[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
CO Daily: Citizens Voting Comments In
The excerpt below is "troubling" (to pick a word), especially
considering that the AutoMark is already federally certified, and has
been certified in other states (including neighbors NE and NM). Why
would it be "blocked" by the SOS' office in Colorado? Real world
testing by disability communities in other states found the AutoMark
to the be number one choice among devices, besting DREs. Colorado's
HAVA law is based on federal HAVA, so if the device is compliant with
federal HAVA (per the NASED certification statement below), then
certainly it is compliant with Colorado's HAVA implementation, and if
not, there's a new legislative session just starting!
Wouldn't it be helpful if the Boulder County Clerk issued an RFP (or
"RFI") for such devices? Wouldn't that help expedite their
certification from both the vendor's and the state's perspective?
Joe
AutoMark Certification Status from the National Association of State
Election Directors:
http://www.nased.org/NASED_Qualified_Voting_Systems_11_18_05_Paged.pdf
(See page 1 of 17, the ES&S AutoMARK Voting System N-1-16-22-22-001
achieved 2002 VSS certification on 10/24/2005)
----------
http://coloradodaily.com/articles/2006/01/05/news/c_u_and_boulder/
news2.txt
Citizens' voting comments in
By RICHARD VALENTY Colorado Daily Staff Writer
Thursday, January 5, 2006 7:35 PM MST
In election terminology, “turnout” was good during the second week of
citizen comment regarding Boulder County's process to select new
voting equipment for the 2006 contests.
[ ... ]
But John Gardner, voting systems specialist with the Colorado
Secretary of State's office, said only DREs have been certified as
HAVA-compliant in Colorado to date.
The Election System and Software (ES&S) AutoMARK system allows the
disabled to mark a paper ballot without assistance, but Gardner said
the system is not certified in Colorado and probably won't be in the
near future because a voter with mobility problems might not be able
to take the ballot and transfer it to a device for counting.
“Our law requires the elector to be able to cast their ballot
privately and independently,” said Gardner.