I stand by what I said. By statute this isn't a paper
ballot, though a normal person would consider filling in circles on a paper
ballot to be filling out a paper ballot, regardless of whether it is counted by
a device such as ES&S or Diebold employs, which uses reflected light to
count the ballot, or by a system such as BallotNow where one is counting marks
on a digital image of the paper ballot. You and the other members of CVV
certainly felt it was a paper ballot and we consider it a paper ballot.
But, if it was a paper ballot, in the sense that statute defines it, we
wouldn't be having this discussion because we would be hand counting the
ballots. Read the statute.
I did not say that a statistical
analysis could not be performed because of the system we are using. I
never said that. I said that the SOS's office would not allow your group
to do such an analysis with live ballots for reasons that I explained to you,
but that you could put together a test deck just like all the political parties,
candidates, and issue groups are allowed to do, and do your own test deck.
It is their opinion, and, incidentally, the state legislature's since they
passed the law, that the purpose of a test desk is to verify that the
machines are counting accurately.
"We" are not arguing about
anything. The statute is clear on this should you choose to read it.
There is no connection between how statute classifies the system we would like
to purchase and whether there will be a hand count/machine count
comparison. Now, as much as I've enjoyed this discussion, I have 9
precincts in the city of Boulder that I've lost polling places for, and I'm
willing to wager that a cross-section of Boulder citizens would like me to get
them one by the August primary.
-----Original Message-----
From:
Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent:
Tuesday, April 06, 2004 12:04 PM
To: Halicki, Tom
Cc: Alice Madden; Barry
Satlow; HIllary Hall;
crystal_boulder@xxxxxxxxxxx; Salas, Linda; Evan Daniel
Ravitz; Jason
Salzman; Judd Golden; Lacy, Leslie;
commissioners@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Clay Evans;
romanoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
valenty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Robert Mcgrath;
joel@xxxxxxxx;
toso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sam Fuqua; CVV Steering
Committee;
michael@xxxxxxxx; Wurl, Nancy Jo
Subject: Re: URGENT: SoS
Rejects Citizen's Sample Count / Halicki Claims
Hart NOT Paper Ballot
System
Tom-
Thanks for replying. Of course I know we
discussed this, that's why I'm
concerned, and perhaps you can explain this
quote from one of your
e-mails, then:
"By statute, this isn't a paper
ballot per se. It's an electronic
voting system, soon to be considered
an electromechanical voting system
if HOB 1227 passes. If this was a
paper ballot, we wouldn't be having
this discussion."
Sorry for any
misinterpretation.
As to your work on behalf of the Vendors, when have
any of the
concerned citizens ever been invited to participate in even one of
the
many private meetings you've apparently had with the Vendor and
State
Officials about how to best implement their system that you have
not
yet purchased?
As you point out, a cross-section of Boulder County
citizens have asked
you to implement a statistically valid hand sample count
to verify any
machine counts you do, and have expressed their willingness
to
volunteer to participate in both planning and labor to accomplish
this.
You have said you support this.
We have expressly called for the
use of Paper Ballots and you have
claimed that your desired system is based
on paper ballots.
You have now claimed that this statistical sample
procedure cannot be
performed because we are not using paper
ballots.
So which is it? Are we arguing about how to classify your
desired
system as something other than based on paper ballots so that
the
Citizens Requirements can be ignored, or are we voting and
counting
paper ballots?
Joe
On Apr 6, 2004, at
11:36 AM, Halicki, Tom wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>