Friends,
We just discovered that the Secretary of State is making
election rules changes on September 30th. The NOTICE is published
at http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/rule_making/cpf_rules9-30-04.htm
Some of the planned modifications are objectionable.
For example, the proposed rules authorize voting by FAX machine (rule 25).
- In our quick reading of the
Statutes, we found no Colorado Statute authorizing voting by FAX machine.
- The rule does not address the
federal statement, “Faxing may be an option, but the ballot must be mailed
as well.” How does this work with a recount?
Some of these rules are inadequate. For example the
rules for RECOUNT:
- The proposed recount rule
(14.3) does not start the recount at the raw cast ballots (including
absentee and provisional envelopes). This means that ballot qualification
errors will not be detected.
- The proposed recount rules (14.4.4)
appear to transfer the statutory authority for conducting the recount from
the canvass board to the Secretary of State.
- The proposed recount rules (14.5.4)
require that paper ballots be RE-counted in groups of 25 (GOOD) but the
rules do not require that the original count be done in batches of 25
(BAD). The consequence is that there is no way to verify batch
counts.
- The proposed recount rule
(14.5.5) for how counts are recorded is incomplete and inadequate.
- The proposed recount rule
(14.7) for re-counting optically scanned ballots does not require that the
votes counted for each ballot image be verifiable against the original
ballot.
- The proposed recount of Ballot
Now equipment does not require a verifiable vote record, and does not prescribe
statistical sampling.
- The rules for recount of Direct
Record Electronic voting equipment are missing.
And the rules for WATCHERS:
- Fail to provide process-specifications
and process-training for watchers.
- Fail to require that all
processes be identified, and that a schedule of operation for every
process be published in advance of the election.
- Fail to address the rights of
watchers to actually read what is happening.
- Fail to permit multiple
watchers for the same candidate as long as the watchers are observing
different processes.
- Fails to require that all
electronic data be instantly available to watchers – such as
electronic poll books and vote interpretation records and electronic voter
registration books.
- Fails to require that all
election workers be identified with a badge containing very legible badge identification
of their role, who they represent, and their name/number.
Some rules are missing:
- There is no rule requiring that
the version of each piece of equipment and software (including operating
system, PROM, and utility applications) be verifiable.
- There is no rule requiring that
the certification documentation be available.
- There are no rules regarding
the operation of the canvass board.
- There are no rules regarding
the conduct of the Logic and Accuracy Test.
- There are no rules describing
what happens when an error/deviation is detected – for example
absentee ballots that were erroneously not counted.
- There is no rule creating an
independent oversight of issues where the Secretary of State or a County Clerk is the subject of the
complaint.
September 30th is an inappropriate time for the Secretary of
state to be conducting a rulemaking hearing on a 100 page document.
Nonetheless, it is done, and we must respond.
The draft election rules to be considered at September 30th
hearing are published at http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/rule_making/proposed_election_rules9-30-04.pdf
The current election rules, September 13, 2004, are published
at http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/rule_making/electionrules.doc
Al
Al Kolwicz
CAMBER
Citizens for Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results
2867 Tincup
Circle
Boulder, CO 80305
303-494-1540
AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx
www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com