|
-------- Original Message --------
Sunshine law partly cloudy after Election Day By Joe Richey Read more: Sunshine law partly cloudy after Election Day - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16494067#ixzz148ysNuLw Polls show the Colorado race for U.S. Senate may be too close to call. The Colorado Republican Party is concerned about the governor's race. Our state could face recounts and requests for independent investigations of election results. Surprisingly, analyses of election results by media organizations — like those of Florida's Bush vs. Gore ballots by The New York Times, Washington Post and Miami Herald — would be prohibited in Colorado without a court battle. The Colorado secretary of state and county clerks, who run our elections, do not deem ballots to be open public records. They maintain that ballots are not subject to the Colorado Open Records Act. Why should Colorado's ballots be more "secret" than Florida's in 2000 or Minnesota's after the 2008 U.S. Senate race? The answer lies in the misuse of the term "secret ballot." Ballots are designed to be anonymous. They cannot be traceable to the voter. The act of voting is meant to be secret, or private. Safeguards such as the "6-foot" statute are intended to protect the voter's privacy while voting. But to continue to apply a 6-foot rule after a ballot has been cast and made anonymous is to obstruct citizen and media oversight. An anonymous ballot constitutes a public document to be counted, examined, audited and preserved for future review. It is not the private property of the voter, the state, the clerk or the clerk's vendors. Colorado's ballots are required to be effectively untraceable to the voter, just like those of Florida and Minnesota. Still, most Colorado election officials prohibit open reviews of voted ballots. They claim that because each election yields a minuscule number of ballots mistakenly marked with a voter's signature or e-mail address, for example, no ballot can be analyzed. Our election officials also fear that an independent review of ballots yielding different results would damage voter confidence. Should rare voter mistakes and unproductive fear prevent crucial oversight of Colorado's elections? Ten years after Florida 2000, it's Colorado 2010. Court battles are being fought in Denver to clarify definitions of terms like "secret" and "ballot." A lawsuit pertaining to post-election ballot review was filed on Oct. 20 in the state Court of Appeals. The suit emerged from a district court in Pitkin County after Aspen's May 2009 municipal election. In Marks vs. Koch, Marilyn Marks claims that ballots and digital ballot images are subject to the Colorado Open Records Act as a public record of an election. Aspen City Clerk Kathryn Koch maintains that these documents cannot be released for public inspection, claiming that ballots are "secret." In another case, incumbent state Rep. Kathleen Curry, now an unaffiliated write-in candidate for Colorado House District 61, has filed a lawsuit for her race to be counted transparently the first time so that a recount will be unnecessary. When public records are withheld, they cease to be open public records. And with a trend in Colorado to prevent citizen and media oversight and verification of election results, the electorate should be asking, "Are these our elections?" Around the country, public oversight of elections improves election quality and builds voter confidence. Colorado's elected and appointed officials need to support public participation in and citizen oversight of transparent, verifiable elections. These principles cannot be sacrificed in the name of efficiency, cost savings, or fear of producing evidence of error. Joe Richey is vice president of Coloradans for Voting Integrity and serves on the Colorado secretary of state's Elections Best Practices and Vision Commission. Read more: Sunshine law partly cloudy after Election Day - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16494067#ixzz148zAVuIz |