Way to go Joe.
Happy New Year.
Al
Al Kolwicz
CAMBER - Citizens for Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results
AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx
www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://ColoradoVoter.blogspot.com
|
|
Pezzillo: Clerk is hawking another
turkey By Joe Pezzillo Boulder
County has already rejected e-voting. Why is the clerk trying to sneak it in?
In
a truly unprecedented and historic moment in Boulder County, the four main
local political parties — Democrats, Republicans, Greens and
Libertarians — all agreed that electronic voting was an inappropriate
technology that should not be adopted for use here. That
was January 2004. What has changed since then? If anything, electronic voting
has been found to be even less trustworthy than suspected, with several
states having banned vendors from operating faulty equipment in their
elections, voter and class-action lawsuits filed and many widely documented
errors in vote tabulation. Local
citizens declared two years ago that we don’t want electronic voting to
be used in Boulder County, and instead want our votes indelibly recorded on
the time-tested and repeatedly proven method of paper ballots, a medium that
during casting and counting can be verified by voters and pollworkers. The
Boulder County clerk reluctantly rescinded that attempt to purchase Direct
Record Electronic voting terminals (known as "DRE"s).
Unfortunately, the clerk instead rushed to purchase the mail ballot system
offered by the vendor whose DRE devices she wanted, without sufficient
analysis, and the rest is now well documented history: unacceptable counting
speed for election day use; non-secret ballots; documented mis-counted votes
in testing; and unanswered questions about the level (and cost) of support. Now,
the Boulder County clerk is trying to sneak in the same DRE machines
we’d previously rejected — and also the use of vote centers
— by releasing a new and insufficient purchase proposal and allowing
only two days for public comment, one on either side of the Christmas
holiday. The
clerk will contend that there’s no time for thorough analysis, that
this equipment must be purchased fast because the election is coming up and
she has to meet Help America Vote Act requirements. This
is like deja vu all over again. For
more and more citizens of Boulder County, it’s obvious what a
monumental mistake it would be to allow the clerk to purchase more equipment
that will be used in our elections for years to come. It should also be clear
that every one of the clerk’s (and vendor’s) claims about any
systems, processes or legal requirements need to be checked carefully before
they can be trusted. This
is a decision that should be made thoughtfully, slowly and with maximum
public input, not forced through at the last minute by a few people with poor
planning skills behind closed doors using a constantly shifting set of
justifications. Clerk
Linda Salas’ office has demonstrated that it is unqualified to make
this decision. A fundamental lack of quality control, an inability to distinguish
between sales hype and real-world needs, not enough time devoted to
developing requirements — these are not the traits of any successful
project, let alone a voting-system implementation. Compared
with two years ago, there are better devices now available that meet both the
citizens’ and HAVA’s requirements. Ballot markers with a computer
touch screen and audio interfaces print the voter’s choices out onto a
normal ballot. These devices are the current best implementation of the dual
requirements for accessibility and paper ballots. The
clerk will say ballot markers are "not certified in Colorado" but
she used uncertified equipment in 2003 with no repercussions. The system used
in November 2005 that was purchased with HAVA funds doesn’t meet that
law’s error-rate requirement. These
devices have been federally certified, certified in other states, and are
available from multiple vendors. Real-world testing among the disability
communities in Oregon and New Mexico found the ballot marker to be the #1
choice, ahead of computer-voting tablets. Has
anyone at the Boulder County Clerk’s office ever requested they be
certified or considered an RFP for them? Is
the clerk’s inability to plan reason enough to purchase unproved
equipment? Is the public aware that the current RFP calls for unproved
technologies such as wireless transmission of voting data? Should we be
requiring that new equipment be compatible with the previous equipment she
purchased that has proved it isn’t suitable for general use and has a
documented 1.6-percent error rate in testing, or are we "throwing good
money after bad"? Do we want to have private companies counting our
votes using secret software? Do citizens want to replace precinct voting (and
organizing) with "vote centers"? Do vote centers really provide
more convenience than early voting? Do citizens want their votes stored in
computer memories that can be altered without detection? The
clerk’s office has seriously damaged voter confidence in our community,
and left many people on all sides of the political spectrum wondering if
their votes have been correctly counted. When
will Boulder County voters get a commitment to trustworthy elections that are
secure, reliable and verifiable? Joe Pezzillo is a Boulder citizen who monitors election
issues. Copyright
2006, The Daily Camera. All Rights Reserved. |
