|
|
HAVA complaint against HART eSlate certificationFrom: Dana Williams
[mailto:Dana.Williams@SOS.STATE.CO.US]
Mr. Kolwicz:
Previously you had requested “test cases that were used by federal and state Independent Testing Authorities to verify that a blind voter can verify the votes recorded on the paper record of votes (the audit trail in the case of the eSlate voting equipment), and to verify that the eSlate provides anonymous voting". Our response to you, referring you to the ITAs, was based on the fact that the Secretary of State is not an Independent Testing Authority.
From your latest email (below), it appears that you have changed your request, and that you are now asking for records of the Secretary of State relating to our office’s testing under Rule 45.
There is a large volume of records relating to Colorado's testing, and you are welcome to inspect them. If you would like to inspect these records, please contact me at (303) 894-2200 ext. 6108 or dana.williams@sos.state.co.us to set up a time for you to review those records in this office. The records relating to testing by the Colorado Secretary of State are currently being reviewed by another requestor so times for inspection will have to be scheduled in advance to accommodate all requestors and their right for inspection of documents.
However, if you are requesting just those records of the Secretary of State relating specifically to testing “to verify that a blind voter can verify the votes recorded on the paper record of votes (the audit trail in the case of the eSlate voting equipment), and to verify that the eSlate provides anonymous voting" (the phrase used in your original request), then you are advised that there are no such records.
The remainder of your request appears to be a request for unwritten opinions, interpretations, and discussions. Specifically, you ask, “Please confirm our interpretation that these documents require that the eSlate certification will be withdrawn if it demonstrated that the eSlate fails to meet any of the following: [citations omitted]”. Later in your request, you ask to be made “privy” to potential discussions that may have occurred among staff members concerning voter secrecy issues involving the eSlate equipment. Finally, the last part of your email asks for the “reasoning behind non-certification of AutoMark”.
Your request seems to ignore the fact that we previously agreed to provide relevant oral information at the public hearing on the record (as you requested) and that we advised you that it is improper for you to request off-the-record information. Specially, Wayne Munster’s email to you on May 12 included the following paragraph:
As I previously indicated, it is unfair to other interested parties to conduct off-the-record discussions with you (whether in meetings or by email) prior to the public hearing on the record. However, your message indicates a desire to obtain relevant information from this Office. In response to that desire, at the beginning of the hearing, a representative of the Secretary of State’s Office will present an overview of the state certification process and requirements, so that this information is properly entered into the record at the public hearing. This presentation will also include a review of the testing of the eSlate product and any unique aspects of that machinery relevant to the allegations of your complaint.
Thank you,
Dana Jaclyn
Williams |
CAMBER
is a dedicated group of volunteers who are working to ensure that
|