tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-389019952024-03-12T15:21:40.732-07:00Colorado Voter GroupThe Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system.
This BLOG is used to communicate with the public.AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-7547432546884572972015-06-12T07:47:00.000-07:002015-06-12T07:47:06.663-07:00Watcher rules must comply with the law.<div class="WordSection1">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: .2pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 5.2pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 3.45pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">June<span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;"> </span>11,<span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;"> </span>2015</span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: .25pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 5.2pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">VIA<span style="letter-spacing: 1.75pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: .05pt;">EMAIL</span></span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: .55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 104%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 5.2pt; margin-right: 206.95pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Suzanne<span style="letter-spacing: 1.25pt;"> </span>Staiert,<span style="letter-spacing: 1.2pt;"> </span>Deputy<span style="letter-spacing: 1.25pt;">
</span>Secretary<span style="letter-spacing: 1.3pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: 1.25pt;"> </span>State<span style="letter-spacing: 1.3pt; mso-font-width: 102%;"> </span>Colorado<span style="letter-spacing: 1.45pt;"> </span>Department<span style="letter-spacing: 1.35pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: 1.45pt;"> </span>State</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 5.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">1700<span style="letter-spacing: 2.1pt;"> </span>Broadway</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 5.2pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: .55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Denver,<span style="letter-spacing: 1.25pt;"> </span>CO<span style="letter-spacing: 1.4pt;"> </span>80290</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: .45pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<a href="mailto:Suzanne.Staiert@SOS.STATE.CO.US"><span style="color: blue;">Suzanne.Staiert@SOS.STATE.CO.US</span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: .4pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 199%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 5.2pt; margin-right: 98.75pt; margin-top: 3.3pt;">
Re:<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>Watcher<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;">
</span>Advisory<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Panel,<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>June<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>12<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>meeting<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;">
</span>public<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>comment Dear<span style="letter-spacing: -.4pt;"> </span>Deputy<span style="letter-spacing: -.35pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Secretary</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.4pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Staiert:</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 114%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 5.2pt; margin-right: 19.8pt; margin-top: 2.15pt;">
We<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>are<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>writing<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>on<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>behalf<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Election<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span>Oversight<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Committee<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Colorado <span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Republican</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Party</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">regarding</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>election<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;">
</span>watcher<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">activities</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>in<span style="letter-spacing: -.35pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">general,</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">and</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">specifically</span><span style="letter-spacing: 3.65pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">the</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>critical<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>importance<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>transparency<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>and<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">oversight</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;">
</span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">signature</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">verification</span><span style="letter-spacing: 1.65pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">process</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;">
</span>for<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>mail<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">ballots.</span><span style="letter-spacing: 2.3pt;"> </span>We<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>request<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>that<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>this<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>public<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span>comment<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>be<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>delivered<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>all<span style="letter-spacing: 1.25pt;"> </span>members<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>Panel<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>in<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>advance<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>June<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>12<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>meeting.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: .45pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 7.6pt;">
As<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>panel<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>considers<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">importance</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>election<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">oversight</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">by</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">authorized</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">watchers,</span><span style="letter-spacing: 2.45pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span>we<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>request<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span>that<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>panel<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>member<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>reference<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>policy<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>statement<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>provided<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>by<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>the <span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Colorado</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Republican</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Party</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">supporting</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">principle</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;">
</span>currently<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>in<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">statute</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">watchers’</span><span style="letter-spacing: 4.35pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">rights</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">“witness</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span>and<span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">verify</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">each</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">step</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">in</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">the</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>conduct<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">the</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>election,<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">and</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">to</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">assist</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span>in<span style="letter-spacing: 2.35pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">the</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">correction</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">of</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">discrepancies.”</span><span style="letter-spacing: 2.25pt;"> </span>The<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">party</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>statement<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>dated<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>May<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>14,<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>2015 <span style="line-height: 13.95pt;">is</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.45pt; line-height: 13.95pt;"> </span><span style="line-height: 13.95pt;">attached.</span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 13.95pt; mso-line-height-rule: exactly;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: .15pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 7.7pt;">
The<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>right<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>verify<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">and</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>assist<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>in<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">correction</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">discrepancies</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>is<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>essential<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>in<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: 1.45pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">signature</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">verification</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">process.</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>In<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>mail<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>ballot<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>elections,<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>signatures<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>are<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>only<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>means<span style="letter-spacing: 2.05pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>validating<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>voters’<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>identity.<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>The<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>opportunity<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>for<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>fraud<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>and<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>abuse<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>is<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>rampant<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>in mail<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;">
</span>ballot<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>elections,<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>and<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>acknowledged<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>by<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>most<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>election<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;">
</span>security<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">experts,</span><span style="letter-spacing: 1.35pt;">
</span>regardless<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>party<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">affiliation.</span><span style="letter-spacing: 2.3pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Voters</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>and<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">watchers’</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">ability</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">challenge</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">eligibility</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">is</span><span style="letter-spacing: 2.75pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span>not<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>and<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>should<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>not<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>be<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>limited,<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span>regardless<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>number<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>or<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>type<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>ballots challenged.<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Watchers<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span>must<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>be<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>able<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>challenge<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><u>any<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span></u>mail<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>ballot<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>voter’s<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">signature—</span><span style="letter-spacing: 1.45pt;"> </span>not<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>merely<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>a<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>sample<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">selected</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>or<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">restricted</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>by<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">election</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">officials.</span><span style="letter-spacing: 2.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">By</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">restricting</span><span style="letter-spacing: 3.05pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">watchers</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>inspection<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>only<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>a<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>sample<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">signatures</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>or<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>review<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">work</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>up<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: 1.25pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span>four<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>separate<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">signature</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>verification<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>stations<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>simultaneously,<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>statutory<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>rights<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;">
</span>of<span style="letter-spacing: 1.3pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>watcher<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>“witness<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>and<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>verify<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>EACH<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>step<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>in<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>conduct<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>election,”<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>and <span style="line-height: 114%;">“assist</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.25pt; line-height: 114%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 114%;">in</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt; line-height: 114%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 114%;">the</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt; line-height: 114%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 114%;">correction</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt; line-height: 114%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 114%;">of</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt; line-height: 114%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 114%;">discrepancies,”</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt; line-height: 114%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 114%;">or</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt; line-height: 114%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 114%;">challenge</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt; line-height: 114%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 114%;">mail</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt; line-height: 114%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 114%;">ballot</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt; line-height: 114%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 114%;">voters</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt; line-height: 114%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 114%;">are</span><span style="line-height: 114%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 114%;">improperly</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.85pt; line-height: 114%;">
</span><span style="line-height: 114%;">infringed.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 114%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 5.2pt; margin-right: 7.6pt; margin-top: 2.1pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: .5pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 114%; margin-right: 7.6pt;">
Therefore,<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">any</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">constraints</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>on<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">practical</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">ability</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">of</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">the</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">watchers</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">verify</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span>or<span style="letter-spacing: 3.05pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span>challenge<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">any</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">signature</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>they<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>select<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>(without<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;">
</span>foregoing<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>their<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">rights</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>review<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>other<span style="letter-spacing: 1.25pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span>signatures<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>being<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>simultaneously<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>processed),<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>are<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>improper<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span>and<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>conflict<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>with <span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">statutory</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.35pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">watchers’</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">rights.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: .4pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 7.6pt;">
We<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">fully</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">recognize</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">the</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">need</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">of</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">election</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">officials</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span>be<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>able<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">effectively</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>and<span style="letter-spacing: 1.95pt;"> </span>efficiently<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">count</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>ballots.<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span>However,<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>we<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>also<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>believe<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>that<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>fully<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>complying<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span>with<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>law<span style="letter-spacing: 1.05pt;"> </span>concerning<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">ability</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;">
</span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">watchers</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>verify<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">and</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>challenge<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">signatures</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>does<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">not</span><span style="letter-spacing: 2.0pt;"> </span>conflict<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>with<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">the</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">ability</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">of</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">election</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>officials<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>perform<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>their<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>job<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>properly.<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Developing</span><span style="letter-spacing: 1.65pt;"> </span>a<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>system<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>or<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>procedures<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>in<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>advance<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>elections<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>accommodate<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">the</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">watchers</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>and<span style="letter-spacing: 1.3pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">their</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>ability<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>perform<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>their<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>duties<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>should<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">alleviate</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>many<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>concerns<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">that</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">election</span><span style="letter-spacing: 1.25pt;"> </span>officials<span style="letter-spacing: -.35pt;"> </span>may<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>have<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>concerning<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>watcher<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>involvement.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: .35pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 9.8pt;">
I<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">think</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">we</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">all</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>can<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">agree</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">that</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span>election<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">fairness</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>and<span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">transparency</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">are</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">top</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">priorities.
It</span><span style="letter-spacing: 2.9pt;"> </span>is<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>essential<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>that<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>all<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>candidates,<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>issue<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>committees<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>and<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>their<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>supporters,<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>regardless<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>of political<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span>affiliation,<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>be<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>permitted<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>have<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>equal<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>access<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">challenge</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span>ineligible<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">voters</span><span style="letter-spacing: 1.15pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span>and<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">incorrect</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">decisions</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">by</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">election</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">judges.</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Without</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">full</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">rights</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">of</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">all</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">watchers</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: 2.55pt;"> </span>challenge<span style="letter-spacing: -.95pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.9pt;"> </span>decisions<span style="letter-spacing: -.9pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.9pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">bi</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">-‐</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">partisan</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.9pt;">
</span>election<span style="letter-spacing: -.9pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">judges,</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.9pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">the</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.9pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">election</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.85pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">lacks</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.9pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">fairness</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.85pt;"> </span>and<span style="letter-spacing: 2.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">transparency.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: .15pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 115%; margin-right: 9.8pt;">
We<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>are<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>pleased<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>offer<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>our<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>comments,<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>and<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">appreciate</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">opportunity</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>do<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>so<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>to<span style="letter-spacing: 1.75pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span>inform<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>work<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>Watcher<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span>Advisory<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>Panel.<span style="letter-spacing: 2.3pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Please</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>contact<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;">
</span>me<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>or<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>Marilyn<span style="letter-spacing: 1.25pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Marks,</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.35pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Secretary</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.35pt;"> </span>the<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>Election<span style="letter-spacing: -.35pt;">
</span>Oversight<span style="letter-spacing: -.3pt;"> </span>Committee,<span style="letter-spacing: -.35pt;"> </span>(<u><span style="color: blue;">Marilyn@AspenOffice.com</span></u>)<span style="letter-spacing: 1.3pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span>if<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>you<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>have<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>questions.<span style="letter-spacing: 2.2pt;"> </span>Thank<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>you<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>for<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>your<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>consideration<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>our<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>comments.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Becky</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Mizel</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 5.2pt; margin-right: 206.95pt; margin-top: 2.0pt;">
Chair,<span style="letter-spacing: -.45pt;"> </span>Election<span style="letter-spacing: -.4pt;">
</span>Oversight<span style="letter-spacing: -.4pt;"> </span>Committee <span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Colorado</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.4pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Republican</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.35pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Party</span> <span style="color: blue;"> </span><a href="mailto:becky.mizel@gmail.com"><span style="color: blue;">becky.mizel@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 5.2pt; margin-right: 28.75pt; margin-top: 3.3pt;">
cc:<span style="letter-spacing: 2.25pt;"> </span>The<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Honorable<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Wayne<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Williams,<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Colorado</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Secretary<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>State<span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>(via<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>email)<span style="letter-spacing: 1.35pt; mso-font-width: 99%;"> </span>Steve<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>House,<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Chair<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Colorado<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Republican<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Party<span style="letter-spacing: 2.25pt;"> </span>(via<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>email)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 13.85pt; mso-line-height-rule: exactly;">
Derrick<span style="letter-spacing: -1.45pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Wilburn,</span><span style="letter-spacing: -1.45pt;"> </span>Vice-‐Chair<span style="letter-spacing: -1.4pt;"> </span>Colorado<span style="letter-spacing: -1.45pt;"> </span>Republican<span style="letter-spacing: -1.4pt;"> </span>Party<span style="letter-spacing: -1.4pt;">
</span>(via<span style="letter-spacing: -1.45pt;"> </span>email)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 114%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 5.2pt; margin-right: 7.6pt; margin-top: 2.25pt;">
Committee<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>members:<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;">
</span>Al<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Kolwicz,<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>Marilyn<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;">
</span>Marks,<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>Ellyn<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>Hilliard<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;">
</span>(to<span style="letter-spacing: -.25pt;"> </span>be<span style="letter-spacing: -.2pt;"> </span>confirmed), Marc<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Zarlengo.</span><span style="letter-spacing: .15pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Legislative</span><span style="letter-spacing: -1.2pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Liaison,</span><span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span>-‐Charles<span style="letter-spacing: -1.25pt;"> </span>Heatherly<span style="letter-spacing: -1.2pt;"> </span>(via<span style="letter-spacing: -1.25pt;"> </span>email)<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top: 2.1pt;">
<span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;"> Steven</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Ward,</span><span style="letter-spacing: 2.35pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Dept</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.15pt;"> </span>of<span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">State,</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Elections</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.1pt;">
</span><span style="letter-spacing: -.05pt;">Division</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-30035462617024481322015-06-12T07:10:00.003-07:002015-06-12T07:12:51.735-07:00Watchers' critical role in election integrity is under institutional threat.<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">To
Election Watcher Advisory Panel for delivery prior to Friday June 12 meeting <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">From
Harvie Branscomb <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">6/11/2015
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">These
briefings to the panel are becoming increasingly difficult to write but are
becoming increasingly important. It has become apparent that a majority of this
panel is not going to defend the existing statutory right of watchers to
witness and verify all steps in the conduct of an election and participate in
the correction of discrepancies. Only very few on the panel have addressed a
widespread lack of watching in Colorado after election processing was
increasingly centralized and mechanized. Watching remains largely focused on
VSPCs that more closely resemble the precinct polling place where almost all
watching once took place. The agenda for the panel is apparently being driven
by the SOS office to who the eventual advice will be given. It may be that more
independence is needed by this panel to provide complete and meaningful advice.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">By
far the greatest need is for watching to be facilitated and encouraged and
appreciated at central count facilities. But in addition there are likely
hidden steps in the conduct of the election such as the assignment of election
judges, the ballot print and fulfillment process, the LAT, envelope intake and
cure processes. These are examples of activities that are not frequently
conducted by election judges. Entire days may go by in a county during the
election process prior to certification when election judges are not brought
in, yet watching surely must be made possible if not expected. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Watching
for partisan challenge of eligibility (or defense against that) is only one
function of watching yet it is the one that could be too often focused on in
our committee discussions. I suspect that many members of the committee are
unfamiliar with the quantity of election process errors and omissions that are
being discovered through recent instances of watching. In my case it is a rare
election watching experience when I do not witness an error that can be
corrected once I notify about it. Election quality is visibly enhanced by the
participation of watchers who are focused on election integrity. Opportunities
for this kind of watching to take place must not be curtailed by the work of
this panel. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Watching
is not a pre-scheduled activity like election judging. Watching is an
opportunity for various interests in the election to bring eyes but not hands
to bear to see the process being performed, to check the integrity of ballot
chain of custody, to verify that ballots are prepared and sent properly, to
check that post election process is fully and properly executed and to verify
if election judge decisions are responsible. Watchers collect information and
provide input in the form of information that can but does not have to be used
to correct discrepancies and errors. They do not act as a substitute for
election judges. On the other hand and more importantly, election judges cannot
function as a substitute for watchers. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">I
am capable of reporting many instances of errors in elections that I discovered
while watching. Unfortunately the format and size of panel does not give me
much time to provide such examples. The panel does apparently appreciate
examples like my description of watching at the Health Care Facility. But my
example was only used to curtail potential future watching. In one instance
another example was used to lead the panel astray. The implication that
watching negatively affected the desire of a Garfield printer to accommodate
watchers seemed incomplete. I checked with Jean Alberico and confirmed that she
is talking about a reaction to an event where I was present at the printer in
Glenwood Springs in a court ordered discovery process. This was not watching
and I see no reason why the printer would react negatively to watchers as a
result. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">However
it is clear that private entities have a right to exclude persons from their
facilities. It appears to me that if a crucial function that belongs to an
election is to occur at a private facility then the relevant portions of that
facility must be open to oversight that law provides for. This example ought
not serve as an explanation for why watchers should be excluded from the
printing process. (Not at all.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">I
perceive from the expressions and votes thus far that this panel has a majority
of members who appear to expect that election quality will follow simply from
trust of election officials. But if we as a panel advise the Secretary based on
this expectation the result of our work will naturally breed public distrust as
well as less than optimal elections. Only when elections officials encourage
watching and other forms of public involvement will meaningful trust be built.
Our role as I see it is to advise in a way that will help those officials to
move in that direction whenever possible. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Under
current clerk discretion, election judges may be assigned to certain statutory
steps in the conduct of elections and not others. And county staff may be
delegated to become deputy clerks and or election judges. This delegation
itself is not a transparent process and there is no easy means for a member of
the public or a watcher to learn who is and who is not an election judge. If
watchers are to be approved by election officials and only given access when
election judges are present watchers may easily be prevented from witnessing
and verifying all meaningful steps in the conduct of an election. Instead of
requesting that they be trusted, officials should be requesting and
facilitating verification. Our panel seems to be taking the approach that by
structurally limiting watching or giving officials the tools to make obstacles
to watching we will return to trust in our officials. This will not work. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">Here
are some of the major points that I maintain will provide for adequate
constructive watching and that I will promote for inclusion in our panel report
even if it represents a minority viewpoint: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">1)
Watchers must be allowed adequate access to all steps in the conduct of the
election – but this does not imply that there must always be facilitation for
all possible watchers that could be legally allowed. A broad definition of what
constitutes “steps” is essential. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">2)
Watchers should have access to a means for correcting discrepancies that allows
timely input and feedback about the result and preferably a means to witness
the process of correction. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">3)
All “steps” cannot be listed in a manner to be all inclusive or prescriptive.
Steps depend on many variations in process. The definition of steps must remain
flexible to apply to the instance. Specific facilitation of specific activities
can be beneficial to the watching function. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">4)
Watching is limited to collecting and sharing information to be used to correct
process immediately, or for a HAVA complaint or an election contest or for
other legal remedial measures – watching does not and must not imply
participation in the election judge function of decision-making. Training of
watchers and judges can be helpful to achieve this important distinction. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">5)
Unlike election judging, watching does not require a balance of interests. This
is because watching is primarily a passive information gathering function.
Because one party does not field as many watchers should not prescribe a
maximum to be allowed for another party. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">6)
Space is not to be an apriori determinant of the maximum accommodation for
watching although in real time decisions will have to be made to curtail
accommodation when space becomes limited. There may be minimums set that a
county must at some point accommodate, but existing choices and uses of
facilities are not to be the driver for for maximum opportunities for watching.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">7)
Means to communicate in order to collect adequate information for watcher
purposes must be made available either at the time the information is being
used or afterwards, but before an irrevocable step is taken in the election
process pursuant to the decision. This will be better facilitated if there is
DEO discretion to make a policy where watchers may make inquiries of limited
scope to election judges, staff and vendors who may be present. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">8)
Means to communicate for the purposes of correcting discrepancies must be
provided in a form that is both timely and accountable. Eligibility challenge
must be facilitated with appropriate forms and processes including a way for a
watcher to follow up on the resulting process. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">9)
Watchers must be able to establish their credentials at the location to be
watched without requiring prior interaction with another election official
elsewhere. If this necessitates carrying documentation showing eligibility
proof and authority of the authorizing entity as well as the actual
authorization signed by that entity and oath signed by the watcher, then those
are the documents that should be required- but none requiring approval by the
DEO. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">I
will be editing these points and adding to them during the next few weeks. I
encourage an email discussion over these points and others as long as the email
is provided to the entire panel. Thanks very much! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
Harvie Branscomb 4:04 PM
Thursday June 11<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-46796656522169971352015-06-12T06:59:00.002-07:002015-06-12T07:13:47.328-07:00 Signature Verification doesn't work, Watching doesn't make it work.<div class="MsoNormal">
June 11, 2015<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dear Deputy Secretary Staiert:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To our knowledge, there has been no official effort on the
part of Colorado government to ensure the purity of elections that allow for
remote voting. Yet, it is our understanding that the government is responsible
for establishing laws, rules, and standards for accomplishing same. We are
deeply concerned that government has not stepped up to fulfill this most vital
role.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The watcher advisory panel has apparently accepted as a
given that signature verification is a substantially compliant fulfillment of
the requirements that every eligible elector is given the opportunity to vote,
and that only eligible electors are allowed to vote. It is apparently accepted
that watching election judges perform signature verification procedure is a
substantially compliant fulfillment of the opportunity for watchers to verify
every step in the election process. We believe that these are faulty assumptions
that must be defended.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the interest of brevity, we will not recite the many details
supporting this assertion. But we will identify a few of the controls to remind
committee members of the requirements that are implemented for in-person
voting. The controls are designed to ensure that:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -0.25in;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -0.25in;">·</span><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Electors are protected from electioneering while
voting</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -0.25in;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Electors are protected from intimidation
–private voting booth, anonymous ballot, etc.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -0.25in;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">The identity of the person claiming to be a
particular registered voter is verified before admittance to the polling
location</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -0.25in;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">The eligibility of the elector to receive, mark,
and cast a ballot in each of the relevant contests is verified before the
ballot is placed into the ballot box.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -0.25in;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">A rigid chain of ballot custody ensures that
only the eligible elector can receive, mark, and cast their ballot, and once
cast the chain continues until the ballots are archived.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -0.25in;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Votes are anonymous – without exception.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -0.25in;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">The ballot box is protected from vote that were
sold or traded </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -0.25in;">·<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Etc., etc., etc.</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Watchers in a polling place are able to verify, challenge,
participate in resolution, etc. Watchers
in remote voting are generally not.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With regard to the signature process itself, it is fatally
flawed. It is not tested, it is inadequately measured, it is not transparent,
and it is inadequately watched.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
An example flaw is the unfair imbalance between the
treatment of rejected and accepted signatures.
Rejected signature are subjected to an elaborate process to ensure
against false rejects. Accepted
signatures are not subjected to an equivalent process. Yet a false accept has the same negative
consequence as a false reject -- an eligible voter is disenfranchised.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have offered suggestions for improvement (not a total
cure), but government appears to be uninterested. Several techniques should be
evaluated, and considered for adoption. All will improve, but not cure the
abilities to effectively perform watcher duties.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: .25in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->The signature verification process must be
tested. To do so, the entire subsystem
including signature verification training, typical signature verification
judge, actual signature verification processes (including interactions with
other processes) and full transparency including operator identified time
stamped transaction logs. The test data
must be fabricated for the test, otherwise there is no practical way to know
the correct decision on each signature, and it is not likely that the
variations would include all of the know ways to produce fraudulent signatures.<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: .25in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->The
signature verification process requires a means to conduct near-time in
addition to real-time watching. In
near-time watching, the logs and signatures created by the real-time process
will be available to watchers for a reasonable period of time before each
real-time-batch is released to the next process (certainly before envelopes are
opened).<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: .25in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->The
signature verification process requires a rule to require that each signature processed
be verified by a second, absolutely independent election judge (or team). The go/nogo decisions of each team will be independently
compared (probably automatically by processing their logs), and any
discrepancies will reported and treated in a uniform manner.<span style="color: #1f497d; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span>It is vital that there be no
communication between the first and second pass – this would spoil the
independent nature of the process. It is vital that the second pass be
completed before an envelope is released to be opened.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Signature verification is a totally inadequate method for
achieving the requirements of a pure election (see above). Watchers, and election judges are unable to
perform their duties when Colorado’s remote voting methods are employed. The
proposals above do not correct these problems, but do make for an improvement
to the Colorado’s existing signature verification methods.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We ask that you immediately adopt the three techniques
outlined above. Number 1 will reduce the
uncertainty surrounding the integrity of the signature verification
methods. Number 2 will expand the
ability of watchers to perform their duties.
Number 3 will increase the quality of the signature verification
process, reduce voter disenfranchisement, and increase transparency related to
signature verification, and improve watcher access and effectiveness.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We are available to discuss these recommendations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Will you please have this distributed to committee
members? Thank you.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Lucida Handwriting"; font-size: 18.0pt;">Al Kolwicz</span></b><b><span style="color: #1f497d; font-family: "Tahoma",sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br />
</span></b><span style="color: #1f497d;"><br />
</span><b>Colorado Voter Group<br />
</b>2867 Tincup Circle<br />
Boulder, CO 80305<br />
303-499-9527<span style="color: #1f497d;"><br />
</span><a href="mailto:Al@AlKolwicz.net">Al@AlKolwicz.net</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-9711842513719309522011-07-27T17:06:00.001-07:002011-07-28T05:26:24.910-07:00Colorado's non-transparent and unverifiable election system won't cut it in '12<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">July 14, 2011<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mr. John Hickenlooper, Governor</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Ms. Dianne Ray, Auditor</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mr. John Suthers, Attorney General</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mr. Walker Stapleton, Treasurer</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mr. Scott Gessler, Secretary of state</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mr. Scott Doyle, President of Colorado County Clerks Association</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mr. Brandon Shaffer, President of the Senate</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mr. Frank McNulty, Speaker of the House</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Dear Honorable Colorado Officials:</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">We see dark clouds gathering over Colorado’s election systems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Officials are not fulfilling their positions of public trust and are compromising the very foundation of our government – free and open elections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Time after time Colorado election officials have refused to produce for public analysis the data needed to detect election error and fraud.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Officials responsible for enforcement ignore, provide cover, explain away, or outright excuse material errors and violations committed by themselves, other officials, and vendors.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Inadvertently sometimes, but other times purposefully, public officials circumvent and weaken election statutes and rules, increase the likelihood of election error and fraud, and make it more and more difficult for the public to verify that the election outcomes are correct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, rulemaking and complaint processing procedures have been established that are self-serving and altogether unfair to the public.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">This letter intends to draw your personal attention to Colorado’s defective election systems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We seek your leadership in setting a high priority agenda to devise and implement immediate and long term remedies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a key official you can speak out in behalf of the public and draw attention to the problems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And you can recruit talent suitable to the task of addressing these problems. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">This is urgent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With the highly contested 2012 election season already underway, it is vital that changes needed to protect the integrity of this election be devised, implemented and enforced.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The stakes are high.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Emotions are high.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a risk that a “win whatever it takes attitude” will encourage voter intimidation, vote selling, voter impersonation and other inappropriate activity.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Most of you have successfully navigated the election system so you are likely to be “generally satisfied” with the process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We, who have studied this system in detail for many years, are “strongly not satisfied”.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">We are a multi-partisan group.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We do not collaborate on election contests.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, we collaborate on oversight and improvement of the election process itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">We have served as canvass board members, election judges, and poll watchers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are highly knowledgeable active participants in: election rulemaking, election lawmaking, best election practices development, election complaint processing, post-election audit, election and open records litigation, and election system certification and testing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a group, we have considerable technical and election expertise. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;">After more than a decade of work, we have observed a disturbing increase in the likelihood of a major election problem and a simultaneous decrease in the rights of citizens to verify election processes and results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If enough people do not trust election outcomes, there is no telling what might happen.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Unless current trends are reversed, we anticipate a massive loss of public confidence in election results and government officials. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The upcoming 2012 General Election is expected to be vigorously fought and highly emotional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some see this election determining the fate of our nation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The stakes are exceptionally high.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Requiring your immediate attention are at least the following issues:<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>Restrictions on private meetings of officials (electronic and/or in-person) when public business is discussed as required by the Colorado Open Meetings law C.R.S. § 24-6-401 & 402.<o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>Disallowing the use of public funds for private meetings, lobbying, and promotion.<o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>Appointment of truly independent (non-conflict of interest) and technically competent bodies to create election rules and to judge election complaints.<o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>Appointment of truly independent (non-conflict of interest) bodies with the technical competence to monitor, report, and enforce government and public compliance with election statutes and rules. <o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>Establish, measure, and enforce compliance with precise, quantifiable standards for all election processes including , but not limited to: <o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">ü<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>“timely public access to all election records and processes with the exception of the identity of which voter cast which ballot”, <o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">ü<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>“strict compliance with the “anonymity” intent of Colorado Constitution Article VII, Section 8”, <o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">ü<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“enforceable standard for assessing substantial compliance’’,<o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">ü<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>and, publicly-verifiable voting system certification, canvass, recount, audit, test, identity verification, eligibility verification, ballot control, voter intent, poll watching, open records, and records retention.<o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">When your contestant wins you accept the results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But what if they lose and you don’t believe it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: Calibri;">What better remedy than transparent election systems will enable the public to actually verify for themselves that election processes and results are fair and accurate?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And research potential system improvements?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The voters of Colorado desperately need your help.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We must not allow Colorado to be embarrassed in front of the nation by displaying on television our inferior non-transparent and unverifiable election systems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Can we count on you to adopt a high priority agenda to devise and implement immediate and long term remedies? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We would like to meet with you to provide details and to discuss potential solutions.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"> Al Kolwicz<br />
for, Colorado Voter Group<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
This letter was published in the July 22, 2011 edition of the Colorado Statesman.<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-57887784642893803982011-07-24T10:39:00.000-07:002011-07-24T10:39:20.894-07:002012 National Election Fiasco in Colorado?<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">The 2012 elections are big news, but the media are not reporting Colorado's potential role in a national election fiasco.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">Those who understand election equipment and procedures warn that Colorado elections cannot withstand close scrutiny. We call for changes to prevent humiliation if the national press attempts to verify Colorado's election returns. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">If Colorado were an "emerging democracy," the Carter Center would reject calls to monitor our elections because we fail to meet their minimum transparency standards.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">If a national contest is decided by Colorado's vote, as Bush/Gore was by Florida, press everywhere will severely criticize the "Wild West" elections in some Colorado counties. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">Surely the most mistake-ridden election in recent Colorado history has received little attention, although it is Colorado's "canary in the coal mine" of elections. A statewide grand jury report declared that numerous irregularities are routine in Colorado and therefore not subject to legal remedies. Many problematic election activities not viewed as blatantly fraudulent are deemed "substantially compliant" and therefore free from enforcement.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">Do the following examples from Saguache County's November 2010 election for governor, senator and local races satisfy you as "good enough for government work"?<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">After a bipartisan citizens' canvass board refused to certify election results due to irregularities, the clerk unilaterally issued a certificate of election renewing her own job.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">Improperly purchased, uncertified, untested and unsecured voting equipment failed the post-election audit, yet its tabulations were deemed "official." A canvass board's reasonable attempt to hand count was blocked by the secretary of state, in favor of the suspect machine counts.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">Surveillance videos of equipment operations were deleted after a reporter filed a Colorado Open Records Act request.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">The election night results showed that two incumbents lost. The clerk then conducted an unsanctioned new tabulation three days later that returned the incumbents to power.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">The clerk destroyed most election night paper records and refuses to release electronic copies of election data, claiming they are a manufacturer's proprietary records.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">Secretary of state staff initially boasted that they verified the new revised tabulation. But, when shown they weren't present to verify the tabulations, they claimed that a new count had not actually occurred, despite proof to the contrary.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">The clerk mailed unsolicited ballots to selected voters for a controversial tax measure. At least four ineligible voters were permitted to vote on the tax increase. The measure unofficially passed by one vote, although the canvas board would not confirm the questionable tabulation. Taxes were increased despite the obvious uncertainty.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">When the secretary of state ordered a ballot review, the clerk refused. He then sued her and the court has yet to issue a decision. The clerk continues to refuse access by public, press and secretary of state to the records required to verify or contest the election.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">The public and the press investigated the uncertain Bush/Gore ballot tallies. That will not happen in most Colorado counties where election officials are closing doors to citizen oversight. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">Transparency advocates are waiting for the Court of Appeals to decide if Colorado's law on public access to anonymous ballots is as open as in other states. In the meantime, egregious election irregularities are officially "substantially compliant" in Colorado.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;">Contact your state officials and demand that they abandon subpar standards and shore up Colorado's election code. The nation's voters expect nothing less of Colorado. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;"><o:p>Marilyn Marks, Unaffiliated, Aspen</o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;"><o:p>Harvie Branscomb, Democrat, Carbondale</o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;"><o:p>Al Kolwicz, Republican, Boulder</o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;"><o:p>Submitted to the Denver Post for publication in the July 24, 2011 edition.</o:p></span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-54675991936927208502011-04-10T06:58:00.000-07:002011-04-10T06:58:26.765-07:00Trust, but verifyThe Colorado County Clerks Association wants elections to be trusted but not publicly verified. <br />
<br />
Exploiting a controversy surrounding Saguache County election records, the Association argued its case in a March 25th Denver Post guest editorial.<br />
<br />
Disturbingly, most of the Association’s arguments are false and misleading – see “Protect the integrity of voters' ballots”. <br />
<br />
The Association asserts that Secretary of State Scott Gessler has proposed an “unprecedented … review of ballots.” This is not true. The Secretary carried out a similar review after the November 2003 election in Garfield County. And in August 2010 election integrity advocates physically inspected and obtained photocopies of El Paso County election records (including ballots). <br />
<br />
The Association repeatedly, and falsely, asserts that ballots are “private”. This assertion has no basis in law or in logic. Voters privately mark their ballots but once cast the ballots are anonymous and public.<br />
<br />
There must be no way for anybody, including government officials and the voter themselves, to prove who cast which ballot. <br />
<br />
Once cast, the anonymous ballots are required to be publicly, not privately, interpreted and counted to determine the election results.<br />
<br />
The clerk’s Association claims that ballots are “sacred”. What does this even mean? <br />
<br />
The Association asserts that ballots are “secretly cast”. That is false and the opposite of what the law requires. If ballots were secretly cast, there would be no way to prevent ineligible ballots. <br />
<br />
The Association falsely asserts that Mr. Gessler would allow “cast ballots” to be transported anywhere. What has been discussed is that Saguache election officials provide suitable space for a team to carefully and openly inspect the election records. <br />
<br />
Surely the clerks know that record custodians are required to facilitate public inspection of public records and to provide copies of these records? <br />
<br />
Finally, the Association asserts that it is Colorado’s official keeper of election integrity. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth. <br />
<br />
The Colorado County Clerks Association is a secret private group that circumvents Colorado’s Sunshine Laws, uses paid lobbyists, refuses public observers at their meetings, may be diverting public resources to their own needs, and develops government policy behind closed doors with no opportunity for public debate.<br />
<br />
Mr. Gessler appears to be standing up for the rights of the public to verify public elections. If so, we applaud his efforts.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">BACKGROUND</span></strong> <br />
<br />
<br />
March 17, 2011<br />
Gessler sues for access to Saguache ballots <br />
<a href="http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_17631528">http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_17631528</a> <br />
<br />
March 17, 2011<br />
Editorial: Saguache review is valid<br />
<a href="http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_17629283">http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_17629283</a> <br />
<br />
March 25, 2011<br />
Guest Commentary: Protect the integrity of voters' ballots<br />
<a href="http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_17694150">http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_17694150</a> <br />
<br />
March 26, 2011<br />
Carroll: Counting ballots in the dark<br />
<a href="http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_17702592">http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_17702592</a> <br />
<br />
March 30, 2011<br />
Guest Commentary: Gessler standing up for the public on ballots<br />
<a href="http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17728021#ixzz1I5UlILxB">http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17728021#ixzz1I5UlILxB</a> <br />
<br />
March 31, 2011 <br />
Trust, but verify. <br />
Center Post-Dispatch<br />
<br />
April 1, 2011<br />
Trust, but verify – County Clerks Association, please take note<br />
<a href="http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/992704-trust-verify-%3F-county-clerks-association-please-take-note">http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/992704-trust-verify-%3F-county-clerks-association-please-take-note</a><div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-75946435266167880492010-11-27T11:27:00.000-07:002010-11-27T11:27:53.163-07:00Illegal 6-foot barrier blocks Colorado poll watchersFrom: Al Kolwicz <br />
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 11:17 AM<br />
To: 'Marilyn R Marks'; 'judd.choate@sos.state.co.us'<br />
<br />
Subject: RE: Urgent Action Required to Lift Unfair 6 foot rule policies in Saguache<br />
<br />
Marilyn, Judd,<br />
<br />
It troubles me that an illegal 6-foot barrier is being referred to as a “six foot rule”. <br />
<br />
In the first place, as we all know, there is no such rule. <br />
<br />
In the second place, the 6-foot barrier is illegal. The illegal 6-foot barrier restricts poll watchers in a way that blocks poll watchers from exercising their rights under “C.R.S. 1-7-108(3) Each watcher shall have the right to maintain a list of eligible electors who have voted, to witness and verify each step in the conduct of the election from prior to the opening of the polls through the completion of the count and announcement of the results, to challenge ineligible electors, and to assist in the correction of discrepancies.”<br />
<br />
I ask that you cease referring to the illegal 6-foot barrier as a “six foot rule” and suggest that you refer to the “6-foot barrier”, or “illegal 6-foot barrier”. <br />
<br />
Al Kolwicz<br />
Colorado Voter Group<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-84082024854527215192010-10-16T10:00:00.000-07:002010-10-16T10:00:19.656-07:00We need your help!<strong>We need your help!</strong><br />
<br />
The Colorado Attorney General’s office has issued an opinion (October 15th email below) that, if left unchallenged, would essentially shut down independent oversight of elections. <br />
<br />
I encourage each of you to intensify your efforts to ensure that Colorado elections are independently verifiable by the public. If we fail, we are one step closer to widespread election fraud and error.<br />
<br />
Remember that the Attorney General is the attorney for the Secretary of State – not the people’s Attorney General.<br />
<br />
There are three sections below. Please take time to read thru them. Then share your ideas. We must act promptly.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>1. October 15th email from Attorney General’s office<br />
<br />
2. My annotations to the AG’s email.<br />
<br />
3. My notes regarding Colorado’s statutes and election rules</blockquote>Al Kolwicz<br />
Colorado Voter Group <br />
<a href="http://www.coloradovotergroup.org/">http://www.coloradovotergroup.org/</a> <br />
<a href="http://coloradovotergroup.blogspot.com/">http://coloradovotergroup.blogspot.com/</a> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">October 15th email from Attorney General’s office</span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
From: Judd Choate [mailto:Judd.Choate@SOS.STATE.CO.US] <br />
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 9:11 AM<br />
To: Marilyn R Marks<br />
Cc: attorney.general@state.co.us; Harvie Branscomb; Al Kolwicz; joseph richey<br />
Subject: RE: opinion on poll watching<br />
<br />
Here is what Maurice Knaizer, the Deputy Attorney General, sent me last night regarding the six foot rule. If you would prefer that he put this on a letterhead, I’m sure that can be accomplished. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Poll Watchers have asked whether they may witness activities of election officials involving voting equipment, voting booths and the ballot boxes within six feet of such equipment, booths and boxes when a voter is not present. The Department of State has concluded that watchers may not be permitted within six feet of the equipment, booths and ballot boxes even when a voter is not present. <br />
<br />
Section 1-5-503 provides:<br />
<br />
"The voting equipment or voting booths and the ballot box shall be situated in the polling place so as to be in plain view of the election officials and watchers. No person other than the election officials and those admitted for the purpose of voting shall be permitted within the immediate voting area, which shall be considered as within six feet of the voting equipment or voting booths and the ballot box, except by authority of election judges or the designated election official, and then only when necessary to keep order and enforce the law"<br />
<br />
This section does not contain any temporal limitations It covers activities, such as casting of ballots, counting of ballots and recounts, that occur during the election process. It also covers all locations where equipment or ballot boxes may be placed while ballots are being cast or counted. If a ballot box is moved from one location in a polling place to another, the six foot buffer would apply to the second location. Ballots themselves are also covered because the primary purpose of this section is to protect the integrity of the ballot and preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Allowing persons other than designated election officials or their agents to come closer to the equipment, booths or ballot boxes increases the likelihood that a watcher with malevolent intent could corrupt the election process. Any potential disadvantage to the watcher is mitigated by the requirement that the equipment, booths and ballot boxes must be "in plain view." <br />
<br />
For these reasons, I concur with the Secretary's interpretation.<br />
<br />
Maurice Knaizer </blockquote><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Kolwicz annotations to the AG’s email.</span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
1. The statement of the issue is ill-formed, and will result in a fuzzy response. It is sort of a “straw-man”. It restricts the issue to one that might be answered by 1-5-503. We have actually asked for much more transparency, and never asked to see what is happening in the immediate area of the voting booth or see the content of non-anonymous ballots. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Poll Watchers have asked whether they may witness activities of election officials involving voting equipment, voting booths and the ballot boxes within six feet of such equipment, booths and boxes when a voter is not present. The Department of State has concluded that watchers may not be permitted within six feet of the equipment, booths and ballot boxes even when a voter is not present. </blockquote>2. The citation, by Knaizer, of 1-5-503 is faulty in that it refers only to the polling place, and not to all of the other election activities. Also, it is clear to me that the intent is to protect the privacy of the voter and the anonymity of the ballot. Once the ballot is cast it must be, by constitution and statute, anonymous.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Section 1-5-503 provides:<br />
<br />
"The voting equipment or voting booths and the ballot box shall be situated in the polling place so as to be in plain view of the election officials and watchers. No person other than the election officials and those admitted for the purpose of voting shall be permitted within the immediate voting area, which shall be considered as within six feet of the voting equipment or voting booths and the ballot box, except by authority of election judges or the designated election official, and then only when necessary to keep order and enforce the law"</blockquote>3. Knaizer conveniently eliminates all of the other, many, statutes and election rules related to this topic. I have scraped many of these in the synopsis below.<br />
<br />
4. Knaizer then goes on and creates, on his own initiative, an extensive expansion of the written law.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>This section does not contain any temporal limitations It covers activities, such as casting of ballots, counting of ballots and recounts, that occur during the election process. It also covers all locations where equipment or ballot boxes may be placed while ballots are being cast or counted. If a ballot box is moved from one location in a polling place to another, the six foot buffer would apply to the second location. Ballots themselves are also covered because the primary purpose of this section is to protect the integrity of the ballot and preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Allowing persons other than designated election officials or their agents to come closer to the equipment, booths or ballot boxes increases the likelihood that a watcher with malevolent intent could corrupt the election process. Any potential disadvantage to the watcher is mitigated by the requirement that the equipment, booths and ballot boxes must be "in plain view." </blockquote><div><span></span></div><div></div>It appears to me that Mr. Knaizer’s response is political rather than legal, and should be challenged immediately.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Kolwicz notes regarding Colorado’s statutes and election rules.</span></strong><br />
<br />
The reason that watchers need to get within 6 feet of computer screens, cast ballots, and various other election information is so that watchers, who are trying to accomplish their statutory rights, can actually “see” and “hear” what is going on. We have no interest in seeing the computer screens or the issued-but-uncast ballot seen by the elector as he marks, verifies, and casts an anonymous ballot. <br />
<br />
I have clipped pertinent sections of our statutes and rules below. Any reasonable reading will conclude that watchers are expected to have access to election data including who is voting, how the votes on a ballot are interpreted, and how the votes on a ballot are counted.<br />
<br />
The public depends on independent oversight (watchers) because watchers can discover errors that might otherwise get missed or covered up, and to prevent official misdeeds. It is not difficult to understand that there are often measures on the ballot that affect the jobs and pay of government officials. (Officials often have “a horse in the race”.) In Colorado counties, election officials can choose their own people for mail-in, early, and provisional ballot processing, and for all vote counting. In many cases these people are government employees. Sometimes key processes of the election are performed by sub-contractors, some of which may be offsite, or even out of state.<br />
<br />
With the exception of voter privacy issues outlined above, watchers need both real-time access to the data in every election process, including anonymous cast ballots, and post election access to all election data computer files.<br />
<br />
We trust the officials, but, since they are human, and to obtain certainty, we must verify.<br />
<br />
Al<br />
<br />
<br />
1-1-104. Definitions. (51) "Watcher" means an eligible elector other than a candidate on the ballot who has been selected by a political party chairperson on behalf of the political party, by a party candidate at a primary election, by an unaffiliated candidate at a general, congressional vacancy, or nonpartisan election, or by a person designated by either the opponents or the proponents in the case of a ballot issue or ballot question.<br />
<br />
1-7-108. Requirements of watchers. (1) Watchers shall take an oath administered by one of the election judges that they are eligible electors, that their name has been submitted to the designated election official as a watcher for this election, and that they will not in any manner make known to anyone the result of counting votes until the polls have closed. <br />
<br />
(2) Neither candidates nor members of their immediate families by blood or marriage to the second degree may be poll watchers for that candidate. <br />
<br />
(3) Each watcher shall have the right to maintain a list of eligible electors who have voted, to witness and verify each step in the conduct of the election from prior to the opening of the polls through the completion of the count and announcement of the results, to challenge ineligible electors, and to assist in the correction of discrepancies.<br />
<br />
1-7-307. Method of counting paper ballots. (4) All persons, except election judges and watchers, shall be excluded from the place where the ballot counting is being held until the count has been completed.<br />
<br />
1-7-507. Electronic vote-counting - procedure. (1) All proceedings at the counting centers shall be under the direction of the designated election official and the representatives of the political parties, if a partisan election, or watchers, if a nonpartisan election. No persons, except those authorized for the purpose, shall touch any ballot, ballot card, "prom" or other electronic device, or return.<br />
<br />
1-7.5-107.5. Counting mail ballots. The election officials at the mail ballot counting place may receive and prepare mail ballots delivered and turned over to them by the designated election official for tabulation. Counting of the mail ballots may begin fifteen days prior to the election and continue until counting is completed. The election official in charge of the mail ballot counting place shall take all precautions necessary to ensure the secrecy of the counting procedures, and no information concerning the count shall be released by the election officials or watchers until after 7 p.m. on election day.<br />
<br />
1-8-109. Watchers at mail-in polling places. Any political party, candidate, or proponents or opponents of a ballot issue entitled to have watchers at polling places shall each have the right to maintain one watcher in the office of the designated election official and mail-in polling places during the period in which mail-in ballots may be applied for or received.<br />
<br />
1-8-206. Watchers at early voters' polling places. Any political party, candidate, or proponents or opponents of a ballot issue entitled to have watchers at polling places shall each have the right to maintain one watcher at the early voters' polling place during the casting and counting of early voters' ballots.<br />
<br />
1-8-208. Manner of early voting. (1) An eligible elector who receives an early voters' ballot may cast the ballot in the early voters' polling place, as provided in this part 2. Ballot boxes for early voting shall be locked and sealed each night with a numbered seal under the supervision of the election judges or watchers, and the keys shall remain in the possession of the designated election official until transferred to the supply judge for the mail-in and early voters' counting place for preparation for counting and tabulating pursuant to section 1-8-303. When a seal is broken, the designated election official and a person who shall not be of the same political party as the designated election official shall record the number of the seal and maintain the seal along with an explanation of the reasons for breaking the seal.<br />
<br />
1-9-201. Right to vote may be challenged. (1) (a) A person's right to vote at a polling place or in an election may be challenged. <br />
<br />
(b) If a person whose right to vote is challenged refuses to answer the questions asked or sign the challenge form in accordance with section 1-9-203 or take the oath pursuant to section 1-9-204, the person shall be offered a provisional ballot. If the person casts a provisional ballot, the election judge shall attach the challenge form to the provisional ballot envelope and indicate "Challenge" on the provisional ballot envelope. <br />
<br />
(2) An election judge shall challenge any person intending to vote who the judge believes is not an eligible elector. In addition, challenges may be made by watchers or any eligible elector of the precinct. <br />
<br />
(3) A challenge at a polling place shall be made in the presence of the person whose right to vote is challenged.<br />
<br />
1-10-101. Canvass board for partisan elections - appointment, fees, oaths. (1) (a) At least fifteen days before any primary, general, congressional vacancy, or special legislative election, the county chairpersons of each of the two major political parties in each county shall certify to the county clerk and recorder, in the manner prescribed by such clerk and recorder, the appointment of one or more registered electors to serve as a member of the county canvass board. The appointees, together with the county clerk and recorder, constitute the county canvass board. Each minor political party whose candidate is on the ballot and each unaffiliated candidate whose name is on the ballot in such election may designate, in the manner prescribed by such clerk and recorder, one watcher to observe the work of the county canvass board.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1-10.5-102. Recounts for congressional, state, and district offices, state ballot questions, and state ballot issues. (1) If the secretary of state determines that a recount is required for the office of United States senator, representative in congress, any state office or district office of state concern, any state ballot question, or any state ballot issue certified for the ballot by the secretary of state, the secretary of state shall order a complete recount of all the votes cast for that office, state ballot question, or state ballot issue no later than the twenty-fifth day after the election. <br />
<br />
(2) The secretary of state shall notify the county clerk and recorder of each county involved by registered mail and facsimile transmission of a public recount to be conducted in the county at a place prescribed by the secretary of state. The recount shall be completed no later than the thirtieth day after any election. The secretary of state shall promulgate and provide each county clerk and recorder with the necessary rules and regulations to conduct the recount in a fair, impartial, and uniform manner, including provisions for watchers during the recount. Any rule or regulation concerning the conduct of a recount shall take into account the type of voting system and equipment used by the county in which the recount is to be conducted.<br />
<br />
1-13-702. Interfering with watcher. Any person who intentionally interferes with any watcher while he is discharging his duties set forth in section 1-7-108 (3) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided in section 1-13-111.<br />
<br />
1-13-712. Disclosing or identifying vote. (1) Except as provided in section 1-7-108, no voter shall show his ballot after it is prepared for voting to any person in such a way as to reveal its contents. No voter shall place any mark upon his ballot by means of which it can be identified as the one voted by him, and no other mark shall be placed on the ballot by any person to identify it after it has been prepared for voting. <br />
<br />
(2) No person shall endeavor to induce any voter to show how he marked his ballot. <br />
<br />
(3) No election official, watcher, or person shall reveal to any other person the name of any candidate for whom a voter has voted or communicate to another his opinion, belief, or impression as to how or for whom a voter has voted. <br />
<br />
(4) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided in section 1-13-111.<br />
<br />
1-13-718. Release of information concerning count. Any election official, watcher, or other person who releases information concerning the count of ballots cast at precinct polling places or of mail-in voters' ballots prior to 7 p.m. on the day of the election is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided in section 1-13-111.<br />
ELECTION RULES<br />
8.7 What Watchers May Observe. Duly appointed Watchers may observe polling place voting, early voting and the processing and counting of precinct, provisional, mail, and mail-in ballots. For mail ballot elections, or mail-in ballot processing, watchers may be present at each stage of the election including the receiving and bundling of the ballots received by the designated election official. Watchers may be present during provisional ballot processing but may not have access to confidential voter information.<br />
<br />
8.8 Limitations of Watchers. Duly appointed Watchers may observe election judges but may not interrupt or disrupt the processing, verification and counting of any ballots or any other stage of the election. Watchers may track the names of electors who have cast ballots by utilizing their previously obtained lists, but may not write down any ballot numbers or any other identifying information about the electors. Watchers may not handle the poll books, official signature cards, ballots, mail ballot envelopes, mail-in ballot envelopes or provisional ballot envelopes, voting or counting machines or machine components. Watchers shall not interfere with the orderly process and conduct of any election, including ballot issuance, receiving of ballots, voting or counting of the ballots. Watchers may not be allowed to interact with election officials or election judges, except that each designated election official shall name at least one individual in each precinct polling place or election location to whom Watchers may direct questions or from whom watchers may seek requested information.<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-68771186451812275592010-05-14T15:39:00.001-07:002010-05-14T15:41:12.180-07:00Pollbook 101To Aspen Election Commission <br />
<br />
I have clipped some sections from Title 1, and created a paper demonstration of how a pollbook works. <br />
<br />
<br />
If you follow these procedures you should be on firm ground. You will have anonymous ballots and be able to consider release of same to the public. If you start afresh, I suggest that you use a public forum to do so, because of side effects that you might not personally know about. Off-hand I am unaware of anything in Title 31 that would prevent you from adopting these recommendations.<br />
<br />
I believe that there is an advantage to maintaining a pollbook as a sequential list of the electors who were issued ballots.<br />
<br />
Each row of the list should contain the row number, the name/voter_ID of the elector, and the serial number on the ballot stub that was issued to the elector. Space needs to be provided for issuing replacement ballots (up to three).<br />
<br />
• When a person is determined to be an eligible elector they are admitted to the voting area.<br />
<br />
• When a ballot is issued, the row is completed by the issuing judge.<br />
<br />
• Before the ballot is cast, the stub containing the serial number, is removed and retained as an election record. <br />
<br />
• When the ballot box is opened, the ballots are shuffled.<br />
<br />
• Before the ballots are copied, a new unique identifier is recorded on the original ballot. This identifier will appear in any copies and can be used to (a) specifically identify the original ballot, and (2) appear as a field in Cast Vote Records.<br />
<br />
This procedure preserves the data needed to audit the election AND it strictly preserves voter privacy by using an anonymous ballot.<br />
<br />
The sequential pollbook has advantages:<br />
<br />
1. It supports the needs of GOTV pollwatchers. Electronic pollbooks do not. Use of the registration list as a pollbook requires that the pollwatcher flip through the registration list to locate “their” voters.<br />
<br />
2. In larger counties, or vote centers, or other multi-precinct polling locations, it reduces the amount of searching by pollwatchers for “their voters”. Presently pollwatchers are limited.<br />
<br />
3. It supports the needs of election officials (including the canvass board) to promptly audit the election. One can tell immediately how many voters voted (for example), and how many ballots were issued.<br />
<br />
4. It facilitates preparation and verification of vote history records that record which electors voted using which voting method. <br />
<br />
<strong>Imagine the following pollbook.</strong><br />
<br />
See how easy it is to know how many ballots are supposed to be in the Ballot Box.<br />
<br />
Also, this makes it easy to determine the number of spoiled and unused ballots.<br />
<br />
The use of ballot stubs does not require that the ballots be issued in sequence number order.<br />
<br />
Some counties do have voters sign the registration book. But, this is inconvenient for both the poll watchers and the officials. And, it is error prone to count the voters – especially when one considers the provisional, emergency, etc. special cases. Some electors names are not in the registration book.<br />
<br />
Polling Location ABC Ballot Styles: S01 S02<br />
<br />
Voter..Name...................ID............1stBallot#....2ndBallot#....3rdBallot#....LastBallot#<br />
<br />
1 ........Mike LaBonte..... 70851........S01-0001 <br />
<br />
2 ........Marilyn Marks..... 8020156...S01-0002...S01-0005 <br />
<br />
3 ........Harvie Branscomb.643201....S01-0003 <br />
<br />
4 ........Al Kolwicz ...........5572463 ..S01-0004 <br />
<br />
5........ Elizabeth Milas.....20744432 .S02-0001 <br />
<br />
6.........Bob Leatherman ..8012247... S01-0006 <br />
<br />
7 ........Ward Hauenstein 77443322...S02-0002 <br />
<br />
<br />
Following is a selective set of items from the CRS. I think that it nearly supports my recommendation for maintaining sequential list for a pollbook. <br />
<br />
The “post-cast” ballot shuffling and numbering recommendation is something that is not directly required in current law, but would help. To my knowledge, there is nothing in Title 1 that would disallow either. Shuffling would help achieve the required anonymity, so I think that it would survive debate. Post-cast numbering would help achieve a more vigorous post election audit, so I think that it would survive debate. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Selections from TITLE 1 C.R.S.</strong><br />
<br />
1-1-104. Definitions.<br />
<br />
(27) "Pollbook" means the list of eligible electors who are permitted to vote at a polling place or by mail ballot in an election conducted under this code.<br />
<br />
(36) "Registration book" means the original elector registration records for each county retained and stored by one of the following methods:<br />
<br />
(a) On registration records by precinct in bound books arranged alphabetically for all active and all inactive registrations with all withdrawn and canceled registrations kept in separate bound books or on film; or<br />
<br />
(b) On film and computer with access to the registration records available both alphabetically and by precinct. The system shall have the capability to print out active and inactive registration records, to retain the voting history for each active and inactive registration by surname, and to film completed voter signature forms by precinct for each election. Computer lists of registration records shall be furnished for use at the precinct polling places on election days.<br />
<br />
1-7-109. Judges to keep pollbooks. (1) The election judges shall keep a pollbook which shall contain one column headed "names of voters" and one column headed "number on ballot". The name and the number on the ballot of each eligible elector voting shall be entered successively under the appropriate headings in the pollbook.<br />
<br />
1-7-302. Electors given only one ballot. Election judges shall give to each eligible elector a single ballot, which shall be separated from the stub by tearing or cutting along the perforated or dotted line. The election judge having charge of the ballots shall endorse his or her initials on the duplicate stub.<br />
<br />
Another election judge shall enter the date and the number of the ballot on the registration record of the eligible elector before delivering the ballot to the eligible elector. The election judge having charge of the pollbook shall write the name of the eligible elector and the number of the ballot on the pollbook.<br />
<br />
1-7-305. Counting by counting judges.<br />
<br />
(3) When an exchange of ballot boxes is made as described in subsection (2) of this section, the receiving judges shall sign and furnish to the counting judges a statement showing the number of ballots that are to be found in each ballot box as indicated by the pollbooks. The counting judges shall then count ballots in the manner prescribed in section 1-7-307.<br />
<br />
1-7-307. Method of counting paper ballots. (1) The election judges shall first count the number of ballots in the box. If the ballots are found to exceed the number of names entered on each of the pollbooks, the election judges shall then examine the official endorsements. If, in the unanimous opinion of the judges, any of the ballots in excess of the number on the pollbooks are deemed not to bear the proper official endorsement, they shall be put into a separate pile and into a separate record, and a return of the votes in those ballots shall be made under the heading "excess ballots". When the ballots and the pollbooks agree, the judges shall proceed to count the votes.<br />
<br />
1-7-502. Elector given only one ballot or ballot card. An election judge shall give to each eligible elector only one ballot or ballot card, which shall be removed from the package by tearing it along the perforated line below the stub. The election judge having charge of the pollbook shall write the name of the eligible elector and the number of the ballot or ballot card upon the pollbook.<br />
<br />
1-7-505. Close of polls - count and seals in electronic voting. <br />
<br />
(2) In precincts in which voting is on a ballot or ballot card, election judges shall prepare a return in <br />
duplicate showing the number of eligible electors, as indicated by the pollbook, who have voted in the <br />
precinct, the number of official ballots or ballot cards received, and the number of spoiled and unused <br />
ballots or ballot cards returned. The original copy of the return shall be deposited in the metal or durable plastic transfer box, along with all voted and spoiled ballots. The transfer box shall then be sealed in such a way as to prevent tampering with the box or its contents. The designated election official shall provide a numbered seal. The duplicate copy of the return shall be mailed at the nearest post office or post-office box to the designated election official by an election judge other than the one who delivers the transfer box to the designated counting center. For partisan elections, two election judges of different political affiliations, as provided in section 1-6-109.5, shall deliver the sealed transfer box to the counting center designated by the county clerk and recorder.<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-15462106757416587742010-05-04T18:11:00.000-07:002010-05-04T18:11:11.906-07:00Aspen - Both transparency and trustworthy elections are required. There can be no tradeoff.May 4, 2009<br />
<br />
<br />
TO: Aspen Independent Election Commissioners <br />
<br />
Dear Commissioners Hauenstein and Leatherman <br />
<br />
I am writing in regard to tomorrow’s Election Commission meeting. Please permit me to first introduce myself. I have lived and worked in Colorado since 1966. For more than a decade, I have worked to improve Colorado’s election system. I am a Trustee and co-founder of Colorado Voter Group. I have served on multiple Boulder County Canvass Boards and voting equipment test boards. I have actively participated in Colorado’s equipment certification process, and contributed to the development of election rules, and have testified numerous times before state and local governmental bodies. I have testified in court as an expert witness on election system matters. I have closely monitored with much interest Aspen’s May 2009 election and its follow on activities. I have worked closely with Nick Koumoutseas of TrueBallot, the vendor whose system was used in the election. I have had a private demonstration of the TrueBallot system including a description of the database tables and macros, and the software used to capture, interpret and correct votes. I have also explored the software used to calculate the selection of the winners. In addition, I have analyzed the database and strings, as well as the first-pass vote interpretations published by Aspen. I have studied Title 31 and have in-depth knowledge of Title 1, the Colorado Election Rules, and Colorado Constitution Article VII Section 8.<br />
<br />
My interest in the May 2009 election is due to the ranked choice methodology used for the election. The Colorado legislature has instructed the Secretary of State to prepare a report of Colorado IRV experience by February 2011. As of now, it appears that Aspen’s will be the only Colorado IRV election completed before the report deadline. I hope that by detailed analysis of this election we can make a significant contribution to the Secretary of State’s report to the legislature. We expect this report to significantly influence future legislation.<br />
<br />
Clean government does not just happen. The public needs protection from potentially tyrannical governments. Therefore, protection must be independent of government. It must work to serve public, not government, interests. The Aspen Election Commission should strive to become such a protector. You have statutory authority, and your tools are transparency and trustworthy elections. <br />
<br />
<strong>Transparency</strong> means that public information is public and affordable. Government has the power, but not the right, to withhold or destroy information that might undermine its power. The Commission can and should facilitate the public’s access to all non-private election-related information.<br />
<br />
A <strong>trustworthy election</strong> is one that can be independently verified. Voters are supposed to exercise power over government through elections. However, once elected, officials wield an awesome power that can be turned against the public. Officials, through appointments and laws, can hide and misrepresent information and events. And, unmonitored, officials can rig elections in order to pick the winners. The Commission can and should do all in its power to give people access to the all of the information needed to independently verify elections. <br />
<br />
In 1946, Coloradoans voted for a constitutional amendment to reject the “trust government” approach. (See attached report, 1946 Ballot Issue No. 1.) Until then, Colorado ballots were voter-identifiable; each ballot was linked to a specific voter. Now, cast ballots must be <strong>anonymous</strong> – that is, there must be no way for anybody (including government, election judges, even the voters themselves) to be able to determine who voted which ballot. The 1945 amendment also requires <strong>voting in private</strong> – that is, there must be no way for anybody other than the voter to see what choices the voter is marking on their ballot.<br />
<br />
Anonymous ballots and private voting are now the law in Colorado. Creating information that could have been used to connect voters and ballots is now illegal. Information that can be used to prove how a person voted must never be created. <br />
<br />
<em>Voter-identifiable ballots could be used to support directed product marketing, fundraising, and electioneering activities. Anonymous ballots and private voting are our protections against intimidation and vote selling. Government employers with access to voter-identifiable ballots can punish employees that do not vote as told. Officials can leak or even sell this information to others who can similarly punish those who do not vote as told. Jobs, promotions and raises can be withheld. Contracts can be withheld or even withdrawn. Housing opportunities or permits can be denied. A market for vote selling is created. Buyers can verify, or plausibly threaten to verify, that “what they bought is what they got”.</em> <br />
<br />
Aspen officials have admittedly violated the law. They created and operated an election system that does not provide for anonymous ballots. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>1. Their violation is now being exploited by these same officials in their efforts to justify their refusal to produce election records in response to an open records request.<br />
<br />
2. There is no public effort underway to enforce the anonymous ballot requirement for future elections.<br />
<br />
3. There is no public effort underway to identify and hold accountable those responsible for the violation.</blockquote>To restore voter confidence in Aspen elections, I recommend that the Commission:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>1. Using your legal authority, assert your independence and your intent to represent the public.<br />
<br />
2. Define, adopt, and implement a policy of strict compliance with requirements for open election records including, but not limited to, copies of: (a) pollbooks, (b) ballots, and (c) the interpretation of the votes on each ballot.<br />
<br />
3. Define, adopt, and implement a policy of strict compliance with requirements for anonymous ballots, private voting, open election records, and trustworthy elections. <br />
<br />
4. Reproduce and shuffle copies of the May 2009 ballots and make these PDF files or photocopies available for open records requests.<br />
<br />
5. If there are ballots that you believe contain voter-identifiable information, (a) create a team that includes someone who is free from government influence, (b) swear the team as election judges, and (c) instruct them to make anonymous replacement ballots by hand-duplicating these ballots before they are copied.<br />
<br />
6. Refer the officials suspected of the anonymous ballot violation to law enforcement.</blockquote>Both transparency and trustworthy elections are required. There can be no tradeoff.<br />
<br />
Good things happen when election records cannot be used to determine a voter’s votes. Copies of pollbooks and ballots can be published for public inspection, as can the interpretation of each and every vote on each and every ballot. The public can verify for itself that the correct ballots were included in the count, and that each vote was correctly interpreted and counted. Although not a complete verification that an election is trustworthy, it is a very important first step.<br />
<br />
I am available to discuss these matters with you more fully. And I most sincerely hope that you will accept these recommendations.<br />
<br />
Yours truly,<br />
<br />
<br />
Al Kolwicz<br />
<br />
Trustee, Colorado Voter Group <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>1946 BALLOT ISSUE NO. 1 – Referred</strong><br />
<br />
The right to vote using an anonymous ballot was created by the people of Colorado when they adopted a referred amendment to the Colorado Constitution. A brief history follows.<br />
<br />
Article VII, Sec. 8 of the <span style="background-color: yellow;">1876 </span>Constitution says:<br />
<blockquote>All elections by the people shall be by ballot; every ballot voted shall be numbered in the order in which it shall be received, and the number be recorded by the election officers on the list of voters opposite the name of the voter who presents the ballot. The election officers shall be sworn or affirmed not to enquire or disclose how any elector shall have voted. In all cases of contested elections, the ballots cast may be counted, compared with the list of voters, and examined under such safeguards and regulations as may be prescribed by law.</blockquote>On November 7, 1946, an election was held in which there was a contest to adopt an amendment to the Colorado Constitution. As follows:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>1946 BALLOT ISSUE NO. 1 – Referred<br />
<br />
TITLE - Amendment to Article VII of the Constitution of the State of Colorado providing for secret ballots</blockquote>The Rocky Mountain News opposed the amendment in its editorial of November 2, 1946, saying:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><strong>Reject the Amendments</strong><br />
<br />
Both the proposed amendments referred to the people by the last General Assembly are dangerous and should be voted down.<br />
<br />
Amendment No. 1 rules out the use of numbered ballots. The aim is to protect the secrecy of the ballot. If adopted, however, this proposal would make virtually impossible the tracing of ballots and would prevent the investigation of election frauds, such as is now underway in Kansas city. The disadvantages would far outweigh the advantages.</blockquote><br />
According to a report, Legislative Council Staff to Interim Committee on Judiciary, August 11, 1977, the 1946 Amendment No. 1 was passed by the following vote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>FOR 118,470 (56%) <br />
AGAINST 92,203 (44%)<br />
TOTAL 210,673</blockquote><br />
The Secret Ballot Amendment was put into law by the 1947 General Assembly:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>HB47-0248 – ELECTIONS – Amends present statutes to provide for putting into effect the amendment to the constitution of the state providing for a secret ballot. April 22, 1947. (From Digest of Senate and House Bills Enacted by the 36th General Assembly of the State of Colorado (1947 Regular Session - <a href="http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/PDF/digest1947.pdf">http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/PDF/digest1947.pdf</a> )</blockquote><blockquote>I have not researched the Denver Post or news articles before November 1946. Nor have I researched the actual language of the General Assembly in 1946 that adopted the referred measure or 1947 that adopted HB47-0248. These documents are available at CU Norlin and the Legislative Council.</blockquote><br />
There is no ambiguity in what Article VII Sec. 8 means. Prior to November 1946 ballots were given serial numbers. After November 1946 ballots were not permitted to have serial numbers or other marks that could be used to identify the voter of a ballot. Colorado voters clearly knew what they were doing when they changed the constitution.<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-13356920509913140872010-04-07T15:35:00.000-07:002010-04-07T15:35:34.266-07:00Wrongly denied, again. Public seeks scanned ballot image files from HART InterCivic system.<strong>Subject: RE: Response to your letter of March 29th re: CORA</strong><br />
<br />
Dear Mr. Kolwicz:<br />
<br />
The bottom line to all of your records requests is that the documents you are seeking are not in existence and under CORA we have no obligation to create any documents. That is not to say that the information does not exist – it does, just not in document form. As I noted before, these files cannot be exported. I have conferred with Stephanie Cegielski at the Secretary of State’s Office and she agrees with this interpretation of CORA in light of your request. In fact, she suggested, as a custodian of records, that you contact her about your request should you have any further questions. She can be reached at 894-2200 ext 6327, and I am copying her on this e-mail.<br />
<br />
As far as Rule 45.5.2.1.7 is concerned, that Rule applies to the testing for certification process which has already occurred. Furthermore, the records you request are not “election results” as contemplated by that Rule. Therefore, that Rule is not applicable to your request. <br />
<br />
Finally, I am aware of which Title applies to our elections. I mentioned the Pitkin County Order by way of analogy only as there are similar provisions in the Election Code. <br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Shelley Bailey<br />
Assistant County Attorney<br />
