Re: Absentee voters; Macho

["amaynard_1@xxxxxxxx" <amaynard_1@xxxxxxxx>]

Dr. Mercuri, I agree with Ralph Schnelvar, and thought I would put my
own two cents' worth in.  I am an attorney who has represented citizens
who mounted an initiative and a recall in the Town of Castle Rock,
Colorado, both of which were defeated by organized operatives working
for real estate developers, who stuffed the ballot box with absentee
ballots.

Large numbers of absentee ballots went missing in both elections, and
we uncovered several forgeries.  We believe, in fact, there were many
more forgeries than we were able to identify--we think there was a
large-scale forging operation going on, but my clients did not have the
resources to have their handwriting expert examine every return envelope.  

The simple fact that the voter's signature, and sometimes also his or
her printed name, appears on the return envelope means that the ballot
is identified:  effectively marked as being the ballot of that voter,
which is unconstitutional (at least in Colorado).  Because the
operatives (and the clerk) now know who voted the ballot, they likely
know whether or not the whole thing--return envelope with ballot
inside--should be thrown away, never even recorded as received.  They
can often make a reasonable guess about how you voted through your
party affiliation, which appears on the registration records, or from
doing their own survey of voters before the election, which they did in
Castle Rock.  Or maybe they know you.

The voting with both mail ballots and absentee ballots is open a very
long time, meaning that operatives like the ones I've described can
keep a running tally of who's voted and "get out the vote" of their
sympathizers.  In other words, they can ensure they win the election by
legitimate means, because they have the resources to examine the
records every day (the ballots coming in) and are organized, whereas
the citizens opposing their issue are generally not. 

Also, whether or not your ballot is recorded as received is effectively
between the clerk and the dumpster.  There are no watchers there 24
hours a day, for the ten days absentee ballots can be received, or
whatever.  In Castle Rock, every time the clerk did something which
also involved the U.S. Postal Service, she made a false record, knowing
it could not be pinned on her.  Also, the applications for absentee
ballots can ask that the ballots be sent to an address which has no
connection with the voter.  The ballot for the Castle Rock election can
be sent to a P.O. box in Pueblo, therefore, and returned, voted,
without the voter ever having any idea.  The voter is out of the loop.
I was told by a woman in Denver in 2002, in fact, that, when she voted
in the presidential election in 2000, she and a number of other voters
in line were all being told they had to go home, because they had
already voted absentee.  They had NOT voted, at all.

In contrast with absentee and mail ballot elections, ballots never
disappear in polling place elections.  Every single ballot is accounted
for.  In the Castle Rock elections--also, in a Denver special mail
ballot election I am now looking at, which took place January
30--thousands of ballots went missing and were totally unaccounted for.
 The Castle Rock operatives were conducting a "courier service."  They
first conducted a telephone survey of voters before each election to
determine the voter's position on the issue, then made sure that that
voter got an application for an absentee ballot, and that the ballot
was sent by the clerk and voted.  They then visited the voter's homes
and picked up the ballot to return it to the clerk.  But they also
targeted people who did not agree with their position, offering to pick
up THEIR voted ballots, as well.  Of course, these they probably did
NOT return to the clerk.  They just went missing.  These operatives
also had ballots in their possession, not simply applications.  

Finally, there is a division of responsibility in a polling place
election.  The clerk has very little responsibility for any of it:  it
is run by volunteer election judges, each one taking care of one part
of the election.  With absentee ballots, the clerk has complete control
over everything:  who gets a ballot and what is done with the ballots
coming back.  As I said, it's between her and the dumpster.

We need to do away with absentee ballots and mail ballots, completely,
and return to one-day-only, secure polling place elections, which are
completed within a single day.  Only when the whole process (other than
the actual voting inside the booth) is observable by a multitude of
human eyes of different political persuasions is it secure, or as
secure as we can make it.

Alison Maynard, Denver






-- Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Ms. Mercuri:

I have been and will continue to be a fan of yours. Your work promoting
fair
and honest elections and your opposition to DREs is near-legendary.

But on this issue of absentee voting I believe you are wrong.

No, please let me be stronger than that.  You are wrong.  Please let me
explain, below.




Let's, for the moment, compare DREs with absentee voting (a variation of
mail-in ballots)

(1) Paper trail:

Neither DREs or mail-in ballots leave a paper trail.

What? Think about it. When one sends in a ballot there is no guarantee that
it goes into the system at all.  There is absolutely no feedback at all
that
your particular vote was counted.

(2) It's still counted by a computer.

Here in Colorado the law is such that even if there is a paper trail, the
votes are still counted by fallible computers nad it takes a court order
(hard to get!) to have the paper counted.

(3) It increases voter participation

This is flawed on two counts. First, there is no conclusive evidence
that it
really does. I believe that in most localities one finds a spurt when they
are introduced (because of the novelty) but then voter participation is
reduced in future elections.

Second, it is just plain old ordinary much easier to defraud the system.  

Twenty-or-so years ago my friend, Marcy, had (with the permission of the
state's attorney) her dog (Macho) registered to vote.  It made the local
news.

Here's the bottom line: If one wishes to stuff the ballot box, what more
convenient way to do it than out of the site of any observers?

When I was walking door-to-door for a candidate in Colorado Springs working
off of voter registration lists, I was rather shocked to find that a
good 5%
of the addresses on the list were for houses that did not exist.

Do you want to swing an election? Just create a bunch of phony
registrations
and mail in those ballots.  How would anyone ever know?



In the last few days we have received the wonderful news that dozens of
representatives of Disability Groups have publicly announced their
opposition to DRE electronic-ballot Voting Machines. They have come to
realize that accurate voting is more important than convenient voting.

Mail-in ballots might be convenient (like DREs) but is it worth the risk to
our democracy?

Dr. Mercuri, please reconsider your position.  As a luminary in the good
voting movement, your opinion is so very important.

Ralph Shnelvar
A member of the Paper Tigers
385 Fox Drive
Boulder, CO 80303
303-546-6125



On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:11:39 -0500, you wrote:

>I am responding to a message about Colorado's permanent absentee 
>proposal that was sent to me by Al Kolwicz.
>
>Although I have not yet reviewed the Colorado proposal for permanent 
>absentee voting, generally speaking, this concept is actually a good 
>thing. I have been an absentee voter in New Jersey ever since I was 
>confronted with the choice between voting on a DRE that did not have a 
>voter-verified paper trail, or being an absentee voter. Once New Jersey 
>enacted their absentee voter law it made it considerably easier to be an 
>absentee voter (since I didn't have to remember to get the forms each 
>time). Other states (like CA and FL) that have permanent absentee laws 
>have seen the absentee voter numbers increase, so it is a good way to 
>improve voter turnout. Many voters who do not like the electronic voting 
>machines are "voting with their vote" by becoming permanent absentees. 
>Permanent absentees should have the same security, accuracy, 
>verifiability, anonymity, accessibility, transparency, and 
>accountability as regular absentees. These factors can be improved by 
>providing ballot templates for the visually impaired (inexpensive, can 
>be used at home), and by monitoring the process to make sure that 
>permanent absentees do receive their ballots (and ballot applications, 
>if those are needed) promptly and that all absentee ballots are handled 
>properly.
>
>As a permanent absentee voter, I approve and encourage the passage of 
>permanent absentee voter laws.
>
>Rebecca Mercuri, Ph.D.
>www.notablesoftware.com