Re: SB 1438 is law in CA...

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Wed Sep 29 2004 - 10:17:44 CDT

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:01:37 -0700, Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org> wrote:
> I hadn't realized that the law was so flawed. It's a big mistake to say
> that the paper is not a ballot.

A ballot is a special legal definition that includes specifications
about font sizes, water-marking, paper-weight, etc. ...

> 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?

Yes. In fact, that's explicitly stated in the CA SoS's AVVPAT regs:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ks_dre_papers/avvpat_standards_6_15a_04.pdf

2.1.1.4 In the case of a difference between the electronic record
and the paper record copy, the paper record copy shall govern,
unless there is clear evidence that the paper record copy is
inaccurate, incomplete or unreadable as defined in the system
procedures.

Doug has pointed out that having anything trump anything else is bad
policy... and I agree. If there's an error, the error should be
figured out and dealt with.

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

It's an independent event log / audit trail.

Joe

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
http://pobox.com/~joehall/
blog: http://pobox.com/~joehall/nqb2/
==================================================================
= 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