Belinda,
I just responded to John regarding what to do for this year.
To answer your question, we need to take a little longer view. I would love to help organize the requirements effort.
Al
Saturday, April 24, 2004
Time for Action - Al to John Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:51 AM
Ah, yes, November. A little dose of reality.
One way might be to create emergency legislation that establishes special rules for the 2004 election year only;
1. Require full-ballot-text paper ballots for all voting.
2. Disallow DRE voting equipment (that which records ballots electronically). They are not voter verifiable and should not be used.
3. Qualify and purchase a small number of "paper ballot vote marking devices" (VMD) and deploy them in "super precincts" for disabled voters. This is not the final solution, but it does provide private, verifiable voting to the disabled voter.
4. Utilize the existing absentee ballot counting system to count the votes on all ballots. Verify the counts by requiring sample hand counts to check that the counting process is accurate. The samples should include verification that the interpretation of votes on the ballots is correct. Persons performing the samples, and any recounts, should not know the previous results.
There will be resistance to this approach from the press, who wants to give their audience instant results, and the election officials who don't like to risk looking bad. In my opinion, a trustworthy election is the goal and anything that gets in the way of a trustworthy election should be ignored.
I believe it was the Governor of New Hampshire who said something to the effect; it is far less costly to do what it takes to deliver a trustworthy election than it will cost to restore voter trust once it is lost.
The people will not tolerate a questionable election result.
Al
One way might be to create emergency legislation that establishes special rules for the 2004 election year only;
1. Require full-ballot-text paper ballots for all voting.
2. Disallow DRE voting equipment (that which records ballots electronically). They are not voter verifiable and should not be used.
3. Qualify and purchase a small number of "paper ballot vote marking devices" (VMD) and deploy them in "super precincts" for disabled voters. This is not the final solution, but it does provide private, verifiable voting to the disabled voter.
4. Utilize the existing absentee ballot counting system to count the votes on all ballots. Verify the counts by requiring sample hand counts to check that the counting process is accurate. The samples should include verification that the interpretation of votes on the ballots is correct. Persons performing the samples, and any recounts, should not know the previous results.
There will be resistance to this approach from the press, who wants to give their audience instant results, and the election officials who don't like to risk looking bad. In my opinion, a trustworthy election is the goal and anything that gets in the way of a trustworthy election should be ignored.
I believe it was the Governor of New Hampshire who said something to the effect; it is far less costly to do what it takes to deliver a trustworthy election than it will cost to restore voter trust once it is lost.
The people will not tolerate a questionable election result.
Al
Time for Action - Al to John and back John Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:03 AM
John,
I am not pushing the AutoMark, but use it as a reference point for what is out there. You can read a little about it at http://www.vogueelections.com/products_automark.html
Al
=================
Thanks, Al, that link was helpul. Now how do we put everything together by November?
--John
I am not pushing the AutoMark, but use it as a reference point for what is out there. You can read a little about it at http://www.vogueelections.com/products_automark.html
Al
=================
Thanks, Al, that link was helpul. Now how do we put everything together by November?
--John
Time for Action - John to Al Saturday, April 24, 2004 8:44 AM
Al, I agree absolutely. We have to know and agree on what we all want AND we have to know what exists now -- to determine how to get from A to B.
--John Burik
--John Burik
Time for Action - Belinda to Al Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:01 AM
Oh Al....am I with you.
This exactly what we need to do. This is the first common sense I have seen through out all this.
We brought this up a while back but were dismissed because there was such a focus on the Secretary's actions, getting the paper ballot, not put a strain on relationship between the majority and minority parties. Your idea probably will work because it would not be elected officials...it would have to be that to get over the barriers. For many reasons but it also would put the necessary hours behind the work to get it done.
Maybe they will listen to you. I hope so.
Just tell me how you think we can get this started...
Belinda
This exactly what we need to do. This is the first common sense I have seen through out all this.
We brought this up a while back but were dismissed because there was such a focus on the Secretary's actions, getting the paper ballot, not put a strain on relationship between the majority and minority parties. Your idea probably will work because it would not be elected officials...it would have to be that to get over the barriers. For many reasons but it also would put the necessary hours behind the work to get it done.
Maybe they will listen to you. I hope so.
Just tell me how you think we can get this started...
Belinda
Time for Action - Al to John, Belinda Saturday, April 24, 2004 7:57 AM
John, Belinda,
I am a technically oriented business executive, trained in formal problem analysis and decision making, and a practitioner of the art of systems architecture.
We have a classic situation. Without first documenting a precise and agreed to set of requirements, competing forces are pushing their "solution". These forces include disabled voters, technicians, political organizations, and election managers. This out-of-sequence approach is doomed to failure.
So the first step, in my opinion, must be to get the vested parties to agree first to the REQUIREMENTS of the voting system -- the entire voting system.
So how do we accomplish this? A multidisciplinary team of experts should be funded to produce a detailed ELECTION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS document. This process must be totally open to the public. The resulting requirements would be non-proprietary and public. Every voting system implementation would be required to prove that it meets or exceeds these requirements.
I believe that all of us want the same things -- every eligible voter must be given the opportunity to privately vote and cast a secure, indelible, verified and anonymous ballot that will be counted as the voter intends, and that the counting process must be transparent and verified.
Al Kolwicz
I am a technically oriented business executive, trained in formal problem analysis and decision making, and a practitioner of the art of systems architecture.
We have a classic situation. Without first documenting a precise and agreed to set of requirements, competing forces are pushing their "solution". These forces include disabled voters, technicians, political organizations, and election managers. This out-of-sequence approach is doomed to failure.
So the first step, in my opinion, must be to get the vested parties to agree first to the REQUIREMENTS of the voting system -- the entire voting system.
So how do we accomplish this? A multidisciplinary team of experts should be funded to produce a detailed ELECTION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS document. This process must be totally open to the public. The resulting requirements would be non-proprietary and public. Every voting system implementation would be required to prove that it meets or exceeds these requirements.
I believe that all of us want the same things -- every eligible voter must be given the opportunity to privately vote and cast a secure, indelible, verified and anonymous ballot that will be counted as the voter intends, and that the counting process must be transparent and verified.
Al Kolwicz
Time for Action - John to Al, Belinda, Greg Saturday, April 24, 2004 8:37 AM
Good morning Belinda, Al, Greg,
Thank you for the opportunity to begin this discussion which should have begun a long time ago, that is, secure voting for all citizens.
Belinda, to answer your question, I work with disabled individuals every day as a psychotherapist. Earlier in my mental health career I worked as a job coach with some clients who were also hearing impaired. Until you brought up the issue I had not thought of how visually impaired individuals voted.
