Re: SB 1438 is law in CA...

From: Douglas W. Jones <jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu>
Date: Thu Sep 30 2004 - 14:19:37 CDT

On Sep 30, 2004, at 2:04 PM, Barbara Simons wrote:

> Hi, Doug. I understand the point you are making. But I think the
> subtlety
> of such a point can be lost in the political debate.
>
> For the sake of argument suppose that you have no evidence or that you
> have
> no evidence of any kind of tampering with either the paper or
> electronic
> versions.

Indeed, in the lack of all other evidence, a voter-verified paper
ballot should be treated as an original document of the voter's
intent, while an electronic record of that ballot should be treated
as a copy.

My concern is that, when there is a disagreement, we must demand that
the other evidence be found and examined.

Riverside County and the Florida Secretary of State have been denying
that there is any need to examine any of the voluminous sources of
additional evidence that are available with today's DRE machines.
Adding another source of evidence (the VVPT) is good, but adding
evidence is of marginal use if laws are interpreted as allowing
evidence to be entirely ignored or suppressed.

                Doug Jones
                jones@cs.uiowa.edu
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:10 2004

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