Re: Secret ballot and the Colorado constitution

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul,

I have a somewhat detailed issue with your opinion about
serialization.  I can see how it is used in tracking data records,
such as images, through a computer system, so I appreciate why it is
desired by implementors of computer-based vote counting systems. BUT
wouldn't that use be just as well served by having a unique number on
each ballot? Unique number is something like a random 256 bit public
encryption key. If they are put on the ballots in the order that they
are generated, they are not *sequence* numbers, and can't be used to
put ballots in the order in which they were cast, but they can be used
to check if a ballot has already been scanned into the system, and if
a ballot is a forgery. So, my question: could random unique
identifiers satisfy the techy system developers? And, just as
important, would random unique identifiers satify your concerns about
voter privacy? Please, no flip answer.  Think about it.

Others, please also express opinions on this issue, but if your beef is
with computers per se, don't pretend it is a response to this post.

Of course, they may very well not satisfy the letter of the state
constitution, but state constitutions have been amended in the past,
often for trivial or ill considered reasons.

On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:30:36AM -0700, Some Guy wrote:
> I'd like to cite the constitution of Colorado for those unfamiliar with the
> case of which Mr. Shnelvar speaks.
> 
> Source:   Colorado Constitution : CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO :
> ARTICLE VII SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS : Section 8. Elections by ballot or
> voting machine.
> 
> "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."
> 
> It goes on with some other statements, but this was the meat and potatoes of
> the lawsuit.
> 
> The plaintiffs in this case asked the court to direct its attention to the
> serial numbers that the Boulder County Clerk had printed on the ballots.
> Clerk Linda Salas stated that she had a waiver from Secretary of State
> Donetta Davidson to serialize the ballots. She also stated that ballots had
> been serialized in the past, so this was nothing new.
> The local district judge evidently believed that the SoS could waive section
> 8 of article VII. He really was out of his league here. I personally believe
> that the Boulder district court was the wrong place for this suit, but since
> the plaintiffs were trying to rectify a local county issue they had little
> choice in where to start.
> 
> The creed that I have come to live by concerning the difference between
> constitution and statue is as such:
> The constitution is designed to limit government. The statutes are designed
> to limit the people.
> 
> Section 8 doesn't say who cannot mark the ballots with traceability, it
> simply says that it cannot be done: "...no ballots shall be marked in any
> way ..."
> The clerk and the SoS decided that this meant that voters couldn't make
> traceable marks, but they were allowed.
> 
> What is now evident to me is that without these identifying marks the gross
> errors produced by bad ballots and suspect software would have made it
> impossible to figure out what the heck was going on in 04. The serialization
> was needed by the elections equipment vendor. Their systems wouldn't
> function without it. Is this a design flaw or intentional?
> 
> One thing of note is that serialization was in vogue before the purchase and
> use of Hart/InterCivic's system. However, these identifying marks were
> removed when the ballots were taken out of their envelopes - in the past.
> They were on a part of the ballot that was perforated and torn off.
> That could have been done in 04, but that was not how the ballot was
> designed, nor the system that scanned those ballots.
> 
> When I testified before the state legislature's blue ribbon elections
> commission I asked Sen. Ken Gordon how SoS Davidson could give a waiver to
> Boulder. Ken stated that the SoS told him she could and he left it at that.
> Davidson waived the Colorado Constitution. One wonders if Ken thinks that
> the legislature could do that too?
> 
> Paul Tiger, Publicity Director of the Libertarian Party of Boulder County
> Publicity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 303-774-6383 voice and messages
> 720-323-0570 cell
> www.LPBoulder.org
> "The government that governs best, governs least."
>                             Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 9:25 PM
> Subject: Secret ballot and the Colorado constitution
> 
> Pam and all:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >
> >With this issue, it appears to also be sacrificing the right
> >to a secret ballot. I hope that Margit's approach, to cite
> >the Colorado provision that guarantees secrecy as something
> >that trumps this type of electronic shortcut, will be effective.
> >
> 
> Unfortunately, the Colorado constitution and the courts are weak reeds to
> lean on.
> 
> I was part of a lawsuit about secret ballots and the county clerk's office
> as well as the Secretary of State argued that the ballot numbering system
> was in "substantial compliance" (which means whatever the courts think it
> should mean) with the Colorado constitution.
> 
> This marking of ballots is even a more egregious violation of the Colorado
> constitution but I don't hold much hope that the courts will reject this
> measure.
> 
> Our best hope is to point this out to the legislature.
> 
> >Pam
> 
> Ralph Shnelvar
> 

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx