Re: Summary Paper Ballot

From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Fri Jun 18 2004 - 12:55:54 CDT

David,

> 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.
>
Right. And there may be things we want spelled out that would be
meaningless on other types of paper ballots. For example, we may want to
stipulate that selections will be printed in a font easily read by OCR
scanners.

We may also want to consider the extent to which our specification
includes/precludes other computerized ballot marking systems (e.g.,
Populex). Which reminds me, we should also start using "Computerized Ballot
Marking System." It's terminology like that that saved us from falling
under the DREs with printers standards of the CA SOS.

Alan
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:19 2004

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