Paul (et al),
In 04 the same was true in Boulder County. A gal who works with CFVI called me and mentioned that she had been driving around BC looking for the required postings at precinct locations. I was sort of aware of it, but had forgotten since we hadn't done that in years in Boulder.
The Law stands and Boulder ignores it. I had a very unpleasant conversation with Jim Burrus, former mouthpiece for the commissioners about this issue. He told me I was making it up, then when he figured out that I wasn't making it up said that it was just too hard to do and I should lay off Linda Salas (who he supported in her re-election bid).
Here's the CRS:
1-7-602. Judges to post returns.
"At any election at a polling place where voting is by paper ballot, voting machine, or electronic or electromechanical voting system, the election judges shall make an abstract of the count of votes, which abstract shall contain the names of the offices, names of the candidates, ballot titles, and submission clauses of all initiated, referred, or other ballot issues voted upon and the number of votes counted for or against each candidate or ballot issue. The abstract shall be posted in a conspicuous place that can be seen from the outside of the polling place immediately upon completion of the counting. The abstract may be removed at any time after forty-eight hours following the election. Suitable blanks for the abstract required by this section shall be prepared, printed, and furnished to all election judges at the same time and in the same manner as other election supplies."
The response that I got from the clerk's office in regards to this was varied. Nancy Jo understood that the results should be posted at polling locations. Tom and Linda had other ideas. Water under the bridge.
Mind you that in 2004 the wording of 1-7-602 was a bit different. It didn't include "voting machine, or electronic or electromechanical voting system", that was stuck added in 2005. What was there in 2004 running back all the way to 1993 was "paper ballot".
The Hart/InterCivic system has serialized the ballots themselves in such a way as to have the precinct locations encoded on them. Therefore, after all is said and done, it is VERY EASY to know exactly what the counts were in individual precincts. People that say that they cannot know this are either not well enough informed, or they are simply lying. But that is in Boulder County.
Larimer's system uses primarily electronic methods. The ballots in the electronic systems do indeed know what the ballot style is and therefore the precinct. But if a Larimer voted used a paper ballot, I do not believe that there is a way to track those ballots back to a precinct if they are unbundled at a central location.
Whatever excuse election officials may have for not posting results AT THE POLLING LOCATION, it is unacceptable. It is actually a criminal event.
paul tiger
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: DC Article: "Larimer Shows Up Boulder"
From: Paul E Condon <
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, November 09, 2006 3:14 pm
To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 10:46:48AM -0700, Dr. Charles E. Corry wrote:
> El Paso County, Colorado, the largest county by population in the
> state, rejected voting centers two years ago and relied heavily on
> traditional precinct balloting in the November 2006 election.
> Few, if any problems were noted and the counting and tabulation
> were swiftly completed, despite the fact we use Diebold here, thanks
> to an effective and hard-working county clerk and his staff.
> When looking at the claimed success of Larimer County, after
> three troublesome years, one should carefully evaluate the percentage
> of voters who used absentee ballots or voted early due to problems in
> previous elections with voting centers.
I have heard that Larimer County was unable to report precinct level
voting results for the 2004 election. No one gave them permission to
not report at this level. They just couldn't do it because of poor
planning and design. I would say that their 2004 election was a
serious failure that no one had the courage and/or power to address.
Without even precinct level results, how can one say whether or not
the election was properly executed? The next step is to just report
the name of the winner without all the pesky details of numbers that
are supposed to add up.
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx