Define your terms: Ballots, Receipts, Trails

[Cos]

( This was my response to Wilms' post, Paper Trails: Ballots vs. Receipts )

First of all, I think we should strongly reject the use of the term "receipt" for any of these things. The word "receipt" already has a well accepted meaning that has no place in vote counting: A receipt is something you take with you, that you can use later to prove that a certain transaction took place. Receipts are useless for election integrity or vote counting. Any time we use the word receipt to refer to a ballot or paper audit trail, we will cause confusion and mislead people. When people hear "receipt" they'll think you mean "receipt", and I don't blame them - it's a perfectly sensible assumption for anyone who doesn't follow election reform issues. So don't call any of these things receipts, ever, period.

Secondly, while the term "ballot" when used alone de facto implies a ballot used for the original count, the legal term "ballot of record" actually just means whatever item it is that is presumed to be the "real" vote, whether it's used for the original count or not. If there are problems and a recount is done, the "ballot of record" controls - that is, a count of ballots of record trumps any other count.

Those who say "paper trails are not ballots" are also causing confusion, because paper trails can be "ballots of record" - and indeed, if H.R.550 passes, all paper trails used everywhere in the country will be required to be ballots of record. I understand there's some rhetorical value for people arguing a certain point of view, in saying that paper trails are "not ballots", but it is counterproductive and confusing in many cases, so be careful when using these terms.

So, to summarize:

• receipt - bad word, don't use!
  
• HMPB / hand marked paper ballot - a physical ballot that was directly marked by the voter, by hand
  
• paper trail - any paper record of the votes cast on a computer voting machine
  
• VVPAT / voter verified paper audit trail - a paper trail that the voter can see and verify is correct at the time it is generated
  
• ballot of record - whatever has legal standing as the real ballot, and controls any other counts; could be a VVPAT or a hand marked paper ballot
  
• ballot - not a well defined term, could mean any of the above (except "receipt"); be clear and define what you mean

[goclark]

1. Kicked,R and Bookmarked!

Finally I am able to see a post that outlines, in pretty close to the 7/11 test, what JOE AVERAGE needs to understand.

Now, I am trying to figure out if there is a way that someone can create a MEME so that Joe and Jane Average will know what to demand?

Can it contain a catchy 4 liner like...

Jack and Jill went up the hill
To Catch A Pail Of Water
Jack Fell Down and Broke His Crown and
Jill Came Tumbling After!

Your clear explanation of the terms indicates that even among sophisticated ELECTION FRAUD folks,there is confusion.

[ret5hd]

2. the confusion you speak of...

is purposely and maliciously perpetrated.

not saying anything you don't probably already know, but i'm just sayin...

[Cos]

3. I'm not sure

I mean, yeah, I have seen some examples of people taking advantage of this confusion to bolster what they're trying to say. But on the whole, I think it's the natural sort of confusion that comes from innocent, poorly informed people using words they've heard or are familiar with without understanding the details, and passing them on to others until they gain currency.

[OnTheOtherHand]

4. I think the term "receipt" is often meant to reassure

Not that the people who use it are necessarily poorly informed, but they think it is a simple explanation for people who are poorly informed to understand, or at least to nod their heads in agreement with. "Hey, ATMs give receipts, DREs are like ATMs, ATMs should give receipts." (Didn't Democracy for America, or someone like that, have a Flash animation that more or less made that argument?)

As you say, the analogy doesn't bear slightest scrutiny. ATMs give receipts so that if you have a dispute with your bank, the receipt might back up your side. Banks don't give receipts so that they can use them to check the books. I can stomach simplistic analogies, but upside-down ones don't seem likely to help the cause.

I would only add that actual receipts, showing the votes, would presumably be worse than useless, because they would facilitate vote-buying.

[goclark]

5. I'm new to this but whould some type of barcode

system work?

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. clarify your question... but probably not

I'm not sure whether you meant a barcode on an actual take-away receipt or a barcode on a "paper trail" that is retained, but it is problematic in either case. I guess the good thing about the barcode is that people can't read it -- but that is also the bad thing about barcodes: voters can't verify them.

(edited for grammar, what the heck)

[goclark]

8. Thanks ~ What do you think WILL work

The clock is ticking and I am so afraid that we will still be debating the best way to do it while the Rethugs are hacking the machines again.:scared:

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. well, there are different degrees of "working"

Warning: I think that Bush actually got more votes in 2004, so you may want to stop reading now. But the question is, how do we know who got more votes?

(Just so you know: one reason that I think Bush actually got more votes in 2004 is that he didn't do a lot better on DREs, or op-scans, or punch cards -- nothing really stands out. Some folks say, "Oh, the election was stolen on the central tabs" -- but their main evidence for that seems to be that they are sure the election was stolen somehow. Big complicated topic.)

I think something like HR 550 would work pretty well -- it would make elections much harder to hack on a massive scale.

In the meantime (which could be a very long time) -- many hacking scenarios would be implemented at county or precinct levels, and many can be fended off at those levels. E.g., if you suspect that your county's security provisions are too lax, see if you can pressure or even help the officials to strengthen them.

[Cos]

19. What do you mean?

I don't understand. We were talking about how the word "receipt" doesn't apply to any of the things we're discussing. A VVPAT is not a receipt, nor is any "paper trail" meant for auditing or integrity. And a hand marked paper ballot surely isn't a receipt either.

We were not talking about what "works" for a particular purpose, so your question confuses me. What sort of barcode system? Working for what? Are you trying to pin down the definition of terms, or are you proposing a solution to a problem (and if the latter - what's the problem, what's the proposed solution)?

This might be better as a new topic thread.

[goclark]

27. I don't understand any of this, it's all new to me

but I did see on another thread a suggestion of a barcode to identify a vote.

I wish I knew enough about it to propose a solution.

[garybeck]

7. close, but one problem with your definitions.

ballot actually is a very well defined term. it is a legal term, referring to the "thing" that is used to count the vote in the election.

a VVPAT, paper trail, or receipt can NOT be called a ballot. You will never see it called a paper ballot in the legislation or on the manufacturer's website because it is not a ballot. a ballot must be used to count the election.

anything that is intended as a paper "trail" or backup for recounts and audits can not be called a ballot. it can be called the "ballot of record" but only if there is a recount or audit going on.

the one fuzzy area is with opscans. opscan ballots can be called ballots because they are used in the election. they are read by the scanners and used to tabulate the first count. however, we could argue that they are not actual ballots because we only know they are going through the scanner, not what the scanner is doing with them, and in effect they are the same thing as a DRE prinout.

technically an opscan ballot is the exact same thing as a DRE VVPAT, but legally only the opscan ballot can be called a ballot. go figure.

[goclark]

9. It seems that we Democrats are having a difficult time

with all the technical terms and deciding what can we do to stop these crooks from stealing elections that are just a few months away!

:scared:

[garybeck]

12. the legal definition of "ballot" has not changed.

the word "ballot" has legal implications. That is why HR550 calls it an Audit Trail. it is consistent in the laws and manufacturer's literature. once people "get it" they pretty much use the term correctly, but there are a few who are still confusing things by calling for "paper ballot for every vote cast" without a clear and concise definition of what they are really calling for.

[goclark]

28. Thanks garybeck and do you think HR550

has a chance of passing?

[Cos]

16. "ballot" is not well defined at all

ballot actually is a very well defined term. it is a legal term, referring to the "thing" that is used to count the vote in the election.

Actually, in most election laws, "ballot" refers much more often to the form in which the menu of choices for the voter is presented, than it does to the thing which records an individual vote. Many state laws never bother to define "ballot" at all, they just use the word as if people know what it means - and usually, what they expect people to assume, is that it means the general form used for voting, or the concept of "what's on the ballot".

Yes, there do exist contexts in which "ballot" is legally defined the way you say it is. But my point is not to quibble over which definition of "ballot" is the one we're using. My point is that the term is definied in different ways, and used in different ways, and is a source of confusion, so we should be careful to use more specific terms, rather than assuming someone else thinks "ballot" means the same thing we think it means. My point stands.

[Cos]

17. opscan ballots vs. VVPAT

technically an opscan ballot is the exact same thing as a DRE VVPAT, but legally only the opscan ballot can be called a ballot.

