|
ColoradoVoter
BLOG
Email to
CAMBER
Home
| |
HAVA complaint
against HART eSlate certification
From:
Al Kolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 2:16 PM
To: 'Dana Williams'
Cc: Gigi Dennis (gigi.dennis@sos.state.co.us);
Dean Schooler ; Bill Hobbs; Ellen Theisen
Subject: RE: CORA - HAVA Complaint SOS-HAVA 01-06-0001
Ms.
Williams,
I
find the lack of cooperation by the Secretary of State’s office to be offensive
and disingenuous. Is it the department’s strategy to consume as much time as
possible in order to prevent intervention by the courts?
-
We conclude that either (a) there is no SOS plan/schedule for the processing
of the complaint, or (b) the SOS is withholding documents in order to
illegally circumvent the Open Meeting requirements of the Colorado Sunshine
Laws 24-6 C.R.S. 24-6. We have a right to observe the formation of public
policy.
-
According to your
attached response, the Secretary of State has no intention of meeting
with us to discuss alternatives. We must conclude that the overtures for
joint development of alternatives made during the public hearing were not
genuine. We must also conclude that the Secretary of State has no intention
of de-certifying the HART eSlate for the August Primary, no matter what the
facts may be. This is a clear dereliction of duty. We have a right to
discuss the research before the “final determination of [the] complaint has
been finalized”. If you disagree, then please tell us the procedure
available to us should we decide to challenge your final determination.
-
The attached communication between Mr.
Gardner and Mr. Hancock tells a story that is very different from Gardner’s
testimony at the May 24th public hearing. In the first place,
Mr. Hancock is not the EAC. He may have at one time served as EAC Executive
Director, but is now ITA Secretariat
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1030&Itemid=26.
In
this capacity Mr. Hancock has absolutely no authority to decide public
policy regarding VotePAD.
Mr. Gardner’s testimony was misleading. Mr. Hancock’s May 24th
email was not a statement by the EAC, nor did it say that it was a statement
by the EAC.
Mr. Gardner’s testimony was misleading in that it did not include the fact
that the correspondence includes statements indicating that certain states
have already certified the VotePAD, or that in his February 7 email Mr.
Hancock stated that “there is thought that it’s [sic] limited functionality
my not require test review.”
The correspondence clearly shows that neither of Mr. Hancock’s references
are statements by the EAC. (a) Mr. Hancock says in his May 23, 2006 email,
“I believe that two states (California and Florida, if memory serves) have
decided the device does need testing. (b) And in his of May 24th,
“Members of the NASED Voting System Board have expressed similar concerns.”
The correspondence shows that Mr. Gardner led Mr. Hancock into a “useable
statement” so that Gardner could make the misleading testimony he made at
the May 24th Hearing.
Mr. Gardner’s bias against paper ballots appears evident when he leaps on
the opportunity to take it on his own initiative to make Colorado public
policy by asking Mr. Hancock to “add Colorado to the list” of two states
that believe that VotePAD “does need testing.”
These abuses by Mr. Gardner demand to be investigated, and the false
impression given by Mr. Gardner’s testimony must be publicly corrected.
We
believe that we have a right to review the records we have requested, and the
right to participate in the deliberations leading to a final determination of
the complaint.
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.
|
