RE: HB 1227

[Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 11 May 2004, Raich, Peter C. wrote:

> Unfortunately this link takes us through HB-04 1030 only.  Anyone can
> suggest another link to access the most recent version of 1227?  I am
> willing to have a look at it.

Peter,

The most recent copy available on the web is dated April 29th and appears 
to be the "rerevised" version, available here:

    http://tinyurl.com/2sll5

Note that the copy of the bill that is linked to via the Colorado General 
Assembly's "Bill Folders" page is an old version - the "revised" version.

The various copies of the bill available via the General Assembly's web 
site are listed here:

    http://tinyurl.com/2swuh


- Paul

> Peter
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Ellington, David [SMTP:David.Ellington@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent:	Thursday, May 06, 2004 12:02 PM
> > To:	Joe Pezzillo
> > Cc:	texico86@xxxxxxx; pklammer@xxxxxxx; davide475@xxxxxxxx; mlambie@xxxxxxxxx; Robert Mcgrath; Raich, Peter C.; TresCeeA@xxxxxxx; Cvv-Discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; donna@xxxxxxxxxxxx; cmehesy@xxxxxxxxxxx; summerstorm03@xxxxxxxxxxx; AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject:	RE: HB 1227
> > 
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> 


- Paul