March 11th, 2005 ERC DRAFT Minutes

MINUTES OF MEETING OF MARCH 18, 2005 BOULDER COUNTY ELECTION REVIEW COMMITTEE

1. Call to Order, Roll Call The meeting of the Boulder County Election Review Committee was held on March 18, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. in Houston Conference Room, Boulder County Clerk and Recorder’s Building. The meeting was called to order by Richard Lyons, Chairman, at 1:05 p.m.

The meeting was attended, at roll call, by the following Committee Members: Richard Lyons, Richard Harris, Hillary Hall, David Leeds, Michael Taylor, Jay Harbour, Tom Davidson and Linda Flack. Also present were Neal McBurnett, representing Citizens for Verifiable Voting, Alisa Lewis, City Clerk for the City of Boulder and members of the public.

There was no representative of the Secretary of State Office Paul Tiger arrived at 4:40

2. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting Corrections to the minutes of the March 11 meeting were recorded and approved by unanimous vote on a motion made by Mr. Leeds and seconded by Ms. Flack.

3. Public Comment

Evan Ravitz directed Boulder’s 1993 Voting by Phone Ballot issue. He remarked that if he had known then what he knows now he would not have supported electronic voting of any kind. He urged the committee to be bold in advising the Commissioners rather than trying to correct something that has been decided by others. He differentiated between hand counting paper ballots and machine counting. He says hand counting is doing the publics’ most important business in public. With machine counting Hart decides what the method is, and cannot reveal it because it is a proprietary secret. Mr. Ravits quoted from a letter of 2/19/04 from Plan Boulder that urged the Commissioners to assure full public disclosure of the software used in voting machines. He quoted others who share his concern. He believes that Public Officials shirked their duty by adopting the electronic system and not providing for hand count of ballots. In answer to a question, Mr. Ravitz could not estimate how long a hand count would take in a general election, but he has a list of 100 names of people who would volunteer to help with a hand count.

Ralph Shnelvar was urged by Mr. Tiger to express his concerns to the Committee. He stressed his contention that “Evan is right”, over the past few years Evan Ravits has convinced a large number of people that hand counting of ballots is the appropriate method for vote counting in an election. Mr. Shnelvar made a calculation of the length of time counting ballots would take in a general election. He believes a hand count could be done in 12 hours. He related an experience in 2001 when he had an opportunity to watch vote counting and he knew the result of a particular contest long before election results were announced. He made a plea for open and verifiable elections.

4. Presentation by Neal McBurnett, Manual Count Audits (EXHIBIT 30)

Mr. McBurnett points out that mistakes made by electronic counting can be massive, while a hand count may be off by a very small number of ballots. He stresses the importance of having a system that voters can trust. He proposes a method using real ballots that have been voted and counted by machine. The machine produces a “batch report” after counting. A hand count would then be done on a randomly selected group from precinct ballots, and compared with reports from the machines. The hand count must be performed in public by representatives of various parties that have an interest in the outcome of the election. A discussion ensued regarding the way in which errors would be handled if, in comparison, the numbers did not agree.

Mr. McBurnett described how a hand count was done in the recent City Election. At three tables with 200 ballots each, with 2 contests, count was complete in 47 minutes. When an error was identified, the count required a longer period of time. .

Size of the paper was addressed in terms of counting by machine or by hand. Referral was made to the Swiss system, and Peter Richards presented a sample of the Swiss color-coded ballots, which were approximately 5” by 7”.

In answer to a request for clarification about how an Audit Log could be used in analysis of voting issues, Mr. McBurnett gave an example, using serial numbers adjusted to assure privacy. Mr. Harris suggested that Mr. McBurnett could get a copy of the Audit Log to see if there is a pattern in error. Mr. Harris is hoping to find that all errors came from one printer.

Mr. McBurnett urged that the County Clerk take advantage of the rare opportunity Boulder has to demonstrate more effective and more efficient audits by comparing individual paper ballots with electronic ballots via their unique serial numbers, as used by the Hart Ballot Now system.

Chairman Lyons thanked Mr. McBurnett for his presentation and expressed uncertainty about how the Committee will go forward. In his experience with national elections in three different countries, voter fraud occurred in registration or in counting more than in the voting process.

5. Other Presentations

Alisa Lewis , City of Boulder, City Clerk appeared, to comment on the recent City Election, which was conducted by Boulder County. She stated that the election went quite smoothly because it was a small election with only two contests, using mail-in ballots so that counting could be done as ballots were received. 13,721 ballots were voted; 61,000 were printed. Hand count was done on all ballots. Counting on the last day was done in a space that was quiet and peaceful. She stressed that it is vital to have a healthy work environment. She believes that hand count audit is important in any election done

Ms. Lewis went to Austin, Texas to observe the Hart production of ballots, and was impressed with their performance, in that every one of the ballots was checked for errors and bad ballots were replaced. The production environment was clean and efficient. Ms. Lewis thanked the County Clerk’s Staff who were open to looking at every part of the system.

Mr. Lyons asked what were her expectations for completing the count. Ms. Lewis answered that they expected to be finished by midnight, but count was completed by 9:30 p.m. Mail-in made it easier. Scanning went quickly; verification required the most time.

In answer to a question, Ms. Lewis reported that there were no ballots rejected for damaged contests. Resolution was done on ballots manipulated by voters or for confusion regarding voter intent. She sees a need for standards for resolving votes.

Mr. Lyons thanked Ms. Lewis for her report, saying that it was helpful and insightful.

