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

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 11:50:48AM -0600, Al Kolwicz wrote:
> 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
  ^^^^ ^^^^^^^
These are weasel words. It looks like we will have a hand count primary. Or
a primary that is so badly executed that it will have to be repeated. Is 
there a legal basis for repeat elections in Colorado? 

It really doesn't matter what a contract may say when one is aware of the
history of Hart performance. The original use of bar-codes for location
finding in their software was such a gross violation of OCR design that
I can expect very little, other than weasel words.

And "... by printing ballots ..." is a restrictive clause that, in my
reading, absolves them of any obligation to make the software work with
ballots from which the stubs have been removed.

You, Al, are primarily concerned about constitutional issue of voter privacy,
but a more difficult issue is the gross incompetence of Hart.

...


-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx