 |
CAMBER |
|
|
|
Colorado Election Issues - state level
Al Kolwicz 2867 Tincup Circle Boulder, CO 80305 303-494-1540 www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz www.coloradovoter.blogspot.com
July 14, 2006
Ms Gigi Dennis Colorado Secretary of state 1700 Broadway, Suite 250 Denver, Colorado 80290
Dear Ms. Dennis:
The July 10, 2006 determination regarding HAVA complaint SOS-HAVA-01-06-0001 is unfair and incomplete. The conclusions reached are not supported by the facts. I do not accept this determination.
1. According
to the report, both administration and public testimony agree that both of the
charges made in the complaint are true. Yet, the report fails to recommend that
the law be enforced.
a. There
is no disagreement that when a ballot is marked on a continuous roll, it is
“marked in any way whereby the ballot can be identified as the ballot of the
person casting it.” Instead of recommending enforcement of the law, the report
argues why it is OK to use unconstitutional ballots. b. There is no disagreement that a blind voter cannot verify that their votes are correctly printed before they are cast. Instead of recommending enforcement of the law, the report argues that blind voters do not need the protections offered by the law.
2. The
report is incomplete. It is missing the responses to key complaint assertions.
It is also missing key documents and responses to them.
a. The
assertion that testing did not report the two defects was not addressed. Copies
of pertinent test materials and reports should be included.
b. The
assertion that the eSlate was given unfair, preferential treatment was not
addressed. At a minimum it must be explained why AutoMark was disqualified for
failing to meet one requirement, yet eSlate was not disqualified although it
fails to meet at least two requirements.
c. The
report fails to mention that the DOJ opinion cited to whitewash violation of the
constitution is outdated, and relies upon a key assumption that has since been
unquestionably proven to be untrue. The DOJ opinion says, “This analysis
assumes, of course, that the audio device, the summary screen, and the paper
record are all reliable methods of verification.” d. The report excludes key documents that were submitted by the public and does not address the critical issues brought up in the documents.
3. In
examining this complaint, the administration has been placed into a position
where it has been asked to confirm wrongdoing and judge its own performance.
This conflict interferes with the administration’s ability to fairly investigate
and make a fair determination of a complaint against the administration’s
performance.
I request that you withdraw this determination until such time as problems with the report have been resolved. Further, I request that a neutral party or parties, agreeable to both of us, be authorized to resolve these problems using an open and interactive process.
We acknowledge that an appeal is under the jurisdiction of the District Court, but we believe that it would be far more responsible for you to correct these problems and reconsider your conclusions before such a drastic action would become necessary.
Sincerely,
Al Kolwicz |
|
CAMBER is a dedicated group of volunteers who are working to ensure that |