Re: ERC Public Hearing Tonight

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 01:45:53PM -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> 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.
> 

This second comment is, to me, a very good use of the print head. I
add that the ink in this printhead should be of a color to which the
scanner is insensitive.  This would preclude its use by a bad-guy to
spoil good ballots.

In my comments in an earlier letter I talked about a master list of ID
numbers.  If the printhead is used, this list could be generated
during the scan. A file and listing of ID#s of requiring special
handling could be generated later in the process sequence.

My thoughts on scanners, print heads, etc. are predicated on the fact
that BoCo owns the equipment, and it seems to me politically unrealistic
to advocate junking it, at least in the next two or three decades.
Given that we have some equipment, how can we use it in such a way as
to cause minimum damage to the idea of a secret ballot?

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx