Summary Paper Ballot

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Fri Jun 18 2004 - 12:46:17 CDT

On Jun 18, 2004, at 1:33 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> I'm having a hard time figuring out what we want!
> What part of the definition of "ballot" isn't sufficient?

I think the concern is that some regulation might read, e.g.:

   Paper ballots shall contain each candidate's name in a 12
   point serif font, and his party affiliation on a separate
   line, bolded and in a 10 point font.

I'm sure Doug could give a better idea about what the rules actually
say, but my impression is that this is the sort of thing regulated.

If OVC "Summary Paper Ballots" were treated as falling under the
closest category--pre-printed full ballots forms (what you mark with a
pen)--it would require layout features that would probably not be
appropriate for us. Most especially in needing to contain every
candidate name, even those not voted for (i.e. 135 candidates for
California Gubernatorial Recall). To a lesser extent, OVC might also
not want to use the same typography or spacing that makes sense for a
pre-printed ballot form.

Of course, it is perfectly reasonable for jurisdictions to regulate
what an OVC ballot looks like too. A 6 point font isn't verifiable
under our system, and a state has a right to state that in law. But
being in a separate category allows regulation to fit the OVC model.

Dred Scott 1857; Santa Clara 1876; Plessy 1892;
Korematsu 1944; Eldred 2003
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Wed Jun 30 23:17:18 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 23:17:30 CDT