Re: suggested proposals for federal election integrity legislation

From: Ron Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Fri Dec 01 2006 - 13:50:29 CST
Arthur Keller wrote:
At 4:34 PM -0800 11/30/06, Ginny Ross wrote:
Arthur Keller wrote:

On another note, I am wondering what people on this list think about
all paper ballots (either hand-marked or computer-marked or
-printed); in-precinct cast ordinary ballots (not provisional, not
absentee) are scanned by in-precinct optical scan and then a
confirming hand count is made at the close of polls.  The optical
scanner checks for blank ballots and overvotes.

The hand-count tally is a check on the computer tally and vice-versa.

Arthur, is the hand-count a full count or a sampling?  Speaking as a
lawyer, I can see where there would be a battle over primacy.  Would one
of the counts be the 'count of record'?   Seems that if the hand count
is the count of record, why even bother with all the machinery.  Also,
if the machine count is the count of record, why do a full hand count as

It would sure be nice of course, to have both.  But how would it fly
politically and economically?

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV.

If you don't use PCOS with hand marked ballots, you can't check for 
overvotes.  That's one thing that HAVA now requires and I think it 
will be hard to justify to the Congresspeople that make the decisions 
giving that up for HCPB.

Best regards,

HAVA does not require overvote checking. It requires either overvote checking, s.301(a)(1)(A)(iii) or appropriate voter education describing the consequences of overvoting and how to correct an overvoted ballot. s.301(a)(1)(B).


OVC-discuss mailing list

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Sun Dec 31 23:17:07 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 23:17:16 CST