Boulder County<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-87656802816957050902010-04-06T19:11:00.000-07:002010-04-06T19:11:53.041-07:00Public seeks scanned ballot image files from HART InterCivic system.Shelley Bailey<br />
Assistant County Attorney<br />
Boulder County, Colorado<br />
<br />
April 5, 2010<br />
<br />
RE: Response to your March 29th letter regarding our CORA request.<br />
<br />
Dear Ms. Bailey:<br />
<br />
We have studied your letter of March 29, 2010. Perhaps you were rushed in preparing your letter since it contains several significant errors of law. I have copied the text of your letter into numbered sections below so that we may conveniently respond to each section.<br />
<br />
<strong>1. First, our system does not allow us to export these files.</strong><br />
<br />
If this is true, then the voting system is defective. Colorado Election Rule 45.5.2.1.7 requires that all election data be exportable. If “your” system does not comply with this Rule, as an agent of the court you should report this fact to the Secretary of State and ask that its certification be withdrawn.<br />
<br />
<strong>2. Second, under statutory law, C.R.S. 31-10-616(1),[…]the clerk is to keep the ballots secret and to preserve them for access only for contest proceedings.</strong> <br />
<br />
Boulder County elections are conducted under Title 1, not Title 31. Title 31 has absolutely nothing to do with our elections. Surely you must know this.<br />
<br />
For your information, you infer that Title 31 has something to do with the computer files that we have requested. A careful reading shows that this is not true. 31-10-616(1) describes when the actual ballots may be removed from the ballot box, and when they must be destroyed. As you must know, we are not seeking access to the actual ballots. 31-10-616(2) explicitly does not restrict access to or require destruction of any “other official election records and forms”.<br />
<br />
<strong>3. and [under] Article VII, Section 8 of the State’s Constitution, the clerk is to keep the ballots secret and to preserve them for access only for contest proceedings.</strong> <br />
<br />
There is no such language in Article VII, Section 8. It does not say anything about “keeping ballots secret” or “preserving ballots”. Surely you must know this.<br />
<br />
What Article VII, Section 8 does say, explicitly, is, “no ballots shall be marked in any way whereby the ballot can be identified as the ballot of the person casting it”. Boulder County routinely violates this Constitutional provision. It is the intent of the 1946 Constitutional Amendment that created this protection that every ballot must be anonymous – meaning that there is no way to identify which voter marked which ballot. <br />
<br />
<strong>4. Your CORA request is not a proceeding to contest the election, and the time for such a contest has passed.</strong><br />
<br />
We made no claim to contest the election. Surely you must know this. Further, your comment suggests that you are confusing Title 31 and Title 1 election laws. (See discussion in #2 above.)<br />
<br />
<strong>5. C.R.S. 31-10-1303 See also Marks v Koch, Case Number P09CV294, Pitkin County (e-mail to follow) Therefore, these records are not available pursuant to a CORA request.</strong> <br />
<br />
To repeat, Title 31 is not relevant to Title 1 elections.<br />
<br />
<strong>6. It has always been the County’s position, as well as the secretary of state’s position, that it would do substantial harm to the public interest to allow the release of mail ballot images.</strong> <br />
<br />
If you have documentation supporting this assertion we would like to review it. I do not recall any published arguments from Boulder County detailing the harm that might occur by releasing to the public copies of computer files containing scanned images of anonymous ballots. <br />
<br />
We have a December 18, 2009 document from Secretary of State Buescher saying in part, “…I am not opposed in principle to the public disclosure of images …”.<br />
<br />
<strong>7. The County has never released ballot images.</strong><br />
<br />
This is a problem for the public. For a number of years we have submitted CORA requests for the data and have never been given the opportunity to inspect the data.<br />
<br />
<strong>8. Finally, our system does not allow us to export these files. They are only viewable with Ballot Now, proprietary software, in our database.</strong><br />
<br />
To repeat, this is a violation of Election Rule 45.5.2.1.7.<br />
<br />
If need be, we are willing to negotiate ways that the county can meet its obligations by providing us access to the proprietary software so that we may inspect the records in Boulder County’s database.<br />
<br />
<strong>9. With regard to your request for the cast vote records, again, the County’s system does not allow the export of these files.</strong> <br />
<br />
To repeat, this is a violation of Election Rule 45.5.2.1.7.<br />
<br />
If need be, we are willing to negotiate ways that the county can meet its obligations by providing us access to the proprietary software so that we may inspect the records in Boulder County’s database.<br />
<br />
<strong>10. Cast vote records are not the same as results, and they cannot be printed out. They are the record of how Ballot Now tabulates each ballot.</strong> <br />
<br />
In the first place, you should know that we have not requested a printout of the cast vote records. Our request is to inspect the actual cast vote records. Once we see these records, we will decide whether or not to request copies of the computer files containing them. <br />
<br />
Also, for your information, you have been misinformed. The cast vote records are NOT a record of how BallotNow “tabulates” each ballot. The cast vote records are the record of how BallotNow “interprets” each vote on each ballot. The votes on the cast vote records are subsequently tabulated by a program referred to as TALLY. <br />
<br />
<strong>11. The statement of vote is available, however.</strong><br />
<br />
We are not, at this time, seeking access to the statement of vote.<br />
<br />
<strong>12. I am still working on the administrative logs that you requested and will get an answer to you as soon as possible. Could you please explain with specificity what it is you are asking for?</strong><br />
<br />
To expedite this response, please provide us with a list of the official titles and summary description of all files created and/or maintained by the HART voting system. We have found that when we do not ask for an exact file name, we are not able to make a request that staff understands. <br />
<br />
Now that we have presented and directed you to the correct legal framework, we expect you to promptly arrange for us to inspect the materials we have requested. <br />
<br />
Please let me know when we may review the materials.<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Al Kolwicz<br />
Colorado Voter Group <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
CC: <br />
<br />
Hillary Hall, Boulder County Clerk & Recorder<br />
Bernie Buescher, Colorado Secretary of State<br />
Judd Choate, Director, Colorado Division of Elections<br />
Harvie Branscomb, Trustee, Colorado Voter Group<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-48329366655031777502010-04-02T09:34:00.001-07:002010-04-02T09:35:58.786-07:00COMPLAINT: Urgent - ongoing violation of Open Meetings LawsFrom: Al Kolwicz [mailto:AlKolwicz@qwest.net]<br />
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 10:26 AM<br />
To: <a href="mailto:'attorney.general@state.co.us'">'attorney.general@state.co.us'</a><br />
Cc: 'Newsroom Denver_Post'; <a href="mailto:'coloradovoter@googlegroups.com'">'coloradovoter@googlegroups.com'</a><br />
Subject: COMPLAINT: Urgent - ongoing violation of Open Meetings Laws<br />
<br />
Dear Attorney General Suthers,<br />
<br />
There is a meeting of Colorado election officials underway today in Westminster. These same officials are interfering with the Public’s right to observe. Your immediate intervention is requested.<br />
<br />
These officials are operating behind a shield of the Colorado County Clerks Association.<br />
<br />
However, it is our understanding that they are discussing topics that lead to decisions regarding election law (see email thread below).<br />
<br />
We believe that these officials are violating the spirit and letter of the Colorado open meetings laws.<br />
<br />
Will you please intervene in behalf of the people of Colorado? <br />
<br />
Thank you for your immediate attention.<br />
<br />
Al<br />
<br />
Al Kolwicz<br />
Colorado Voter Group<br />
303-494-1540<br />
<a href="mailto:AlKolwicz@qwest.net">mailto:AlKolwicz@qwest.net</a> <br />
<a href="http://www.coloradovotergroup.org/">http://www.coloradovotergroup.org/</a><div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-37161376887563482302010-03-21T21:23:00.001-07:002010-03-21T21:25:17.608-07:00Protect independent Logic and Accuracy TestingRE: Please amend HB 1116 to protect independent Logic and Accuracy Testing<br />
<br />
Dear Senator Heath:<br />
<br />
It is my understanding that the State, Veterans & Military Affairs committee will take up HB 1116 on Monday afternoon. <br />
In your position as Chair of the committee, and as a fellow Boulder County resident, you are in a position to give serious consideration to and recommend adoption of the following proposal to amend HB 1116.<br />
<br />
To earn voter confidence, it is vital that Logic and Accuracy Test members be chosen independently of election officials. <br />
<br />
Please amend HB 1116 to something like the following:<br />
<blockquote>1-7-509. Electronic and electromechanical vote counting - testing of equipment required. <br />
<br />
(1)(c)(I) For all partisan elections, the County major Political Party Chairs shall appoint to a Testing Board an equal number of one or more registered electors. The number of members of the Testing Board shall be determined by the county clerk and recorder.<br />
<br />
(II) For nonpartisan elections that are coordinated elections, the County major Political Party Chairs shall appoint to a Testing Board an equal number of one or more registered electors. The number of members of the Testing Board shall be determined by the county clerk and recorder. In addition, each participating Governing Board will recommend to the designated election official one or more Testing Board members, and the designated election official will choose from among these recommended testers no fewer than one and no more than half of the number allocated to the political parties.<br />
<br />
(III) For nonpartisan elections that are not coordinated elections, a Testing Board will be appointed with the number of members determined by the designated election official. Each participating Governing Board will recommend to the designated election official one or more Testing Board members, and the designated election official will choose from among these recommended testers no fewer than two and will attempt to evenly distribute the Testing Board members across the districts.</blockquote>The key objective of the amendment is to make sure that county-wide elections are supported by party appointed testers, and that other elections are supported by governing boards of the districts. <br />
<br />
We hope the law will maximize independence and minimize official control over the verification that the election system is ready to conduct a fair and accurate election.<br />
<br />
As you may recall, Boulder County has had embarrassing problems during the last few elections. Many of these problems could have been avoided by an independent (and system wide) LAT.<br />
<br />
The current language proposed in HB 1116, Section 15 removes the party affiliation requirements for judges who perform logic and accuracy testing on electronic voting equipment if the election for which the equipment is being tested is a nonpartisan election.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>SECTION 15. 1-7-509 (1) (c), Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to read:<br />
<br />
1-7-509. Electronic and electromechanical vote counting - testing of equipment required. <br />
<br />
(1) (c) (I) FOR ALL PARTISAN ELECTIONS, the designated election official shall select a testing board comprising at least two persons, one from each major political party, from the list provided by the major political parties pursuant to section 1-6-102.<br />
<br />
(II) FOR ALL NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS, THE DESIGNATED ELECTION OFFICIAL SHALL SELECT A TESTING BOARD COMPRISING AT LEAST TWO PERSONS WHO ARE REGISTERED ELECTORS.</blockquote>In the first place, why should the clerk select the testing board members for PARTISAN elections? Each Major Political Party Chair should select the person(s) that they feel confident will best perform this highly technical duty. This paragraph should be revised by an amendment that assigns to the County Political Party Chair the appointment of the person or persons that will participate in the design and execution of the LAT.<br />
<br />
Secondly, why should the clerk select the testing board members for NONPARTISAN elections? Again, the major political party chairs should each make at least one appointment. They have experience, and are a stable element of the community. In addition, each of the participating districts should submit a candidate for LAT tester, and the Clerk can choose among the appointees of the special districts.<br />
<br />
Some Colorado County Clerks are guilty of restricting LAT test cases to things that the clerk has pre-tested before the test. For example, only a blue or black pen may be used to mark LAT ballots. In so doing, Clerks wind up serving as surrogates for the vendors. They use these unfair testing procedures to cover up defects in the equipment and procedures. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>• Clerks won’t permit testers to use “realistic marks” on the test ballots.<br />
<br />
• Clerks won’t permit the “expected results” to be hidden from the people running the equipment and performing the ballot resolution function.<br />
<br />
• Clerks won’t permit testers to address many of the election procedures required by law, including compliance with “conditional certification requirements”.</blockquote>Even more egregious, but probably not fixable in HB 1116, the LAT itself is flawed in that it does not test the entire path. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>• Currently, there is no testing to verify that signature verifiers are able to detect forgery.<br />
<br />
• Currently, there is no testing to verify that procedures are followed. <br />
<br />
• Currently, there is no testing to verify that batch controls work, and that the election can be accurately canvassed.. <br />
<br />
• Currently, there is no testing to verify that election reports comply with the law. </blockquote>Sadly, the LAT has devolved into an ineffective drama designed to generate false confidence. Most of the defects discovered in recent elections should have and would have been detected by a fair public testing process.<br />
<br />
Eventually, the Legislature must ensure that pre-election testing will verify that (1) every eligible voter will be given an opportunity to vote once, (2) every eligible vote will be correctly counted once, and that (3) every aspect of the election (with the exception of where a voter’s SSN would be made public, or a connection between the voter and the voted ballot would be exposed) will be fully transparent and independently verifiable.<br />
<br />
It is reckless for the clerks to select the LAT teams. <br />
<br />
Please amend the bill as recommended in the opening language above.<br />
<br />
Elections will be better, and more trustworthy.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Al Kolwicz<br />
Colorado Voter Group <br />
2867 Tincup Circle<br />
Boulder CO, 80305<br />
303-494-1540<br />
<a href="mailto:AlKolwicz@qwest.net">mailto:AlKolwicz@qwest.net</a><br />
<a href="http://www.coloradovotergroup.org/">http://www.coloradovotergroup.org/</a> <br />
<br />
Cc: 'geoff.johnson@state.co.us'; 'linda.newell.senate@gmail.com'<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-73841293237773561712010-03-21T06:43:00.000-07:002010-03-21T06:43:49.629-07:00Polling place voting is more secure and more accurate than mail ballots..March 19, 2010 <br />
<div></div>TO: Boulder County Commissioners: Ben Pearlman (Chair), Will Toor, Cindy Domenico<br />
CC: Boulder County Clerk and Recorder: Hillary Hall<br />
<br />
<div></div><strong>RE: Arguments for conducting the 2010 Primary Election as a Polling Place Election.</strong><br />
<br />
Dear Commissioners:<br />
<br />
<div></div>Before addressing the voting method, we beg you to take necessary action to remove the unique ballot bar-code/serial-number from our ballots. The unique identification of ballots denies voters the right to cast an anonymous ballot. Identified ballots can be linked back to the voter, despite official admonitions to “trust the government”. Please forbid this violation of voter’s rights. <br />
<br />
<div></div>At the time of the writing of this appeal, the public has seen no real numbers to support the official claims that eliminating in-person voting will cost less and increase turnout. How much less cost, and how many more voters? Where are the historical and forecast numbers to support these assertions? And, what is the threat assessment for each of the voting methods? Please ensure that the facts are available for verification before making a decision based on emotion and hearsay. <br />
<br />
<div></div>It is important to keep in mind that elections can be won by one vote. One single case of undetected fraud or error can change the outcome.<br />
<br />
We submit the following to encourage Boulder County to conduct the 2010 Primary Election as a polling place election. <br />
<ol><li>In a polling place election, voters can choose to vote in person or by mail ballot.</li>
<li>A polling place election will honor the wishes of electors who have signed up to vote as permanent mail-in elector.</li>
<li>A polling place election is more secure.</li>
<li>A polling place election is more accurate.</li>
<li>There will be less opportunity for mischief in a polling place election.</li>
</ol>Despite intensive promotion by Colorado election officials, fewer than 50 percent of Boulder County’s 219,600 eligible electors are scheduled to receive a permanent mail ballot. The remaining 50 percent are free to choose whether to vote in person or by mail. Forcing these electors to vote by mail-in ballot would deprive them of this freedom of choice. <br />
<br />
<div></div>Electors who want the freedom to choose to vote at a polling place do so for a variety of reasons: <br />
<br />
<div></div><strong>1. Objections to overreaching by government.</strong> <br />
