Re: Truth vs. Colorado Secretary of State (voter verifiable not certified?)

[Barbara Simons <simons@xxxxxxx>]

In my previous message, I suggested that some people are lying.  Pete
Klammer kindly pointed out that my comments were ambiguous.  Just to be
clear, I believe that someone is making the claim that there are no
certified systems that produce voter verified paper ballots, even though
that individual or individuals know the claim to be untrue.  And
organizations such as the California ACLU are believing the lie.

I never meant to impugn David Aragon's integrity, and I apologize if my
hastily written note gave that impression.

Regards,
Barbara

On 4/29/04 3:46 PM, "David B. Aragon" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The Avante VoteTrakker model 4.4.3 has NASED #03120000443-1990.
> 
> Two Avante products are listed on the Election Center's page at
> http://www.electioncenter.org/about/nased3.htm
> 
> The California Ad Hoc Touch Screen Task Force report said that there
> was, at the time of that report, at least one certified system.  This
> is such a widely known report that it is hard to imagine a state
> elections official saying the actual number was zero.
> 
> Additionally it could be noted that a Vogue (now Sequoia) AutoMark
> ballot printer together with a scanner would provide both an
> accessible interface and a paper ballot, although not certified
> as "a DRE with a voter-verified audit trail".
> 
> There may be others.  One, however, is enough to refute the often-
> repeated (and often corrected, but then repeated again) claim that
> there are none.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave Aragon.
> -----------------------
> Chair, Voter Registration Committee, Voter March Ltd.
> Co-Chair, IEEE P1583 Special Task Group on Voter Verified Paper Ballots