Re: commissioners presentation this thurs

["LPBC Chairman" <chairman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think it might be good to tie this in with the Re-districting attempt.
ANOTHER attempt by those in power to remain in power.
(Control of electronic voting is serious stuff......and the Republicans know
it.)
Makes it even more relevant to current events.....;-)

Bo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Tiger" <tigerp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "BCV" <bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 4:26 AM
Subject: RE: commissioners presentation this thurs


> Okay, but my point is that the commissioner may well feel that they need
to
> buy something before August 2004 and we should understand that whatever we
> might like, they might do something else. So if we all put our cards in
the
> basket that says that the commissioners will do exactly what we want them
> to, then EXPECT TO BE DISAPPOINTED.
>
> Everyone is talking about an application for an extension that has not
been
> filed. It hasn't been filed because there's no one to file it with. Even
the
> SoS recognizes this fact, but thinks that when they can file for an
> extension that one will automatically be granted because of the national
> scandal.
> Just because they would like it to happen doesn't mean it will.
>
> In the meantime, the commissioners have to go with the law as it stands.
> They might not, but Tom Mayer will go with the letter of the law. Its what
> he does. Paul will go with us, and Ron is an unknown, probably the swing
> vote.
>
> Please don't imagine that your arguments will be convincing enough.
There's
> a lot more going on here than technology issues. We all know that. This
> thing is political, and maybe even more political than most people
> recognize.
>
> Paul Tiger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neal McBurnett [mailto:neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:02 PM
> To: bcv
> Subject: Re: commissioners presentation this thurs
>
> 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
>
>
>