Re: suggested proposals for federal election integrity legislation

From: Ron Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net> Date: Fri Dec 01 2006 - 13:50:29 CST · This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 23:17:16 CST

At 4:34 PM -0800 11/30/06, Ginny Ross wrote:

Arthur Keller wrote:

On another note, I am wondering what people on this list think about
all paper ballots (either hand-marked or computer-marked or
-printed); in-precinct cast ordinary ballots (not provisional, not
absentee) are scanned by in-precinct optical scan and then a
confirming hand count is made at the close of polls.  The optical
scanner checks for blank ballots and overvotes.

The hand-count tally is a check on the computer tally and vice-versa.

Arthur, is the hand-count a full count or a sampling?  Speaking as a
lawyer, I can see where there would be a battle over primacy.  Would one
of the counts be the 'count of record'?   Seems that if the hand count
is the count of record, why even bother with all the machinery.  Also,
if the machine count is the count of record, why do a full hand count as
well.

It would sure be nice of course, to have both.  But how would it fly
politically and economically?

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV.

If you don't use PCOS with hand marked ballots, you can't check for 
overvotes.  That's one thing that HAVA now requires and I think it 
will be hard to justify to the Congresspeople that make the decisions 
giving that up for HCPB.

Best regards,
Arthur