 |
CAMBER |
|
|
|
CAMBER Questions to Proposal Evaluation Committee March 13, 2006
CAMBER Citizens for Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results 2867 Tincup Circle Boulder, CO 80305 303-494-1540 www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz www.coloradovoter.blogspot.com
March 13, 2006
Boulder County Clerk’s Proposal Evaluation Committee
Josh Liss Nancy Jo Wurl Tim Hansford Mike Harlan Jana Petersen Marty Neilson Deb Gardner Bo Shaffer Barbara Anuta Faith Gross
RE: Questions regarding the beneficiaries, the committee, and the demonstration.
Attached is a set of questions that we hope you will find helpful to your work. Answers will certainly help the public better understand the evaluation effort.
Please feel free to call on me for any clarification.
Al Kolwicz
CAMBER is a dedicated group of volunteers who are working to ensure that every voter gets to vote once, every vote is counted once, and that every ballot is secure and anonymous.
I. ADA/language Voters
“ADA/language voters” are voters who are covered by the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act and those requiring non-English Language voting capabilities.
Does the county have the following information? If so, please provide copies. If not, please explain how can the county make an equipment decision before knowing the requirements? For example, mightn’t a precinct have special capacity requirements to serve a large ADA/language population?
II. Lease RFP Proposal Evaluation Committee
The county has stated that they are obliged under HAVA to provide DRE voting equipment to ADA/language voters for the 2006 Primary and General Elections. The decision to lease ADA/language voting equipment will be influenced by a committee which has been hand-picked by the Clerk. Please answer the following:
III. Equipment demonstration
Equipment demonstrations can be very deceptive. By excluding the “tough” cases, equipment can be made to “look good”. Specially trained demo operators can avoid problem areas and create the illusion of a successful demo. By scripting a demo, systems issues can be avoided.
Boulder County’s ADA/language voting equipment must integrate smoothly into a complex system, must deal with difficult problems, and must do so in a transparent and verifiably secure and accurate manner.
1. Anonymous ballots for all voting methods 2. Verification that the voting equipment contains certified software 3. Verification that the voting equipment is the certified hardware 4. Integration with the current Boulder County Voter Registration file and poll book including late registration and voting changes 5. Training of representative election judges 6. Election setup including special languages 7. Verification of election setup 8. Precinct accessibility 9. Open polls 10. Close polls 11. Precinct and central poll watchers have unobstructed access to all information needed to perform their duties under CRS 1-7-108 (3). 12. Verification that the correct ballot is issued to the voter 13. Multiple voters representing the various disabilities 14. Verification that each “type” of ADA voter can vote in private without assistance 15. Absentee voting by ADA/language voters 16. Provisional voting by ADA/language voters 17. Attempt to vote by absentee ballot and also vote using a DRE 18. Recording of problems and challenges 19. Resolution of challenges and problems 20. Consolidation of voting equipment results with other voting equipment and other voting method results 21. Hardware Diagnostic Test 22. Logic & Accuracy Test (system wide) 23. Post-Election Audit Test (system wide) 24. Canvass board 25. Disaster recovery 26. Candidate initiated recount 27. Final election reports and files 28. Attempts to “cheat” by voter 29. Attempts to “cheat” by insider 30. Verification that each ballot was individually recorded correctly 31. Compliance with HAVA, particularly Section 301(a)(3) and (4) (attached): a. same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and independence) as for other voters b. alternative language 32. Transparency – every file, document and process is open to independent oversight with the single exceptions of: (a) associating a voter and their vote, and (b) social security numbers. 33. Verifiability – every file, document and process is open to independent verification, and such verification is available. 34. Anonymity – no ballot can be associated with a specific voter 35. Security – every file, document and process is verifiably secure from internal and external threat 36. Accuracy – every file, document and process is verifiably accurate.
TITLE III—UNIFORM AND NON DISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY AND ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS Subtitle A—Requirements
SEC. 301. VOTING SYSTEMS STANDARDS.
(a) REQUIREMENTS.—Each voting system used in an election for Federal office shall meet the following requirements:
(3) ACCESSIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.—
The voting system shall—
(A) be accessible for individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and visually impaired, in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and independence) as for other voters;
(B) satisfy the requirement of subparagraph (A) through the use of at least 1 direct recording electronic voting system or other voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities at each polling place; and
(C) if purchased with funds made available under title II on or after January 1, 2007, meet the voting system standards for disability access (as outlined in this paragraph).
(4) ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE ACCESSIBILITY.—
The voting system shall provide alternative language accessibility pursuant to the requirements of section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.1973aa–1a).
|
|
CAMBER is a dedicated group of volunteers who are working to ensure that |