Re: New York Times Quote of the Day & Provisional ballots

From: David Jefferson <d_jefferson_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Fri Aug 06 2004 - 13:05:38 CDT

I do know the status of the recertification: three vendors
systems have already been recertified after the vendors agreed
to those of the Secretary of State's 23 conditions that apply to
them. The fourth, the Diebold TS system, will almost certainly
be recertified shortly (perhaps today). The Voting Systems and
Procedures panel, the body that makes recommendations on
certification to the SoS (and on which I sit) recommended
Diebold TS recertification with some additional conditions.
(The Diebold TSx, however, will not be recertified.) All of
these recerts are, in effect, temporary, since the 2006 deadline
for AVVPAT still applies.

As far as I know, all California counties that have DREs (except
those that had TSx systems) will use them this fall, but under
new procedures and in accordance with the 23 conditions.

David

--- "Edmund R. Kennedy" <ekennedyx@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hello David:
>
> I've volunteered to be a poll worker down in San Diego County.
> I know we're going to use optical scan or mark sense ballots
> in November. I'm not sure if any California counties are
> actually going to be able to legally use their DRE machines.
> Arthur, Alan or anyone, do you know the status of the
> 'recertifiication' of the non-Diebold DRE machines? Also,
> when you use optical scan or mark sense systems, is the
> nominal ballot filled out by the voter just part of the audit
> trail or is it formally the ballot (this question is not
> restricted just to California)? Additionally I am not
> familiar with the details of when the ballots are counted on
> optical scan systems. Are they typically counted 'on the fly'
> as the ballots are handed in or are they counted after the
> polls are closed? I can see pros and cons for each way.
>
> Finally, not to throw a wrench into the works, but what about
> using the EVM as a front end to existing optical scan ballot
> systems? The voter would use the touch screen to mark the
> ballot which would be printed out in a format compatable with
> existing optical scan voting equipment and counted by existing
> optical scan voting equipment. This could be a neat dance
> step around the old issue of bar codes versus OCR.
>
> Thanks, Ed Kennedy
>
> David Jefferson <d_jefferson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In California, provisional ballots ARE placed into the ballot
> box, at least in those counties that have ballot boxes anyway.
>
> Whether DRE counties also have ballot boxes I am not sure,
> although since state law allows people with absentee ballots
> to
> drop them off at precinct polling places, I guess they must. I
> should know this, but I don't!
>
> David
>
>
> --- "Edmund R. Kennedy" wrote:
>
> > Hello All:
> >
> > Would the OVC EVM aid in the casting of provisional ballots?
>
> > I could see a routine, when triggered somehow, that marks
> > across the face of the ballot PROVISIONAL and prints out the
> > proper affadavit language for the voter to sign.
> >
> > I understand that the voter puts their provisional ballot
> into
> > an envelope. Typically what happense to the envelope after
> > that? Is it placed (envelope and all) into the ballot box? I
> > could see this decreasing the likelihood that these
> > provisional ballots would get 'lost'.
> >
> > Thanks, Ed Kennedy
> >
> > Arthur Keller wrote:
> > "You talk about testing with real bullets, this is going to
> be
> >
> > testing election reform with real ballots."
> > - DOUG CHAPIN, executive director of a nonpartisan election
> > watchdog
> > group, on provisional voting.
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/06/politics/campaign/06vote.html?th
> >
> > --
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA
> > 94303-4507
> > tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
> >
> >
> > 10777 Bendigo Cove
> > San Diego, CA 92126-2510
> >
> > Amendment 1 to the US Constitution
> >
> > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or
> > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
> right
> > of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
> > government for the redress of grievances."
>
>
>
> 10777 Bendigo Cove
> San Diego, CA 92126-2510
>
> Amendment 1 to the US Constitution
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or
> abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
> of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
> government for the redress of grievances."
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Aug 31 23:17:05 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 31 2004 - 23:17:22 CDT