RE: RFPET Recommendation

["Some Guy" <someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes - not ready for prime time. Few, if any operators could be trained well
in advance. Because the GUI software kept changing. But that was only one of
the reasons. Another later discovered was that Hart applied Texas elections
law to how the systems dealt with the ballots - aka serial numbers.
If the clerk has to get a waiver (illegal waiver to boot) so that the
systems can use the illegal ballots, then the system is not ready for
election day. As it turns out, the elections manager in Orange CA told me
precisely the same thing - Hart used Texas elections laws in application of
their systems.

The Ballot Now system will be used again. Care to file another lawsuit over
the serial numbers? I don't have two nickels to rub together, but I would
testify and help develop a clear case. Let's not get Rob Corry again though.

SG

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 11:47 AM
To: CVV Voting; Some Guy
Subject: Re: RFPET Recommendation


Sorry, one other detail/question.

Didn't the ERC report also find that the system the clerk bought was
not suitable for election day use?

What election day paper ballot system has she arranged for us to use
this year?

The RFP Committee rubberstamp report doesn't mention anything like
precinct scanners.

Joe