I vehemently disagree with the first half of that statement, and the reasoning it's based on. There is a huge difference between a hand marked paper ballot, and a VVPAT. The difference is that with a hand marked paper ballot, we know it was marked by the voter, and represents the voter's intent - unless the voter themself made a mistake. With a VVPAT, we can legally presume that it represents the intent of the voter, because the voter had a chance to look at it and verify it. But we don't actually know the voter looked at it at all. It could represent a computer bug or computer fraud. This is the distinction that paper ballot advocates stress (and I count myself with them on that).

An opscan ballot is a hand marked paper ballot. A VVPAT is not. There's no difference here between "technically" and "legally", it's very simple.

Whether you count your hand marked paper ballots by hand, or by computer, is a different matter. You could do either, or both. You can also use an OCR scanner to count a VVPAT, independently of the DRE that produced it. Or you could count a VVPAT by hand. In practice, yes, op scan ballots are pretty much always counted by computer, but that doesn't change what they are, only how they're counted.

[Land Shark]

20. and you just articulated one of the primary weaknesses of VVPAT audits

You said:

There is a huge difference between a hand marked paper ballot, and a VVPAT. The difference is that with a hand marked paper ballot, we know it was marked by the voter, and represents the voter's intent - unless the voter themself made a mistake. With a VVPAT, we can legally presume that it represents the intent of the voter, because the voter had a chance to look at it and verify it. But we don't actually know the voter looked at it at all. It could represent a computer bug or computer fraud. This is the distinction that paper ballot advocates stress (and I count myself with them on that).

If you think rBr was fictional bias, (but it was enough to keep exit poll discrepancies out of the realm of "relevant" MSM news) now we have real bias creeping into our VVPAT large "sample". What inconsistency would be atributable to machine error and what to the above?

In other words, if there is a discrepancy, scientifically we don't know if it is due to the electronic count, the VVPAT count, or both. There are arguments to be made that it is more likely due to the VVPAT count. That argument alone is enough to tie them up in litigation, and quite probably to win. Then, there are other arguments to pile on....

[hedda_foil]

38. An Important clarification on the meaning of VVPAT in Holt.

The vast majority of Cos's definitions and clarifications are extremely helpful. We're dealing with an area of evolving definitions where nothing means anything unless it is clearly defined. As Cos points out, the word ballot itelf is often not clearly defined. VVPAT, paper record, paper ballot, and receipt have been used interchangeably -- often unintentionally -- and people on all sides have developed their own assumptions about what each term means.

From Cos' point of view (and landshark's as well, I believe) the term VVPAT applies only to DRE-produced paper records (primarily of the horrible toilet paper roll type). The Holt bill refers to "Voter-Verified Paper Records and specifically includes optical scan ballots in the definition of VVPRT, The language of the bill actually makes it more difficult for the toilet paper record to qualify as a VVPR according to the controlling definitions in the legislation. Here is the controlling language:

SEC. 2. PROMOTING ACCURACY, INTEGRITY, AND SECURITY THROUGH VOTER-VERIFIED PERMANENT RECORD OR HARD COPY.

(a) Voter Verification and Audit Capacity-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 301(a)(2) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:

`(2) VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL-

`(i) The voting system shall produce or require the use of an individual voter-verified paper record of the voter's vote that shall be made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter's vote is cast. For purposes of this clause, examples of such a record include a paper ballot prepared by the voter for the purpose of being read by an optical scanner, a paper ballot prepared by the voter to be mailed to an election official (whether from a domestic or overseas location), a paper ballot created through the use of a ballot marking device, or a paper print-out of the voter's vote produced by a touch screen or other electronic voting machine, so long as in each case the record permits the voter to verify the record in accordance with this subparagraph.

`(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to correct any error made by the system in the voter-verified paper record before the permanent voter-verified paper record is preserved in accordance with subparagraph (B)(i).

`(iii) The voting system shall not preserve the voter-verifiable paper records in any manner that makes it possible to associate a voter with the record of the voter's vote.

<snip>
The paragraphs dealing with Manual Audits further clarifies the VVPR definition as follows:

`(B) MANUAL AUDIT CAPACITY-

`(i) The permanent voter-verified paper record produced in accordance with subparagraph (A) shall be preserved--

`(I) in the case of votes cast at the polling place on the date of the election, within the polling place in the manner or method in which all other paper ballots are preserved within such polling place;

`(II) in the case of votes cast at the polling place prior to the date of the election or cast by mail, in a manner which is consistent with the manner employed by the jurisdiction for preserving such ballots in general; or

`(III) in the absence of either such manner or method, in a manner which is consistent with the manner employed by the jurisdiction for preserving paper ballots in general.

