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

["Vincen Collins" <vincencollins@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe and Neal suggestions I agree with.  We need to voice our concerns about this bill but we also need to take a stance that will preserve what this bill does accomplish.

We need to make appointments with our legislators and lobby them to support our proposals.

I would like this bill to pass for just the parts that allow for inspection of the software and hardware.  This will at least give knowledgeable people the opportunity to find fraud if something doesn't seem right.

Vincen

**************************************************
Vincen Collins
6312 Harlan St.
Arvada, CO. 80003
303-880-7481
vincencollins@xxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

 --- On Fri 02/25, Joe Pezzillo < jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto: jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
To: jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx
     Cc: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, courtenay.white@xxxxxxxxxxx, warren@xxxxxxxxx, j_erhardt@xxxxxxxxx, deenalarsen@xxxxxxxxx, jwarner2000@xxxxxxxxxxx, lseaborn@xxxxxxxxx, vincencollins@xxxxxxxxxx, ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxx, atoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, carolyn@xxxxxxxxx, bthack@xxxxxxxxxxx, svlocke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, margitjo@xxxxxxx, laurieannb@xxxxxxx, magandken@xxxxxxx, wthrnghite@xxxxxxx, ross12410@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, j.c.callahan@xxxxxxxx, taichiproj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, debsueadams@xxxxxxxxxxx, bjbarkey@xxxxxxxxx, randyg2001@xxxxxxxxxxx, mcgrath_mcnally@xxxxxxx, vrprods@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, inkcat42@xxxxxxxxx, cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dthiel714@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, meliom@xxxxxxxxxxx, wildgrass@xxxxxxxxxx, outreach@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mary.Daugherty@xxxxxxxxxxx, donnamp@xxxxxxxxxxxx, neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mlambie@xxxxxxxxxxx, jleventhal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:31:17 -0700
Subject: Re: VVPAT under attack in Mitchell/Madden bill - call Friday

<br>I should clarify that I believe Rick the aide was saying that the bill <br>would be heard in the House on or around March 3rd, sorry. He suggested <br>talking to Senator Hanna's office about the Senate Local Gov. committee <br>schedule, as well.<br><br>Joe<br><br><br>On Feb 25, 2005, at 9:04 AM, Joe Pezzillo wrote:<br><br>><br>> I would just remind folks that two weeks ago I was being told that <br>> hand counting was a legislative impossibility, despite the fact that <br>> it's already legal throughout the state without a single legislative <br>> change.<br>><br>> Now, it looks like the compromise "VVPB" position is the real <br>> legislative impossibility, just like last year.<br>><br>> We heard from Rep. Madden's legislative aide (Rick) that the bill will <br>> be heard after the adjournment of the state senate on March 3rd (?). <br>> He recommends talking Senator Mitchell's office (303-866-4876) to get <br>> the final word on scheduling.<br>><br>> Anyone want to take a moment and reconsider supporting an all <br>> hand-count position?<br>><br>> Joe<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> On Feb 25, 2005, at 8:42 AM, Neal McBurnett wrote:<br>><br>>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:57:46PM -0700, Michael Melio wrote:<br>>>> The version of the bill we saw (SB05-079.1) allows for<br>>>> Machine Recounts, which our group has flatly opposed. We<br>>>> feel all Audits and Recounts must be made by a manual<br>>>> recount of paper ballots.<br>>><br>>> But even here, the Mitchell/Madden bill makes it easier<br>>> to get a hand count recount, it just doesn't require it.<br>>> I think it would allow a clerk to choose a hand cout, rather than<br>>> requiring the Secy of State to demand a hand count, but the<br>>> language there is vague.<br>>><br>>> It allows a third part requesting a recount to demand<br>>> a manual recount.<br>>><br>>> So on that point, SB075 is good.<br>>><br>>>> We opposed the "paper audit trail"<br>>>> aka the "scroll" because these scrolls can be recreated from<br>>>> the digital record in the voting machine/tabulators produce<br>>>> by the big three: Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia. So, for<br>>>> example, if someone inadvertently or intentionally<br>>>> destroyed, maimed or mutilated the scroll, the poll workers<br>>>> would be easily tempted to just "recreate" the scroll from<br>>>> digitally stored results. But these results would not have<br>>>> been verified by the voters, hence missing the vital<br>>>> requirement of a VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT.<br>>><br>>> That is a good thing to be careful about, but SB079 doesn't<br>>> make things any worse on that front.  We should ask for<br>>> improvements, but shouldn't demand so much that people throw<br>>> it out.<br>>><br>>>> We have decided that a discrete voter verified paper ballot<br>>>> is necessary, and should be the final authority in a<br>>>> recount, that audits should be mandatory,  and that recounts<br>>>> should be manual and never done by machine.<br>>><br>>> Sounds good to me.  But we can only argue that if the bill gets to<br>>> committee in reasonable shape, with Mitchell feeling our support.  I<br>>> think that in order to argue for "discrete" ballots, we need to cite<br>>> support from other groups around the country.  Is this a well-known<br>>> term?  Legislators will reject language that makes Colorado unique,<br>>> fearing that voting companies will just abandon the state.<br>>><br>>>> We stand here, unmovable on these points. There is much more<br>>>> we would like, but without these two basic requirements in<br>>>> the Mitchell/Madden bill there can be no confidence in the<br>>>> outcome of any election conducted solely by machine tallies<br>>>> or easily reproduced scrolls of paper.<br>>><br>>> Both versions of the existing bill are much better than the status<br>>> quo.<br>>><br>>> Neal McBurnett                 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/<br>>> Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged.  GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60<br>>><br>><br>><br><br>