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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>