`(ii) Each paper record produced pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be suitable for a manual audit equivalent to that of a paper ballot voting system.

`(iii) In the event of any inconsistencies or irregularities between any electronic records and the individual permanent paper records, the individual permanent paper records shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast.

`(iv) The individual permanent paper records produced pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast and shall be used as the official records for purposes of any recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is used.

<snip>

So, under Holt, far from promoting further use of DREs to meet the voter-verification requirement, -the language of the bill specifically points to voter-marked systems first, and mentions DRE-produced VVPATs at the tail end of the deinitions.

Further the language of the bill places several further limits on DRE-produced VVPATs that can be used to call a halt to the use of toilet paper ballots. (Though in the current political climate, the likelihood is that this would require court challenges to achieve.) Those limits are that the records of the voter's vote be "individual" and that they not be preserved in a way to associate the record with the voter. In the state of Pennsylvania, similar language in state law has prevented the state from certifying machines with toilet paper ballots. In the case of PA, that language has been used against us because it has been used as an argument in favor of paperless DREs. If the Holt bill is passed, the language would kick out paper-roll VVPATs along with paperless DREs -- leaving opscan systems (and plain old hand counted paper ballots) as the preferred system, and forcing the vendors back to the drawing board, giving activists the added time to educate election official

VoteTrustUSA stopped using the term VVPAT long ago and has consistently used the VVPR terminology with the Holt definition to clarify exactly what we mean by a Voter Verified Paper Record. Verified Voting has done the same thing. I hope that this discussion will help the election integrity movement reach consensus on the meaning of the terms that all of us are working with.

Joan Krawitz (aka hedda_foil)
Executive Director
VoteTrustUSA

[Cos]

40. VVPAT and H.R.550

Thank you for that. VVPAT is a term that predates H.R.550 and H.R.550 doesn't use it, you're right. I didn't include the Holt-specific VVPR definition in my list above because it's a) not something people are throwing around and misunderstanding, b) not a particular kind of thing. Rather, it's a legal definition of what kinds of things qualify for certification, under the law. All "hand marked paper ballots" qualify, as do some DRE VVPATs (if they meet certain criteria).

But thanks to you, when I write a post about these definitions on some other blogs, I'll probably include an extra section talking about H.R.550's VVPR definition. Thanks for the prod!

[Land Shark]

10. the paper trail is not the "ballot" for the first count under Holt

though the audits come in after the final post of results, the headlines and the expectations, but before certification, so if the Holt scheme works it is misleading (in my opinion) to call the paper records the ballots since only 2% or more of the records will get counted in the typical case, perhaps all in the unusual case of a full recount. Applied to Florida 2000 facts, Gore is headlined to have lost or too close to call but behind, and proceeds with the additional tool of the audit in hand....

the holt paper records definnitely prevail in audits and recounts. But the first reported count would be entirely electronic, but could then be chipped away at by the audits prior to certification of the first count. that's the bottom line.

With all due respect for your opinion, which is significant, I've nevertheless run this by several lawyers and have received no objection to the interpretation above. So that only means that this is an important detail we should try to nail down and not a mistake. It has to do with HAVA's requirement that state law provide the rules for votes and vote counting so unless Holt as a hAVA amendment specifically says that the paper records are used for the first count of ALL the ballots, they won't be. Please give your detailed reasons if you disagree and we can work this out.

[Cos]

22. Again, "ballot" is an unclear term

H.R.550 doesn't define anything as "the ballot" for the first count. It leaves current methods of counting votes unchanged. Or, more accurately, it doesn't mandate that any jurisdiction change whatever method they currently use for the first vote count. Whatever they do now, they can keep doing.

In my post here, I was making no assertions about what H.R.550 does, and certainly not asserting that it defines anything called a "ballot" for the first count. I'm only trying to pin down clear definitions of terms.

