Paul,
We understand that Boulder County needs an election system for 2004.
We (some of us) propose that for 2004 the County go with precinct based, hand marked paper ballots, which are then centrally counted by optical scanners, cross checked either by a different set of optical scanners built by a different manufacturer, sample batches hand counted, or some combination. Possibly even lease the equipment.
This system would be secure, verifiable, and manageable. It's general outline is quite similar to what Boulder County has been doing for 30+ years. Also, this plan would allow additional time for the murky legal situation to clarify, while allowing the still nonexistent Election Assistance Commission time to oversee the creation of appropriate standards. It would also mean the least amount of tax dollars spent with the least amount of risk. Responsible government.
The waiver we seek appears increasingly likely, given two statements from top people in the Secretary of State's office and given the obvious absurdity of forcing counties to purchase sophisticated infant-stage technology utterly lacking any procedural, technical, or security standards whatsoever. Brian Moody's (spelling?) contention that virtually every state in the nation is also seeking a waiver suggests that the logic of seeking a delay is overwhelming.
No DREs whatsoever without thoroughly fleshed out standards. Period.
Just for the record, Federal Hava does not require DREs for ADA compliance; read Title III Section 301(a)(3) (A) & (B). It clearly and unequivocally calls for "at least one direct recording electronic voting system or other voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities..."
The Boulder County RFP explicitly eliminates consideration of any voting equipment except a full DRE system with an optical scanner component soley for absentee, provisional, and off year mail-in. And yes, there is equipment out there that could meet all ADA requirements w/o the digital capacity, when certified. Who knows what will be available in another couple of years?
State HAVA does not require DREs for ADA compliance before 01/01/06. No ambiguity whatsoever on this matter, according to the State HAVA Plan issued by the SoS this summer.
Finally, the HAVA law you so incessantly invoke is very, very ambiguous. It is very unclear what the law is. Right now the law is merely untested interpretations of the law.
kell
Paul Tiger <tigerp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.