Re: On DREs vs. Opscan...

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Wed Jun 20 2007 - 12:10:42 CDT

On 6/20/07, Richard C. Johnson <> wrote:
> In fact, there must be two envelopes, a inner blank one containing the
> ballot and an outer one containing the voter information regarding the
> provisional voter. When the outer envelope (with the voter information on
> it) is opened (only if the voter is accepted and the inner ballot destined
> to be counted), the blank envelope must confront the gaze of the person
> knowing who the voter is. This person having the outer ballot with voter
> information on it must NOT see the ballot itself. Then, the blank envelopes
> containing the ballot must be put into a separate box and, in turn, be
> opened by another person without access to the voter information. Any
> procedure such as you indicate with a single envelope will violate the
> voting privacy laws of most states; the double envelopes must always be used
> in provisional (or mail in) voting to insure privacy. IMHO.

It would be ideal if this prescription were followed but very few
jurisdictions spend money on double envelope solutions. Another
solution that I've heard of has a removable panel on only one envelope
with all the voter's information... if they check out, the panel is
removed. It would be nice if the election day survey (or some other
survey) actually got some statistical data on what types of
jurisdictions use double envelopes versus single. best, Joe

Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley School of Information
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 Sat Jun 30 23:17:02 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 23:17:05 CDT