Re: Re[2]: April Fool's: Fake Xcel letter threatens to cut power to Boulder voters who favored municipalization - Boulder Daily Camera

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marilyn,

I am sorry for offending you. I was trying to evoke the attitude of
the flacks for the computer automation companies and of the true
believers in computerized vote counting. They argue their position
vigor and more than a little dishonesty. The computerized equipment
badly needs specialized scanable marks on the ballots in order to work
in a way that can be audited effectively. They expected to quietly
tell their friends in the legislature about they needed changed in the
law, and have a change quietly pass into law. That didn't happen, and
you are part of the reason why. Good for you!

Many Clerks, who responsible for the productive use of this expensive
equipment, talk to Company sales people about how to use the equipment
effectively. The marks are needed, but they are illegal.  What to do?
Vilify the opposition. It works on other political issues. It's what
lobbyists know how to do. Skulk about behind peoples' backs
whispering. I have a very dark view of the opposition to verified
voting. Arguing that it is illegal is a slender reed. With enough
money, laws have been changed.

I had thought several years ago that the problem of an attack on
anonomity could be blocked by printing bar codes that were random
numbers. Each ballot was uniquely identified, but the there was no
sequence information linking one ballot to the next as they given to
the voters.  Some one had already suggested that the polling place
judges should shuffle the stacks of ballots.  But it is easily
demonstrated that people can't shuffle ballots well enough to remove
all traces of order. I couldn't figure out a way to explain how it
works to a voter who didn't understand randomness. It would become
just another machination of a computer geek in the eyes of
voters. Not a step forward.

This problem of laws being changed to suit the wishes of business,
and with stealth, is what I intended to address. I am very sorry
for having done a bad job of it.

Best regards.