Al, I am not familiar with the voting system you mentioned. Perhaps that system would meet Belinda's expressed concern at the voting machine end.
My concern has been 1) that I can verify that the vote I cast is what is recorded, and 2) that a record of that vote exist independent of the machine and its electronic record. If memory serves the Maryland study by RABA successfully manipulated totals without detection.
Is there equipment available that accommodates blind voters? Second, what processes can be put in place to offer appropriate oversight of election personnel?
John Burik
Democracy for Greater Cincinnati
Democracy for Ohio
Thank you for the opportunity to begin this discussion which should have begun a long time ago, that is, secure voting for all citizens.
Belinda, to answer your question, I work with disabled individuals every day as a psychotherapist. Earlier in my mental health career I worked as a job coach with some clients who were also hearing impaired. Until you brought up the issue I had not thought of how visually impaired individuals voted.
Al, I am not familiar with the voting system you mentioned. Perhaps that system would meet Belinda's expressed concern at the voting machine end.
My concern has been 1) that I can verify that the vote I cast is what is recorded, and 2) that a record of that vote exist independent of the machine and its electronic record. If memory serves the Maryland study by RABA successfully manipulated totals without detection.
Is there equipment available that accommodates blind voters? Second, what processes can be put in place to offer appropriate oversight of election personnel?
John Burik
Democracy for Greater Cincinnati
Democracy for Ohio
Time for Action - Saturday, April 24, 2004 8:41 AM Al to Belinda
Bleinda,
Your note says that you have seen the DRE. Have you seen any device like the AutoMARK "paper ballot vote marking device"?
1. This type of device prints your votes on your official paper ballot. It does not create any electronic record of your vote, and it does not create a secondary receipt.
2. The full ballot text is printed on every paper ballot, not just a summary of votes.
3. The same paper ballot can be used for early, precinct, provisional or absentee voting.
4. Because there is only one form of ballot, the same counting system is used to count all the votes. There is no separate counting system for absentee ballots.
5. The key operational difference between the DRE and the "paper ballot vote marking device" (VMD) is where the official record of vote is recorded. The DRE records the votes in computer memory and the VMD records the votes on a paper ballot.
6. As a blind voter, can you identify and help me to understand any problems created for a blind voter when votes are recorded on paper rather than in computer memory?
Al
Your note says that you have seen the DRE. Have you seen any device like the AutoMARK "paper ballot vote marking device"?
1. This type of device prints your votes on your official paper ballot. It does not create any electronic record of your vote, and it does not create a secondary receipt.
2. The full ballot text is printed on every paper ballot, not just a summary of votes.
3. The same paper ballot can be used for early, precinct, provisional or absentee voting.
4. Because there is only one form of ballot, the same counting system is used to count all the votes. There is no separate counting system for absentee ballots.
5. The key operational difference between the DRE and the "paper ballot vote marking device" (VMD) is where the official record of vote is recorded. The DRE records the votes in computer memory and the VMD records the votes on a paper ballot.
6. As a blind voter, can you identify and help me to understand any problems created for a blind voter when votes are recorded on paper rather than in computer memory?
Al
Time for Action - Saturday, April 24, 2004 6:36 AM Belinda to Al
Al
I haven't been clear and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this further.
Yes we've seen the DRE and know the software problems as the computer scientists testified and we do not deny that there is software problems. In Ohio, from what we can tell there seems to be a movement that a DRE will facilitate the vote only, print out a paper receipt and then a 3rd process would be to go to another mechanism that will read the vote and record it or give the voter that second chance to vote again if the information is not correct.
If we take that premise alone of a written paper ballot, there are no Braille mechanisms being developed for those who are Deaf and Blind that must have Braille because that is their only written language. As it comes to written that is our bottom line. Because this voter will need Braille instructions, would need Braille printout to go to the next verified process, when it is verified would have to read out Braille to make sure the instructions matched.
Also the DRE has an auditory function for those who are only Blind this function helps the voter go through the process of voting because once again the information is not in Braille. In the print out function again though, Braille would still be necessary to equal what you and I have in sight so the vote can be checked. I assume this will have to be so because everyone so far has said that there cannot be any disks and they don't like the smart card because even it could be programmed.
Any paper ballot process using electronic equipment, no matter what you call it, would have to have these minimal necessities. Every electronic machine would have to be gutted software wise and re done with new pass codes every election.
As far as the deception that a DRE can give a false reading of the vote...the same way our absentee ballots are not counted....not only were absentee ballots lost in Lucas County...some were counted twice...and this is the second time in two years that the Secretary of State had to step into Lucas County over vote tabulations. Sometimes absentee ballots are not counted, in Ohio, unless the election is close. Who is the person who decides close?
It is the same way Ohio lost 100,000 votes on punch card ballots in 2000...the same way you must trust Board of Elections to count the existing electronic votes...the same way lever machines were not set properly...or the losses because the rotation of the names of candidates was not done correctly leading to human error in Ohio 12th District where an entire House political office was recorded the total opposite of what the actual results were. The optical scanner has been losing votes across the country because they have problems reading the paper ballots. And let us not forget that in Florida there were numerous counts by hand because they continued to come up with different results.
Then you have an elected official who is in charge of elections and uses them to his best personal interest. The Secretary knows the errors and knows that in other states rules can be tightened and processes can be
mandatory but he chooses not to use them. In Ohio they 'don't like to tell
local people what to do" so they fall back to Local Rule which is the reason used not to correct the errors. So we know problems and we allow them
because it benefits the local people in charge instead of Democracy. It is
the same reasoning why it would be good for him to buy machines that he could manipulate. We get all that. But he manipulates the system now.
Things are wrong with your vote now...long before the electronic vote comes aboard and you aren't jumping all over them..just until the electronic voting machines shows up does anyone take an interest. It does not take a landslide to kill and election...It is the number of votes...there only has to be one to beat an opponent. Seemingly innocuous accidents in the system take 5, 8 and 11% of votes...isn't that already a manipulation of the system? What about all the other ways the election can be and is manipulated...Why aren't you upset about those?
I believe your question is really this...since we know there is a software problem with the DRE why don't we wait until the electronic voting issue is settled....since we've waited this long? Really that is it...right? Don't spend money on new equipment on less deserving people if it can wait until we get it right? Right?
Ultimately we've all been losing votes but at least in some form you have been provided a independent vote. And in some of our cases...we've never had a vote.
If you get your vote now...we want our vote now. If you take the chance that your vote is not safe, we want that same opportunity. If you want us to wait, we want you to wait. It is due process, equality and Civil Rights.
