tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2040989227204792089.post1892752743285815312..comments2023-06-07T09:54:16.805-06:00Comments on Aspen Election Review: Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Amend Judgment- Aspen Transparency Litigation- April 6 2010Harvie Branscombhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10835537012365383814noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2040989227204792089.post-33373556684890677272010-04-07T12:41:41.866-06:002010-04-07T12:41:41.866-06:00The city's new argument is confounding and con...The city's new argument is confounding and confusing at best. And in any case it is obviously dug in to do battle against election transparency.<br /><br />First they announce that the ballots from the election are anonymous only if they are kept under lock and key.<br /><br />Hey, ballots are either anonymous or they aren't. Locking them doesn't change their anonymity- any more than failing to hear a tree fall means it didn't fall.<br /><br />Its good to see the city trying to use the word anonymous instead of secret, because "secret" ballots aren't guaranteed by the constitution. It says “no ballots shall be marked in any way whereby the ballot can be identified as the ballot of the person casting it”. <br /><br />On the other hand, ballots (paper objects) are still required by an old municipal law in Title 31 to be kept under lock and key since the times ballots were purposefully identifiable as to voter, but this law says nothing about ballot images that reside on various CDs and hard drives. <br /><br />The city claims that the Title 31 Municipal law has been updated recently and therefore cannot be seen as obsolete, but almost everyone I have talked to with experience about election law understands that Title 31 is very much out of date. This includes legislators. The ballot locking and destruction characteristics of the municipal elections under Title 31 are in direct conflict with preservation of ballots and records for all other elections held under Title 1.<br /><br />Ballots and ballot images are entirely different things- ballots must be protected against theft, against degradation, against intended or accidental marks after the election. Ballots cannot be viewed remotely or instantaneously and cheaply copied. <br /><br />Ballot images are relatively immune to theft and degradation, and are very difficult to mark. They can be copied and kept virtually forever at almost zero cost. They also by necessity have less than 100% of the info contained on a paper ballot. Ballot images from Aspen went to Maryland. The ballots (pieces of paper) stayed in Aspen. Ballot images were shown on screens and in a television show. Ballots were not. Very different treatment. The city argues (ironically- given what the city already arranged to have done with the ballot images) that the ballots and ballot images must be treated the same.<br /><br />The Colorado Constitution calls for "secrecy in voting". Voting is a verb which relates to a very specific human activity, not the mechanical state of storage of ballots or their images. The Constitution calls for privacy of ballots but not secrecy. The ballot (generally today understood to mean a physical object that can be marked) is not protected as a "secret" but as a valuable original documentary record for which we might need to know the color of ink, the pressure applied to the paper, etc. Ballot images do not contain that information and do not serve the purposes required of ballots, contrary to the argument made by the City of Aspen lawyers. Ballot images neither require protection nor secrecy. They do, like ballots, require anonymity<br /><br />Most surprising, the city appears to admit here that they are in possession of some number of illegally (contrary to Colorado Constitution) non-anonymous ballot images. One wonders how many of these rogue ballot images might have been used in the counting of the election?<br /><br />This discussion keeps on getting more surprising. Thankfully the city this time left out its usual side-swipes on Marilyn's motives that seem more aimed at producing one-sided newspaper coverage than convincing an unbiased judge.<br /><br />On all points made by the city, there are good counter arguments or clarifications to be made. Let's hope the judge recognizes the defects with the city's arguments.<br /><br />Above is opinion by Harvie Branscomb.Harvie Branscombhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10835537012365383814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2040989227204792089.post-65870374626270266422010-04-07T11:23:46.873-06:002010-04-07T11:23:46.873-06:00Aspen's position on this is stunning in that i...Aspen's position on this is stunning in that it conveys a nearly complete misunderstanding of the principles of the Australian ballot system, also known in the U.S. as the Massachusetts ballot. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia Secret ballot entry</a> explains:<br /><br /><i>Provisions are made at the polling place for the voter to record their preferences in secret. The ballots are specifically designed to eliminate bias and to prevent anyone from linking voter to ballot.</i><br /><br />The voting part is secret, not the cast ballots. The use of pre-printed ballots that are marked in a manner such that everyone's mark will look just about the same as everyone else's is <b>specifically to allow the ballots to be viewed</b>, with no possibility of discovering which voter cast each ballot. After all, in hand count districts we can't have the poll workers knowing who cast each vote.<br /><br />As an election official I am horrified that by apparently maintaining ballot sequence to match the voter checkin lists, in place of the standard practice of randomizing the ballots after removal from the ballot boxes, Aspen has actually thwarted the principle of voter identity protection. Even worse, this memorandum indicates the belief of Aspen officials that the identification of which voter cast each ballot is normal and unavoidable, and are actually announcing that fact in an attempt to thwart ballot transparency. This means they have been improperly collecting voter data to which only they have access.<br /><br />While the effort to achieve full transparency by publishing ballot images has only been made in a few places, everyone who understands the Australian ballot knows how important it is to randomize the ballots, and that an examination of ballots could take place at any time without revealing anyone's sacred, secret vote.Mike LaBontehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06106384469262234374noreply@blogger.com