:48:24PM -0700, Joe Pezzillo wrote:
>
> Tom Bldr has got the basic plan, please fill the room! (Thursday 12/4,
> 10:30-11am 3rd Floor County Courthouse 13th/Pearl)
>
> Chris, you'd asked last week about petitions and I didn't see anyone
> follow up, but there had been some talk at our last meeting about
> putting together both electronic and physical petitions, I thought
> someone was doing so, but unless you heard off-list, I haven't seen
> one, so filling the room is probably the next best way we've got to
> show the breadth of citizen concern!
>
> I've got a rough of a presentation that I'm hoping to do a "dry run" of
> sometime Tuesday evening for anyone who is interested and wants to
> provide feedback (no location set yet).
>
> The titles of the slides go something like this:
>
>       Electronic Voting In the News
>       Who We Are (a description of who the big show of hands represents)
>       Why We're Here
>       What We Want (Paper Ballots)
>       Why What We Want Can Be Done
>       Why What We Want Should Be Done
>       How What We Want Can Be Implemented (today/tomorrow)
>       (Other Perspectives - Citizen concerns beyond scope of Paper
Ballots)
>       What We're Not Saying (we're not luddites, computers have
>       applications in elections)
>       Summary - Paper Ballots
>
> Please send me any input ASAP. Thanks!
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2003, at 8:53 PM, tom bldr wrote:
>
> >Selecting a BCV speaker to succinctly deliver our
> >message, combined with a big turnout, could go like
> >this: Speaker starts by saying who he's representing,
> >and asks for a show of hands of everyone who he is
> >there representing. Big show of hands