[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

voter intent and NOTA



The Boulder City charter has some interesting stuff in elections. Since it
is home rule and the election in November is a muni one, it can follow its
own rules and not those of the state. Below in Sec. 34

Sec. 34. Electors-form and marking of ballot.

The members of the city council shall be elected by votes cast by qualified
electors as provided by the laws of the State of Colorado and the charter
and ordinances of the City of Boulder. The form of ballot at such election
shall be such that all of the duly nominated candidates for council shall be
listed on a single ballot in alphabetical order with a reference to the
surname of said candidates, and voting shall be by placing a cross (X)
opposite the name of each candidate voted for, not to exceed the total
number of council members to be elected. If any ballot shall contain more
crossmarked candidates than there are council members to be elected, said
ballot shall be void and not counted. (Repealed and reenacted by Ord. No.
1474 (1947), 1, adopted by electorate on November 4, 1947.)*
=====
So we have a home rule law (part of the city charter) that says that
overvoted ballots should be ignored. It also says to use an X to mark the
boxes, not fill them in entirely. And we have pretty good evidence that an X
would have been fine with the Hart Ballot Now system.

The charter doesn't say anything about other options on the ballot, like
NOTA (none of the above). The state law doesn't prohibit it either. The only
thing keeping our clerk from adding NOTA to the ballot is fear. Fear of the
unknown.
Most of the countries on the planet have some sort of NOTA entry on their
ballots. The UN suggests it to curb ballot fraud. The Iraqi elections had
NOTA, and so did the Ukrainian elections. And yet here in Boulder we have to
worry about ballot fraud; overvoting; and undervoting. Our clerk(s) say that
we need to figure out voter intent. The inclusion of NOTA would leave voter
intent up to the voter and not the clerk's staff.

Some Guy