If H.R.550 passes, and is implemented, the following statements would be correct regarding any jurisdiction that uses DREs:

1. The VVPAT is the ballot of record
2. The ballot of record is not counted on the first count

Yes, that's a problem. Though it's a somewhat less serious problem than the problem we currently have in many jurisdictions, where the ballot of record is the count stored in the DRE.

I don't disagree with any of the assertions you're making in this comment, but neither are any of them contradicting anything I said in my post. The only apparent contradictions come from confusing or differing uses of the word "ballot" - and that's exactly my point.

[Land Shark]

23. Agreed.

ballot is confusing.

Also agreed (my parenthetical addition to #2):

If H.R.550 passes, and is implemented, the following statements would be correct regarding any jurisdiction that uses DREs:

1. The VVPAT is the ballot of record
2. The {VVPAT} ballot of record is not counted on the first count

Yes, that's a problem.

Though you still say HR 550 would improve, that's off topic so I'll leave it alone, except to say that I think a very substantial number don't realize the above is true, and think Holt gives them a paper count from the get go, because folks including the Honorable Representative Holt himself have used the term "paper ballot" to describe the bill. Which, is a proper use according to your definitions but others read things into that which are not there.

[hedda_foil]

39. Please see my post #38 above.

Holt does not use the term VVPAT -- but VVPR -- and closely defines exactly what that term means under the legislation.

[Steve A Play]

11. It might be a good idea

to visit the following two links to check on the legal definitions already in use across the country,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/state_statutes2.html (Scroll down to 'Elections')

http://www.lawresearch.com/v2/statute/statstate.htm#elections

Regardless of how anyone here defines those words, what matters in a legal sense is the definitions already codified into law in various states.

[Cos]

14. That doesn't help

Every state law is different, most of them don't provide a clear definition of the word "ballot", and in most occurences of the word "ballot" in election laws, what they're referring to is "the ballot" as in the menu of things people can go for. Procedures for getting on "the ballot"; rules about how "the ballot" can be designed or formulated, procedures for approving "the ballot", and so on. The ballot, in state election laws, is not usually a name for the individual things (electronic or physical) on which our votes are recorded.

This is yet another reason why the word "ballot" is not clearly defined, and why you need to be careful to clearly define what you're talking about when you say "ballot" in discussions of voting machinery/mechanisms.

[Land Shark]

15. whatever those varying and "unclear" state definitions of what gets

counted ARE, they are incorporated by HAVA by reference.

Therefore, if a state is "paperless" and has DREs today, it will remain paperless and will feature electronic counts for the first final result total, subject to the effect of the audits pre-certification. (i.e. it will remain paperless for purposes of the first count, but not for audits and recounts, where Holt says that paper prevails but only if inconsistent or irregular relative to electronic)

[Cos]

18. off topic

Yes. But you're addressing something separate from what I posted about, and separate from what this subthread is about. To avoid confusion, I just want to make that clear.

[Land Shark]

21. OK, it is a closely related but separate topic, i'm glad we agree

on the premise though (since you said "Yes") and we have a common understanding, I take it, of what holt does or how it would operate. but these state ballot definitions are off topic. HAVA uses "votes" and "vote counting" in the off topic passage referenced above.

[Steve A Play]

25. Whatever you say Cos

But you would be well advised to seek the opinion of an attorney when attempting to define the meaning of words as used in a legal context. Perhaps Land Shark can weigh in on this point.

I must take issue with the way you use following statement.

This is yet another reason why the word "ballot" is not clearly defined, and why you need to be careful to clearly define what you're talking about when you say "ballot" in discussions of voting machinery/mechanisms.

I disagree with the first part because many State laws clearly define the 'ballot' as the electronically stored vote and the paper record as something else entirely.

If you take the time to actually read through the myriad of laws on the books and pay attention to the specific language used in the definitions provided in those laws, you will see how people can be blind sided by adopting a definition for a word that doesn't hold up in court. You may define the 'ballot' as the paper where the law actually defines the electronically cast vote as the 'ballot' to be counted and the paper as the 'VVPAT' or 'receipt' to be audited.

Before attempting to codify language at the Federal level you should first identify where changes must occur at the State level, lest a State challenge the Federal law as an encroachment on their right to conduct elections as they see fit. Such challenges may take years to wind their way through the courts, and in the mean time you're stuck with the language that's on the books. Better to challenge the definitions at the State level first and then adopt that defined language at the Federal level IMHO.

