RE: County is planning to go ahead with non-secret ballots

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Josh:

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:07:09 -0600, you wrote:

>Al,
> 
>The County Clerk and Recorder, and her staff, are sworn to protect the integrity of the elections process and the secrecy of every voter's ballot.  We take this oath very seriously.  As such, we would never do anything to jeapordize the integrity of the elections process or the secrecy of any voter's ballot.  As election administrators, it is our job to protect the democratic voting process to ensure fair, open, honest and accurate elections.  More importantly, each and every one of us is a registered voter.  We care deeply about the election process, not only as election administrotrs, but as citizens as well.

The proof is in the execution and not in the oath.
  
> 
>You must understand that we would not take any course of action in the performance of our duties if we thought it would jeopordize the secrecy of any voter's ballot or the integrity of the election process as a whole.  The ballots we issue this year will be, as they have always been, secret ballots.  We would not ever jeopordize the secrecy of any ballot for financial savings, or for any other reason.

I'm sorry, Josh, but the words ring hollow.

The ballots will be secret only if you keep them secret.  Unfortunately,
government has a very poor record of keeping private information secret.

How hard do you think it is to get, say, Angelina Jolie's 2003 federal tax
return?  Federal employees routinely (though illegally) share and view
celebrity tax returns.

Nixon had the IRS harass people on his "enemies list."

The point is that you build secrecy into the system rather than into the
people.

> 
>This issue was decided by the District Court in 2004, and the Court rejected the very same arguments you are trying to make now.  The Court found us to be in compliance with state law and the state constitution in our actions.  

The court may have found so but it is not the whole story.

The first thing that the court decided was the level of proof necessary for
the court to order the County Clerk to do her constitutionally required
duties.  Since Mr. Schooler filed for emergency relief the judge found that
the level of proof necessary for the plaintiff to prevail was set to the
highest level of proof.  This was a nearly impossible task.

It was also, to me, totally inequitable.  No matter what the statutes and/or
the rules of civil procedure or the courts might say, a constitutional
challenge should require the lowest burden of proof rather than the highest.
But, hey, I'm not a lawyer ... much less a constitutional lawyer.

After the trial, I advised Mr. Schooler not to file an appeal.  The last
thing this movement needed was a state-wide ruling based on a bad Boulder
judgement.

My respect for the courts at all levels of government is next-to-nil;
because government courts defer to government.  Unfortunately, the
government courts are the only game in town.

> 
>Voter confidence is a delicate matter, and it is often on shaky ground.

We have been arguing this for several years with little success.  Thank you
for confirming this.

> These false rumors about "non-secret ballots" can only further reduce the voters' confidence in the elections process.  In this office, we are spending every waking minute working to restore and strengthen voter confidence 

Then spend the measly $3,500 to print removable stubs.

Yes or no: The system will work with removable stubs?

Did the previous system worth with removable stubs?  Of course it did.

Hell, ask the citizens to contribute to a stub fund.  I'll kick in $10.

> and I am pleading with you now to work with us in our efforts.

I, for one, would love to work with you.  You were a good guy back in 2002
when you worked for/with the SoS to preserve certain constitutional rights
that the Colorado state legislature had screwed up.  I'm sure you know what
I'm talking about.

But recent events with respect to Hart and ballot stubs and DREs have
disappointed me greatly.  "working with you" seems to be code for "hey, we
know what we're doing so leave us alone."

I, for one, will not leave you alone.

> 
>Thank you,
> 
>Joshua B. Liss 
>Elections Coordinator 
>Boulder County Clerk & Recorder 
>P: (303) 413-7745 
>F: (303) 413-7750 
>jliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>