Re: VVPAT under attack in Mitchell/Madden bill - call Friday

[Neal McBurnett <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:57:46PM -0700, Michael Melio wrote:
> The version of the bill we saw (SB05-079.1) allows for
> Machine Recounts, which our group has flatly opposed. We
> feel all Audits and Recounts must be made by a manual
> recount of paper ballots.

But even here, the Mitchell/Madden bill makes it easier
to get a hand count recount, it just doesn't require it.
I think it would allow a clerk to choose a hand cout, rather than
requiring the Secy of State to demand a hand count, but the
language there is vague.

It allows a third part requesting a recount to demand
a manual recount.

So on that point, SB075 is good.

> We opposed the "paper audit trail"
> aka the "scroll" because these scrolls can be recreated from
> the digital record in the voting machine/tabulators produce
> by the big three: Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia. So, for
> example, if someone inadvertently or intentionally
> destroyed, maimed or mutilated the scroll, the poll workers
> would be easily tempted to just "recreate" the scroll from
> digitally stored results. But these results would not have
> been verified by the voters, hence missing the vital
> requirement of a VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT. 

That is a good thing to be careful about, but SB079 doesn't
make things any worse on that front.  We should ask for
improvements, but shouldn't demand so much that people throw
it out.

> We have decided that a discrete voter verified paper ballot
> is necessary, and should be the final authority in a
> recount, that audits should be mandatory,  and that recounts
> should be manual and never done by machine.

Sounds good to me.  But we can only argue that if the bill gets to
committee in reasonable shape, with Mitchell feeling our support.  I
think that in order to argue for "discrete" ballots, we need to cite
support from other groups around the country.  Is this a well-known
term?  Legislators will reject language that makes Colorado unique,
fearing that voting companies will just abandon the state.

> We stand here, unmovable on these points. There is much more
> we would like, but without these two basic requirements in
> the Mitchell/Madden bill there can be no confidence in the
> outcome of any election conducted solely by machine tallies
> or easily reproduced scrolls of paper.

Both versions of the existing bill are much better than the status
quo.

Neal McBurnett                 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/
Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged.  GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60