Don't ask us to do anything that you wouldn't want us to do.
Its not about manipulating the election, it already is in Ohio. It's not about the cost, look at the cost now and it is still failing us. Is it about a easier method of stealing elections? There is no easier method than having everything uncoordinated, only waiting to oversee until a citizen catches an error and sends it to the press.
Please tell me if I am missing anything.
Belinda
==============
continued at 7:50 AM
Gentlemen I also had another thought where you may be misunderstanding.
For a private independent vote it is the external components of the machine is what we need not the inside...am I making myself clear enough? The outside of the electronic voting machine is what we need now...do what you want with the inside...as long as it allows us to vote on the inside. Or is there a misunderstanding that the inside of the machines must be kept in place?
Society has designed a mechanism for you to be able to vote but not for everyone.
You know though, as soon as this argument ends the next one will be who designs the software...Since the Secretary appoints the Election Board, why isn't there an elected or appointed citizen board to oversee the Secretary of State. Isn't that what we do now with the legislature to oversee the other two branches?
I keep reading over your messages but I cannot seem to get you to see the failure in your reasoning. Is it maybe because you don't have any experience with disability? I don't know how to help you...ask me some more questions.
Belinda
I haven't been clear and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this further.
Yes we've seen the DRE and know the software problems as the computer scientists testified and we do not deny that there is software problems. In Ohio, from what we can tell there seems to be a movement that a DRE will facilitate the vote only, print out a paper receipt and then a 3rd process would be to go to another mechanism that will read the vote and record it or give the voter that second chance to vote again if the information is not correct.
If we take that premise alone of a written paper ballot, there are no Braille mechanisms being developed for those who are Deaf and Blind that must have Braille because that is their only written language. As it comes to written that is our bottom line. Because this voter will need Braille instructions, would need Braille printout to go to the next verified process, when it is verified would have to read out Braille to make sure the instructions matched.
Also the DRE has an auditory function for those who are only Blind this function helps the voter go through the process of voting because once again the information is not in Braille. In the print out function again though, Braille would still be necessary to equal what you and I have in sight so the vote can be checked. I assume this will have to be so because everyone so far has said that there cannot be any disks and they don't like the smart card because even it could be programmed.
Any paper ballot process using electronic equipment, no matter what you call it, would have to have these minimal necessities. Every electronic machine would have to be gutted software wise and re done with new pass codes every election.
As far as the deception that a DRE can give a false reading of the vote...the same way our absentee ballots are not counted....not only were absentee ballots lost in Lucas County...some were counted twice...and this is the second time in two years that the Secretary of State had to step into Lucas County over vote tabulations. Sometimes absentee ballots are not counted, in Ohio, unless the election is close. Who is the person who decides close?
It is the same way Ohio lost 100,000 votes on punch card ballots in 2000...the same way you must trust Board of Elections to count the existing electronic votes...the same way lever machines were not set properly...or the losses because the rotation of the names of candidates was not done correctly leading to human error in Ohio 12th District where an entire House political office was recorded the total opposite of what the actual results were. The optical scanner has been losing votes across the country because they have problems reading the paper ballots. And let us not forget that in Florida there were numerous counts by hand because they continued to come up with different results.
Then you have an elected official who is in charge of elections and uses them to his best personal interest. The Secretary knows the errors and knows that in other states rules can be tightened and processes can be
mandatory but he chooses not to use them. In Ohio they 'don't like to tell
local people what to do" so they fall back to Local Rule which is the reason used not to correct the errors. So we know problems and we allow them
because it benefits the local people in charge instead of Democracy. It is
the same reasoning why it would be good for him to buy machines that he could manipulate. We get all that. But he manipulates the system now.
Things are wrong with your vote now...long before the electronic vote comes aboard and you aren't jumping all over them..just until the electronic voting machines shows up does anyone take an interest. It does not take a landslide to kill and election...It is the number of votes...there only has to be one to beat an opponent. Seemingly innocuous accidents in the system take 5, 8 and 11% of votes...isn't that already a manipulation of the system? What about all the other ways the election can be and is manipulated...Why aren't you upset about those?
I believe your question is really this...since we know there is a software problem with the DRE why don't we wait until the electronic voting issue is settled....since we've waited this long? Really that is it...right? Don't spend money on new equipment on less deserving people if it can wait until we get it right? Right?
Ultimately we've all been losing votes but at least in some form you have been provided a independent vote. And in some of our cases...we've never had a vote.
If you get your vote now...we want our vote now. If you take the chance that your vote is not safe, we want that same opportunity. If you want us to wait, we want you to wait. It is due process, equality and Civil Rights.
Don't ask us to do anything that you wouldn't want us to do.
Its not about manipulating the election, it already is in Ohio. It's not about the cost, look at the cost now and it is still failing us. Is it about a easier method of stealing elections? There is no easier method than having everything uncoordinated, only waiting to oversee until a citizen catches an error and sends it to the press.
Please tell me if I am missing anything.
Belinda
==============
continued at 7:50 AM
Gentlemen I also had another thought where you may be misunderstanding.
For a private independent vote it is the external components of the machine is what we need not the inside...am I making myself clear enough? The outside of the electronic voting machine is what we need now...do what you want with the inside...as long as it allows us to vote on the inside. Or is there a misunderstanding that the inside of the machines must be kept in place?
Society has designed a mechanism for you to be able to vote but not for everyone.
You know though, as soon as this argument ends the next one will be who designs the software...Since the Secretary appoints the Election Board, why isn't there an elected or appointed citizen board to oversee the Secretary of State. Isn't that what we do now with the legislature to oversee the other two branches?
I keep reading over your messages but I cannot seem to get you to see the failure in your reasoning. Is it maybe because you don't have any experience with disability? I don't know how to help you...ask me some more questions.
Belinda
Time for Action - Friday, April 23, 2004 10:00 PM Al to Belinda
Belinda,
I think that I am missing something here.
In the first place, we do not support vvpat. VVPAT is a deception and gives sighted voters the false impression that they are verifying their ballot, but they are not. Under vvpat, the ballot that is counted is the electronic ballot.
We support full-ballot-text paper ballots that are marked by machine or by hand. A company called Vogue Election Systems is in the process of certifying such a paper ballot vote marking machine called AutoMark. Have you tried to use this equipment yet?
Al
I think that I am missing something here.
In the first place, we do not support vvpat. VVPAT is a deception and gives sighted voters the false impression that they are verifying their ballot, but they are not. Under vvpat, the ballot that is counted is the electronic ballot.