[Cos]

26. You miss the point. I'm not defining "ballot".

I'm not attempting to codify any language at the federal level, I'm attempting to define terms for discussion. And as I very clearly stated both in my original post and in several comments, I think we should not just use the word "ballot" without being more precise about what we mean by it. Just because "many state laws clearly define ballot as..." doesn't change that - because other state laws don't, and yet other contexts have different definitions. My whole point here isn't "ballot means this" or "ballot doesn't mean that", my whole point is "you'll get burned or confused if you think everyone knows what ballot means, so don't do it."

In that light, everything you say here supports my point.

"ballot" is not a word we can use in election reform discussions with an assumption that everyone will know what we mean. It is a term that, if we do use, we must precisely state what we mean by.

[Land Shark]

30. I agree, and think you both are right ...

these basic terms are remarkably flexible. They are

CREATURES

OF

DEFINITION

so Cos is basically correct that it is easy to have a confused discussion because of all the variation. Steve A Play is also correct that certain state definitions MAY WELL clearly define the terms (or they may not)

In order to have a meaningful discussion, you have to pick a state. Federal law may/will intersect with state law in 50 different ways, some of them may be unexpected.

This Cos principle should be posted somehow above ER Forum, as a checkpoint to avoid confusion between posters.

the only place Cos goes wrong is in the extent to which he himself attempts to give the terms a bit of definition in the OP he too is wrong. These terms, while they have core meanings that are relatively stable, are all over the map 'at the margins' of those meanings.... Look to the definitions section, always.

[BeFree]

33. HAVA

HR 550 is an amendment to the HackAVA federal law that effects only federal elections. Congress has the sole power over federal elections. See GAO. Therefore 550 overides all the states, but only on federal elections.

There must be a definition in HAVA of what constitutes "ballots", eh? Heck, I'll bet 550 gets it confused!

On the streets, even here, the term is loosely used to describe a number of different applications of the voters intent.

The only way we can singly describe a ballot as the voters intent, is in the term HMPB, and hand counted, to boot. No copies that way. Just one piece of paper.

The rest of the "ballots" could be described as copies, of copies, of copies.

Too, on the streets, "receipt" (a copy) is commonly used by those with just a passing interest. When here, I would never call it a receipt, but on the streets, I let it slide when I hear that term used to describe a copy of their vote.

[Cos]

34. don't let it slide

The misuse of "receipt" is a big problem, I think. It sows a lot of confusion. The fact that people with only a passing interest tend to use it exacerbates the problem, because they're the ones also most likely to misinterpret its purpose without thinking it through. And to pass on that term and the misinterpretation to others.

Please, if you hear people talking about any of the things I referred to above as "receipts", correct them. "It's not a receipt. A receipt is something you take home with you."

If they ask you to elaborate, or say they do want something to take home, then you can explain why something you take home doesn't help get accurate vote counts or verify vote counts, because nobody but the voter is supposed to know how they individually voted. You can't do a recount by having all the voters come back with their receipts - even if they could all be trusted 100%, if even a few voters failed to show up, or lost their receipts, what're you going to do?

People with only a passing interest may not ask for elaboration, fine. The important thing is to challenge their use of the word "receipt", get them to understand that we're not talking about receipts, and get them to stop using and spreading the confusion.

[BeFree]

35. I kinda like you Cos

But please, don't even begin to tell me what I should say to people on the street.

I know what you are saying, but I am free to not make a copy of it. Eh?

There are bigger issues to deal with. Besides, most everyone who uses the term knows they can't take their 'receipt' with them.

[Land Shark]

24. kicked and recommended b/c Cos and I agreed on something! eom

[EFerrari]

29. Good goinT K&R

:)

[SoCalDem]

31. ballot of record

The voter should be able to verify that the machine (or reader or whatever) MATCHES it, and then the oine the voter has, in hand, goes into a separate box..

count them at the end of the day and they BETTER match the "machine counts", or THE PAPER IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS..

[troubleinwinter]

36. Voter Verified PAPER BALLOT= BALLOT OF RECORD

[FogerRox]

32. KNR

[Land Shark]

37. kicked for important background info; need to specify which law...