RE: FW: Boulder County Clerk is deciding between secret and non-secret voting.

["Al Kolwicz" <alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Paul,

The use of perforated, removable stubs is a feature that has always been
available, according to Salas's testimony given to the County Commissioners
before they approved the initial purchase of Hart's central-scanner-based
system.

1.  The option for secret ballots is a part of the current printing
contract.  I have a copy of the contract.  Page 8 describes one of the two
options offered to the County.  

"In the event the County elects to issue ballots without serial numbers or
bar codes, County shall so notify Hart in writing and Hart agrees to use its
best efforts to perform this Contract by printing ballots with perforated
stubs, subject to the details set forth in this paragraph.  In this event,
and to the extent possible all other aspects of this Contract shall remain
the same." 

And

"In the event that County elects to make such change on or before June 25,
2006, Hart agrees that it will print ballots with stubs according to the
timelines set forth in Exhibit B and according to the work specification set
forth in Exhibit A ."


2.  The commissioners are on record yesterday regarding the $3,500.00
funding for this option.  They said that they feel that they must rely on
Salas's decision on this and will support whatever Salas decides.


3.  Assurances by government officials that secret data is safe with them is
nonsense.

	Veterans Administration lost millions of personal records when
employee took secret files home to work.

	Denver Election commission lost voter data.

	A computer hacker stole sensitive information on about 1,500 people
working for the nuclear-weapons unit of the Department of Energy  



-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E Condon [mailto:pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:30 AM
To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: FW: Boulder County Clerk is deciding between secret and
non-secret voting.

I'm really puzzled about the position attributed to Linda Salas
in this blog. I had thought that the Hart ballot scan software
*requires* there to be a bar-code on each ballot*. Otherwise it
cannot find the vote marks in the scanned image. Does Linda
plan to 'discover' this fact after the $3500 is spent, but
before she issues instructions to the election officials about
when to remove the stub? Or will it be discovered when the Hart
scanning software fails to read the marked ballots properly on
election night? Then we will get a test of pure hand count paper
ballot election. And it won't be a fair test because there will
have been no advance planning.

Second worry: will the ballots with a corner torn off feed thru
the scanner hardware reliably? I sure that the scanner maker does
not quote performance numbers for scanning torn originals.

*"To keep votes secret, the stub will be removed just before the 
voter casts their ballot." form the blog 

On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:40:36PM -0600, Al Kolwicz wrote:
> Sorry folks, I misspelled Colorado in the BLOG address I sent earlier.  It
> is fixed below.
> 
>  
> 
> We just published the following on our BLOG at
> www.coloradovoter.blogspot.com <http://www.coloradovoter.blogspot.com/> 
> 
>  
> 
> Please take action.
> 
>  
> 
> Al
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
>  
> 
> Boulder County clerk is deciding between secret and non-secret voting.
> 
>  
> 
> Hart InterCivic has submitted a proposal to print ballots for the 2006
> primary and general elections. Serial numbers and bar codes that uniquely
> identify the ballot would be printed on a perforated, removable stub, as
> required by Article 5 of the election code.
> 
> To keep votes secret, the stub will be removed just before the voter casts
> their ballot. 
> 
> Clerk Linda Salas is thinking about not allowing the perforated ballots.
> Instead, she prefers the non-anonymous ballots that were dragged into
court
> last year. She says that this would reduce the cost of the ballots by
> $3,500.00. 
> 
> We say keep the secret ballot. Why take chances with voter privacy, voter
> intimidation, and fraud? 
> 
> Let the clerk and the secretary of state know that people want secret
> ballots.
> 
> Keep secret ballots.
> 
> Linda Salas
> Boulder County Clerk & Recorder
> 1750 33rd St. 
> Boulder, CO 80301
> (303) 413-7700
> lsalas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
> 
> Gigi Dennis
> Colorado Secretary of State
> 1700 Broadway, Suite 250
> Denver, Colorado 80290
> (303) 860-6900
> gigi.dennis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
> 
> --
> Posted by AlKolwicz to Colorado
>
<http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com/2006/06/boulder-county-clerk-is-deciding.
> html>  Voter at 6/20/2006 01:22:00 PM
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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 <http://www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz/>  
> 
> www.coloradovoter.blogspot.com <http://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.
> 
>  
> 

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx