Mesa County 2015 CORA Conversation

Clikc here for the full CORA request on one page:   Mesa County 2015 CORA Request for ballots

Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:39 PM

To: Mesa County Clerk and Recorder (original by fax)

(Dominion)

Dear Clerk and Recorder or other records custodian if applicable:

Your county is piloting a new voting system in the November 2015 Coordinated Election.  This email serves as a Colorado Open Records Request for electronic copies of the original pdfs (or if not pdf, the applicable graphic source format) used to print unvoted paper ballots for your election.  This request encompasses ballots for all precincts, styles, voting methods (in-person, by mail/drop-off, emergency, UOCAVA, provisional, replacement) and any others such as specially printed test ballots but only if they in any way have different content. I do not request duplicate sets of pdfs used for e.g. replacement and mail if they are identical. Note however that ballot on demand source files may be different and if so, I am including them in my request.

Note that this is not a request for a pdf created from a scan of the paper form of the ballot – this is for the source file used to create the ballots. Please advise me if the vendor requires a multipage pdf with a page for each instance of printed ballot or for any other reason the data capacity of my records request is too large for email fulfillment.

Although I am not required to explain my intention, I find it beneficial and good manners to do so.  I will be using the pdfs of the unvoted ballots as part of a technical process to independently audit the election and perform an evaluation of the voting system using scans produced by the voting system to be obtained under CORA after certification as referred to below. Please discuss with me any concerns you have over the possibility that these pdfs could be used to create ballots that would be returned in your election or any other similar concerns that would present obstacles to fulfillment. I am prepared to take create an assurance that unexpected ballots will not result including by delaying the fulfillment of the request until Nov. 4.

This email also serves as a presumably helpful advance notice of my intention to CORA request 1) electronic scans produced by the voting equipment used in the pilot election of all the tabulated ballots returned in the 2015 Coordinated election  as soon as C.R.S. 24-72-205.5 allows. I will also be requesting 2) the “cast vote records” or other record of vote patterns recorded per ballot by the voting system. I will also be asking for 3) a newly created electronic color scan copy of each ballot that was duplicated prior to scanning for tabulation.

For requests 1) and 2) these files should be produced in the format and organization defined by the voting system. Only the fulfillment of request 3) will be the result of a scan not performed originally for tabulation. For all three requests I request no reformatting be done other than minimal redaction by adding a black area to an otherwise original graphic file to cover the privacy impinging mark(s) if any. I also ask that each instance of redaction be logged in a note to accompany the records fulfillment.   Note that with this advance notice I hope that you will find a way to most efficiently and inexpensively prepare electronic file copies of the ballots for fulfillment per C.R.S. 24-72-205.5.

That law does have a requirement for potential redaction of identifying marks. I am hoping you will make plans for accomplishing any research regarding identifying marks in the most efficient manner such as during election judge review of the incoming ballots and will discuss any associated costs with me as soon as possible. I am ready to discuss means to use tools in C.R.S. 24-72-205.5 to avoid privacy problems with styles that result in instances of less than 10 alike in the election.

Please respond with an estimate of the amount of any fees that  might be charged in the fulfillment of this future request.

If my request or any portion of it (including the prospective future request) will be denied or fulfilled only in part, please advise and cite the applicable law. If fulfillment will be delayed for any reason, please explain.

Thank you very much.

Harvie Branscomb

***

Dear Mr. Branscomb,

This email responds to your Colorado Open Records Request received by email on Wednesday, October 14, 2015 2:39 p.m.  As Mesa County Clerk & Recorder, I am the custodian of the documents requested.

You have requested “electronic copies of the original pdfs (or if not pdf, the applicable graphic source format) used to print unvoted paper ballots for your election.  This request encompasses ballots for all precincts, styles, voting methods (in-person, by mail/drop-off, emergency, UOCAVA, provisional, replacement) and any others such as specially printed test ballots but only if they in any way have different content.”  You have stated that this request is “not a request for a pdf created from a scan of the paper form of the ballot – this is for the source file used to create the ballots.”