We support full-ballot-text paper ballots that are marked by machine or by hand. A company called Vogue Election Systems is in the process of certifying such a paper ballot vote marking machine called AutoMark. Have you tried to use this equipment yet?
Al
Time for Action - Friday, April 23, 2004 4:59 PM Belinda to Al
Hello Al
Thank you for your response.
I am aware of the argument for vvpat. I agree with a paper trail...but not at the cost of having other citizens denied their right to vote....
Plus the vvpat would sound logical if all things were equal and if Ohio had made elections accessible before the electronic voting machine showed up.
But they aren't and they didn't.
You could gut the software for this election and still get what you want.
...and now citizens, who can vote, are also wanting to participate in the discrimination. Incredible!!!
As things sit...
1) The Secretary of State will begin filing an extension and the Secretaries of States collectively are organizing to not implement because of the problems they might see when the federal committee puts their results out next year or so...so 2006 could also be set back which how long will that take?
2) While everyone is talking about how they are going to have their vote denied...citizens with disabilities are going to be denied vote, once again, this November...some have never had a vote...for the first time there is technology to help the blind and the vvpat community is wanting to deny them this opportunity... which means the vvpat movement is ok with that
3) vvpat has not come forward to do the right thing and help get us a vote this November
4) You still get to vote this November which is not equal protection under the law...you put your vote on hold...if you think it is ok to wait for the electronic machines...because that is what you are asking of us.
5) We appealed to the Statehouse for help, is this the new democracy...organizing against us which is a betrayal in the worst form
6) Why aren't you standing with us?
7) This is discrimination
8) 900,000 votes...you don't think we need them this year?
9) There are ways to make the election process accessible without the electronic machines. Why isn't Ohio doing it? Why aren't you organizing about that?
10) Participation in this organizing effort, against citizens with disabilities, is betraying all the people in your life who have disabilities.
Because of the emphasis on the lawsuit by blind citizens, which by the way they have a right to fight for their rights, I am outraged. I want to know why you aren't too!
Belinda
Thank you for your response.
I am aware of the argument for vvpat. I agree with a paper trail...but not at the cost of having other citizens denied their right to vote....
Plus the vvpat would sound logical if all things were equal and if Ohio had made elections accessible before the electronic voting machine showed up.
But they aren't and they didn't.
You could gut the software for this election and still get what you want.
...and now citizens, who can vote, are also wanting to participate in the discrimination. Incredible!!!
As things sit...
1) The Secretary of State will begin filing an extension and the Secretaries of States collectively are organizing to not implement because of the problems they might see when the federal committee puts their results out next year or so...so 2006 could also be set back which how long will that take?
2) While everyone is talking about how they are going to have their vote denied...citizens with disabilities are going to be denied vote, once again, this November...some have never had a vote...for the first time there is technology to help the blind and the vvpat community is wanting to deny them this opportunity... which means the vvpat movement is ok with that
3) vvpat has not come forward to do the right thing and help get us a vote this November
4) You still get to vote this November which is not equal protection under the law...you put your vote on hold...if you think it is ok to wait for the electronic machines...because that is what you are asking of us.
5) We appealed to the Statehouse for help, is this the new democracy...organizing against us which is a betrayal in the worst form
6) Why aren't you standing with us?
7) This is discrimination
8) 900,000 votes...you don't think we need them this year?
9) There are ways to make the election process accessible without the electronic machines. Why isn't Ohio doing it? Why aren't you organizing about that?
10) Participation in this organizing effort, against citizens with disabilities, is betraying all the people in your life who have disabilities.
Because of the emphasis on the lawsuit by blind citizens, which by the way they have a right to fight for their rights, I am outraged. I want to know why you aren't too!
Belinda
Time for Action - Friday, April 23, 2004 4:20 PM Al to Belinda
Belinda,
I hope that you are able to read this reply. I want you to know that people working for verifiable elections are very sensitive to the needs of voters with disabilities.
To privately vote an anonymous ballot is a right of every voter -- including disabled voters.
Every voter also has the right to verify that the votes recorded on one's own ballot are correct.
Hand marked paper ballots permit sighted voters to verify their votes, but prevent blind voters from voting in private.
Voting equipment that provides an ADA compliant interface can enable disabled voters to make their selections in private. There are at least two classes of such voting equipment: (1) Direct Record Electronic voting equipment, and (2) paper ballot vote marking equipment.
We vigorously support the use of voting equipment for voters, whether or not they are disabled. Not only can such equipment permit private voting, it can also make for a more accurate election because it reduces unintended under votes, eliminates over votes, and significantly reduces the number of ambiguous votes that require interpretation of voter intent.
However, we strongly oppose the use of Direct Record Electronic voting equipment because it records the votes in computer memory -- a so called "electronic ballot". Votes recorded in computer memory are not verifiable by the voter, they might not reflect the choice that the voter intended, they might be changed before they are counted, and there is no way to conduct a recount of the ballots that were verified by the voter (since there are none).
On the other hand, we strongly support the use of the second type of voting equipment -- paper ballot vote marking equipment. It provides all of the benefits outlined above and none of the problems. Voters with disabilities use the same user interface to make their selections as they would with a DRE. The differences between the two types of equipment occur after the voter presses the vote button (a DRE machine invisibly records something in computer memory, and a paper ballot vote marking machine prints the votes on the paper ballot). Votes on the paper ballot can be verified. A blind voter may re-insert their marked paper ballot into the machine and the machine will "read" the votes to the voter so the voter can verify that the votes are recorded as intended. A sighted voter may inspect the paper ballot and verify that the votes are recorded as intended. Either may request a replacement ballot if something is wrong. The machine does not remember the votes.
In addition to the obvious benefits to able and disabled voters outlined above, vote counting can be verified, recounts can reexamine the original verified ballots, and the same procedures used to count precinct and early ballots that were marked by voting machines can be used to count the hand-marked absentee ballots.
DRE equipment is not trustworthy and as a result elections conducted using DRE equipment are not trustworthy.
Paper ballot vote marking equipment on the other hand provides private voting for disabled voters without sacrificing the ability of all voters to verify that their vote is recorded correctly. Paper ballots also provide a way to verify that all votes are counted correctly.
We hope that you will test this new equipment and verify what I have told you. We hope you will help us to ensure that every voter is given the opportunity to privately vote an anonymous ballot and that every voter can verify that their vote is correctly recorded.
Please let me know any questions that you may have.
I hope that you are able to read this reply. I want you to know that people working for verifiable elections are very sensitive to the needs of voters with disabilities.
To privately vote an anonymous ballot is a right of every voter -- including disabled voters.
Every voter also has the right to verify that the votes recorded on one's own ballot are correct.
Hand marked paper ballots permit sighted voters to verify their votes, but prevent blind voters from voting in private.
Voting equipment that provides an ADA compliant interface can enable disabled voters to make their selections in private. There are at least two classes of such voting equipment: (1) Direct Record Electronic voting equipment, and (2) paper ballot vote marking equipment.
We vigorously support the use of voting equipment for voters, whether or not they are disabled. Not only can such equipment permit private voting, it can also make for a more accurate election because it reduces unintended under votes, eliminates over votes, and significantly reduces the number of ambiguous votes that require interpretation of voter intent.
However, we strongly oppose the use of Direct Record Electronic voting equipment because it records the votes in computer memory -- a so called "electronic ballot". Votes recorded in computer memory are not verifiable by the voter, they might not reflect the choice that the voter intended, they might be changed before they are counted, and there is no way to conduct a recount of the ballots that were verified by the voter (since there are none).
On the other hand, we strongly support the use of the second type of voting equipment -- paper ballot vote marking equipment. It provides all of the benefits outlined above and none of the problems. Voters with disabilities use the same user interface to make their selections as they would with a DRE. The differences between the two types of equipment occur after the voter presses the vote button (a DRE machine invisibly records something in computer memory, and a paper ballot vote marking machine prints the votes on the paper ballot). Votes on the paper ballot can be verified. A blind voter may re-insert their marked paper ballot into the machine and the machine will "read" the votes to the voter so the voter can verify that the votes are recorded as intended. A sighted voter may inspect the paper ballot and verify that the votes are recorded as intended. Either may request a replacement ballot if something is wrong. The machine does not remember the votes.
In addition to the obvious benefits to able and disabled voters outlined above, vote counting can be verified, recounts can reexamine the original verified ballots, and the same procedures used to count precinct and early ballots that were marked by voting machines can be used to count the hand-marked absentee ballots.
DRE equipment is not trustworthy and as a result elections conducted using DRE equipment are not trustworthy.
Paper ballot vote marking equipment on the other hand provides private voting for disabled voters without sacrificing the ability of all voters to verify that their vote is recorded correctly. Paper ballots also provide a way to verify that all votes are counted correctly.
We hope that you will test this new equipment and verify what I have told you. We hope you will help us to ensure that every voter is given the opportunity to privately vote an anonymous ballot and that every voter can verify that their vote is correctly recorded.
Please let me know any questions that you may have.
Time for Action - Friday, April 23, 2004 3:28 PM NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND FILES COMPLAINT
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
I truly understand your dedication to secure elections. And I appreciate your work to make our elections safe. Your points are right on task, except in the area of citizens with disabilities.
We are being asked to write letters to the editor and one of the complaints is because citizens who are blind filed a lawsuit in order to get a vote this election. Obviously we are very hurt that there seems to be an organizing effort against potential voters with disabilities. I have not done a very good job expressing our point of view, so I will attempt now.
When you write your letters and make your calls I ask you to keep in perspective about citizens with disabilities and why citizens who are blind filed the lawsuit.
According to the American Association of People with Disabilitites we believe that there are 900,000 citizens with disabilities in Ohio that could not vote in the 2000 election because the election was not accessible to them in one fashion or another.
Let us first start with who are the citizens with disabilities who have been denied their vote.
A disability can be a sensory impairment such as blindness, low vision, or other visual impairment, deafness, or being hard-of-hearing. It can be a mental impairment such as chronic mental illness, or one of the developmental disabilities of mental retardation, autism, epilepsy/seizure disorder and cerebral palsy. An increasingly frequent type of neurological impairment is traumatic brain injury (formerly called head injury), most often caused by accidents. It most often is a combination of.
Another category involves physical disabilities, which include a tremendous range and variety of conditions. The term physical disabilities covers spinal cord injuries, spina bifida and other congenital malformations. It also includes amputations, arthritis, muscular dystrophy and additional musculoskeletal conditions. Many physical disabilities can take the form of mobility impairment, a highly visible type of disability. An estimated 10% of people with mobility impairments use wheelchairs, and others use walkers, canes, braces or crutches.
Among the less visible disability types are learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, and chronic illness. A chronic illness can persist for months or even years, and its severity may require persons to be hospitalized during periodic flare ups. Among the various types of chronic illnesses are diabetes, cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, disorders of the kidneys, multiple sclerosis, sickle cell anemia, asthma, lupis, gastrointestinal disorders, cardiac conditions, osteoporosis, chronic back pain, cancer, and HIV/AIDS. Consistently being medically fragile also falls into this category.
Some of us are born with our disability, some acquire them later, some get injured at work, in recreational accidents, we have acquired diseases and conditions, have been victims of violence (domestic or community), are coming back from war, injured in car accidents and are those of us who have been healthy until we age. 2000 Census showed Ohio having 19% of our population of people with disabilities. In 2020 20% of our population will be 65 years and older with 50% of them those physically needing accessible accommodations. 95% of us will have atleast one disability before we die.
People with disabilities are family members, our friends and coworkers.
They are you and me in the future.
Let us go to the law.
Ohio Revised Code § 3501.29. Polling places
(B) The board shall assure that polling places are free of barriers that would impede ingress and egress of handicapped persons, that the entrances of polling places are level or are provided with a nonskid ramp of not over eight per cent gradient, and that doors are a minimum of thirty-two inches wide. Each county shall comply with these requirements according to the following timetable
(1) At least fifty per cent of the polling places in each county shall be in compliance by November 1, 1980;
(2) At least seventy-five per cent of the polling places in each county shall be in compliance by November 1, 1981;
(3) All polling places in each county shall be in compliance by November 1, 1982, except those that are specifically exempted by the secretary of state upon certification by a board of elections that a good faith, but unsuccessful, effort has been made to modify, or change the location of, such polling places
§ 3505.24. Assistance provided to elector with disability or illiterate elector Any elector who declares to the presiding judge of elections that the elector is unable to mark the elector's ballot by reason of blindness, disability, or illiteracy may b(e) accompanied in the voting booth and aided by any person of the elector's choice, other than the elector's employer, an agent of the elector's employer, or an officer or agent of the elector's union, if any. The elector also may request and receive assistance in the marking of the elector's ballot from two election officials of different political parties. Any person providing assistance in the marking of an elector's ballot under this section shall thereafter provide no information in regard to the marking of that ballot.
