RE: Write-In Ballots

["Paul Tiger - LPBC - Outreach" <outreach@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 5:21 PM
To: Cvv-Discuss@Coloradovoter. Net; Linda Salas;
bouldervoting@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Delta; Paul Tiger - LPBC - Outreach
Subject: Re: Write-In Ballots


4/22/2005

Just FYI, Paul Tiger is an on-again/off-again employee of the Boulder
County Clerk, and was a member of the panel that recommended the Hart
DRE system.
[|PT>] I only worked for the C&R once. I think that you are confused by the
fact that I ran for C&R in 02.

Yep, I was a member of an advisory panel that suggested that if we had to
buy DRE that the best choice with be the Hart eSlate. I wasn't alone it
making this suggestion. I already knew that on the day prior the BoCC voted
to buy into a paper only system. However, the panel had not delivered its
advice and since I don't have a love for government waste I thought we ought
to deliver our findings. There are many witnesses to the fact that I refused
to let the county disband our panel without hearing what we had to say.
At the time the consideration was that the county would eventually buy one
DRE for each precinct polling location sometime in the future. Why go
through all the work over again if and when that time came?
================================


I'm sure I'll be discussing this matter with him in person next time I
see him, but for the record I thought I should quickly make clear my
understanding of Colorado law, my unflagging opposition to the system
purchased, a clarification of the charge presented to the Election
Review Committee by the County Commissioners, information on my
testimony before the Colorado state legislature over the last two years
and other lobbying efforts, and a link to information on voting and the
Constitution of the United States of America.
[|PT>] You have done good work. I applaud it if only that it represents
another opinion. America is about pluralism. A host of ideas. I may not
agree with you, but I support your ability to speak out.
That said, I strongly disagree with many of your opinions and with all of
your methods.
==========================

I know, anyone who reads the CVV list or knows Mr. Tiger already knows
that I shouldn't have to defend myself against more of his outrageous
statements against me, but unfortunately for him, I've been doing a
little research lately, so all this info (and much, much more!) is at
my fingertips and being compiled for other reasons anyway.


1) Hand Counted Paper Ballots Fully Legal in Colorado:

I'm not sure what law books Paul is reading from, but Colorado law is
very clear on the legality of hand counted paper ballots, and 9
counties in Colorado used hand counting in November of 2004. Any reader
may refer to our state's election law, part three "Paper Ballots"
sections 1-7-301 to 1-7-309 for specific details of how paper ballots
may be hand counted in precincts. In fact, in testimony to the ERC, the
representative of the Secretary of State's office clarified that
precinct hand counted paper ballots have the unique advantage over
other methods in that they may be counted throughout the duration of
election day, something no other method is allowed to do. It seems
unlikely that the Secretary of State's office would have bothered to
explain this if it was not legal.
[|PT>] You appear to be looking for an argument (again). Hand tallies are
fine, and there are number of small counties that do hand counts. But the
law prevents from mixing hand counts and machine counts. Furthermore, any
recount of an election must be done in the same method that the original
count was done. This could change this legislative session. I welcome such a
change. I've many times stated that I would support hand counting.
About a year ago in an email to Evan Ravitz on this list I uttered that hand
counts were unlawful. What I was referring to then (as now) is recounts, or
parallel counts. There was a misunderstanding of what I meant and despite
months of redressing this issue I'm still hearing about it.
=============================
2) I have always Opposed the Hart System:

Boulder Daily Camera, January 13th, 2004, by Ryan Morgan
"Joe Pezzillo and other members of his group were thrilled when county
officials announced late last year that they wouldn't buy a system that
enters votes electronically. But Pezzillo said the county quickly
decided on another system without consulting his group, without holding
public hearings and without taking enough time. "We really think buying
a new system is really rash at this point," Pezzillo said."

Colorado Daily, January 28th, 2004 by Richard Valenty
"Some members of the Boulder non-profit group CVV wonder if the county
has done many man/woman-hours worth of research on voting systems
without fully addressing security issues regarding the Hart
system...CVV will be asking the county to lease a system in 2004
instead of purchasing, citing cost, system standards and security
concerns..."Any system used in Boulder County needs to be fully
reviewed by security professionals of our choosing, not the vendor's
choosing," said Pezzillo."

