Tupa's bill (SB 206) is being postponed from tomorrow to next Monday. There are some big problems with the new Logic and Accuracy Testing language. Unfortunately I don't have an online copy of it and it is not yet part of the bill. The proposed language rewrites the whole statute, CRS 1-7-506. - It eliminates the existing requirement that the parties be able to submit their own secret test decks. Donetta said they could put that in the SoS Rules, but I think it must remain in statute, especially since this is exactly what, e.g. Boulder wouldn't let us do in the municipal election. It talks of "preaudited" test decks, meaning that they would know the answers before running the ballots thru the machines. Experience tells us that the parties put together much better test decks than the election officials, and that is the only way we were able to anticipate even a few of the problems in the last election. The proposed language does several things to control who represents the parties and who participates at all. - It establishes a new "testing board" which can have as few as two persons, selected by the Designated Election Official from a list submitted by the parties. The parties should be able to specify their own representatives, and minor parties should be represented. - It adds language to allow the officials to throw out anyone who "hinders or disturbs the test process", and barring them from future tests, without defining those terms, having any due process, requiring any hearing, anything. There are plenty of statutes to make interference with an election a crime, so having a new open-ended, unregulated law like this is uncalled for. The language on hindering the process should be deleted, and the previous language giving the parties ballots to vote in secret, thus allowing for a fair and effective test, must be put back in. I also think the definition of the "abstract of election" (CRS 1-7-105) should be amended to require the reporting of the number of overvotes and undervotes for each race. This information is crucial for "balancing the books" in terms of the canvass, and for understanding where problematic overvotes occur, and when people choose not to vote at all on a race (undervotes). Finally, I've attached yet another revised version of the Gordon bill. I saw some minor changes on p2, last three paragraphs, and p.4. I think my previous comments on it stand. Neal McBurnett http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/ Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged. GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60
--- Begin Message ---
- To: "Margit Johnson" <margitjo@xxxxxxx>, "Neal McBurnett" <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: FW: Amendment- Monday 5:13 p.m.
- From: "Jenny Flanagan" <jflanagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 17:38:49 -0600
- Importance: Normal
- Reply-to: <jflanagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jenny Rose Flanagan Associate Director, Colorado Common Cause p 303-292-2163 f 303-292-2174 jflanagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: rachel.kaygi@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rachel.kaygi@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 5:14 PM To: MF.Nevans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bill.Compton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; csnyder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jflanagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jennifermello@xxxxxxxxxxx; sdoyle@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Amendment- Monday 5:13 p.m.Attachment: SB198_L_007.pdf
Description: Binary data
--- End Message ---