The federal Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 generally requires polling places across the United States to be physically accessible to people with disabilities for federal elections. Where no accessible location is available to serve as a polling place, a political subdivision must provide an alternate means of casting a ballot on the day of the election. This law also requires states to make available registration and voting aids for disabled and elderly voters, including information by telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDDs) which are also known as teletypewriters (TTYs).
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the "Motor Voter Act," makes it easier for all Americans to exercise their fundamental right to vote. One of the basic purposes of the Act is to increase the historically low registration rates of minorities and persons with disabilities that have resulted from discrimination. The Motor Voter Act requires all offices of State-funded programs that are primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities to provide all program applicants with voter registration forms, to assist them in completing the forms, and to transmit completed forms to the appropriate State official.
All the way from the law itself, including the process of and registration, is not in Braille, the vote itself is not in Braille. Other countries have multiple ways that they have made the vote accessible for citizens with disabilities, decades ago, without electronic voting machines.
In Ohio wheelchairs cannot get in polling sites that the Secretary has chosen because they are in historic churches, private residences and in public buildings that intentionally did not update their buildings as is required by law.
The Secretary is also afraid to move sites for economic reasons because people and organizations receive income from having their sites as poll sites and the removal of this income will be difficult to fight against.
Though Ohio laws says that citizens with disabilities "may b(e) accompanied in the voting booth and aided by any person of the elector's choice" more than half of Ohio's poll sites choose to have a member from each party, a second way to deny the voter his/her right.
People with disabilities are asked, still, two decades later, to use absentee ballot. Just last week the Secretary of State was overseeing the counting of absentee ballots that had been put in a box, taped up in a back room and not counted in Lucas County. Absentee ballots are not counted in Ohio because the process for counting absentee ballots, and how they are required to show up in the tallies, has not been standardized statewide for
88 counties.
State Agencies do not follow the Motor Voter Act to register citizens with disabilities to vote.
Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, for that matter, told me he had no motivation to make the vote accessible, prior to HAVA, has no plan for accessibility in the State HAVA Plan and has budgeted no money for any accessibility in his administrative budget or HAVA budget except in the
electronic machines. County Boards of Elections have been telling me that
they have been waiting for guidance from the Secretary on accessiblity for their county elections. The Secretary does not want citizens with disabilities to vote because he is afraid that under the treatment they have received from him that he will not be the recipient of that vote.
Every level of the current government, Governor Taft and the Legislature know of the problems in the lack of access to citizens with disabilities, because those citizens have told them. We all stood together in front of the Joint Committee on Ballot Security, in front of you, and told them.
Within the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Ballot Security, there was a recommendation to allow the Secretary of State to draw funds to lease electronic machines in the 29 (now 31) counties that had plans to release their machines in November, if he chooses. The Controlling Board did not see a proposal from the Secretary of State to release that money because the Secretary has no intention of. We have been told by the Secretary of State's office that there will be no accessibility changes for this election. So if the citizens who are blind do not sue, how will they get a vote?
Maybe a little perspective is needed. An equivalent comparison for you would be if the state put the entire election law into a foreign language, hid the law books from you, hid the sites of the election in buildings that only special people were given the key to. That is the current status of the voting for citizens with disabilities in Ohio.
If the Secretary of State denied you your vote how long would it take you to file a lawsuit? Why do you argue against the rights of citizens with disabilities to get theirs? Do not blame the citizens who are blind. Blame the Secretary of State and for not making the vote accessible to citizens with disabilities.
The problem of voting in Ohio is not just electronic voting and auditable paper trails.
The problem of voting in Ohio is that the entire system needs overhauling for the benefit of all of Ohio's citizens and no oversight has been given over the Secretary of State. No matter how many laws you put before an Secretary of State on paper trail, if he is not forced to fulfill them, what good is the law. No matter how many opportunities you give the Secretary to draw funds, if he does not write the proposal to do so, there will be no funds drawn down to purchase machines.
To make the vote accessible this November would require several things.
Each County Election Director needs to take an expert with them to analyze each of the poll sites. This would take one week. Then an analysis of sites to move poll sites to, another week. For this election only, each
County could lease machines or buy only one machine for each poll site. If
smart, they could purchase a variety of machines to act as a test on what they would like to purchase in the future. Implement the check list that the US Department of Justice released to make each poll site accessible.
All election materials could be converted to Braille easily by contacting their local organization for the blind. And each County could educate the public through an outreach. If they wanted. But they don't. Why is that?
Another example of how this November could include people with disabilities, be for the legislature to pick up their oversight of the Secretary of State
and force his hand to fully enforce the election law. Why aren't they
doing that?
In this tight election year, how important are 900,000 votes in Ohio? Why haven't you stood up to the Secretary of State and told him to make the vote accessible? Why has no one championed this misjustice? Why aren't you championing this injustice?
Shame on anyone and everyone who knows anything about this and does not act to help citizens get a vote this election. I did not say this before but I want to make sure you know this now. To take part in rhetoric against citizens with disabilities because they want to enforce their right to vote is discriminatory and the core of denying citizens due process under law.
Do not blame citizens who are blind for standing up for their rights. They are protecting your right to vote in the future.
Belinda Spinosi
Advocate for People with Disabilities
Reynoldsburg Ohio
I truly understand your dedication to secure elections. And I appreciate your work to make our elections safe. Your points are right on task, except in the area of citizens with disabilities.
We are being asked to write letters to the editor and one of the complaints is because citizens who are blind filed a lawsuit in order to get a vote this election. Obviously we are very hurt that there seems to be an organizing effort against potential voters with disabilities. I have not done a very good job expressing our point of view, so I will attempt now.
When you write your letters and make your calls I ask you to keep in perspective about citizens with disabilities and why citizens who are blind filed the lawsuit.
According to the American Association of People with Disabilitites we believe that there are 900,000 citizens with disabilities in Ohio that could not vote in the 2000 election because the election was not accessible to them in one fashion or another.
Let us first start with who are the citizens with disabilities who have been denied their vote.
A disability can be a sensory impairment such as blindness, low vision, or other visual impairment, deafness, or being hard-of-hearing. It can be a mental impairment such as chronic mental illness, or one of the developmental disabilities of mental retardation, autism, epilepsy/seizure disorder and cerebral palsy. An increasingly frequent type of neurological impairment is traumatic brain injury (formerly called head injury), most often caused by accidents. It most often is a combination of.
Another category involves physical disabilities, which include a tremendous range and variety of conditions. The term physical disabilities covers spinal cord injuries, spina bifida and other congenital malformations. It also includes amputations, arthritis, muscular dystrophy and additional musculoskeletal conditions. Many physical disabilities can take the form of mobility impairment, a highly visible type of disability. An estimated 10% of people with mobility impairments use wheelchairs, and others use walkers, canes, braces or crutches.
