RE: HB 1227

["Raich, Peter C." <Peter.Raich@xxxxxxxx>]

Thank you very much, Paul.
This is very helpful.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Paul Walmsley [SMTP:paul@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent:	Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:58 PM
> To:	Raich, Peter C.
> Cc:	Ellington, David; Joe Pezzillo; texico86@xxxxxxx; pklammer@xxxxxxx; davide475@xxxxxxxx; mlambie@xxxxxxxxx; Robert Mcgrath; TresCeeA@xxxxxxx; Cvv-Discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; donna@xxxxxxxxxxxx; cmehesy@xxxxxxxxxxx; summerstorm03@xxxxxxxxxxx; AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject:	RE: HB 1227
> 
> 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
>