Re: Election in Boulder County nullified on constitutional grounds?

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Mary:

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 21:56:09 -0600, you wrote:

>Mary,
>
>After you wade through all the crapola......here are the facts.
>The ballot *does* have a unique mark on it

Congratulations, Bo, on finally getting it straight.

>......this is necessary for
>several reasons, mostly just to keep track of *that* ballot......

There is no reason why the ballot needs to be uniquely marked.  See, below.

>But.....who the hell *voted* on that ballot???
>I defy Ralph or Al or Joe or *anybody*........ to tell me how you connect
>*any* one with *any* particular ballot......
>Can't be done.
>Once that ballot leaves your hand, there's no way to discern it from any
>other ballot of that style.

Sigh.  Mary, I didn't want to go through the fuss and bother but I'll do it.


First, Mary, the relevant text of the Colorado constitution:


Article VII.  Section 8
- - - - - -
"... 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."
- - - - - - 

So now I'll answer Mr. Shaffer's vituperative question: "I defy Ralph or Al
or Joe or *anybody*........ to tell me how you connect *any* one with *any*
particular ballot......"



Assume there is a married couple, the John and Jane Smith.  Both vote by
absentee ballot.  Each gets a unique ballot because - as Mr. Shaffer says -
"The ballot *does* have a unique mark on it".

Both John and Jane take the ballot and place the two unmarked ballots on a
copier and keep the copies.  They make absolutely no mark on either of the
ballots (a 100% undercount) and send it to the County Clerk.


The election comes and goes and all the ballots are stored somewhere.  It
doesn't matter if the ballots are digitized or the paper is stored in a
locker.

Here's the question, Mary: Can John uniquely identify John's ballot?  Can
you uniquely identify Jane's ballot?  Of course you can if you have a copy
of the ballot.  All you need to do is scan the ballots for the identifying
mark.

Remember, neither John nor Mary placed any mark on the ballot.  It was the
government that put that mark there.



In prior paper ballot elections the way things worked is that you would have
a ballot with a serial number and that serial number was on a removable
stub.  You would mark the ballot and hand the completed ballot to an
election judge - and here is the critical point - the judge would remove the
stub with the serial number on it and return to you the ballot WITHOUT ANY
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION.  Then you placed this anonymous ballot into the
ballot box.


What is happening today is that a ballot is printed out WITH the identifying
information. 

Imagine that each ballot that was cast had, instead of a bar code, big,
unique numbers printed on the ballot for all to see as you placed the ballot
in the ballot box.  Would you feel comfortable casting that ballot?


This constitutional provision is placed there for technical reason that I
don't want to go into but it is meant to preserve free and honest elections.


So, Mary, the sum and substance is that, I say, Mr. Shaffer is absolutely
wrong.

You decide who is full of crapola.



Ralph Shnelvar