RE: HB 1227

["Paul Tiger" <paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All should be forewarned that the CO General Assembly site is not up to
date. Not even close. And with all that just happened in the past few days
it could be weeks before it gets completely up-to-date. Therefore amendments
and bill history is not present on the state site, so don't use it for the
gospel.

Paul Tiger

Joe said:
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
>
>
>