SB083 talking points: protecting election integrity

Specific arguments about issues in SB 083 for the State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee and for any debate on the House floor or in conference committee:

(1) SECTION 30 (CORRECTED 2ND ENGROSSED SB-083, pp. 27, LINES 10-27)

Waiver of Mandatory Election Recount (This section of SB-83 should be removed):

PRO ARGUMENT: CURRENT MANDATORY ELECTION RECOUNTS ARE BENEFICIAL FOR DEMOCRACY:
* preserves status quo- provides some means for verifiability
* recount is for election accuracy, not loser "sour grapes" or vanity
* recount involves needed extra attention to ballots by hand counting- must NOT be by barcode count as currently permitted
* use of recount is rare - elections are not often within 1/2% margin
* recount becomes unlikely if it is made optional but costly
* pressure on losing candidate to waive recount is inevitable
* pressure is likely on political and fiscal conservation arguments
* pressure will be self-asserted by the loser (not necessarily overt)
* recount should resolve unseen mistakes and overlooked ballots
* losing candidate does not have the right to make this a personal choice - it is the public's election
* benefit of recount is for all persons in Colorado, not merely the losing candidate

THE COUNTER ARGUMENT:
* recount is expensive and time consuming for county election officials

****************************************************************

(2) Change in the polling place posting of the vote abstract to end required posting
(This Section of SB-83 should be removed-Delete lines 26-27 on page 25 and lines 1-16 on page 26 of the 2^nd engrossed bill)

PRO ARGUMENT: PRECINCT POSTING OF VOTE ABSTRACT IS PROTECTIVE OF VALID ELECTION RESULTS:

* Precinct posting requires quick resolution of results at polling place, avoids delay of the reporting of election results,
* quick posting helps prevent hiding of poll site errors and fraud
* precinct posting is usually of direct result from voting machine, not manipulated results
* without precinct posting, no motivation for the rules to call for or the machine to be designed to produce an immediate local results record on paper
* posting is an early warning system for results, and allows quick election problem follow up
* posting allows immediate election day comparison of similar results from different places
* posting is popular with voters and is expected in many counties especially rural areas,
* posting can be done with simple physical security and should be accompanied by a sign notifying site tenants of the 48 hour posting period
* for cross checking, posting should include under and over votes.
* new language in this section does not specify either time or place that poll results can be obtained
* without posting, clerks will likely wait until all data is combined before release of results to the public
* data separated by polling place allows errors to be noticed earlier
* public has a right to have quick access to all vote counts and exceptions
* Dentral posting of abstract results may be at central clerk's office a long distance from rural poll site
* posting provides faster access to results... where otherwise we must wait for memory cards to be transported and uploaded at central tabulation center

COUNTER ARGUMENT: POLL SITE ABSTRACT SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE POSTED AT THE POLL SITE- ONLY AT CENTRAL CLERKS OFFICE

* posting is inconvenient in certain locations such as without a glass door or window accessible to the public- abstract tapes could blow away
* posting is inconvenient in metro vote centers where so many precincts vote together and voting machine tapes are therefore long, cumbersome and take space
* some county clerks have programmed their voting machines to not produce the precinct abstract tapes

***********************************************************************

(3) SECTION 2 (P. 4, LINES 15-21) Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (V-VPAT) not required to contain "name" of ballot issue

PRO ARGUMENT: THE V-VPAT SHOULD DISPLAY THE SUBMISSION CLAUSE OR FULL TEXT OF THE ISSUE AND QUESTION, AND THE NAME OF COLORADO JUDGES STANDING FOR RETENTION (supporting change in language from "number or letter" to "submission clause and or full text"):

* voter can not be expected to remember the meaning of the number or letter of every issue and question on the ballot
* voter expected to verify meaning of "Amendment 39 Yes"
* submission clause is already used in statute, required on results printout from machine (which is itself usually a long narrow paper tape)
* V-VPAT is useless unless truly verified (except blind disabled voter can not verify on most DRE machines)

COUNTER ARGUMENT
* may not be room for submission clause on paper tape (also may not be room for candidate name)
* voter may not care to, or be able to verify (which is the very reason not to use DRE machines and to return to required paper ballots for the majority of or all voters)

*******************************************************************

(4) PROVIDE LOCAL BACKUP SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION BOOKS IN CASE OF VOTE CENTER NETWORK FAILURE (CRS 1-5-102.7- substitute language on p 18 line 5)

PRO ARGUMENT - THERE IS VITAL NEED FOR A POLL SITED COPY OF THE COUNTY
REGISTRATION LISTS. (supporting change of language)

* Denver'S 2006 election failure caused huge disenfranchisement of eligible voters who left the poll sites without voting- possibly affecting outcome of election
* Denver election failure could have been avoided if registration data was
available locally at each poll site, and Colorado statute and SOS rule would allow its use to verify voter eligibility to vote at the poll site
* registration is now finalized 30 days prior to election, so data is easy to produce either on paper poll books, or on electronic storage for local use
* if any voter votes twice, their name will be forwarded to DA and criminal prosecution will follow, and every case will be recorded and likely reported to the public
* enfranchisement of many voters takes priority over prevention of of the remote possibility of occasional duplicate voting
* depending on size of county, data may be kept on paper or electronic media

COUNTER ARGUMENT
* registration book for a large county with vote centers is almost unprintable on paper poll books
* non networked local data for emergency means voter could vote twice
* registration lookup on paper may be difficult with a paper poll book

*****************************************************************

(5) BALLOT MARKING DEVICES (BMD) - ALLOW BALLOT MARKING DEVICES TO BE CERTIFIED BY THE SOS AS HAVA-C0MPLIANT ACCESSIBLE VOTING SYSTEMS

PRO ARGUMENT (supporting existing language allowing BMD certification):
(retain page 19 lines 9-23 of the 2^nd engrossed version of the bill)

* only two states, Colorado and Arkansas, prevent certification of of BMD systems now in use
* BMDs are superior to DRE in aiding disabled- they provide full verification on a paper ballot
* BMD permit all voters to vote on paper, but DREs require electronic ballots and it is hard to verify electronic counts and may prevent voting on paper
* Disabled voters' lobby argues that they should vote in the same method as others, this argument can and has worked to disadvantage of all voters when DRE provides less transparency and accessibility for testing and auditing and recounting than paper ballots and BMD systems
* if a county chooses 100% DRE, voters have no right or ability to vote at polling place on paper
* if there is no right to vote on a paper ballot, polling can not be designed to avoid lines when crowds appear at the polls... but with paper ballots, distributed freely with proper procedures, lines can be avoided.
* typical casting of hand marked paper ballots with precinct optical scan, consists of voter handing a ballot in a secrecy sleeve to an election judge who removes the ballot and operates the optical scanner. This is no different from an election judge assisting the disabled voter to perform the same function. This comparison shows that the existing language does not differentially discriminate against the disabled, nor is it a violation of equal protection of equal protection

COUNTER ARGUMENT (supporting removal of existing SB83 "CASTING" language, which supplements the current statute)

* disabled deserve to "independently" and personally deposit their ballot into the ballot box or optical scanner, since this is what casting of a ballot consists of
* the original statue was written for the DRE machine system, and the disabled voter is able to electronically "cast" their ballot without assistance

*******************************************************************