|
Kell, Nice workup. Thank you not only for me but all others.
BTW- its Mooty. I’ve had several conversations with ‘officials’ and
have come to pretty much the same conclusions. However, the commissioners did want
to have the advisory committee look at DREs. Since the outset of these meetings
much has changed in concepts and what voters should expect. We can only hope
that our commissioners are aware of these issues, and not just from meetings
with us individually or as a group. Of course it is our hope that they will see things the
way we see them and will rein up on the horse. All the same, the commissioners
of our county have a long history of following their own plans and disregarding
its citizens and sometimes even the laws of our state. It is still quite possible that they will decide to
purchase DREs for use in 2004, because this is what they set out to do. I am just saying that we should keep that in mind. Paul Tiger -----Original
Message----- 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
Okay, but my point is
that the commissioner may well feel that they need to [|>] snip |