Re: FW: Infrared or ultraviolet ID numbers on ballots

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I haven't heard of this, but from my knowledge of physics, it is
quite feasible to print with UV flourescent ink. Infrared ink is
technically problematic. 

I don't, myself, worry about this much.  Finding out how a few voters
actually voted is time consuming. It doesn't strike me as a useful
tool for committing massive election fraud.  

And it is dangerous for the criminal. It is easy to discover after the
fact, if one has access to the ballots that are stored somewhere after
they are counted. The ink does not evaporate like the evidence of
electronic voting fraud, which is gone even before the 'results' are
published. I wonder where marked ballots are, and who has authority
over them.

On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 03:17:09PM -0600, Some Guy wrote:
>       I have it from a fairy reliable source in Arkansas (former
> candidate for US Senate) that at least at one point, and at least
> ES&S were printing ID numbers on ballots with ink only visible in
> infrared light.  Ink visible under UV would be another possibility.
> Has anyone else heard of this? Has anyone checked actual ballots with
> IR or UV lighting and goggles? Would need to check front and back of
> ballots.
>       Additional confirmation would be appreciated. Information on
> purpose and use of such numbering would also be appreciated.
>              Thanks,
>                     Chuck Corry

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx