Hello all,
I'm confused here. Senator Keller specifically stated that:
The bill contains three provisions I support : the proposal that the secretary of state's office oversee the purchase and certification of all county equipment before a county clerk can use an electronic voting machine ( there is no oversite right now and most county clerks are in way over their heads and at the mercy of vendors right now) ; open public meetings are required before the state resumes purchase of DRE machines; and the fact that the bill requires a permanent paper record be available for a recount.
Are we having a miscommunication issue here? The excerpt above is from a response TO Brad Thacker FROM Moe Keller.
It seems we need a very clear picture of what we have in HB1227 before we proceed much further. Joe, are you just responding to the wording in Sen. Ron Tupa's email or do you know more here?
Thanks,
David
-----Original Message----- From: Robert Mcgrath [mailto:mcgrath_mcnally@xxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 9:57 AM To: jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx; Cvv-Discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: pklammer@xxxxxxx; AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx; cmehesy@xxxxxxxxxxx; davide475@xxxxxxxx; Ellington, David; summerstorm03@xxxxxxxxxxx; donna@xxxxxxxxxxxx; mlambie@xxxxxxxxx; texico86@xxxxxxx; peter.raich@xxxxxxxx; TresCeeA@xxxxxxx Subject: RE: Fwd: HB 1227
My fear is that the Sec of State put a fast one over all of the legislators,
even those who initially opposed 1227.
From: "Joe Pezzillo" <jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx> To: "Cvv-Discuss@Coloradovoter. Net" <cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Fwd: HB 1227 Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 16:47:06 -0600
FYI. I'm not sure my concerns were addressed but apparently he is. Has
anyone analyzed this bill in its final, amended form? I'm more than a
little worried by the casual use of the term "check" here as opposed to,
say, "recount", and how the ideal would be the citizens, but perhaps the
actual is going to be the SoS. Also, how does this bill impact the system
that we didn't want to purchase here in Boulder County?
Where's the verification of the counting? HB1227 is also one way to cement
the problems we've got, too.
Do any of our representatives listen to the people's concerns?
Joe
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Ron Tupa" <senatorrontupa@xxxxxxxxx> Date: May 5, 2004 4:36:12 PM MDT To: jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx Subject: HB 1227 Reply-To: ron.tupa.senate@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Joe,
Thank you for your letter regarding House Bill 1227, a bill concerning
voting systems. The bill has managed to work its way through both of the
Houses. The bill has been amended to prohibit the use of mechanical lever
voting machines and punch-card systems. In essence, the amendments that
were added addressed your concerns about the electronic storage of votes.
In addition, it now states that whichever system is chosen, there must be
a system in place to perform a check if needed. This check would ideally
be the citizens of the State.
HB 1227 establishes a system of "checks and balances" for the current
voting system in Colorado. If passed, all voting machines would have to be
standardized throughout the state, be certified and tested that they are
operationally sound before use, and also the identifies the terms and
conditions for the distribution and sale of these machines. If a county
decides to use an electronic counting method, then the elected voting
official is required to give all of the software information, program
source code, and documentation to the Secretary of State.
Our voting system is not without its problems. As such, HB 1227 is one
way to address these problems. Again, thank you for your letter. It is
always a pleasure to hear from my constituents. Should you have any
further questions or concerns, please contact me at
ron.tupa.senate@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sincerely,
Senator Ron Tupa
Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs