Joe,
1. Here is a DEMO of the AutoMARK vote marking device
which is posted on the National Federation for the Blind website:
http://www.voiceofthenationsblind.org/transcripts/80/automark-voter-assist-terminal-demonstration
2. Here is a survey comparing disabled voter’s opinion using various
voting equipment including AutoMARK and HART from the Oregon Accessible Voting Systems Vendor Fair Survey Results.
AutoMARK wins over HART 46 to 43 points
out of 60 possible.
http://www.uhavavote.org/vendorfair/survey_results/hart_results.html
http://www.uhavavote.org/vendorfair/survey_results/survey_results.html
3. Here’s a letter from ES&S President defending
disabled voter capabilities of AutoMARK.
http://www.automarkts.com/Documents/FINAL%20CA%20letter.pdf
4. Research and positions of the National
Disability Rights Network
http://www.napas.org/issues/voting/default.htm
http://www.napas.org//issues/voting/NDRN--Voting%20Machines%20and%20Dexterity%20Disabilities.pdf
5. AutoMARK NASED certification document
http://www.nased.org/NASED%20Qualified%20Voting%20Systems%20122205.pdf
6. Colorado
refusal to certify AutoMARK.
http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com/2006/01/colorado-plots-to-block-paper-ballots.html
ES&S was recently informed that the
State of Colorado
will not certify the AutoMARK for reasons highlighted in the attached document.
The AutoMARK functionality may require assistance in “casting” a
marked ballot for people with dexterity, mobility or vision problems. In short,
a ballot marked by the AutoMARK needs to be deposited into the optical scan
tabulator.
Colorado’s excuses for
rejecting AutoMARK are not defensible. DRE units do not provide full
independence either.
The SOS rejection letter is transcribed below.
The statute referred to in the letter is
at http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0
It is very clear that there is a coordinated
effort to disallow paper ballots in Colorado.
This might be illegal. At a minimum, it should be reason enough to
replace everybody in office who is contributing to this, shall we say, “conspiracy”?
If we hope to retain paper ballots, we
must persuade the Colorado Secretary of State to fairly evaluate the AutoMARK
and any other vote marking system that support paper ballots -- Secretary of State
Gigi Dennis c/o darleen.m.chacon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Al
Al Kolwicz
CAMBER – Citizens for Accurate Mail Ballot Election
Results
2867 Tincup
Circle
Boulder, CO 80305
303-494-1540
AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx
www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
www.coloradovoter.blogspot.com
CAMBER is a dedicated group of
volunteers who are working to ensure that every voter gets to vote once, every
vote is counted once, and that every ballot is secure and anonymous.
Election Systems & Software, Inc.
Attn: Shirley Votrobek
11208
John Galt Blvd.
Omaha, NE
68137
January 10, 2006
Re: Receipt of Application for Certification
Ms. Votrobek,
This letter is to inform you that the Colorado
Department of State has received your application for certification of the ES&S Voting System for AutoMARK and AIMS.
Unfortunately at this time we are unable to certify the AutoMARK and AIMS
ballot marking devices for use in the State of Colorado as to our knowledge,
this type of device does not meet the requirement of Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 1, Article 5 Section 704, specifically paragraph (1)(n)(I).
This application has been assigned the following number:
2006-CDOS-ESS-002-0109. Please
refer to this number for all future correspondence.
Please contact me directly if you have any questions
during the certification process.
Sincerely,
John Gardner
Voting Systems Specialist
Colorado Department of State
1700 Broadway, Ste 270
Denver, CO
80290
Office: 303.894.2200 ext. 6318
Fax: 303.869.4861
E-mail john.gardner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Patti Fredrick
Director, Colorado
HAVA
E-mail patti.fredrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web Site www.sos.state.co.us