RE: HB 1227

["Ellington, David" <David.Ellington@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, it sounds like Bob is working on a meeting to set up the possility of a legal injunction. I would think that a thorough analysis of HB1227, HR2239, and HAVA will be necessary for the injunction to have any teeth. So.....let's keep on truckin'.


David

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 11:58 AM
To: Ellington, David
Cc: texico86@xxxxxxx; pklammer@xxxxxxx; davide475@xxxxxxxx;
mlambie@xxxxxxxxx; Robert Mcgrath; peter.raich@xxxxxxxx;
TresCeeA@xxxxxxx; Cvv-Discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; donna@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
cmehesy@xxxxxxxxxxx; summerstorm03@xxxxxxxxxxx; AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: HB 1227



I don't know more, my e-mail below asks if anyone has reviewed the bill  
in its final form and if our concerns are properly addressed.

Here's the link I found, but I don't have the time or expertise to make  
a thorough analysis:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics2004a/csl.nsf/bf-3HB? 
OpenView&StartKey=HB04-1227&count=1

For example, this bill presumably legalizes the electronic storage of  
votes since it states that we will eventually resume purchases of DREs  
(a position I hope we've all rejected), the "permanent paper record"  
may not be a legally binding ballot, and 1227 may not reverse or change  
Method of Recount (1.10-5-108), in which case, we're still just getting  
a false sense of security from a paper slip that may never be counted  
while the votes are recorded electronically.

But, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not the best person to do this analysis,  
so I'm eager for someone else to chime in asap with details.

Joe



On May 6, 2004, at 11:31 AM, Ellington, David wrote:

> 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
>
>
>