[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


I should clarify that I believe Rick the aide was saying that the bill would be heard in the House on or around March 3rd, sorry. He suggested talking to Senator Hanna's office about the Senate Local Gov. committee schedule, as well.

Joe


On Feb 25, 2005, at 9:04 AM, Joe Pezzillo wrote:


I would just remind folks that two weeks ago I was being told that hand counting was a legislative impossibility, despite the fact that it's already legal throughout the state without a single legislative change.

Now, it looks like the compromise "VVPB" position is the real legislative impossibility, just like last year.

We heard from Rep. Madden's legislative aide (Rick) that the bill will be heard after the adjournment of the state senate on March 3rd (?). He recommends talking Senator Mitchell's office (303-866-4876) to get the final word on scheduling.

Anyone want to take a moment and reconsider supporting an all hand-count position?

Joe





On Feb 25, 2005, at 8:42 AM, Neal McBurnett wrote:

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