Now I can't speak for everyone or the specifics of every situation that
occurred, but this is downright insulting, and clearly had they taken the
time to review the record and not rely on the Clerk and her apologists, they
would hopefully have edited this from the draft. "Chat Rooms"? That makes
them look downright ignorant, as well.
So much for fighting for democracy and "Trustworthy Elections", I guess
history will show that we just wanted to discredit opto-sense systems. Just
shameful that they would print that. I smell rats.
And what's funny as well is that the Clerk's office put out more
misinformation than anyone, remember the old "HAVA requires DREs" wool? How
about the "Ballots don't need to be printed according to strict design
standards as with normal optical scan ballots" quote that she presented to
the Commissioners? Who misinformed whom?
Quoting the Draft:
"Prior to the election, various interest-group activists harried the Clerk
and her staff. Their purpose was to discredit the opto-sense system and
promote hand counting of ballots. These activities started in late 2003 when
the County chose to purchase the Hart/InterCivic system that it now uses.
These activities continued throughout the primary and general election. They
included, but were not limited to: purposely damaging and duplicating test
ballots; launching disinformation campaigns in the local press; in activist
‘chat rooms’ on the internet; continually harassing the Clerk and her staff
with multiple open records demands, then not paying the required fees for
the labor to research the records."
Too bad, I was starting to like the report.
I also notice it never mentions the Clerk's history having had virtually
every one of her official elections required to be recounted, going back to
Erie, too!
Joe
Joe Pezzillo, Citizen Activist
Boulder, Colorado USA
jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx