Re: What Have We Learned from Boulder?

[Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx>]

Folks,

Let's continue to seek a lawyer to file for an injunction, but I've
taken the initiative to implement an idea of Mary Eberle, a CVV
member, who said in Boulder it would be easy to get VOLUNTEERS to
hand-count the 2004 election.

I've started a petition Boulder County Voters can sign at:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/hand/petition.html

If we could present a few hundred volunteers (Please DO let us see
your email address!!) to the County Commissioners, maybe they'll do
the right thing and let citizens make sure our votes count.

PLEASE circulate this to everyone on your local email lists!!

If you DON'T vote in Boulder County, please consider putting a
similar petition to YOUR Commissioners on the site. It's easy and
takes 5 minutes or so:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/

Evan

PS: I've taken the liberty to use CVV's name -so that people can be
referred to our website.

----------------------------------------------
Evan Ravitz     303 440 6838     evan@xxxxxxxx
Ratify the National Initiative!   www.Vote.org
Photo Adventures:          www.Vote.org/photos
Bush vs the Pope!            www.Vote.org/Bush
Sins of the father Bush   www.Vote.org/silence

Kucinich: the ONLY candidate to vote against the
"Patriot" Act and the Iraq war:  www.kucinich.us
-------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Robert Mcgrath wrote:

> Regardless of the outcome to date, we have learned the following, and we
> need to leverage this knowledge:
>
> 1. The process of addressing citizen input is not how some decisions occur,
> contrary to "staged" appearances.   It would appear that the purchase of
> this system was a done deal, despite citizen reactions.
>
> 2. Hand counting of recounts may be permissible, according to the Boulder
> election officials reporting upon ongoing discussions with the Secretary of
> State's office.
>
> 3. Hand counting is perceived as "taking too long, impractical and
> unaffordable."  This is a statement of perception and is not backed up by
> any independent analysis.
>
> 4. The lack of standards is not viewed as a meaningful deterrent.
>
> 5. Election officials and county commissioners may not be accustomed to a
> high level of citizen input on a purchase decision, and their willingness to
> keep the decisionmaking process open may be affected by their comfort level
> with citizen involvement (possibly perceiving it as "we know better" or
> "academics or activists" rather than the concerns of common citizens).
>
> 6. When in doubt, pass blame to the Secretary of State's Office.
>
> 7. Despite citizen participation in "the process", the courts may remain the
> only possible method that compels election officials to acknowledge and
> comply with citizen concerns.
>
> 8. It pays to stick around after "official business" ends, and to maintain
> strength in numbers.
>
> How do we leverage these findings?
>
> First, we need to maintain a higher level of communications and interest
> among our group to remain a viable voice in these issues.   We need to
> borrow several pages from Evan's, Joe's and Al's book and keep vigilant
> watch over these public servants, and to maintain a large enough group from
> which to demonstrate broad support for our cause.  We need to consider
> whether reaching out to other established groups may serve this purpose and
> build credibility with these officials.
>
> Second, we need to do our homework like Ralph suggests below and come
> equipped to such arguments with our facts straight.  If hand counts
> intimidate, we must reassure with solid numbers that illustrate their
> viability and cost effectiveness.  We must meet this argument head-on.
>
> Third, we need to build upon the awareness of the identical count/recount
> methods, so that everyone involved in decisionmaking understand the absurd
> impact this law will have upon verifiability and confidence in trustworthy
> elections.   The intrinsic value of independent audits must be elevated
> further in any ongoing discussions about verifiability.   It may still be
> possible to engage in a publicity campaign and legal work to halt the
> implementation of this law for this year's election, but it will take
> coordination and money to accomplish this. And we still need legal
> representation.
>
> Fourth, while the Sec of State has issued a "moratorium" on all machine
> purchases in the state under HAVA until standards come out, under HB 1227
> she is setting herself up as the ultimate arbiter and certifier of all
> "temporary" systems, meaning she wants to have her cake and eat it too.
> This hypocritical stand needs to be exposed and called.
>
> Finally, we need to come together in legal strategies, since it appears that
> may be our only hope for relief this year.