RE: ERC Public Hearing Tonight

[Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Paul Tiger - LPBC - Outreach wrote:

> Paul W mentioned in a meeting with Dick Harris and myself that the Kodak
> scanners are equipped with print head. Ostensibly, we could mark ballots in
> need of manual resolution with a code that would identify them as special in
> some way. 'Unrecognizable'; 'overvoted'; 'damaged'; 'write-in'. Pretty easy
> to sort the rejects at that point - much the same way as Swiss ballots get
> sorted into piles.

This wouldn't work; the determination of a ballot's status happens long 
after it's scanned.

I see two important aspects to this print head issue:

First, the elections staff need to know about it, and in an election run 
with the current system, which shouldn't use the print heads for anything, 
the election procedures need to include a test to ensure that the print 
heads have no ink in them, and that they are locked into place off the 
edge of the ballot scanning area.

Second, if people choose to continue using opscan systems, then we need to 
implement robust auditing methods that don't impair the secrecy of the 
ballot.  Having ID numbers preprinted on ballots (as in the current Hart 
system) can potentially destroy ballot secrecy, and should be avoided. 
But with a lockable print head on the scanner, a "scan batch" ID number 
could be printed on the edge of the ballot, outside the marked bubbles, 
boxes, or whatever, at the time the ballot is scanned.  There would be no 
ballot secrecy issues, and the vote counting hardware could be effectively 
audited with the ID numbers.


- Paul