Denial of request for 2-way discussion
From: Al Kolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 4:48 PM
To: 'Hilary Rudy'; [DEL]
Subject: RE: Proposed Election Rules
Ms. Rudy,
We can access the revised RULE and the Regulatory Analysis and we thank you. There are many changes.
Are there to be no scientific studies? Some of the proposed rules involve scientific or technological issues. As outlined in my March 16th request:
As per C.R.S. 24-4-103 (4)(c), please forward copies of the scientific or technological rationale justifying those rules which involve scientific or technological issues. We are interested in all studies. We expect to see an analysis of error rates for processes such as signature verification. It is commonly understood that static signature verification is not reliable. Signatures are widely available on credit card slips, electronic signature pads, etc. Signatures can be electronically transferred from one document to another; copied and forged signatures cannot be detected by amateurs. We expect to see the statistical basis for the audit procedure. It is commonly understood that the current methods are statistically invalid. We expect to see an analysis of the difference in security, accuracy, verifiability and transparency between the different methods of voting and the different voting equipment. What are the metrics and measures for each?
We asked for two-way conversation on these rules and you replied, “Finally, as to your inquiry regarding a two-way discussion regarding this rule, as we have advised you in the past we are required to adhere to the formal rulemaking process set forth in section 24-4-103, C.R.S.”
We can find nothing in 24-4-103, C.R.S. or anywhere else that prohibits two-way discussion of a rule. Discussion is an effective method of communication. This discussion need not occur at the hearing but should occur before the hearing is completed.
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.
________________________________________
From: Hilary Rudy [mailto:hilary.rudy@sos.state.co.us]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 3:44 PM
To: [DEL]
Subject: Proposed Election Rules
Please note that a revised draft of the proposed rules for consideration at the May 1, 2007 hearing has been posted to the Secretary of State website. You may access the revised draft of the proposed rules at the following link: Proposed Rules for Consideration at the Elections Rulemaking Hearing - 4-26-07. A requested Regulatory Analysis is has also been posted to the Secretary of website and may be accessed at the following link: Regulatory Analysis of Proposed Election Rules - 4-26-07. Please email or give me a call if you have any questions or are unable to access the documents.
Thanks you,
Hilary R. Rudy
Colorado Department of State
Elections Division
1700 Broadway, Suite 270
Denver, CO 80290
(303) 894-2200 ext. 6316
(303) 869-4861 fax
hilary.rudy@sos.state.co.us
From: Hilary Rudy [mailto:hilary.rudy@sos.state.co.us]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 5:33 PM
To: Al Kolwicz
Cc: Bill Hobbs; Jacque Ponder; Jonathan Tee; Holly Lowder; Dan Kopelman; John Gardner
Subject: RE: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking--Election Rules
Mr. Kolwicz,
Thank you for your interest in the rulemaking process. I have received your request below and wanted to provide you with some additional information regarding each of the four items.
- Regulatory analysis: We will begin preparing the requested analysis and it will be available no later than April 26, 2007 in accordance with section 24-4-103(4.5)(a), C.R.S.
- Scientific or technological rationale: If any of the proposed rules involve scientific or technological issues, we will include an evaluation of the scientific and technological rationale justifying those rules in the statement of basis, purpose and specific statutory authority in accordance with section 24-4-103(4)(c), C.R.S.
- Attorney General opinion: The Attorney General opinion is requested and subsequently issued after the formal adoption of agency rules, prior to submission for publication in the Colorado Register. This opinion will be made available to the public on our website at the following link: http://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/RegisterHome.do, if you are unable to access a copy through our website I would be happy to forward a copy to you. Please note, however, that the opinion will not be issued for at least a couple of months. The formal adoption of the rules will not occur until sometime after the rulemaking hearing.
- Finally, as to your inquiry regarding a two-way discussion regarding this rule, as we have advised you in the past we are required to adhere to the formal rulemaking process set forth in section 24-4-103, C.R.S.
I hope that you find this response helpful. Please feel free to contact our office with any additional questions.
Best regards,
Hilary R. Rudy
Colorado Department of State
Elections Division
1700 Broadway, Suite 270
Denver, CO 80290
(303) 894-2200 ext. 6316
(303) 869-4861 fax
hilary.rudy@sos.state.co.us
From: Al Kolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@qwest.net]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 5:37 PM
To: Hilary Rudy; [DEL]
Cc: Colorado Secretary of State
Subject: RE: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking--Election Rules
Ms. Rudy,
In preparation for the May 1st Rules Hearing:
As per C.R.S. 24-4-103(4.5)(a), please provide a regulatory analysis.
As per C.R.S. 24-4-103 (4)(c), please forward copies of the scientific or technological rationale justifying those rules which involve scientific or technological issues. We are interested in all studies. We expect to see an analysis of error rates for processes such as signature verification. It is commonly understood that static signature verification is not reliable. Signatures are widely available on credit card slips, electronic signature pads, etc. Signatures can be electronically transferred from one document to another; copied and forged signatures cannot be detected by amateurs. We expect to see the statistical basis for the audit procedure. It is commonly understood that the current methods are statistically invalid. We expect to see an analysis of the difference in security, accuracy, verifiability and transparency between the different methods of voting and the different voting equipment. What are the metrics and measures for each?
As per As per C.R.S. 24-4-103 (8)(b), please forward copies of the Attorney General’s opinion as to the constitutionality of these rules. We expect to see his opinion on whether the rules will protect each eligible elector’s right to vote using an anonymous ballot according to Article VII Section 8 of the Colorado Constitution. It is commonly understood that the HART InterCivic paper ballot violates the anonymous ballot provision.
Will the Secretary of State agree to participate in a two-way discussion regarding this rule? One of the most frustrating things about the rulemaking process is the lack of two-way dialog on the complex issues addressed by election rules.
Al