RE: "Questions Mount Over New Hampshire's Primary"

[Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, alkolwicz wrote:

> 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.

It says such recounts will be done by the original count method,
which with rare exceptions in 30 years has been electronic.

 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.

You may be right.

> "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 Repeal. 1-10.5-110, Colorado Revised Statutes, is repealed.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
> >
>
>
>