6. Other business, including review of previously submitted documents, review of reports, issues, and committee members’ comments, and discussion of issues before the Committee, including but not limited to:

6.1., Republican Party report

6.2., Hart Specifications

6.3., Linda Salas report

6.4.,Other recent documents

6.5 Discussion of format for final report and mechanics of preparation/drafting

Mr. Lyons requested that the following documents be entered into record: · From Howard Harris of Eagle Direct, an e-mail message dated March 16. (EXHIBIT 31) · Manual Count Audits, by Neal McBurnett (EXHIBIT 30) · State Senate Bill 05-98, A Bill Concerning Conduct of Elections (EXHIBIT 32) · Two e-mail messages from municipal clerks with their input regarding the 2004 General Election: Nancy Vara, City of Louisville, 3/15/05 , Susan Koster of City of Lafayette, 3/15/05. (EXHIBIT 33) · Absentee Batch Log from Patty Stahl, Election Office (EXHIBIT 34) · Eagle Direct’s Control Sheets 3/17/05 (EXHIBIT 35)

Howard Harris expressed his appreciation in receiving the Absentee Ballot Log from the County. He can use it to analyze what happened at Eagle. There was further discussion about printing and serial numbers.

· November 2, 2004 General Election Military Ballot Reporting Form from the office of the Secretary of State (EXHIBIT 36) · From John V, Covell of Hart InterCivic, e-mail message regarding Hart quality control procedures. (EXHIBIT 37) · Hart InterCivic Ballot Printing Specifications (EXHIBIT 29) This document will not be entered into record, until permission is granted by Hart, because of possible violation of confidentiality.

In inquiry as to whether these specifications from Hart meet the request of the Committee. Mr. Davidson responded in the affirmative. Mr. Howard Harris remarked this is the first specifications Eagle has seen, other than specifications for paper. Eagle will do further analysis with this information and report back to the Committee.

Mr. Lyons expressed a need for the Committee to start talking about the report to the County Commissioners. He observed that they had been encouraged to expand the charge. He began the discussion by reading the charge to the Committee. He expressed that the Committee has heard information covering most of the charge. The issue now is the scope of that to be addressed in a report. He requested that each member make a comment about how they might proceed.

Mr. Davidson sees the charge as broad enough that they can say almost anything. We can recommend that they go another way with a system, but we cannot tell them which way to go.

Mr. Leeds agrees with Mr. Davidson for the most part, but is not sure that we cannot tell them which way to go. The charge asks for suggestions, recommendations for improvements. If the Committee feels strongly that an alternative system would be an improvement that ought to be included in the report. However maybe another group should evaluate other systems.

Ms. Flack has not solidified her thinking about the Hart system. She wants further input. She would like to address Voting Centers vs. precinct voting.

Mr. Taylor , we have heard a lot of information about aspects of the voting process. The Committee might go through findings and rank order them, recommend top 5 or 6 issues and suggest remedies for part of them. He would like to leave a legacy that could be built upon by an ongoing group.

Mr. Harbour sees making specific suggestions for action or alternatives, such as more space for counting. The Clerk’s office for elections is way understaffed. Voter registration is out of our hands. Committee needs to talk more. Whatever recommendations are made, we must consider the consequences of those recommendations.

Mr. Harris has a high priority for helping the Commissioners, but is not sure how to approach it. Primary problem is slowness in reporting. I f the commissioners accept the notion of paper ballots then they must accept that reporting will be slow. He would like to give them a list of options to choose from. Select 5 or 6 issues to address and offer a range of options. The Committee has not explored other systems and does not have enough information to address the issue of change. He likes the idea of leaving a legacy for another group.

Ms. Hall agrees with a lot of what has been said, but pointed out that members are here to represent the voters. The Committee must keep in mind that voters must gain trust. We should look at ways to insure accountability. Looking at the amount of time spent talking about certain issues does not represent the importance of those issues. Likes the idea of a bipartisan committee to consider voting issues.

Mr. Lyons expressed that in hearing all of the information they were given, he cannot say that the Commissioners were mistaken in the decision they made. If there is agreement on that, then the scope of the report should address ways that the present system can be improved. They must point out the realities of the situation, which includes that slow reporting is inevitable.

There was general agreement that there is not a lot of controversy among members about conclusions, and they can proceed in creating a report.

Mr. Lyons pointed out that the Committee has two more meetings, on March 25 and April 1, scheduled in the Houston Room, and that space could be arranged for a meeting on April 8 if necessary. Ms. Salas requested that the report be completed by April 15 so that recommendations may be incorporated into planning for the fall election.

A homework assignment was made by the Chairman. Each member is to review notes and come to the next meeting with five or more most important issues.

Ms. Flack will not be able to attend the meeting on March 25, but will send her input by e-mail.

A flip chart and felt tip markers will provided, along with stickies to move around as decisions are considered

Mr. Davidson raised the issue of payment being withheld from Eagle Direct, suggesting that the Committee bring this to the attention of the County Commissioners for payment.

Ms. Wurl pointed out that it is the responsibility of the County Clerk to initiate payment.

The following motion was made by Mr. Leeds and seconded by Mr. Davidson: It has been reported to the Election Review Committee that payment for final invoice from Eagle Direct Printing has been withheld. The Committee finds it is unable to determine that Eagle Direct failed to fulfill its contractual obligations to Boulder County. The Committee feels the Board of County Commissioners may wish to consider this funding, as the Board resolves the status of the final payment to Eagle Direct. The motion passed with eight in favor and one abstention.

7. Additional Public Comments

Chairman Lyons eliminated the opportunity for further public comment because of lateness of the hour.

8. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. on unanimous approval of a motion made by Mr. Harris and seconded by Ms. Hall.

______________________________ Recording Secretary

Return to ERC Agendas and Minutes