Among the less visible disability types are learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, and chronic illness. A chronic illness can persist for months or even years, and its severity may require persons to be hospitalized during periodic flare ups. Among the various types of chronic illnesses are diabetes, cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, disorders of the kidneys, multiple sclerosis, sickle cell anemia, asthma, lupis, gastrointestinal disorders, cardiac conditions, osteoporosis, chronic back pain, cancer, and HIV/AIDS. Consistently being medically fragile also falls into this category.
Some of us are born with our disability, some acquire them later, some get injured at work, in recreational accidents, we have acquired diseases and conditions, have been victims of violence (domestic or community), are coming back from war, injured in car accidents and are those of us who have been healthy until we age. 2000 Census showed Ohio having 19% of our population of people with disabilities. In 2020 20% of our population will be 65 years and older with 50% of them those physically needing accessible accommodations. 95% of us will have atleast one disability before we die.
People with disabilities are family members, our friends and coworkers.
They are you and me in the future.
Let us go to the law.
Ohio Revised Code § 3501.29. Polling places
(B) The board shall assure that polling places are free of barriers that would impede ingress and egress of handicapped persons, that the entrances of polling places are level or are provided with a nonskid ramp of not over eight per cent gradient, and that doors are a minimum of thirty-two inches wide. Each county shall comply with these requirements according to the following timetable
(1) At least fifty per cent of the polling places in each county shall be in compliance by November 1, 1980;
(2) At least seventy-five per cent of the polling places in each county shall be in compliance by November 1, 1981;
(3) All polling places in each county shall be in compliance by November 1, 1982, except those that are specifically exempted by the secretary of state upon certification by a board of elections that a good faith, but unsuccessful, effort has been made to modify, or change the location of, such polling places
§ 3505.24. Assistance provided to elector with disability or illiterate elector Any elector who declares to the presiding judge of elections that the elector is unable to mark the elector's ballot by reason of blindness, disability, or illiteracy may b(e) accompanied in the voting booth and aided by any person of the elector's choice, other than the elector's employer, an agent of the elector's employer, or an officer or agent of the elector's union, if any. The elector also may request and receive assistance in the marking of the elector's ballot from two election officials of different political parties. Any person providing assistance in the marking of an elector's ballot under this section shall thereafter provide no information in regard to the marking of that ballot.
The federal Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 generally requires polling places across the United States to be physically accessible to people with disabilities for federal elections. Where no accessible location is available to serve as a polling place, a political subdivision must provide an alternate means of casting a ballot on the day of the election. This law also requires states to make available registration and voting aids for disabled and elderly voters, including information by telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDDs) which are also known as teletypewriters (TTYs).
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the "Motor Voter Act," makes it easier for all Americans to exercise their fundamental right to vote. One of the basic purposes of the Act is to increase the historically low registration rates of minorities and persons with disabilities that have resulted from discrimination. The Motor Voter Act requires all offices of State-funded programs that are primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities to provide all program applicants with voter registration forms, to assist them in completing the forms, and to transmit completed forms to the appropriate State official.
All the way from the law itself, including the process of and registration, is not in Braille, the vote itself is not in Braille. Other countries have multiple ways that they have made the vote accessible for citizens with disabilities, decades ago, without electronic voting machines.
In Ohio wheelchairs cannot get in polling sites that the Secretary has chosen because they are in historic churches, private residences and in public buildings that intentionally did not update their buildings as is required by law.
The Secretary is also afraid to move sites for economic reasons because people and organizations receive income from having their sites as poll sites and the removal of this income will be difficult to fight against.
Though Ohio laws says that citizens with disabilities "may b(e) accompanied in the voting booth and aided by any person of the elector's choice" more than half of Ohio's poll sites choose to have a member from each party, a second way to deny the voter his/her right.
People with disabilities are asked, still, two decades later, to use absentee ballot. Just last week the Secretary of State was overseeing the counting of absentee ballots that had been put in a box, taped up in a back room and not counted in Lucas County. Absentee ballots are not counted in Ohio because the process for counting absentee ballots, and how they are required to show up in the tallies, has not been standardized statewide for
88 counties.
State Agencies do not follow the Motor Voter Act to register citizens with disabilities to vote.
Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, for that matter, told me he had no motivation to make the vote accessible, prior to HAVA, has no plan for accessibility in the State HAVA Plan and has budgeted no money for any accessibility in his administrative budget or HAVA budget except in the
electronic machines. County Boards of Elections have been telling me that
they have been waiting for guidance from the Secretary on accessiblity for their county elections. The Secretary does not want citizens with disabilities to vote because he is afraid that under the treatment they have received from him that he will not be the recipient of that vote.
Every level of the current government, Governor Taft and the Legislature know of the problems in the lack of access to citizens with disabilities, because those citizens have told them. We all stood together in front of the Joint Committee on Ballot Security, in front of you, and told them.
Within the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Ballot Security, there was a recommendation to allow the Secretary of State to draw funds to lease electronic machines in the 29 (now 31) counties that had plans to release their machines in November, if he chooses. The Controlling Board did not see a proposal from the Secretary of State to release that money because the Secretary has no intention of. We have been told by the Secretary of State's office that there will be no accessibility changes for this election. So if the citizens who are blind do not sue, how will they get a vote?
Maybe a little perspective is needed. An equivalent comparison for you would be if the state put the entire election law into a foreign language, hid the law books from you, hid the sites of the election in buildings that only special people were given the key to. That is the current status of the voting for citizens with disabilities in Ohio.
If the Secretary of State denied you your vote how long would it take you to file a lawsuit? Why do you argue against the rights of citizens with disabilities to get theirs? Do not blame the citizens who are blind. Blame the Secretary of State and for not making the vote accessible to citizens with disabilities.
The problem of voting in Ohio is not just electronic voting and auditable paper trails.
The problem of voting in Ohio is that the entire system needs overhauling for the benefit of all of Ohio's citizens and no oversight has been given over the Secretary of State. No matter how many laws you put before an Secretary of State on paper trail, if he is not forced to fulfill them, what good is the law. No matter how many opportunities you give the Secretary to draw funds, if he does not write the proposal to do so, there will be no funds drawn down to purchase machines.
To make the vote accessible this November would require several things.