<blockquote>Some electors object to being forced to vote using a mail-ballot system that they believe is insecure and inaccurate.</blockquote><strong>2. Some voters want to know the facts before they vote. </strong><br />
<blockquote>Late breaking news, available on Election Day, can affect a voter’s choices. Mail-in ballots must be posted days in advance of Election Day.</blockquote><strong>3. Campaigns are less costly. </strong><br />
<blockquote>Shorter campaigns can be less expensive, and candidates have a less difficult time programming their campaign activities. Mail-in ballot voting might start a soon as 20 days before Election Day. A lot can happen in 20 days. Instead of scheduling election activities around one day, Election Day, broadcast advertising and literature mailings for mail ballot elections must be repeated in order to reach voters near the time that the voter is preparing to mark their ballot. These costs are incurred by each of the campaigns.<br />
<br />
</blockquote><div><strong>4. Polling place voting is more secure. </strong></div><blockquote>a. There is much tighter control over the physical ballots since the ballots never leave the control of the election judges. <br />
b. It is more likely that the person who marks the ballot is the eligible elector. Electors must show their face at the polls.<br />
c. There is much tighter control over electioneering.</blockquote><strong>5. Mail-in voting is less secure.</strong><br />
<blockquote>a. Ineligible ballots can be voted and the votes counted.<br />
b. Mail ballots are sent to electors that are not eligible because they no longer live in the County.<br />
c. Incorrect mail ballots are issued to people who are ineligible to vote the ballot style because they have changed jurisdictions within the county.<br />
d. The Postal Service does not guarantee delivery of ballots to the intended elector. <br />
e. Ballots are delivered to addresses where the elector is no longer eligible.<br />
f. Ballots are delivered to an address, but the elector never receives the ballot.<br />
g. People can vote by mail in Boulder County and vote again in another out of state location.</blockquote><strong>6. Non-professional signature verification is not proof that the eligible elector freely marked and cast a mail ballot.</strong><br />
<blockquote>a. Identity theft can be used to forge signatures on ballots that are harvested in dumpsters and Post Office trash barrels.<br />
b. Family members, roommates, and office mates can successfully forge an elector’s signature. <br />
c. With modern technology, it is relatively easy to scan a stolen signature and adjust its size and density for printing onto a ballot return envelope.<br />
d. Temporary election workers are not certified to accurately detect false signatures. <br />
</blockquote><strong>7. Polling place voters have less possibility of suffering voter intimidation.</strong><br />
<blockquote>a. When a private voting booth is available to a voter, the voter cannot be pressured by others, including friends and family. The voter can say that they voted X when they actually voted Y. <br />
b. Votes on mail ballots can easily be traded, and/or sold.<br />
c. Electioneering can take place in the elector’s home, as the elector is encouraged to mark their ballot in front of somebody electioneering.</blockquote><strong>8. Claims of increased voter turnout in mail ballot elections are not substantiated.</strong><br />
<blockquote>a. High voter turnout results from competitive contests and the elector’s belief that their vote can affect the results. High turnout does not result from forcing everybody to vote using mail ballots. <br />
b. Even year elections have higher turnout than odd, and general election have higher turnout than primary elections. Given two supposedly equal mail ballot elections, the turnout in one varies from another.<br />
c. In past Boulder County Primary elections, where voting by mail ballot was available to all electors, turnout has varied:<br />
<br />
· DEM 13,230 REP 10,267 1998 Governor’s Primary (both contested)<br />
· DEM 7,742 REP 6,561 2002 Governor’s Primary (both uncontested)<br />
· DEM 12,963 REP 6,537 2006 Governor’s Primary (both uncontested)<br />
<br />
d. It is common for the same voter to have a different turnout on the same ballot in the same election. They vote for some contests but not others. <br />
e. Even when a permanent mail in elector is sent a ballot, a large percentage of these ballots are not accepted for counting.<br />
f. And among those mail ballots accepted for counting, there is no hard evidence that the ballots were voted by eligible electors voting without intimidation and/or vote trading. </blockquote><strong>9. Inappropriate electioneering of Permanent mail-in voter option.</strong><br />
<blockquote>a. Using public funds to engineer an overturn of the 2002 Amendment 28 vote of the people, election officials have misinformed electors. Electors, therefore, do not have the facts needed to make an informed choice when deciding whether or not to elect permanent mail ballot status.<br />
<br />
· With no explanation of risk, driver license officials encourage new registrants to sign us as a permanent mail-in voter. <br />
· Election offices persuade electors to sign up for permanent mail-in ballots. <br />
· Government sponsored literature stresses (potential) benefits, and fails to disclose the uncertainties and problems associated with mail ballot elections. <br />
· Rosy claims about fabulously low costs and deliriously high turnout are not supported with detailed cost and turnout data.</blockquote><strong>10. Attempt to overturn 2002 election results.</strong><br />
<blockquote>a. Special interests, despite the fact that Amendment 28 was defeated in 63 out of 64 Colorado counties, did not give up when they lost the 2002 statewide contest to eliminate polling place elections. (60 percent of Boulder County voters voted NO to this scheme.) Since then:<br />
<br />
· Officials worked against the public to create the permanent mail-in option. <br />
· They have expended public money to persuade electors to sign up for permanent mail-in status. <br />
· They have worked to permit forced mail-in voting for partisan Primary elections.<br />
<br />
b. And who are these special interests? Some are unknown, but one is the Colorado County Clerks Association. CCCA is a secret association that influences its members to eliminate polling place elections. The association refuses to permit representatives of the public to observe their meetings, and refuses to permit representatives of the public to present facts that contradict their dogma.</blockquote><strong>11. Election cost detail is not available.</strong><br />
<blockquote>a. The public is unable to analyze the differences between mandatory mail-in ballot and polling place elections, because the detail needed for such an analysis is not available to the public. A questioning public might discover opportunities to cut costs.<br />
b. Mail ballot packets cost more to print, package, and mail than polling place ballots -- a great deal more.<br />
c. Many permanent mail ballots are returned as Undeliverable. This demonstrates that the voter list is not accurate, it releases live ballots into the wild, and it costs the County a great deal to print, package, and mail these ballots. Postage costs extra for returning the undeliverable ballot packets to the county. <br />
d. Boulder County residents benefit when money spent on elections is kept in Boulder County. It appears that a polling place election will keep more money at home than would a mail ballot election. <br />
e. If we understand correctly, there is no publicly verified estimate of the cost for running the Primary as a polling place election or a mail ballot only election. <br />
<br />
· Whatever the difference, it is not sufficient to deprive voters of the right to vote in person if they choose to do so.<br />
· It is not sufficient to accept the additional threats to integrity which come with a mail ballot election.<br />
<br />
f. Is Boulder County prepared to sacrifice the integrity of its election for money?<br />
g. We hope that the commissioners will require cost data with sufficient detail to determine if all of the related costs are included. For example, fees to HART, postage in and out and undeliverable ballot packet returns, how many early voting locations for each voting method, etc. </blockquote><strong>12. Election integrity is threatened with mail-in ballots.</strong><br />
<blockquote>a. Mail ballots are issued, accepted/rejected, opened and processed up to 22 days before Election Day, and votes may be counted up to 15 days before Election Day. This makes possible the leakage of voting information to “friendly” campaigns, opening the possibility of unfair elections. For example, a visual assessment by an “insider” of the number of votes cast for each contestant in a key contest is valuable information. This data could be used by campaigns to tune their last minute spending and activities, and thereby unfairly influence the outcome of the election.</blockquote><strong>13. Polling place elections build and nurture community.</strong><br />
<div><blockquote><div>a. Some electors believe that elections have a secondary benefit – they build and nurture community. People directly participate in the election processes as workers, poll watchers, and election judges. </div>b. More community involvement has the secondary benefit of increasing public confidence that the election results are fair and accurate. <br />
c. Whereas, mail ballot elections are sterile, and most of the activity occurs in the back room.</blockquote></div><strong>14. Polling place elections have independent oversight.</strong><br />
<blockquote>a. Most of the election workers in a mail-in only election are staff and temporary employees of the Clerk. In polling place elections, most election workers are election judges who are not employees of the Clerk. We need the transparency of independent oversight.</blockquote>Boulder County is fortunate to have a well-intentioned County Clerk. Pressure on her to minimize cost is high, as it should be. However, as outlined above, it is vital that election cost is not awarded a higher priority than election integrity and voter confidence. The first job for government is to protect the integrity of the ballot box. The second job is to do so as efficiently as practical.<br />
<br />
<div>We encourage Boulder County to conduct the 2010 Primary Election as a standard polling place election. Let those who wish to vote by mail ballot do so. Let those who wish to vote in person, and cast a ballot that is not enclosed in an envelope that is coded with the voter’s name and address, do so.</div><br />
<div>And please keep in mind that each and every single vote counts.</div><br />
<div></div>Al Kolwicz<br />
Colorado Voter Group <br />
2867 Tincup Circle<br />
Boulder CO, 80305<br />
303-494-1540<br />
<a href="mailto:AlKolwicz@qwest.net">AlKolwicz@qwest.net</a> <br />
<a href="http://www.coloradovotergroup.org/">http://www.coloradovotergroup.org/</a><div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-11063831718705269542009-12-25T11:24:00.002-07:002009-12-25T11:28:35.652-07:00Public radio reports on Aspen election satireLocal Public Radio Station KAJX <a href="http://aspenelectionreview.blogspot.com/2009/12/kajx-covers-better-bad-news-lampoon-of.html">reports </a>on the Better Bad News Video satire on the Aspen Elections.<br /><br />Click on the <a href="http://aspenelectionreview.blogspot.com/2009/12/kajx-covers-better-bad-news-lampoon-of.html">link </a>to see the 5 minute video made by artists in Berkeley who found humor in some of the bizarre events in Aspen's May election, and hear KAJX interview with George Coates, the creator of the video, and election integrity advocate Harvie Branscomb. Mayor Ireland, who found no humor in the piece, is also interviewed.<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-86107124472110531092009-12-09T16:40:00.005-07:002009-12-09T17:26:15.186-07:00Please Help Protect Election Transparency and IntegrityA very important lawsuit will soon decide whether or not elected officials and bureaucrats can block the Public from accessing the Public Records needed to independently verify that votes in Public elections are correctly interpreted and counted. A hearing is set for late January 2010.<br /><br />This is a Public Records lawsuit regarding election records that already exist. The government has denied Public Access to the computer files containing scanned ballot images from Aspen's May 2009 election. Scanned ballot image files have been released to the Public in other states, e.g. Minnesota and California.<br /><br />This is a court battle between the government (which has a vested interest in hiding election data) and the Public (who has a vested interest in verifying that votes are correctly interpreted and counted). Read Bev Harris’s <a href="http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/80769.html">message</a>, for details about this lawsuit.<br /><br />If the Court mistakenly decides in favor of the government, there is little hope that future elections will allow the Public controls necessary to oversee Public elections.<br /><br />An important <a href="http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/80769.html">message </a>from Bev Harris, of Black Box Voting, includes an urgent fundraising request for this Aspen Open Records Litigation. Click to read this <a href="http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/80769.html">message</a>.<br /><br />Aspen officials are using the apparently bottomless pit of Public funds to block release of these Public Records. Their unnecessarily long and complex motions have forced the Aspen Project to spend $35,000.00 so far.<br /><br />Please do two things: (1) donate what you can by check or online, and (2) invest some of your valuable time by soliciting funds from people and groups that are working on Voting Rights, including Transparency and Election Integrity. This case must be won.<br /><br />Black Box Voting has established a tax-deductable (to the extent allowable by law) restricted fund for the Aspen Project. Checks should be made out to “Black Box Voting”, and indicate that the money is “for the Aspen Project” in the memo or comment.<br /><br />Send your donation online at <a href="https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=12674">Donation to Black Box Voting</a>. Make a note in the COMMENT section of the online form, “for the Aspen Project”.<br /><br />Send your donation by mail. The Payee should be "Black Box Voting", and make a note in the MEMO section of the check, “for the Aspen Project”<br /><br /><blockquote>Black Box Voting, Inc.<br />330 SW 43rd St Suite K<br />PMB 547<br />Renton, WA<br />98057<br /><br /><a href="http://www.blackboxvoting.org/">http://www.blackboxvoting.org/</a><br /><a href="mailto:bev@blackboxvoting.org">bev@blackboxvoting.org</a> </blockquote>Black Box Voting (.ORG) is a 501c(3) charitable organization. Donations are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law. The Black Box Voting 501c(3) IRS authorization letter is online at: <a href="http://www.blackboxvoting.org/IRSletter.pdf">http://www.blackboxvoting.org/IRSletter.pdf</a><br /><br />Public Elections belong to the Public, not to the government. We must not tolerate any government that refuses to release Public Information to the Public.<br /><br />Al Kolwicz<br />Colorado Voter Group<br />2867 Tincup Circle<br />Boulder CO, 80305<br />303-494-1540<br /><a href="mailto:AlKolwicz@qwest.net">mailto:AlKolwicz@qwest.net</a><br /><a href="http://www.coloradovotergroup.org/">http://www.coloradovotergroup.org/</a><div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-50096900717297788102009-03-26T06:49:00.004-07:002009-03-26T07:02:34.215-07:00Publish corruption testimony on EAC site.March 26, 2009<br /><br />Ms. Gineen Beach, Chairwoman<br />Election Assistance Commission<br />1225 New York Avenue NW, Suite 1100<br />Washington, DC 20005<br /><br />Dear Chairwoman Beach:<br /><br />The attached email was submitted as testimony for the March 17th public hearing on Voter Registration Databases. Will you please publish the email on the Meeting page on the Commission’s website? See: <a href="http://www.eac.gov/News/meetings/03-17-09-public-meeting-washington-d-c">http://www.eac.gov/News/meetings/03-17-09-public-meeting-washington-d-c</a><br /><br />There is some background here. I have requested, multiple times, to be included in the Commission’s announcements list, but have not received notices. When I discovered the March 17th meeting I immediately submitted the attached. It was sent at 4:58 PM MST, but failed to arrive by 5:00 PM EST. Consequently your staff has refused to include the letter in the record.<br /><br />As you can see, the letter is brief, to the point, and contains disturbing facts that need to be addressed by the Commission.<br /><br />I hope that the Commission will take this matter seriously, investigate the facts, and intercede in behalf of the people.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Al Kolwicz<br />Trustee<br /><a href="mailto:AlKolwicz@qwest.net">AlKolwicz@qwest.net</a><br />303-494-1540<br /><br />----------------------------------------------<br /><br />From: Al Kolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]<br />Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:58 PM<br />To: <a href="mailto:">'testimony@eac.gov'</a><br />Cc: Barbara Simons; Colorado Voter Group; Bernie Buescher - Colorado SOS<br />Subject: TESTIMONY for March 17th EAC meeting - Reviewing HAVA Mandated Guidance<br /><br />Dear EAC Chair and Members:<br /><br />Colorado’s voter registration database system and procedures are corrupt. Colorado uses SCORE II.<br /><br />We have reported specific defects, with exact records illustrating the defects.<br /><br />We have filed a HAVA Complaint, using the official procedures, with the Colorado Secretary of State and the Department of Justice. A portion of the complaint is posted on the Secretary of State’s website at: <a href="http://www.elections.colorado.gov/WWW/default/HAVA/Complaints/Kolwicz%20Final%20Determination%2001-12-09.pdf">http://www.elections.colorado.gov/WWW/default/HAVA/Complaints/Kolwicz%20Final%20Determination%2001-12-09.pdf</a><br /><br />Our request for a public hearing, provided for in the law, has been denied. DOJ/Voting Rights did not accept our plea for help.<br /><br />Our evidence has been brushed off, and not given serious attention.<br /><br />Without any question whatsoever, the SCORE system used in Colorado does not comply with HAVA. And, there is no way to hold those accountable to take responsibility and fix the problems.<br /><br />What does the EAC think is supposed to happen?<br /><br />Does EAC consider that it has a role in ensuring compliance with HAVA?<br /><br />Will EAC help us?