RE: Improving the LAT (Re: Bad ballot markings)

["Some Guy" <someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Pezzillo

Paul, Some Dude, you CC'd them and cvv-discuss, not me (see your e-mail
of 1:25PM this afternoon, cc'd below, msg 1652 in the archives, URL
below). Perhaps you meant to BCC them, but you know how easy it can be
to make mistakes when technology is involved. My mistake was to "reply
all" not to be the one to add them to the list, although I did have a
chat with Ryan this afternoon on the phone. I did not include any of
the others this time, just you and CVV-discuss (Hi Tom and Jim, you're
fired!)
[|>]
[|>] I think that I probably replied-to-all like you did. Probably a few
times. I didn't add them. I know PJ's address but not Ryan's. I like PJ
enough not to want to fill her inbox with all this hash. She's got enough to
do without reading all of this
I like how you've dismissed Tom and Jim <{;^)


When it comes to the absentee ballot topic, in general I have always,
always said publicly that many people believe that absentee and/or
provisional ballots are preferred to DREs because they involve a paper
record, but that not everyone supports the idea, in particular, that
people are very concerned about mail ballots and provisional ballots
not being counted at all.
[|>]
[|>] At Cap Hill I did chime in with what I heard about demanding paper over
DRE. It made sense to me. But I did also warn people away from mail-in,
saying that they should walk them in, or do a provisional at the polling
location or the clerk's office.
I might have heard about this idea beforehand, but listening to you really
made me think about it. It seemed like a good idea at the time. In fact, I
still think that it is a good idea. Paper over DRE? Go with paper!

While we were on Cap Hill, Empress Davidson was in a hearing to decide
whether or not she could count some parts of provisionals but not others. I
was listening to NPR on the way down. As you might recall, she wanted to
count only presidential races from provisional ballots under the belief that
clerks would have difficulty determining what a voter was otherwise eligible
to vote for. My first thought upon hearing this was US senate. Queen Donetta
was going to disenfranchise Colorado voters in the US senate race as well as
other more local races. She would also not be letting them vote on statewide
issues, such as amendments.
I figured that she wouldn't get her way with the Supreme's and provisionals
would count in all races, so I supported their use over DRE.
[|>] -----

However, that said, I may very well have been reading a prepared
statement about it at that rally, and I think at least a few other
people at that rally certainly did speak less categorically in favor of
that position.
[|>]
[|>] As I did.
[|>] ------

Also, please note that I was asked by CfVI and True Majority (not CVV)
to be the MC at those rallies (and I'm pretty sure they provided the
script both times, although of course I like to ad lib a lot). I have
specifically not represented myself as a spokesperson (instead "former
spokesperson") of CVV in many months. I also always try to make it
clear that I am not the expert on any of these topics, just the hot
air, instead there are many, many other citizens in Boulder County who
have done the hard work of researching the issues and have the patience
of Job when it comes to dealing with the Elections Office here. You
were present at the potluck where I spoke within the last month or two,
I promise you that was typical of what I say, and you'll have to attest
I didn't claim to be the spokesperson of CVV, or the expert, and I
tried to thank all the many citizen activists present and not.
[|>]
[|>] Hmmm ... I was pretty sure that I heard you being re-introduced back to
the mic after others spoke (self included) as the spokesperson for CVV.
Actually I think I heard the word 'leader'. It sort of annoyed me, but it
wasn't you speaking, it was someone else. You didn't make any attempt to
deny it, just like you haven't denied it in print locally.
Since this group seems to have a number of varied opinions on topics I find
it annoying to have a spokesperson making it appear as though we are all of
one mind. It's probably the nature of reporters, but I don't see you making
much effort to tell newsies and the public that you are speaking for Joe and
not for a group.
If you bothered to make such pronouncements then we might have seen some
corrections in print, and fairly soon the reporters would say 'Joe Pezillo,
member of CVV' rather than 'Joe Pezillo, spokesperson for CVV' or 'Joe
Pezillo, leader of CVV'.
It is quite possible that you don't see a problem with clarifying this
issue. But as long as you continue to be the leader/spokesperson of CVV then
anyone else with an opinion involved in CVV will be discounted. Reporters
are title conscience, even though you are not.
[|>] ------

Today's RMN news article uses the past tense when describing me as CVV
spokesperson, because that's what I told him.

So, finally, for the record, I'm not the spokesperson for CVV anymore
(which no longer exists as far as I can tell anyway, save this mailing
list), and I apologize to this mailing list that this ridiculous
semantic argument, misplaced blame and probably unnecessary defense has
wasted your time. (And Paul, I regret that I once again said something
or came across in a way that highly irritated you, honestly, and will
try to be even more careful in the future, thank you.)
[|>]
[|>] Thank you Joe

Paul


[|>]