[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "Questions Mount Over New Hampshire's Primary"
Evan,
As I understand it:
HB 1296 requires that all ballots be full-text paper ballots. This is a
mandatory first step.
The ballots may be counted using optical scan equipment or hand counting.
"Recounts for congressional, state, and district offices, state ballot
questions, and state ballot issues" might be done by machine or by hand
count. The method for determining which method is still inadequate in the
bill, but I believe that we should argue this point when and if we get the
bill to the Senate.
"Recount for other offices, ballot issues, and ballot questions in an
election coordinated by the county clerk and recorder" must count the paper
ballots, and unless directed otherwise the SOS, shall be counted as per
1-7-3xx (below)
Al
==================================
SECTION 4. 1-10.5-108, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
1-10.5-108. Method of recount. (1) The recount shall be of the PERMANENT
PAPER RECORDS OF THE VOTES CREATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 1-7-118, and the
votes shall be recorded on sheets other than those used at the election.
(2) Unless otherwise directed by the secretary of state, the
PERMANENT PAPER RECORDS shall be recounted utilizing the procedures,
methods, and processes USED FOR COUNTING PAPER BALLOTS PURSUANT TO PART 3 OF
ARTICLE 7 OF THIS TITLE.
{ I have pasted this section below.]
=====================================
SECTION 5. Repeal. 1-10.5-110, Colorado Revised Statutes, is repealed.
[This section provided rules for recounting using DRE machine counts instead
of paper.]
====================================
Document 1 of 1
Source:
Colorado Statutes/TITLE 1 ELECTIONS/GENERAL, PRIMARY, AND CONGRESSIONAL
VACANCY ELECTIONS/ARTICLE 7 CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS/PART 3 PAPER
BALLOTS/1-7-307. Method of counting paper ballots.
1-7-307. Method of counting paper ballots.
Statute text
(1) The election judges shall first count the number of ballots in the box.
If the ballots are found to exceed the number of names entered on each of
the pollbooks, the election judges shall then examine the official
endorsements. If, in the unanimous opinion of the judges, any of the ballots
in excess of the number on the pollbooks are deemed not to bear the proper
official endorsement, they shall be put into a separate pile and into a
separate record, and a return of the votes in those ballots shall be made
under the heading "excess ballots". When the ballots and the pollbooks
agree, the judges shall proceed to count the votes.
(2) Each ballot shall be read and counted separately. Every name and all
names of joint candidates separately marked as voted for on the ballot shall
be read and an entry made on each of two accounting forms before any other
ballot is counted. The entire number of ballots, excepting "excess ballots",
shall be read, counted, and placed on the accounting forms in like manner.
When all of the ballots, except "excess ballots", have been counted, the
election judges shall post the votes from the accounting forms.
(3) When all the votes have been read and counted, the ballots shall be
returned to the ballot box, the opening shall be carefully sealed, and the
election judges shall place their initials on the seal. The cover shall then
be locked and the ballot box delivered to the designated election official,
as provided in section 1-7-701.
(4) All persons, except election judges and watchers, shall be excluded from
the place where the ballot counting is being held until the count has been
completed.
History
Source: L. 92: Entire article R&RE, p. 741, § 9, effective January 1, 1993.
L. 93: (1) amended, p. 1421, § 75, effective July 1.
Annotations
Editor's note: This section was contained in an article that was repealed
and reenacted in 1980 and 1992. Provisions of this section, as it existed in
1992, are similar to those contained in 1-7-307 as said section existed in
1991, the year prior to the most recent repeal and reenactment of this
article. Provisions of this section, as it existed in 1980, are similar to
those contained in 1-5-112 as said section existed in 1979, the year prior
to the first repeal and reenactment of this article.
Annotations
Cross references: For the form of ballots, see §§ 1-5-407, 1-5-408, 1-7-304
(1), and 1-7-503 (1); for improperly marked ballots, see § 1-7-309; for
penalty for divulging information concerning the count prior to 7:00 p.m.,
see § 1-13-718.
Annotations
ANNOTATION
Annotations
Am. Jur.2d. See 26 Am. Jur.2d, Elections, §§ 385, 392.
C.J.S. See 29 C.J.S., Elections, § 226.
Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under
former provisions similar to this section.
The intention of the voter, as expressed upon the face of his ballot, has
always been regarded as the cardinal principle controlling the count. Under
a system providing for balloting like the Australian, it is necessary that
certain rules be prescribed to prevent confusion and secure uniformity; by
this means the intention of the voter is to be ascertained. Nicholls v.
Barrick, 27 Colo. 432, 62 P. 202 (1900); Wiley v. McDowell, 55 Colo. 236,
133 P. 757 (1913); Young v. Simpson, 21 Colo. 460, 42 P. 666 (1895);
Heiskell v. Landrum, 23 Colo. 65, 46 P. 120 (1896); Rhode v. Steinmetz, 25
Colo. 308, 55 P. 814 (1898).
So neither the judges of the election nor the courts are authorized to go
beyond what the voter has set down upon his ballot to ascertain his
intention. Wiley v. McDowell, 55 Colo. 236, 133 P. 757 (1913).
But in order to designate his choice, a voter must use a cross mark as the
law requires. Riley v. Trainor, 57 Colo. 155, 140 P. 469 (1914).
Hence, where no cross mark is used anywhere with reference to any of the
candidates for the particular office in question, the ballots ought not to
be counted. Riley v. Trainor, 57 Colo. 155, 140 P. 469 (1914).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
© 2004 by The Committee on Legal Services for the State of Colorado and
Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights
reserved.
-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Daniel Ravitz [mailto:evan@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 10:32 PM
To: tom bldr
Cc: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: "Questions Mount Over New Hampshire's Primary"
Note, folks, that Rep. Holt obviously means -it's so obvious to him
that you have to get it from context- he wants MANUAL recounts of
contested elections and spot MANUAL counts to check 1/2 of 1% of
machines.
Colorado law, now, and under Rep Madden's HB 1296, STILL mandate
ELECTRONIC recounts.
So OUR paper trail in Colorado -IF we get HB 1296- is NOT the paper
trail Rep. Holt is working for.
Evan
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, tom bldr wrote:
> "Questions Mount Over New Hampshire's Primary"
> http://www.rense.com/general49/newhamp.htm
>
> and in a unrelated bonus article, we have this (5-time
> Jeopardy winner) Representative Rush Holt on Paper
> Voting Trails and Restoring Voter Confidence:
> http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/02/int04009.html
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>