Re: commissioners presentation this thurs

[Neal McBurnett <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sigh.  I could have been clearer.  But I and most everyone else have
been agreeing for a long time that yes, we have to come up with a
system for 2004.  I was just emphasizing that we don't have to buy
DRE's until 2006, based on the extension that the secy of state will
get (in all likelihood).

I was suggesting we should buy optical scanners (part of the current
plan), but only a few of them for centralized counting in 2004.  Or we
could rent them again.  We should save most of our money for better
equipment in 2006, including DREs and probably scanners in the
precincts to detect overvotes.  Ideally we would, in 2006, get
precinct scanners that would have fully-disclosed software.  And they
could scan DRE-generated paper ballots and read them back so even
blind voters could verify them.

-Neal

On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:19:53PM -0700, Paul Tiger wrote:
> 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