On 20120403_210147, Marilyn Marks wrote:
> I must disagree with pecondon.
> In the vast majority of states and many counties in  Colorado, clerks do NOT put unique marks on the FACE of the ballot to keep inventory control.
> In fact, it is illegal to have distinguishing marks (numbers) on the FACE of the ballot in almost every state—including Colorado.
> 
> Most  clerks control the inventory and prevent duplicate scanning/counting by reconciling with poll books, envelopes received and ballot stubs counted. There are numerous checks and balances to be certain that no double scanning occurs undetected.
> And none of them should rely on distinguishing numbers on the face of the ballots.
> 
> Until you have been in the midst of an election where people are being intimidated by claims that the government can trace how they vote through ballot markings, please do not minimize the problem with traceable ballots.
> 
> Please see the attached letter to the Camera.
> 
> Call me a “wrong thinker and trouble-maker.”
> Marilyn Marks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:24 PM
> To: Ralph Shnelvar
> Cc: lou.puls@xxxxxxxxx; m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ColoradoVoter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; margitjo@xxxxxxxxx; angielayton@xxxxxxxx; harvie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; kathryncwallace@xxxxxxxxx; richey80304@xxxxxxxxx; Marilyn Marks; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stith@xxxxxxxxxxx; gcahoon@xxxxxxxxx; paul@xxxxxxxxxxx; neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: April Fool's: Fake Xcel letter threatens to cut power to Boulder voters who favored municipalization - Boulder Daily Camera
> 
> 
> 
> In answer to the purpose of the bar coding, as a practical matter the bar code can be used to keep a ballot from being scanned twice or more times
> during scanning phase of the process. But this may be only 'official reason'. Some "wrong thinkers and trouble makers" probably believe that it just
> an excuse and that the 'real reason' is to support the kind of attack on anonominity that you suggest. For me, I would have a hard time believing in
> the integrity of any vote count where the people doing the work had no method or assuring to their own satisfaction that they had not, accidentally, processed a box of voted ballots twice. I see a conflict of goals, and I see no way of absolutely resolving it. Keep in mind that we need to keep the ballots for a possible recount, and to the naked human eye, they look just like the ballots that have not yet been counted. The people doing the work can be trained to pretend and to swear that the never make a mistake. But they are human. They do make mistakes. If the ballots were counted at each polling place, there might be less chance of accidental mix up, but much greater chance of flat out incompetence on the part of those who are 'trained'  to do the work. There is 'ideal' and there is 'real'. With the right amount of work, it should be possible for statistical experts to produce a totally fraudulent vote count and canvass report. But it would require the collusion of a lot of people to switch the fraudulent
>  for the real.
> 
> I agree that keeping the sheets together is a lame reason. There are a lot of lame reasons for doing things that ought to be done for some good reason, e.g "We drive on the right side of the road because we are conservatives, unlike those pinko leftists in the UK."
> 
> Peace.
> 
> --- ralphs@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> From: Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Lou Puls <lou.puls@xxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Mary Eberle <m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Colorado Voter Group <ColoradoVoter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Margit Johansson <margitjo@xxxxxxxxx>, Angie Layton <angielayton@xxxxxxxx>, Harvie Branscomb <harvie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kathryn Wallace <kathryncwallace@xxxxxxxxx>, joseph richey <richey80304@xxxxxxxxx>, Marilyn Marks <Marilyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Citizens for Verifiable Voting <cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stith Bennett <stith@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Geof Cahoon <gcahoon@xxxxxxxxx>, Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Neal McBurnett <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re[2]: April Fool's: Fake Xcel letter threatens to cut power to Boulder voters who favored municipalization - Boulder Daily Camera
> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:05:48 -0600
> 
> Lou,
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it, it is to keep the sheets of the ballot together.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a lame reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Ralph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuesday, April 3, 2012, 8:54:17 AM, you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have often wondered if the state-mandated anonymity could be defeated by a poll observer using the serialized bar coding printed on the ballots?  What is the purpose of the bar coding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Mary Eberle <m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Friends of Good Voting Practices,
> 
> 
> 
> Please see the following article, which is on the front page of today's Daily Camera:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_20307046/april-fools-fake-xcel-letter-threatens-cut-power#.T3sBhfl6JeE.email
> 
> 
> 
> It is shocking that two journalists wrote that ballots are confidential and not subject to open records requests. Journalists do not know the Colorado Open Records Act.
> 
> 
> 
> Please add your own comment that focuses on ballots ARE open records. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the real April Fool's joke: "The letter says the company used an
> 
>  open records request to get access to voter files to learn how people
> 
> voted. Yet ballots are confidential and not subject to open records
> 
> requests." Actually, ballots are not confidential, like your medical
> 
> records, which you, your doctor, and the insurance company can see but
> 
> no one else can see--that's confidentiality. Ballots are mandated to be
> 
> anonymous. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Best regards,
> 
>  Ralph                            mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx

