RE: Election rules to be changed September 30th. We need your help.

["alkolwicz" <alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx>]

Most of the changes have nothing to do with HAVA.  I am not sure which, if
any relate to HAVA.

Al


-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Bernstein [mailto:nicholas.bernstein@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 9:47 PM
To: AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Citizens for Verifiable Voting
Subject: Re: Election rules to be changed September 30th. We need your help.

Al,

The web page states that rule changes are required to comply with HAVA.
1. Is this true?
2. Are we better off with the rules we have now, or the new ones?

I agree that Sep 30 is a bad time to change the rules, but is there 
adequate time to improve upon the wording or do we have to choose 
between the rules we have now and proposed wording.

N

alkolwicz wrote:

> -->
>
> Friends,
>
> We just discovered that the Secretary of State is making election 
> rules changes on September 30^th . 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 30^th hearing 
> are published at 
>
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/rule_making/proposed_election_rules9-30-04.p
df 
>
>
> 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 <mailto:AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz <http://www.users.qwest.net/%7Ealkolwicz>
>
> http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com
>


-- 
My razor-sharp wit was confiscated at airport security.