[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

CO Legal Efforts



CFVI will contact the following to consider our case:

Tom Strickland
Mike Feeley
referral from Pete Maysmith of Common Cause
Denver ACLU
Verified Voting

Please let me know whether this effort must be limited to Colorado or whether we may co-join other state actions or action in our local Federal District Court.


Bob McGrath Director CFVI.org




From: Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx>
To: Joe Pezzillo <jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx>
CC: Citizens for Verifiable Voting <cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Leslie Lacy <llacy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, commissioners@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Optical-scan equipment problems in California
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:22:18 -0600 (MDT)




On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Joe Pezzillo wrote:

> And so what do we expect lobbying the SoS' office is going to do for
> us, exactly? Who will represent us to assure trustworthy elections?

Nobody but us -and now the 146 who've pledged to hand-count the
election. This is the database we should have started developing 5
months ago.

I talked to a lawyer today who is going to call around for us. He
noted this will take a LARGE law firm with the resources to fight
the County, Sec'y of State, Clerks, etc.

Please talk to any lawyers you know. Here are possible bases for a
suit:

1. Commissioners closed the public hearing BEFORE the discussion of
hand-counting, so we couldn't comment on their slapdash evaluation
of practicality.

2. Commissioners are spending money on a system BEFORE NIST issues
standards, when volunteers are available to do it free.

3. Commissioners are buying proprietary software which will do
public business in private. I read today that David Dill says that
it's the same as hand counting the election privately, as I have.

4. Colorado's recount law means there is no "check & balance" to the
"special interest" counting the election. This violates the basic
principle of accounting that one cross-check totals.

5. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution says "The House of
Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second
Year by the People of the several States..." Proprietary "black box"
voting systems should not choose for us.

By the way, I found the Nebraska law which is similar to CO's. Here
it is with the others:



Evan


Laws all found at www.findlaw.com


First Colorado & Nebraska, apparently the only states which recount
by the original count method ONLY

Then California & Texas, much more typical in allowing manual
recounts of computer-counted elections.


Colorado Revised Statute 1-10.5-108. Method of recount.


Statute text
(1) The recount shall be of the ballots cast, 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 ballots
cast shall be recounted utilizing the same procedures, methods, and
processes that were utilized for the original count of the ballots
cast.

History
Source: L. 99: Entire article added with relocations, p. 487,  13,
effective July 1. L. 2001: Entire section amended, p. 301,  4,
effective August 8.

Annotations
Editor's note: This section was formerly numbered as 1-10-306.

http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0


NEBRASKA: 32-1119 Automatic recount; when; waiver; procedure.

(6)  The procedures for the recounting of ballots shall
be the same as those used for the counting of ballots on election
day.  The recount shall be conducted at  the  county  courthouse,
except that if vote counting devices are used for the counting or
recounting,  such  counting  or recounting may be accomplished at
the site of the devices.  Counties counting ballots  by  using  a
vote  counting  device  shall first recount the ballots by use of
the device.  If substantial changes are found, the ballots  shall
then  be  counted  using  such device in any precinct which might
reflect a substantial change.

Source:
Laws 1994, LB 76, § 362; Laws 2002, LB 1054, § 24.
Effective date July 20, 2002.

http://statutes.unicam.state.ne.us/Corpus/Statutes/chap32/R3211019.html


CALIFORNIA:


15627.  If in the election which is to be recounted the votes
were recorded by means of a punchcard voting system or by
electronic or electromechanical vote tabulating devices, the
voter who files the declaration requesting the recount may
select whether the recount shall be conducted manually or by
means of the voting system used originally, or both.


BILL NUMBER: SB 1547 CHAPTERED 09/28/94


	CHAPTER   920
	FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE   SEPTEMBER 28, 1994

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=76483324700+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve


TEXAS:


§ 214.042. Counting Method for Recount

(a) A person requesting a recount of electronic voting system ballots has a choice of:
(1) an electronic recount using the same program as the original count;
(2) an electronic recount using a corrected program under Section 214.046(c), if obtainable; or
(3) a manual recount as provided by Subchapter A.


Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.
Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., 2nd C.S., ch. 59, § 18, eff. Oct. 20, 1987.


http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=ZYDMGPQMUSIQ&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=128157&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=1&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES


_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/