Boulder Daily Camera, April 28th, 2004, by Todd Neff
[CVV] had other concerns with the machines, ranging from the
proprietary nature of the vote-counting software to the legal status of
the paper votes in the event of a recount. Joe Pezzillo of Boulder,
also a Citizens for Verifiable Voting volunteer, said the county is
exposing itself to unnecessary risk in choosing a system before NIST
establishes voting standards.
[|PT>] The county had to buy a something. The punch card system had been
made illegal by state HAVA. What we had was broken anyway and getting worse.
There was no support to fix any of it. The one repair guy in Iowa was not
certified to work on DataVote systems. Some retired guy in his garage who
could repair IBM stack readers. Oh yeah, lets go with that. Not!

While the advisory panel was looking at DRE, those same vendors were showing
off their absentee paper ballot systems. You were actually present when
Sequoia Systems showed their opto-sense readers. Selective memory, Joe?
===============================
3) "Charge to the Election Review Committee from the Board of Boulder
County Commissioners and the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder"
presented by Jim Burrus at the opening of ERC's first meeting
January 6th, 2005 (I have my copy from having been in attendance to
present the famous Halicki "we did no research except meet with the
vendor" memo on County letterhead)
[|PT>] that is wrong. The advisory panel looked at systems from 8 vendors.
Burrus has written revised some statements on more than one occasion. Burrus
even misstated the mission of the ERC publicly. I've read what he wrote and
what the commissioners wrote. They're not the same.
=======================
"Do a review of the 2004 Boulder County General Election process in
it's [sic] entirety, including early and absentee voting, from the
precinct level up, including voter registration, the vote counting
system and the administration of the system, staffing, training,
supervision, data processing and ballot development, printing and
processing. ... Recommend a specific action OR GROUP OF ALTERNATIVE
ACTIONS involving Boulder County equipment and/or processes that could
be improved to expedite future elections." (emphasis mine)
[|PT>] I have never seen such a statement. If there was one then I would
have to assume that it was either a rough draft, or was part of the press
release. What I have repeatedly broadcast to this list is the mission
statement of the ERC as given by the BoCC.
=====================

That the ERC has self-censored itself to a scope smaller than requested
by the County is the reason for my complaint. If the desired outcome is
known in advance or is based on political machinations and not factual
evidence, what is the point of the whole process anyway, to "forgive
and forget"? I'm fine with that as someone who loves Jesus, but I
prefer to keep my religion and government separated.
[|PT>] spin; spin; spin ...
===================
4) Testimony before state legislature 2004, 2005, Lobbying of
Legislators, Political Consensus:

I have testified before the state legislature no fewer than three
times, at least twice last year (at least once before the Local
Government House Committee in February 2004 and then this year before
Senator Gordon's committee). I have also emceed two election reform
rallies held on the steps of the State Capitol, and presented the Swiss
Ballots at a third.
I have visited with members of the Secretary of State's Blue Ribbon
Panel to demonstrate the Swiss Ballot System.
I have met with the Boulder County Clerk at least twice to specifically
demonstrate the Swiss Ballot System, and I've been involved directly
since the Summer of 2003, including correspondence dated 12/19/2003
requesting for CVV to participate in the selection of the new non-DRE
voting system.
Furthermore, I have correspondence with my federal representatives
going back to November 2003, and have maintained ongoing relationships
with congressional staffers in Washington and legislative staff in
Denver.
Citizens for Verifiable Voting is the only organization in the history
of Boulder County to achieve consensus on their platform from all four
of Boulder County's political parties, including the Libertarians.
[|PT>] Okay - so we know that you are an activist. I think you'll recall me
at some of these meetings that you've been to. I've been supportive of some
of the same things and not of others. That's what makes life interesting.
Now you expect me to roll over and play dead for you. Only you have the
answers?
It is your methods that I dislike. Shouting; screaming; and declaring (as
you have here) that it is all political and some sort of conspiracy.