In order to maintain the integrity of the election currently being conducted I do not believe these files should be released until after the last date we could receive a ballot has passed. We are required to accept voted or cured ballots through November 12, 2015 according to C.R.S. 1-8.3-113(2); 1-1-106(4), 1-7.5-107(3.5)(d), 1-7.5-107.3(2)(a), 1-8.5-105(3)(a). I believe disclosure, at this time, of  the pdf source documents used to print unvoted ballots would do substantial injury to the public interest and jeopardize the integrity of the election.  I will make the requested pdf documents available after November 12, 2015.  I estimate that the fulfillment of this request will take us less than 30 minutes of time so we will provide them to you at no cost.

In regards to your advance notice of your next CORA, no response is required at this time since the request is not in existence as of this date.  Please re-submit your CORA request to inspect tabulated ballots and cast vote records in accordance with the time frames allowed for such inspection as set forth in C.R.S. 24-72-205.5.

Sheila Reiner

***
Date: 10/30/2015 1:46 PM
To Clerk Sheila Reiner
Thanks for your timely response to my CORA request for unvoted ballot pdfs. Here is my update to that response as well as the further CORA request for electronic copies of voted ballots and cast vote records as previously noted. I have marked relevant portions of your text with MC for Mesa County and mine with my initials HB.MC> This email responds to your Colorado Open Records Request received by email on Wednesday, October 14, 2015 2:39 p.m.  As Mesa County Clerk & Recorder, I am the custodian of the documents requested.
…MC> In order to maintain the integrity of the election currently being conducted I do not believe these files should be released until after the last date we could receive a ballot has passed. We are required to accept voted or cured ballots through November 12, 2015 according to C.R.S. 1-8.3-113(2); 1-1-106(4), 1-7.5-107(3.5)(d), 1-7.5-107.3(2)(a), 1-8.5-105(3)(a). I believe disclosure, at this time, of  the pdf source documents used to print unvoted ballots would do substantial injury to the public interest and jeopardize the integrity of the election.  I will make the requested pdf documents available after November 12, 2015.  I estimate that the fulfillment of this request will take us less than 30 minutes of time so we will provide them to you at no cost.HB> Thank you. Fulfillment of the CORA request via email of electronic files on November 13 will satisfy my request.MC> In regards to your advance notice of your next CORA, no response is required at this time since the request is not in existence as of this date.  Please re-submit your CORA request to inspect tabulated ballots and cast vote records in accordance with the time frames allowed for such inspection as set forth in C.R.S. 24-72-205.5.HB> Thank you for your indication of ability and willingness to fulfill the request for voted ballots. CRS 24-72-204.5 does not require me to wait until certification to begin a request for CORA fulfillment of voted ballots. Many of the records are in your possession today. I am making that formal request now for purposes of fulfillment as of the date  allowed by statute.This email serves as a Colorado Open Records Request for electronic copies of1) electronic scans produced by the voting equipment used in the pilot election of all the tabulated ballots returned in the 2015 Coordinated election  as soon as C.R.S. 24-72-205.5 allows;2) the “cast vote records” or other record of vote patterns recorded per ballot by the voting system also as soon as statute allows;3) a newly created electronic color scan copy of each ballot that was duplicated prior to scanning for tabulation.

For requests 1) and 2) these files should be produced in the format and organization defined by the voting system. Only the fulfillment of request 3) will be the result of a scan not performed originally for tabulation.

For all three requests I request no reformatting be done other than minimal redaction by adding a black area to an otherwise original graphic file to cover the privacy impinging mark(s) if any. I also ask that each instance of redaction be logged in a note to accompany the records fulfillment.

Colorado law does have a requirement for redaction of identifying marks. I am hoping you will make plans for accomplishing any research regarding identifying marks in the most efficient manner such as during election judge review of the incoming ballots and will discuss any associated costs with me as soon as possible. I am ready to discuss means to use tools in C.R.S. 24-72-205.5 to avoid privacy problems with styles that result in instances of less than 10 alike in the election.This can be accomplished by adjustment of the detailed scope of my request or by sufficient redaction of identifying detail such as precinct designations (preferably with my acknowledgement.)

Please respond with an estimate of the fees that will be charged in the fulfillment of this request. Please consider any means to make anonymization of the records efficient and cost effective. Denver county has experience with this as does Galois Inc.  Joe Kiniry is a contact at Galois who can provide advice, software and service for this purpose. kiniry at galois.com

If my request or any portion of it will be denied or fulfilled only in part, please advise and cite the applicable law. If fulfillment will be delayed beyond the statutory release date for any reason, please explain.

I think ample and unusual advance notice of this request has been provided via the office of SOS as well as from myself in conjunction with my request for unvoted ballot pdfs. I hope that has enabled an expedited and relatively painless response.

Thank you very much.

Harvie Branscomb

***
Date: 11/2/2015 3:03 PM
​Hi Mr. Branscomb:
Clerk Reiner is in receipt of your request.  Extenuating circumstances exist for your request in that the election is tomorrow that will take her and her staff time for that day and the next, plus also she has to explore a method to comply with your request especially the first item in your request.
As such, Mesa County requests the additional 7 working days extension in addition to the 3 working days to comply. ​
Finally, please be advised that there will be a fee associated with the request which I call your “first” item, and Mesa County will provide you with an estimate prior to incurring the expense to determine if you desire to pay the fee.
Sincerely,
Angela Barnes
Sr. Assistant County Attorney
***
Date: 11/5/2015 3:59 PM

Mr. Branscomb,

We are working on a reply to your request.  To respond appropriately to your third request for “a newly created electronic color scan copy of each ballot that was duplicated prior to scanning for tabulation,” I would like to clarify that this is a request for the ballot that was ultimately tabulated?  I’m assuming you do not wish to see an image of the damaged ballots that would not scan.

Please let me know if we are interpreting that correctly.

***
11/5/2015 4:33 PM
Clerk Reiner
In fact you are incorrect and thank you for your question. What I want to see in the third part of my request are new digital copies of whatever voter intent (damaged, etc.) was duplicated onto scan-able  ballot stock and then tabulated for any reason but including that it would not or did not scan in the  voting system. The first part of my records request includes all ballots that were ultimately scanned, and that would include each duplicate that was ultimately tabulated that you described. The third part of my request is  not for an additional copy of that duplicate, but rather the corresponding voter marked input record that was duplicated. I do want to receive images of the damaged ballots that would not scan.Thank you so much for asking. I hope that the meaning of cast vote record is clear to you. Some counties have been asking. I know that Dominion attaches a record of pattern of voter intent to the digital scan of the ballot. This is not what I consider a cast vote record for purposes of my request. The cast vote record is the human and machine  readable record of the pattern of vote choices interpreted by  the Dominion software and in some cases by additional human adjudication. Denver was able to provide those to me in separate files from the scans after their municipal  election pilot.Regarding the review for identifying marks, two counties in response to me have mentioned  expecting to take 5 seconds per ballot or 5 seconds per side.  This would be an excruciatingly slow rate of observation for this purpose- slower than signature verification.  In Denver’s municipal case I paid $256 to participate in the location of ballots that required redaction and ultimately 19 were found out of 130 ,000.  I recommended using graphics software to stack the images to look for writing in the white space of at least 1000 scans simultaneously.  But before changing to that method,  I was reviewing the ballots in Denver’s office under NDA and was able to manually check between 3000-6000/hr. Using an alternative software approach   (to locate stray identifiable initials and signatures not located on the write-in lines)  is far more efficient than that. Dr. Kiniry at Galois is undoubtedly the most appropriate person to ask about this topic if you get a chance. He is well known to Dr. Stark and has extensive experience conducting this kind of research and review for government agencies.The result of my work if I am successful will be one independent verification of both the accuracy of the equipment under evaluation and the human process surrounding it (and of course affected by it).Harvie Branscomb
***
Date: 11/6/2015 3:37 PM

Dear Mr. Branscomb,

This email responds to your Colorado Open Records Request received by email on Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:46 p.m. As Mesa County Clerk & Recorder, I am the custodian of the documents requested.

Previously you have requested “electronic copies of the original pdfs (or if not pdf, the applicable graphic source format) used to print unvoted paper ballots for your election.  This request encompasses ballots for all precincts, styles, voting methods (in-person, by mail/drop-off, emergency, UOCAVA, provisional, replacement) and any others such as specially printed test ballots but only if they in any way have different content.”  You have stated that this request is “not a request for a pdf created from a scan of the paper form of the ballot – this is for the source file used to create the ballots” in an earlier request.

Our office is prepared to fulfill this request on November 13, 2015 as previously agreed at no charge.

Within the request submitted on October 30, 2015 you expanded your request to include the following items.

1) electronic scans produced by the voting equipment used in the pilot election of all the tabulated ballots returned in the 2015 Coordinated election  as soon as C.R.S. 24-72-205.5 allows;

2) the “cast vote records” or other record of vote patterns recorded per ballot by the voting system also as soon as statute allows;

3) a newly created electronic color scan copy of each ballot that was duplicated prior to scanning for tabulation.

For your first request , pursuant to C.R.S,. 24-72-205.5 we are unable to begin working on your request until November 23, 2015 when the ballots are no longer in use for our auditing and certification purposes.  The deadline for which to post audit and canvass the election is Friday, November 20, 2015 under Secretary of State rule 11.3.3(m) and C.R.S. 1-10-102(1).

Within your request you acknowledged that we are required to protect the anonymity of the voter.  For this reason and under the guidance provided to us in C.R.S. 24-72-205.5, we will need to redact any identifying marks from the ballot images before we provide them to you.  Additionally, we will have to withhold some ballot images.  Mesa County contains a small split that causes a voter anonymity issue if we were to release the ballot images in total.  This small split includes two voters who have a unique ballot style.  We intend to withhold a total of 10 ballot images so that the absence of a few ballot images isn’t evidence of how the missing voters voted on state proposition BB.

Concerning the small style and the process to protect anonymity, Mesa County programmed our election by ballot style, not precinct. Masking the precinct will not help as that identifier does not exist, masking the ballot style designation will not help as the actual ballot content makes them unique and identifiable.

In response to your second request, the vote cast records per ballot will be provided with the ballot images in a separate text file.

In response to your third request, we will be able to image ballots that could not be read in the tabulating scanner.

As of today Mesa County has tabulated 32,907 ballots and have 32,897 (less 10 images) of scanned ballot images that are responsive.  We estimate that the review and redaction will take 5 seconds per image.  We also estimate that there will be time expended exporting, organizing and preparing the images for delivery to you.  These considerations lead us to believe that this process will take up to 60 hours of staff time and could require the purchase of media to transfer the files.

Our cost estimate and required deposit is $1,500.  Once you have paid Mesa County Elections this amount we will begin the work.  We will record the time it actually takes us to fulfill your request and if it takes less time or material than is anticipated we will issue you a refund.  If it takes more time than we anticipate, we will issue you an invoice that will be due within 30 days.

You may send your payment to:

Mesa County Clerk & Recorder

Attn: Elections Division

PO Box 20000

Grand Junction CO 81502

***
 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:29:22
Sheila Reiner
Thank you for your responses regarding my thee part  CORA request for voted ballots in the 2015 November election.
Regarding part one:
The county estimate of 5 seconds per side of a ballot page to look for identifying marks while similar to some other counties suggests the most inefficient possible system has been planned for the task.  I believe that it is possible to examine the digital scans of the ballots at a rate of more than 10 times faster. To perform that function at that rate operators will be twiddling their thumbs as they wait for the 5 seconds to elapse.   Since the estimate results in a required payment in advance of $1,500 and since that amount is far from an amount I can afford I will be forced to constrain the scope of this part of the request as follows:
In part one of my request, in place of every ballot tabulated in the election, I now request  three subsets of the ballots tabulated. This will substantially reduce the overhead you will encounter for fulfillment:
1)  In place of all tabulated ballots, electronic files of  photographic recordings by the voting system of the sides of each ballot  that contains the following contest:
DeBeque School District No. 49-JT Board of Education At Large Four Year Term  with a total of – at  – present 400 votes plus some under and over votes, presumably a number that could also slightly rise this week.  If the almost unique style (2 in the election)  you mentioned includes this contest, then for those 10 please fulfill only the first page of the 10  ballots you plan to withhold if that renders the resulting combination of contests non unique- that is if the unique style cannot be discerned from the supplied single page (if yours is a two side ballot). CRS 24-72-205.5 was written to accommodate this kind of specific request. And thank you for the plan to withhold the 10 to protect the two. This was a wise proposal, but mine may satisfy the request even a bit better.  To be clear you would be withholding only the second page of 10 ballots if a contest that makes the rare style unique is on the second page. If not then your solution is best.

2) I request a total of 50 (if there are that many) Dominion  ballot scans that represent ballots on which voters have used “x” or “checkmark” indications or other exceptional marks in contradiction of the printed instructions. This will embody a test sample of poorly marked ballots that I can use (in combination with the cast vote records) for a demonstration of the capability of the voting system to maintain accuracy under difficult conditions.

3)  The set of Dominion scans of the duplicate ballots  that correspond to the scans of originals requested in part three. If I understand Dominion’s design there will be very few of these originals and duplicates. Presumably these have by design zero identifying marks

Please revise your cost estimate based on my attempt to constrain costs and difficulty of this task in order to render it financially accessible to myself as an unpaid election quality advocate and member of the public. I presume that the voting system is capable of isolating the ballot scans containing this selected contest without examination of each and hence the cost for this constrained request will be vastly lower and on the order of, at your quoted estimated price, about 450  times 10 seconds or 4,500 seconds that amounts to a bit more than an hour at your predicted slow rate. I am here guessing that 10 seconds is sufficient time to scan through a set of images to arrive at each poorly marked one and if not, then perhaps some extra time not needed for location of identifying marks may be sufficient.

As a heads-up, in  compensation for the lack of economical accessibility to the scans of all tabulated ballots I may require access to a very select and specific set of physical paper ballots in your office under terms yet to be discussed. My intention is to form a simulation of a risk limiting audit.  Will you please  establish a price for that service (in person examination of paper ballots?)

As for the remaining two portions of my request, I still request of part two – cast vote records ( as supplied by the Dominion system and applicable to a Risk Limiting Audit) for all tabulated ballots as requested before. I also still ask for part three – as before- new electronic copies of all ballots that required duplication  prior to tabulation and inclusion in the election.

I look forward to your reply and please make the quotation in a form (separated in parts) so that I can  choose which of the parts I can afford to pursue. Also I hope that this simplification will aid in fulfillment close to or on the date of the end of the C.R.S. stay.  To be effective this evaluation must be completed (along with evaluation of 7 other counties’ public records) in December.  CRS 24-72-205.5 provides for a stay of fulfillment, not a stay of request. It does not specify a stay of a constructive beginning of a fulfillment process so I hope you will find a way to begin as soon as we are both satisfied with the required payment.
CRS 24-72-205.5 (3) (a) says in relevant  part: “the designated election official shall not fulfill a request under this part 2 for the public inspection of ballots during the period …”
Here for clarity is an encore of my  questions and current request:
1)   scans from the Dominion system of the ballots containing DeBeque School District No. 49-JT Board of Education At Large (approx. 400)
2) 50 scans of ballots that are deemed incorrectly marked such as x-es and checks
3) the set of Dominion scans of duplicated ballots (no voter identifying marks)
4) the entire set of cast vote records for all tabulated ballots as applicable to the risk limiting audit
5) access for personal inspection of duplicated ballots (the originals)
6) color copies of duplicated ballots (the originals) in electronic format
I hope I will see your cost estimate for each of the above. I am willing to repay the cost of  the media needed to supply the data to me.
Please recall that the Colorado Constitution requires in Article VII Section 8- that “all elections by the people shall be by ballot, and in case paper ballots are required to be used, no ballots shall be marked in any way whereby the ballot can be identified as the ballot of the person casting it.”  I am distressed to learn that it is my responsibility to personally pay to achieve a requirement of the constitution to the effect that any violations of it will also be hidden from me.
Thank you very much.

Harvie Branscomb

***
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:47:37
Mr. Brandscomb,

If we receive any UOCAVA today we might have a signature or two to verify late this afternoon or first thing in the morning. We plan to tabulate up to 300 ballots shortly after 8:00 a.m. in the morning.

We are scheduled to begin post audit and canvass at 9:00 a.m. on November 19, 2015. We provided test data to the Secretary of State’s office to look at RLA capability. We have not been contacted as to when or if further action will be taken related to RLA in Mesa County.

We are researching automated capabilities of the system to export only the style of ballots you have requested. The DeBeque style does not contain the ballots with the secrecy issue. We will get back to you with a new estimate tomorrow.

Sheila Reiner

***

Date:  11/13/2015 3:23 PM

Dear Mr. Branscomb,

This email responds to your Colorado Open Records Request received by email on Tuesday, November 10, 2015, at 12:29 p.m. As Mesa County Clerk & Recorder, I am the custodian of the documents requested.

You have requested:
1)  scans from the Dominion system of the ballots containing DeBeque School District No. 49-JT Board of Education At Large (approx. 400)
2) 50 scans of ballots that are deemed incorrectly marked such as x-es and checks
3) the set of Dominion scans of duplicated ballots (no voter identifying marks)
4) the entire set of cast vote records for all tabulated ballots as applicable to the risk limiting audit
5) access for personal inspection of duplicated ballots (the originals)
6) color copies of duplicated ballots (the originals) in electronic format
In response to your first request – “1)  scans from the Dominion system of the ballots containing DeBeque School District No. 49-JT Board of Education At Large (approx. 400),” There are 291 style 5 ballots tabulated and images will be available for review, redaction and ultimately delivery to you beginning on November 23, 2015. This process is estimated to take one half hour.
In response to your second request – “2) 50 scans of ballots that are deemed incorrectly marked such as x-es and checks,”  The review and identification of the images that match this description is estimated to take one half hour.
In response to your third request – 3) the set of Dominion scans of duplicated ballots (no voter identifying marks)” The review and identification of the images that match this description is estimated to take one half hour.
In response to your fourth request – 4) the entire set of cast vote records for all tabulated ballots as applicable to the risk limiting audit” The export is available but will contain a record of the two ballots creating a voter anonymity issue.  This small split includes two voters who have a unique ballot style.  We intend to withhold a total of 10 text record sets so that the absence of a few ballot records isn’t evidence of how the missing voters voted on state proposition BB.  Manipulating the text file is estimated to take one half hour.
 
In response to your fifth request – 5) access for personal inspection of duplicated ballots (the originals)” With future communications we can arrange a time and setting for personal inspection of the original ballots which were duplicated if necessary.
 
In response to your sixth request – 6) color copies of duplicated ballots (the originals) in electronic format” We have 43 ballots that were duplicated because they are UOCAVA or wouldn’t scan.  The imaging of these paper records is estimated to take one half hour. 

We are unable to begin working on your request until November 23, 2015 when the ballots are no longer in use for our auditing and certification purposes.  The deadline for which to post audit and canvass the election is Friday, November 20, 2015 under Secretary of State rule 11.3.3(m) and C.R.S. 1-10-102(1).

The new time estimate yields an estimated two and one half hours of labor being involved in fulfilling your new set of requests.  Our cost estimate and required deposit is $75.00.  Once you have paid Mesa County Elections this amount we will begin the work.  We will record the time it actually takes us to fulfill your request and if it takes less time or material than is anticipated we will issue you a refund.  If it takes more time than we anticipate, we will issue you an invoice that will be due within 30 days.

You may send your payment to:

Mesa County Clerk & Recorder

Attn: Elections Division

PO Box 20000

Grand Junction CO 81502

***
Date: 11/19/2015 2:11 PM
My responses marked by “HB>”

—–Original Message—–
From: Sheila Reiner
To: Harvie Branscomb
Cc: Angela Barnes , Amanda Polson , Patrick Coleman Nina Atencio
Sent: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: response to Mesa response and new CORA request

Dear Mr. Branscomb,

This email responds to your Colorado Open Records Request received by email on Tuesday, November 10, 2015, at 12:29 p.m. As Mesa County Clerk & Recorder, I am the custodian of the documents requested.

You have requested:

1)  scans from the Dominion system of the ballots containing DeBeque School District No. 49-JT Board of Education At Large (approx. 400)

2) 50 scans of ballots that are deemed incorrectly marked such as x-es and checks

3) the set of Dominion scans of duplicated ballots (no voter identifying marks)

4) the entire set of cast vote records for all tabulated ballots as applicable to the risk limiting audit

5) access for personal inspection of duplicated ballots (the originals)

6) color copies of duplicated ballots (the originals) in electronic format

In response to your first request – “1)  scans from the Dominion system of the ballots containing DeBeque School District No. 49-JT Board of Education At Large (approx. 400),” There are 291 style 5 ballots tabulated and images will be available for review, redaction and ultimately delivery to you beginning on November 23, 2015. This process is estimated to take one half hour.

HB> Please fulfill this portion.

In response to your second request – “2) 50 scans of ballots that are deemed incorrectly marked such as x-es and checks,”  The review and identification of the images that match this description is estimated to take one half hour.

HB> Please fulfill this portion.

In response to your third request – 3) the set of Dominion scans of duplicated ballots (no voter identifying marks)” The review and identification of the images that match this description is estimated to take one half hour.

HB> Please fulfill this portion.

In response to your fourth request – 4) the entire set of cast vote records for all tabulated ballots as applicable to the risk limiting audit” The export is available but will contain a record of the two ballots creating a voter anonymity issue.  This small split includes two voters who have a unique ballot style.  We intend to withhold a total of 10 text record sets so that the absence of a few ballot records isn’t evidence of how the missing voters voted on state proposition BB.  Manipulating the text file is estimated to take one half hour.

HB> Please fulfill this portion. If possible simply redact the Prop BB portion of the cast vote record for 10 ballots and please leave an indication in the cvr of the redaction.

In response to your fifth request – 5) access for personal inspection of duplicated ballots (the originals)” With future communications we can arrange a time and setting for personal inspection of the original ballots which were duplicated if necessary.

In response to your sixth request – 6) color copies of duplicated ballots (the originals) in electronic format” We have 43 ballots that were duplicated because they are UOCAVA or wouldn’t scan.  The imaging of these paper records is estimated to take one half hour. 

HB> Please fulfill this portion.

We are unable to begin working on your request until November 23, 2015 when the ballots are no longer in use for our auditing and certification purposes.  The deadline for which to post audit and canvass the election is Friday, November 20, 2015 under Secretary of State rule 11.3.3(m) and C.R.S. 1-10-102(1).

The new time estimate yields an estimated two and one half hours of labor being involved in fulfilling your new set of requests.  Our cost estimate and required deposit is $75.00.  Once you have paid Mesa County Elections this amount we will begin the work.  We will record the time it actually takes us to fulfill your request and if it takes less time or material than is anticipated we will issue you a refund.  If it takes more time than we anticipate, we will issue you an invoice that will be due within 30 days.

HB> I will send $75 by check.
Harvie Branscomb

You may send your payment to:
Mesa County Clerk & Recorder
Attn: Elections Division
PO Box 20000
Grand Junction CO 81502

***
Date:  11/19/2015 4:47 PM
Sounds good Harvie,

As soon as we receive your payment we will begin filling the order and will let you know when it is ready.
Sheila Reiner
***