This is much ado about nothing and the sky is not falling. It is a paper based system as most normal human beings would know it, but state law makes a distinction between a paper ballot that is counted by hand versus a paper ballot that is counted by machine. We had a paper ballot last year during the mail ballot election that was counted by machine. That was considered "electronic voting equipment" under state law. Same thing with Hart's BallotNow system. If you lived in a community of 250 people and counted ballots by hand, that would be a "paper ballot" under state law. See Article 7, Part 3 and Part 5. You can argue with the state legislature about why they chose to make that distinction, but that's the way they chose to see it. I think most people would agree that what we did last year was a paper ballot, and will agree that what we will be doing this year is a paper ballot, regardless of how it is classified by state law. Joe, you know very well that I discussed this with you and made clear that this was a distinction that state law makes. Histrionics doesn't serve any good purpose here. Further, I never said the digital ballot image is the official record of the vote. Quite the contrary. In the event of a recount, the paper ballots are counted again except that questions of voter intent on a ballot that have been resolved by two election judges of different parties must be resolved the same way during the recount. I made that clear to you, Margot, Scott and Neal when we met here at the Elections office to discuss sampling approaches.
As to the comment that we work for election system vendors, I won't dignify that with a response.
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:02 AM To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; CVV Steering Committee Cc: Evan Daniel Ravitz; toso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Clay Evans; michael@xxxxxxxx; Barry Satlow; Robert Mcgrath; valenty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; HIllary Hall; joel@xxxxxxxx; commissioners@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; romanoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sam Fuqua; Alice Madden; Lacy, Leslie; Judd Golden; Jason Salzman; crystal_boulder@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: URGENT: SoS Rejects Citizen's Sample Count / Halicki Claims Hart NOT Paper Ballot System
Boulder County CVV Members and Other Concerned Citizens:
Unfortunately, again we have some pressing issues to deal with in Boulder County relating to our new voting system:
1) The SoS by way of Drew Durham has rejected the proposal by Boulder County citizens to perform a statistically significant hand count of ballots to verify our voting system. The hand count has been considered a crucial component to verify the trustworthiness of any mechanical tally system. Without it, we have no way to verify the system is accurate (despite any vendor's false claims about their systems being perfect or elections officials claims that they know better than the citizens they supposedly represent). Therefore, unless it is definitively established as part of the procedure, I will suggest that we re-mobilize ASAP to vigorously oppose any unverifiable system being purchased by or used in Boulder County. Perhaps Evan Ravitz would like to detail his complete hand count procedure and now might be the time for us to consider such alternative approaches since we clearly cannot rely on State or Local elections officials (or the Vendors they appear to be working for) to provide trustworthy elections as we've patiently requested.
2) In learning about this, Tom Halicki, Boulder County Elections Manager, has said that the Hart system they propose to purchase IS NOT BASED ON PAPER BALLOTS, instead the paper ballots are simply a way to create electronic ballots via scanning, and these electronic ballots will be the official record of the vote. If this is the case, I will URGE that we re-mobilize to oppose any such system being purchased with our taxpayer's money. We have been 100% forthcoming in our demand for paper ballots, I invite the Boulder County Clerk's office to be 100% forthcoming with their plans, including use of any non-paper ballot systems in Boulder County in opposition to the Citizen's Requirements for Trustworthy Elections.
As Tom is a subscriber to the CVV Discussion mailing list, I invite him to clarify both issues ASAP.
Please Note that Colorado House Bill 1227 which will be voted on by the appropriations committee tomorrow will make it much harder for We the People to challenge not only such closed-door activities and behaviors by the Secretary of State and county officials, it will also make it virtually impossible for us to verify our elections systems.
We need to have a full group meeting as soon as possible to discuss these developments and determine the depth and breadth of our response, ranging from citizen actions to possible legal and electoral challenges.
If you care about Trustworthy Elections in Boulder County and beyond, your immediate action is needed.
Joe