<br /><br />Al Kolwicz<br />Colorado Voter Group<br /><a href="mailto:AlKolwicz@qwest.net">AlKolwicz@qwest.net</a><br /><a href="http://www.coloradovotergroup.org/">http://www.coloradovotergroup.org/</a><br /><a href="http://www.coloradovotergroup.blogspot.com/">http://www.coloradovotergroup.blogspot.com/</a><div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-56164880866580203952009-03-25T07:01:00.003-07:002009-03-25T07:07:00.906-07:00Online voter registration is not ready.It would be interesting to learn the factual basis for the Denver Post's support of online voter registration, see <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_11987917">Online voter registration is a move to 21st century</a>.<br /><ol><li>Has the Post investigated the HAVA complaint charging five violations of HAVA by the SCORE voter registration system? It would be interesting to learn the findings.<br /></li><li>Has the Post learned of some new technology that enables election officials to know who is actually logged onto the computer that is using an identity to create or change a voter registration record? If not, what assurance is there that voter registration records are not being fabricated?<br /></li><li>Has the Post studied the effectiveness of the Arizona and Washington online voter registration systems? If so, how many ineligible, fabricated, inaccurate, and out of date voter registration records exist in these databases?<br /></li><li>Has the Post discussed the topic with Colorado's private sector technical experts? If so, it would be interesting to learn the technical arguments for and against online voter registration.</li></ol><br />The HB 1160 scheme for online voter registration is predicated on hope rather than fact. There are no studies. There has been no public technical debate. Tough questions are simply ignored.<br /><br />The purpose of voter registration is to create a secure and accurate record that can be used to (1) verify that a person is who they claim to be, and (2) verify that the person is eligible to vote in a particular election.<br /><br />I have personal experience with the Secretary of State's self-supervision and I assure you that it is not working. The SOS is not motivated to disclose or even discover its problems. To explicitly exclude independent testing (and independent oversight) would be a disaster.<br /><br />The enthusiasm for the so-called "digital signature" is misplaced. Just because somebody has possession of a set of credentials does not mean that the person using the credentials is the person to whom the credentials belong.<br /><br />The enthusiasm for an "airtight system", ensured by state election officials, is also misplaced. the CIA, credit card companies, even the IRS have not successfully discovered such a system, What makes anybody think that Colorado can do so?<br /><br />Let's stabilize Colorado's voter registration system and fix its known problems before adding disruptive and unscientifically proven online voter registration.<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-42198007377617059312009-03-10T13:34:00.000-07:002009-03-10T13:36:29.524-07:00Statisticians and election systemsOne of Colorado Voter Group's objectives is to achieve transparent verification of each election.<br /><br />To my knowledge, there has been no peer reviewed specification of the election system components. Nor is there, to my knowledge, any study of the means by which each component/process can be verified. <br /><br />None of the Colorado election systems I am familiar with are transparent. None of the Colorado election system components/processes that I am familiar with are verifiable. <br /><br />All of the statistical work that I have reviewed to date has insufficient scope to be conclusive. For example, there has been no attempt to determine whether or not eligible electors have been disallowed from voting or ineligible electors allowed to vote. Counting the wrong votes correctly does not mean that an election is fair or accurate. <br /><br />Without an agreed to specification of the entire election system it is far too early for a professional statistician to seriously undertake to test and make conclusions regarding the fairness and accuracy of an election. <br /><br />Furthermore, the statistical work that I have reviewed to date seems to give insufficient consideration to the variation in populations being sampled, and treats unlike populations as though they were statistically identical. This would be like testing for the color of fruit by sampling only bananas in a carton of apples and bananas. <br /><br />I ask that we not relinquish our quest for transparent verification. We must not accept simplistic statistical methodology that does not accomplish the goal.<br /><br />To be clear, there is a place for statistical methods in election system verification, but the statistical methods used must be comprehensive and correct or they serve to further mask real problems. We must not delegate our voice on this vital matter.<br /><br /><br />Al Kolwicz<br />Colorado Voter Group<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-91439089641385107042008-11-07T09:25:00.000-07:002008-11-07T09:27:18.877-07:00What's different - more ...Yes -- the Longmont City special election in January used folded ballots. They could have been folded so as not to interfere with the boxes, but they were folded so that they did. I didn't hear of any issues concerning where the fold was, but I wasn't near the machines. Neal may know better.<br /><br />Interestingly, the security sleeve for both the November 07 and January 08 elections would not fit back into the mailer once the ballot was completed and inserted. Voters could either tear the glued seam on the sleeve to make it fit (which is what was done in my household) or toss the security sleeve, which is what most voters did.Longmont elections officials (our clerk) and many voters that I've talked to complained about this in November. However the exact same problem was repeated in January of 08.Since I voted on the first day of early voting (my mail ballot never arrived), I have no idea what the security sleeve was sized for this time.<br /><br />Perhaps the security sleeve was the source of the paper dust?<br /><br />The best way to overcome the Ballot Now systems' issues with tiny particles is NOT TO USE IT. Every November this system has some kind of issue that causes terrible problems. Every year we here the same four words, "How could we know?"We can know because it does the same thing every time. Neal's tiny dot test proved that Ballot Now cannot discern a vote from an accidental pen swipe."How could we know?" makes me want a prescription for the same drugs the clerk's office is taking. Maybe I can forget the last 8 years.<br /><br />Paul Tiger -- Longmont<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-88427049338773747642008-11-06T13:26:00.000-07:002008-11-06T13:28:41.082-07:00Looking forwardI generally concur with Al Kolwicz on his deeper analysis below. It is true that there is no adequate mechanism for information flow about voting systems, and to the extent that such a mechanism is in place it is too often scuttled by those in positions of power and influence. Their actions represented in the points below are taken at a real and tangible risk of loss of the accuracy of our elections. The problem of spurious marks is not unexpected by those of us watching closely, and has been encountered before. It is soluble by simple but time consuming human interception of any machine’s limited capability at vote interpretation. <br /><br />In the future we must redesign our system (laws, rules, common practice, and equipment) with improved checks and remedies and perhaps more direct human involvement. But for now we must allow our existing checks in place to go forward, even if it takes days to interpret and count the marks on the paper ballots. We have always recognized that the benefit of having a countable record of voter intent depends on the ability and willingness to actually count it. While there are those who see benefits in simplicity and efficiency in losing the human countable record of voter intent, and there are also those who demand rapid results reporting, I see only loss of accuracy in those places.<br /><br />Al says the spurious marks issue is not forgivable, but I see it only as foreseeable and some aspencts of it actually foreseen. This very real issue remains difficult to address under the currently popular presumption of the fallibility of the human counting of votes by many election officials. Naturally we should look for remedies involving an increase of human involvement in the vote interpretation process.<br /><br />Harvie Branscomb<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-76892595299787523732008-11-06T13:23:00.001-07:002008-11-06T13:25:18.474-07:00Answers to Audit questionsOn Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:36:46AM -0700, Al Kolwicz wrote:<br />><br />> Neal,<br />><br />> Does the group's audit procedure provide the facts needed to answer"<br /><br />A good audit according to the Principles from the auditing experts would give good answers to those questions.<br /><br />> 1. How accurate is "mis-interpreted vote detection" by the machine audit procedure that "the group" has developed?<br /><br />First, the procedure is not a "machine audit", but rather an audit of voter-verfied paper records and how various parts of the whole system interpreted them.<br /><br />The benefits of audits include: <a href="http://electionaudits.org/whyaudit">http://electionaudits.org/whyaudit</a><br /><br /> * Revealing when recounts are necessary to verify election outcomes<br /> * Finding error whether accidental or intentional<br /> * Deterring fraud<br /> * Providing for continuous improvement in the conduct of elections<br /> * Promoting public confidence in elections<br /><br />The details of even defining a mis-interpreted vote depend on state laws, so as always in the US, local conditions will be important.<br /><br />> 2. Does the percentage of mis-interpreted votes, in one or more audited contests, extend to the non-audited contests?<br /><br />If you don't audit a particular contest, your information will of course be limited and it would be hard to say. But of course you'd have a lot more information than if you don't do a good audit of at least some contests, and very few jurisdictions do good audits now.<br /><br />> 3. How about the non-audited machines?<br /><br />In a proper audit, all ballots would be eligible for selection, and thus all machines and other elements of the election tallying process would in some sense be "audited".<br /><br />A proper audit will give good statistics about ballots that weren't chosen for hand-counting and the performance of associated machines for the contest in question. The level of confidence chosen is of course important here. And note that it is often best to focus most on detecting mistakes in tight races, which would mean that smaller levels of misinterpretation in races with a wide margin wouldn't be picked up.<br /><br />> 4. Does "the group's" machine audit procedure have the ability to project the total number of misinterpreted votes?<br /><br />Note we have "principles", not yet detailed, specific recommended procedures.<br /><br />The procedures designed by Philip Stark do a great job of determining when problems found indicate need for an escallation by doing that sort of projection.<br /><br />He has a nice page of good auditing references:<br /><br /> <a href="http://statistics.berkeley.edu/~stark/Vote/index.htm">http://statistics.berkeley.edu/~stark/Vote/index.htm</a><br /><br />> 5. How about the number of mis-interpreted votes that occurred in undervoted contests?<br /><br />Sure - all categories of vote interpretation must be audited.<br /><br />> Thanks for work that you are doing.<br /><br />My pleasure! A good canvass with tracking of ballots is also of course critical to a good audit, so your work there is also important.<br /><br /> Neal McBurnett<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-18599804482367744882008-11-06T13:18:00.002-07:002008-11-06T13:22:41.536-07:00Speed is not the issueHi Harvie,<br />what is the stated capacity of the Hart scanner in ballots per min? Even the ES&S will do >200 ballots / min (with stops for ballots that go to resolution committee. So 12,000 per hour. now that is high speed. With the Hart system they might as well do hand counting...... that's your point!! ??<br />Joel <br /><br />-------------------------------------<br /><br />Joel<br />The Hart system is simply software which attaches to a variety of COTS (off the shelf) scanners (which is a good idea by the way).<br />The speed of scanning at full speed depends on the scanner. The Kodak scanners used by Eagle and I am sure the ones used by Boulder are plenty fast. This isn’t the issue. If anything they are too fast and don’t reliably handle forms which have been on people’s living room tables… <br />scan problems are of the following nature:<br /><ol><li>Part of ballot is folded under in the stack</li><li>Ballot upside down (supposedly can be handled, and hart prints ballots with a curved corner to avoid this, but more memory is required)</li><li>Ballot folds help drag the adjacent ballot into the scanner</li><li>Ripped ballot gets caught on the next ballot or on the scanner</li><li>Bar code on ballot is slightly damaged by a mark (this rejection seems to happen unnecessarily, considering that bar codes are very resilient)</li><li>Foreign material build up on various components in the scanner</li></ol><br />The scanner we are using Kodak i610 I think is about 1/sec- plenty fast if the software didn’t screw up in between scanning the batches. (I mean the frequent need to reboot systems, struggle with user interface, etc.)<br /><br />Also the Hart system allows all scanning to be done before resolving… the ballot images are all stored (inaccessibly as far as I can tell in a big database) so scanning can be done independently of either resolving or of uploading votes to memory cards. This allows a lot of flexibility in use of the equipment.<br /><br />I think the point is that voting system software can actually aid in hand counting ballots accurately! If you have a scanned image of a ballot you can show a particular contest magnified from one ballot to the next (Hart does this well) and flip through the ballots at 10/second If you want looking for an anomaly. This is an excellent service to those who would check ballots for voter intent. For example, the voting system could assemble all the ballots in which it interpreted the vote to be for McCain and the human operator could actually sequentially visit all those portions of the ballots very quickly to look for anomalies. Such a voting system does not exist today. The system could (Hart doesn’t really do this very well) keep a record of the human interpretation and in principle could then machine mark the vote interpretations in a harmless location on the ballot image or conceivably even on the paper ballot itself (in a different design of system) for later auditing.<br /><br />I would say that it makes sense that the ballots are being examined one by one, as I think they are in Boulder, on the screen. It is true that very light marks, almost invisible to the naked eye are presented in full black on the image, and so certain stray marks and dust are emphasized on the electronic version of the visible image of the ballot. Certainly with a Hart like system you could do very good machine assisted hand counting (machine suggested human confirmed interpretation and machine tabulation) in the same amount of time that Boulder is spending with the ballots and get probably even better accuracy. With an improved design machine, you could do it much faster, and also do it in precincts.<br /><br />If the press would stop bad mouthing the speed of producing results from Boulder, we would have a better chance to make a more sensible system in the future.<br /><br />What happened in Florida with the Republicans and the press bad mouthing the punch cards is an example of what we do NOT want to do again.<br /><br />All of the above discussion relates for the long term only to mail-in ballots or what happens if we go to all an all mail-in election.<br /><br />At precinct polls we could hand count (or machine assist hand count) our ballots much sooner because of the larger number of people involved.<br /><br />Harvie Branscomb<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38901995.post-86555813613547199132008-11-06T13:13:00.001-07:002008-11-06T13:15:43.714-07:00Hold these officials accountableHarvie,<br /><br />I have a different take on your question, “Why hasn’t Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall heard about dust problems on her Hart Scanners? I would suggest that the reason is that there is no mechanism for this kind of problem sharing to take place.“<br /><ol><li>The problem of spurious marks was detected by the State’s Voting System Certification Team. A CONDITION OF USE was set up that would require special manual pre-scanning treatment of all HART paper ballots. At a hearing, we attempted to protect this condition. However, the powerful, secret, Colorado County Clerks Association lobbied, using incomplete and erroneous arguments, to protect the vendor and themselves from this condition of use. They persuaded the SOS to remove the condition of use.<br /></li><li>The architecture of all paper ballot vote counting systems certified in Colorado is fatally flawed. None of these systems provide exports of the ballot images and the interpretation of each vote on each individual ballot. Consequently, independent verification of vote interpretation is not possible – not even by the Canvass Boards.<br /></li><li>The LAT is contrived and inadequate. The procedures and materials are idealized, and not at all representative of the real world. And, in the case of Boulder County, the Clerk contrived to exclude the people most knowledgeable of the HART system from serving on the LAT team. (Not to sound like sour grapes, I was not permitted to serve.)<br /></li><li>Despite repeated requests that officials follow Colorado Statutes and Rules, the County and the State have neglected to perform “acceptance Tests” of the voting system. The system test would include ballot printers/vendors as well as every other component/subsystem.</li></ol><br />From my perspective, the problem of spurious marks on HART optical scanners is not a surprise and is not forgivable.<br /><br />Election officials should be held individually accountable for this problem.<br /><br /><br />Al Kolwicz<br />Colorado Voter Group<div class="blogger-post-footer">The Colorado Voter Group is a private sector entity that is working to improve the Colorado election system. </div>AlKolwiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12877330970111745185noreply@blogger.com0