RE: County is planning to go ahead with non-secret ballots

Josh,

We will happily work with you to secure secret ballots for the people of Boulder County. It would offend my principles to help you steal from voters this most fundamental right.

Colorado election law is written to deal with secret paper ballots using removable stubs. We want you to comply with this law.

You are now saying that the Hart vote counting equipment has a design flaw.

This means that Hart sold us equipment that does not do what it says it does. Hart’s specifications clearly state that operation without a serial number is a supported option (see attached). Boulder County paid for this option.

I have not had a chance to review the transcript, but it is my recollection that Mr. McClure testified in court that the Hart system supports operation without a serial number/barcode.

Hart’s defect is not a reason to steal people’s right to vote by secret ballot. It is a reason to de-certify the Hart equipment, and for getting our money back. This system has created many more problems than it has solved.

If Hart’s defect cannot be overcome in a better way, then we recommend you adopt our long-standing suggestion. Stamp each ballot with a unique identifier after the ballot has been cast and before it is scanned. This will guaranty that every ballot is anonymous and that workers can find the ballot without compromising voter privacy.

With all of the press regarding Identity theft and hacking into government databases, it is no assurance at all when an official says, “trust me”. The only way we can protect ourselves is to eliminate the potential for abuse. No ballots cast with unique identifiers.

We do not believe that election officials have the right to steal our rights in order to make life easier for officials.

As Dean Schooler said, the option for secret ballots (1) is in the contract, (2) requires no programming, (3) complies with the law, and (4) costs only $3,500.00.

Let us help you do what it takes to provide Boulder County voters a secret ballot.

From: Liss, Josh [mailto:jliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 9:07 AM
To: Al Kolwicz; Citizens for Verifiable Voting
Cc: Dean Schooler; Hillary Hall; Sheila Horton; Rob McGuire; Cary Lacklen; Harvie Branscomb; Gigi Dennis; Salas, Linda; Richard Valenty
Subject: RE: County is planning to go ahead with non-secret ballots

Al,

The County Clerk and Recorder, and her staff, are sworn to protect the integrity of the elections process and the secrecy of every voter's ballot. We take this oath very seriously. As such, we would never do anything to jeapordize the integrity of the elections process or the secrecy of any voter's ballot. As election administrators, it is our job to protect the democratic voting process to ensure fair, open, honest and accurate elections. More importantly, each and every one of us is a registered voter. We care deeply about the election process, not only as election administrotrs, but as citizens as well.

You must understand that we would not take any course of action in the performance of our duties if we thought it would jeopordize the secrecy of any voter's ballot or the integrity of the election process as a whole. The ballots we issue this year will be, as they have always been, secret ballots. We would not ever jeopordize the secrecy of any ballot for financial savings, or for any other reason.

This issue was decided by the District Court in 2004, and the Court rejected the very same arguments you are trying to make now. The Court found us to be in compliance with state law and the state constitution in our actions.

Voter confidence is a delicate matter, and it is often on shaky ground. These false rumors about "non-secret ballots" can only further reduce the voters' confidence in the elections process. In this office, we are spending every waking minute working to restore and strengthen voter confidence and I am pleading with you now to work with us in our efforts.

Thank you,

Joshua B. Liss
Elections Coordinator
Boulder County Clerk & Recorder
P: (303) 413-7745
F: (303) 413-7750
jliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: Al Kolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 7:35 AM
To: Citizens for Verifiable Voting
Cc: 'Dean Schooler'; Hillary Hall; Sheila Horton; Rob McGuire; Cary Lacklen; Harvie Branscomb; Gigi Dennis; Salas, Linda; Richard Valenty
Subject: County is planning to go ahead with non-secret ballots

Today’s Colorado Daily reports that the County is planning to go ahead with non-secret ballots.

This is an affront on the people and our right to anonymous voting.

This story shows how mean-spirited and insensitive this clerk and her staff are to the needs of the people and to the protections afforded the people by the laws of Colorado.

There is still time to act – this morning.

1. Get the Democratic Party to join the Republicans in supporting the secret ballot,

2. Get the Secretary of State to compel Boulder County to use the secret ballot option.

This must happen today.