Received: from BY2PRD0410MB377.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.10.228]) by
 BY2PRD0410HT004.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.83.39]) with mapi id
 14.16.0135.002; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 20:52:44 +0000
From: Marilyn Marks <marilyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Marilyn Marks <marilyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: FW:  A Camera  April Fool's Day Joke on an April Fool's Day Prank?
Thread-Topic: A Camera  April Fool's Day Joke on an April Fool's Day Prank?
Thread-Index: Ac0R23YDwwSreDwSTVe67kInSPPxiwAADULQ
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 20:52:42 +0000
Message-ID: <EAC202701F2E804ABFDB994EDB3ABB712CA55B1C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthMechanism: 04
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: BY2PRD0410HT004.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.164.53.133]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="_005_EAC202701F2E804ABFDB994EDB3ABB712CA55B1CBY2PRD0410MB377_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
> 
> 
> 
> From: Marilyn Marks
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:51 PM
> To: meltzere@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Erika Stutzman (stutzmane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx); sebastianm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; manzia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Samantha Johnston; Burnett, Sara [sburnett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]; Carroll, Vincent
> Subject: A Camera April Fool's Day Joke on an April Fool's Day Prank?
> 
> Ms. Meltzer,
> 
> I read , with great dismay, this quote  in your linked article below. Please tell us it was a joke.
> 
> "The letter says the company used an open records request to get access to voter files to learn how people voted. Yet ballots are confidential and not subject to open records requests."
> http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_20307046/april-fools-fake-xcel-letter-threatens-cut-power#.T3sBhfl6JeE.email
> 
> I'm surprised that the Daily Camera is espousing this view after the Camera's strong support of ballot as open records.
> Not only have there been two editorials this year in the Camera, but the attached editorial saved the day in 2007 to keep ballots as open records subject to public and press review.
> 
> Only  Friday,  Colorado Independent ran this story with quotes from the Boulder County Attorney's office  noting that ballots ARE indeed traceable in Boulder. This practice clearly violates the constitution.
> http://coloradoindependent.com/116946/bar-codes-allow-ballots-to-be-traced-back-to-voters-in-dozens-of-colorado-counties.
> 
> And then there's Denver Post's quote from former SOS Davidson:
> 
> 
> "Former Secretary of State Donetta Davidson, executive director of the clerks association, said voters should be assured that while clerks have the ability to trace ballots, they don't do so. By law, ballots are stored in sealed boxes for 25 months after an election is certified."
> http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_19823512#ixzz1lBfrQMS8
> 
> And the attached quotes from officials .
> 
> So how can ballots be both traceable where the ballot can be connected back to the voter and also open public records? Actually, the courts hold that clerks must withhold from CORA applicants any identifiable ballots. Is that ALL Boulder ballots?
> 
> Boulder County is being sued in federal court for its traceable ballot processes. (www.TheCitizenCenter.org<http://www.TheCitizenCenter.org> )
> 
> Pitkin County's ballots are NOT traceable and  ARE open public records. As are Saguache County ballots.
> 
> How would the threat posed by the  bogus Xcel letter writer actually work in Boulder? If the mailing vendor kept a list of all the ballot numbers sent to the mail ballot voters, and sold the list to Xcel. Xcel could look at the ballots and see who voted how. Just as the mayor could if the mayor obtained the list. But the clerk says the vendor never keeps such a list. Other clerks tell us that indeed the vendors do keep such lists. And how would the Boulder clerk know for sure?
> 
> Additionally, if someone is an election worker in Boulder and is handing out the ballots on election day, they can kept their own personal list of who got what ballot, although that would be unethical, but not illegal. (Unique identifiers are not legal on ballots, so the barcodes should not be there.) Xcel employees  could  hypothetically volunteer to be election workers to hand out the ballots.
> 
> In other words, there is a very good reason that it is against the law to have unique or "distinguishing" marks on a ballot. Boulder needs to start complying with that law.
> 
> Isn't this a danger of having ballots be public records? NO. When ballots are anonymous and cannot be traced, then the whole world should be able to see them and verify the count. People assume that Xcel could never get such records because "insiders" would never disclose that information. Never mind that Boulder has hundreds of election workers. And so much is now computerized. One need only look as far as Jefferson County to  see that the Jeffco clerk  erroneously disclosed on the internet (!)  how over 30 people voted  on touchscreen systems (not a bar code system). She didn't do it on purpose. She was careless with information that should have never been recorded.
> 
> Even when we trust several hundred Boulder election workers, who  is to keep a hacker from benefiting by hacking into the system and selling such data to an Xcel or the like?
> 
> To be clear, I do not expect that Xcel or the Boulder clerk would ever engage in the kinds of scenarios painted here. My hypothetical examples are for illustration of what is possible. And we all know that if it is possible and profitable, someone will do it, sometime.
> 
> I hope that the editors of the Camera will take this opportunity to review the seriousness of this situation on Boulder and insist that Boulder not put its  2012 elections at risk of legal challenge because of this unjustifiable problem.
> 
> Please let me know if you need more information or have questions.
> 
> Marilyn Marks, Founder
> Citizen Center
> www. TheCitizenCenter.org
> Marilyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 970 319 5659
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 





-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx