Re: Reduced Paper Ballot -- RPB

From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Fri Jun 18 2004 - 14:21:47 CDT

> Ah, I'm starting to get the drift. A lot of these rules are from CA
> Election Code and are there for various reasons of public policy.
> Some should apply to the OVC ballots, some don't really make sense in
> the OVC contest... for example, there are specific laws for ballots
> counted by "electronic or electromechanical devices":
Good one. For example, 13244 doesn't work with our summary ballot:

     13244. The sample ballot provided pursuant
     to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 13300)
     shall be a substantial facsimile of the official
     ballot, including instructions to voters.

> What is seems like we need is similar rules for machine-printed
> official ballots. This is something that the SoS should promulgate.
Depends exactly what you mean by promulgate. I would say the OVC should
promulate these proposed changes in code. We will promulgate these changes
across state and local jurisdictions. The CA SOS is important, but the MA
SOS is also important. Likewise for the other state governments we are
working with.

If we get the CA SOS on board, he is the one that should draft appropriate
legislation and get sponsors in the legislature to get the legislation
passed. So, in this sense, I agree.

Speaking of getting our terminology into use.... I just got an email from a
writer that wants to do a story. So we should make some quick decisions on
what terms to use for now.

Arthur suggested Paper Summary Ballot. We also discussed on the phone some
issues with "computerized ballot marking system." I asked Doug Jones to
comment but he may not be available until Monday.

Alan D.
= 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