Each County Election Director needs to take an expert with them to analyze each of the poll sites. This would take one week. Then an analysis of sites to move poll sites to, another week. For this election only, each
County could lease machines or buy only one machine for each poll site. If
smart, they could purchase a variety of machines to act as a test on what they would like to purchase in the future. Implement the check list that the US Department of Justice released to make each poll site accessible.
All election materials could be converted to Braille easily by contacting their local organization for the blind. And each County could educate the public through an outreach. If they wanted. But they don't. Why is that?
Another example of how this November could include people with disabilities, be for the legislature to pick up their oversight of the Secretary of State
and force his hand to fully enforce the election law. Why aren't they
doing that?
In this tight election year, how important are 900,000 votes in Ohio? Why haven't you stood up to the Secretary of State and told him to make the vote accessible? Why has no one championed this misjustice? Why aren't you championing this injustice?
Shame on anyone and everyone who knows anything about this and does not act to help citizens get a vote this election. I did not say this before but I want to make sure you know this now. To take part in rhetoric against citizens with disabilities because they want to enforce their right to vote is discriminatory and the core of denying citizens due process under law.
Do not blame citizens who are blind for standing up for their rights. They are protecting your right to vote in the future.
Belinda Spinosi
Advocate for People with Disabilities
Reynoldsburg Ohio
Saturday, April 10, 2004
Requirements for Trustworthy Elections – 2004 Primary and General
A. REQUIREMENTS for the 2004 Primary and General Elections
1. The accuracy of each process and team and individual must be measured before it is used in production. The accuracy of each must be sampled during and after the election. These measurements must be made public on the Internet within two hours of their determination.
2. Procedures for precinct and central poll watching must be developed to give watchers the ability to actually read the information that is being processed, a procedure for reporting problems, a procedure for resolving problem reports in a timely manner, and no charge and timely access to needed records including computer files.
3. Records such as registration lists and in-person and absentee poll books must be maintained in a form that is open to viewing by poll watchers throughout the election cycle. The official voter registration list must be the one used on Election Day.
4. All votes must be recorded on preprinted paper ballots that contain a removable ballot stub.
5. Every voter must have the opportunity to verify the marks on their ballot and to either obtain a replacement ballot or deposit their anonymous ballot into a secure ballot box.
6. A ballot voted in person must take precedence over an absentee ballot for the same voter. (This requires that absentee ballot return envelopes not be opened before early, precinct and provisional voting has completed.)
7. Rules for absentee ballot qualification must be documented, approved by the political parties, uniformly and strictly interpreted, and the qualification of voters and absentee ballots must done in a transparent fashion and open to oversight. The measurement requirements in #1 above must be met.
8. The ballots to be interpreted and counted are the paper ballots that were verified and cast by the voters. Ballots must not be interpreted or counted before Election Day.
9. Rules for interpretation of a vote must be documented, approved by the political parties, uniformly and strictly interpreted, and the interpretation of votes must be done in a transparent fashion and open to oversight and must be verifiable down to a 50 ballot batch. The measurement requirements in #1 above must be met.
10. Rules for counting the interpreted votes be documented, approved by the political parties, uniformly and strictly interpreted, and the counting of votes must be done in a transparent fashion and open to oversight and must be verifiable down to a 50 ballot batch. The measurement requirements in #1 above must be met.
11. Rules for conducting a recount must be documented, approved by the political parties, uniformly and strictly interpreted, and the recount must be done in a transparent fashion and open to oversight and must be verifiable down to a 50 ballot batch. The recount must begin with the original ballots cast by the voters (this means that the votes must be re-interpreted). The recount personnel and systems must have no detail knowledge from a prior count/recount. The measurement requirements in #1 above must be met.
12. Rules for verifying the accuracy of the election must be documented including formulae for auditing ballots, voters, votes, problem reports, and the precision of the election.
13. Before declaring final election results, measurement statistics must be made public.
B. STATUTES & RULES that prohibit us from achieving the requirements -- Nothing in the current law or rules is known to prohibit this.
C. AUTHORITY that can make the decision to achieve the requirement -- Local Election Officials have this authority.
1. The accuracy of each process and team and individual must be measured before it is used in production. The accuracy of each must be sampled during and after the election. These measurements must be made public on the Internet within two hours of their determination.
2. Procedures for precinct and central poll watching must be developed to give watchers the ability to actually read the information that is being processed, a procedure for reporting problems, a procedure for resolving problem reports in a timely manner, and no charge and timely access to needed records including computer files.
3. Records such as registration lists and in-person and absentee poll books must be maintained in a form that is open to viewing by poll watchers throughout the election cycle. The official voter registration list must be the one used on Election Day.
4. All votes must be recorded on preprinted paper ballots that contain a removable ballot stub.
5. Every voter must have the opportunity to verify the marks on their ballot and to either obtain a replacement ballot or deposit their anonymous ballot into a secure ballot box.
6. A ballot voted in person must take precedence over an absentee ballot for the same voter. (This requires that absentee ballot return envelopes not be opened before early, precinct and provisional voting has completed.)
7. Rules for absentee ballot qualification must be documented, approved by the political parties, uniformly and strictly interpreted, and the qualification of voters and absentee ballots must done in a transparent fashion and open to oversight. The measurement requirements in #1 above must be met.
8. The ballots to be interpreted and counted are the paper ballots that were verified and cast by the voters. Ballots must not be interpreted or counted before Election Day.
9. Rules for interpretation of a vote must be documented, approved by the political parties, uniformly and strictly interpreted, and the interpretation of votes must be done in a transparent fashion and open to oversight and must be verifiable down to a 50 ballot batch. The measurement requirements in #1 above must be met.
10. Rules for counting the interpreted votes be documented, approved by the political parties, uniformly and strictly interpreted, and the counting of votes must be done in a transparent fashion and open to oversight and must be verifiable down to a 50 ballot batch. The measurement requirements in #1 above must be met.
11. Rules for conducting a recount must be documented, approved by the political parties, uniformly and strictly interpreted, and the recount must be done in a transparent fashion and open to oversight and must be verifiable down to a 50 ballot batch. The recount must begin with the original ballots cast by the voters (this means that the votes must be re-interpreted). The recount personnel and systems must have no detail knowledge from a prior count/recount. The measurement requirements in #1 above must be met.
12. Rules for verifying the accuracy of the election must be documented including formulae for auditing ballots, voters, votes, problem reports, and the precision of the election.
13. Before declaring final election results, measurement statistics must be made public.
B. STATUTES & RULES that prohibit us from achieving the requirements -- Nothing in the current law or rules is known to prohibit this.
C. AUTHORITY that can make the decision to achieve the requirement -- Local Election Officials have this authority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)