Re: SB 1438 is law in CA...

From: Barbara Simons <simons_at_acm_dot_org>
Date: Tue Sep 28 2004 - 21:01:37 CDT

I hadn't realized that the law was so flawed. It's a big mistake to say
that the paper is not a ballot. Doesn't that imply that if a manual recount
of the paper disagrees with the electronic tally, then the electronic
results trump the paper results?

If that's the case, then what is the point of an AVVPAT?

Regards,
Barbara

On 9/28/04 16:29, "Joseph Lorenzo Hall" <joehall@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:25:54 -0700, Alan Dechert
> <alan@openvotingconsortium.org> wrote:
>> Thanks, Joe. The wording is still a little weird, but as long as OVC's
>> design is not considered a DRE, that's an improvement over the original
>> draft we saw.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> The language is slightly self-contradictory since DRE is said to mean "no
>> tangible ballot," but DREs now have to have a "voter verified paper audit
>> trail."
>>
>> BTW, is "Paper record copy" a tangible ballot?
>
> No... from the law as enrolled[1]:
>
> (e) "Paper record copy" means an auditable document printed by a
> voter verified paper audit trail component that corresponds to the
> voter's electronic vote and lists the contests on the ballot and the
> voter's selections for those contests. *A paper record copy is not a
> ballot.*
>
> Notice the last sentence, emphasis added.
>
> [1]
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1438_bill_20040827_enro
> lled.html
>
>> In other words, wouldn't it have made more sense to just say, that "DREs
>> will no longer be permitted? All voting machines must include a voter
>> verified paper audit trail."
>
> There's definitely probably better wording for this legislation... I
> see your point... but I think what it was trying to do was to say that
> any DRE (as defined *now* in that legislation) must include AVVPAT
> capability to be approved for use after 1/1/2005 (and used after
> 1/1/2006).
>
>> I know you worked on this a bit, but I don't think this is your wording.
>> Did Cindy Cohen write that?
>
> I don't think Cindy Cohn had anything to do with it (at least, to my
> knowledge). My wording for the definition of DRE was[2]:
>
> "Direct recording electronic voting system" means a voting system
> that includes all of the following:
> (1) A device or system that does not require the voter to record his
> or her vote directly onto a tangible ballot.
> (2) A device or system where an electronic record of an individual's
> vote is considered the official record.
>
> [2] http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/June.2004/0329.html
>
> You can see that the "tangible ballot" language entered the record
> with the second amendment that dealt with the definition of a DRE...
> here is the original bill, the second DRE def. amendment and the final
> DRE def. amendment:
>
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1438_bill_20040219_intr
> oduced.html
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1438_bill_20040427_amen
> ded_sen.html
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1438_bill_20040701_amen
> ded_asm.html
>
> When I authored the letter linked to above[2], I was mostly concerned
> with the second definition which was woefully imprecise and broad.
>
> I really think that the DRE definition should have hinged on 1) lack
> of an independent, easily comprehendible, ballot-image event log
> (paper/VVPAT is an easy one) and 2) what is considered the official
> record of the vote. DREs don't have the first of these and some chunk
> of memory is the second...
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Thu Sep 30 23:17:09 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 30 2004 - 23:17:11 CDT