---

From: Al Kolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:22 PM
To: 'Wayne Munster'
Cc: 'Bill Hobbs'; 'Monica Marquez'; 'Gigi Dennis'; 'John Gardner'
Subject: RE: HAVA Complaint - SOS-HAVA-01-06-0001

 

Mr. Munster,

 

RE: Your e-mail message of May 9^th

 

1. It seems reasonable to us that the remedy should be known before the hearing.  Does SOS not have a policy for a device [that] does not meet certification standards?  If so, what is that policy?  In at least one previous hearing the SOS disregarded the facts and came to a conclusion that was harmful to the public.  We do not want to see a repetition of this.  Because many Colorado Counties have plans underway to procure this equipment and are relying on the fact that it meets requirements there will be enormous internal pressure to permit use of this equipment even though it does not provide anonymous and verifiable voting.  If there is no such policy, can we agree that if the eSlate does violate either or both of the requirements we have identified that its certification will be rescinded?

 

2. When we refer to preparations for the hearing we are assuming that we share with you a common desire to evaluate the facts and do what is needed to comply with the law.  It appears that you have a different idea about the form of the hearing than we do.  We understand you to be describing a one-way hearing where the SOS sits in judgment of itself, does not provide data, and does not respond to questions.  This would be totally unfair and pointless.  We expect an honest broker that will ensure that this matter is handled in a manner that is best for the public, not what is best for the SOS.

 

3. We appreciate your sharing the 2003 DOJ Opinion.  As you know, this opinion has been outdated by the availability of new technologies that audibly recite the votes marked on paper and mechanical overlay devices that enable blind voters to verify their votes.  We would like to know before the hearing why the AutoMark was not certified and the eSlate was certified.  Both are unable to meet the private voting requirements of a particular disabled voter population, albeit a different population.

 

4. Regarding our request for the Federal and State certification tests, we are interested specifically in the tests that were used to verify that the eSlate provides anonymous voting in accordance with the Colorado Constitution, and the tests that were used to verify that a blind voter can verify the votes recorded on the paper audit trail.  We expect that either: (1) no such tests were conducted, or (2) if tests were conducted they were inadequate, or (3) the tests were adequate and did in fact detect the flaws and the equipment was certified in spite of this knowledge.  As you can readily see, which of these facts is true will significantly change the content of the hearing.  This is why we have asked you to provide us with these tests.

 

5. The purpose of the hearing is to determine the facts.  This is not limited to recording what the public says.  Our complaint is very specific and limited.  FACT:  The requirements for anonymous and verifiable voting are set forth in the referenced sections of the constitution and the law.  Does the SOS contend that Article VII Section 8 of the Colorado Constitution is unclear or ambiguous?  Does the SOS contend that the HAVA sections cited are unclear or ambiguous?  This is important to know in advance of the hearing because if either of these is true the content of the hearing will change significantly.  That is why we have asked to participate in the setting of the agenda -- to ensure that the facts needed by the public for the hearing are available to the public well in advance of the hearing.

 

6. Re testing, we are interested only in precisely how it was verified that the eSlate meets the anonymous and verifiable voting requirements identified in this complaint.

 

7. In your description of the hearing, you do not show the SOS testifying, or being subjected to questions.  This is not acceptable.  The public does not have all of the facts – the SOS has them.  The public is not being charged with wrongful certification of voting equipment the law – the SOS is.  Your model suggests a debate between members of the public.  We are not talking about public opinions here, we are talking about facts.  You mention time limitations.  This would likely occur if the necessary meeting preparations are not made in advance, as we are asking.  Surely you see that the hearing model you describe is totally inadequate to the need.

 

8. Is there any reason that we would not be permitted to create a video record of the hearing?

 

9. We have no specific desire to meet privately with the SOS to prepare for the hearing, although we are very happy to do so..  We’d be happy to do so in any public forum.  We do believe that to not prepare adequately will waste valuable time and produce an inadequate result.  As you know, the determination of this hearing will have national consequences.

 

Please consider our requests for data a formal request under the Colorado Open Records Act.

 

We look forward to progress on the planning for the hearing.

 

Al Kolwicz

CAMBER – Citizens for Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results

2867 Tincup Circle

Boulder, CO 80305

303-494-1540

AlKolwicz@qwest.net

www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz

www.coloradovoter.blogspot.com

 

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.