As Dean Schooler said, the option for secret ballots (1) is in the contract, (2) requires no programming, (3) complies with the law, and (4) costs only $3,500.00.

Please get the Democratic Party to take action, now.

Please get the SOS to compel the county to use the secret ballot option, now.

Al

http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2006/06/22/news/c_u_and_boulder/news4.txt

Party primary preparation

By RICHARD VALENTY Colorado Daily Staff Writer
Thursday, June 22, 2006 8:01 PM MDT

Boulder County election officials are busy preparing for the Aug. 8 political party primary elections, but not without the presence of some citizen opposition to parts of the process.

The county recently announced that voting system vendor Hart InterCivic will print the physical paper ballots to be used in 2006. The ballots will have bar codes and serial numbers printed on them, and county elections coordinator Josh Liss said Thursday that the county does not intend to have the codes printed on a perforated, removable ballot stub.

A group of county citizens filed a lawsuit against the county in 2004 over similar ballots, saying the non-removable markings on the ballot violate Article Seven, Section Eight of the Colorado Constitution. That section in short says no ballot shall be marked in a way in which it can be identified as “the ballot of the person casting it.”

District Court Judge Morris W. Sandstead, Jr., dismissed the 2004 case. Liss said Thursday that he hasn't heard of any planned challenge in 2006, but the county is legally prepared to fight a similar case, and he also said the bar codes are an “essential” component in the county's existing Hart voting system.

“Most importantly, the ballot secrecy is always maintained because there is no link whatsoever between the numbers and any particular voter,” said Liss. “The numbers also help during the resolution process. If election judges would like to look at the physical paper ballot, they can locate that ballot within a batch by serial number and look at it to determine voter intent.”

But Robert McGuire, the new chairman of the Boulder County Republicans, questions whether ballot secrecy is actually guaranteed.

“If it's permanently printed on the ballot, then it's certainly linked to the vote,” said McGuire. “If you're going to ensure integrity, then you must ensure that people get only one ballot. If there's an audit trail for handing out ballots to people that's sufficient to withstand scrutiny that only people who are entitled to vote are getting ballots, then it's a very small step to go from that process to identifying an individual voter.”

McGuire is an attorney and an adjunct professor teaching federal election law the University of Denver, but said he didn't follow the 2004 Boulder County case and hasn't yet heard of a planned citizen challenge in 2006.

Liss said Thursday morning that Hart had not yet printed the county's primary ballots, in part because it was not certain if the name of Marc Holtzman, a Republican running for governor of Colorado, would be on the ballot.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled later Thursday against a Holtzman appeal, and Holtzman will not be listed on the Boulder County primary ballot.

In fact, there won't be many contested races in Boulder County in the 2006 primary at all. County Democrats will choose between Clerk and Recorder candidates Linda Salas, the incumbent, and former Boulder County Democrats chair Hillary Hall.

Democrats living in State House District 13 will choose between candidates Claire Levy and Jim Rettew.

Also, former Boulder County GOP chair Marty Neilson will face off against engineer Barry Thoma in State Senate District 16.

Liss said non-registered voters must register by July 10 to vote in the primary. Voters must be also be affiliated with the proper political party to vote in a party's primary, but voters are legally allowed to switch affiliations within proper time frames.

Liss said affiliated voters must switch affiliations by July 10 to vote in another party's primary, while unaffiliated voters may switch before or up until Election Day. Citizens may also switch back to their former affiliation or lack of affiliation after the primary, and affiliation doesn't matter for voting in the November general election.

Boulder County must also keep its eye on at least one additional legal challenge. A citizen group of plaintiffs has filed a legal action against the Secretary of State and eight Colorado counties, including Boulder County, seeking to block the use of Direct Record Electronic (DRE) voting machines in 2006.

The county has completed a contract to use the Hart “eSlate” DRE as well as the paper ballots through Ballot Now in 2006, but Liss said county election staff and judges are currently training on the eSlate and will continue to do so unless the courts rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

Contact Richard Valenty about this story at (303) 443-6272 ext. 126 or valenty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx