Today's Daily Camera contains a really lame
correction, blessed by Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall and not
me, after I requested the two following wordings:
"Ballots actually are subject to the Colorado Open Records
Act (CORA). Boulder's Hart ballots, like those of the other 45
counties in Colorado using Hart ballots, do contain unique numbers
and bar codes that can allow the ballot to be traced back to the
voter. A lawsuit concerning this fact is in progress in Federal
Court."
The Camera deemed this correction too long and too involved with
ideas not contained in the original story. It had to be one
sentence. Fair enough.
Here's the original wording from yesterday's Fake Xcel Letter story:
""The letter says the company used an open records request to get
access to voter files to learn how people voted. Yet ballots are
confidential and not subject to open records
requests."
So I tried the following:
"Ballots are subject to the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), and
Boulder's Hart ballots do contain unique numbers and bar codes
that could, in conjunction with other data, allow a ballot to be
traced back to the voter."
Below is the Hillary-blessed version (on p. 2 of today's Camera):
Corrections
A story on Page 1A of Tuesday's
Camera incorrectly reported how Colorado's Open Records Act
applies to ballots. Ballot images
are subject to open records requests so long as they do not
contain identifying information that could reveal how a specific
person voted.
We urge readers who
spot mistakes to contact us: Online: www.dailycamera.com/
corrections
E-mail: corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Voice-mail: 303-473-1198
Phone: Mon.-Fri. 8 a.m.-5
p.m. 303-473-1365
Hillary is banking on the Colorado Supreme Court overturning the
Court of Appeals in Marks v. Koch.
Right now, the law of the state is Ballots
and ballot images.... Hillary is also hiding the problem
with the Hart numbers from the general reader.
Mary
On 4/3/2012 3:01 PM, Marilyn Marks wrote:
I
must disagree with pecondon.
In
the vast majority of states and many counties in Colorado,
clerks do NOT put unique marks on the FACE of the ballot to
keep inventory control.
In
fact, it is illegal to have distinguishing marks (numbers)
on the FACE of the ballot in almost every state—including
Colorado.
Most
clerks control the inventory and prevent duplicate
scanning/counting by reconciling with poll books, envelopes
received and ballot stubs counted. There are numerous checks
and balances to be certain that no double scanning occurs
undetected.
And
none of them should rely on distinguishing numbers on the
face of the ballots.
Until
you have been in the midst of an election where people are
being intimidated by claims that the government can trace
how they vote through ballot markings, please do not
minimize the problem with traceable ballots.
Please
see the attached letter to the Camera.
Call
me a “wrong thinker and trouble-maker.”
Marilyn
Marks
In answer to the purpose of the bar coding, as a practical
matter the bar code can be used to keep a ballot from being
scanned twice or more times
during scanning phase of the process. But this may be only
'official reason'. Some "wrong thinkers and trouble makers"
probably believe that it just
an
excuse and that the 'real reason' is to support the kind
of attack on anonominity that you suggest. For me, I
would have a hard time believing in
the
integrity of any vote count where the people doing the
work had no method or assuring to their own satisfaction
that they had not, accidentally, processed a box of
voted ballots twice. I see a conflict of goals, and I
see no way of absolutely resolving it. Keep in mind that
we need to keep the ballots for a possible recount, and
to the naked human eye, they look just like the ballots
that have not yet been counted. The people doing the
work can be trained to pretend and to swear that the
never make a mistake. But they are human. They do make
mistakes. If the ballots were counted at each polling
place, there might be less chance of accidental mix up,
but much greater chance of flat out incompetence on the
part of those who are 'trained' to do the work. There
is 'ideal' and there is 'real'. With the right amount of
work, it should be possible for statistical experts to
produce a totally fraudulent vote count and canvass
report. But it would require the collusion of a lot of
people to switch the fraudulent for the real.
I
agree that keeping the sheets together is a lame reason.
There are a lot of lame reasons for doing things that
ought to be done for some good reason, e.g "We drive on
the right side of the road because we are conservatives,
unlike those pinko leftists in the UK."
--- ralphs@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Lou Puls <lou.puls@xxxxxxxxx>
CC: Mary Eberle <m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Colorado Voter Group
<ColoradoVoter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Margit
Johansson <margitjo@xxxxxxxxx>, Angie Layton
<angielayton@xxxxxxxx>, Harvie Branscomb
<harvie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kathryn Wallace
<kathryncwallace@xxxxxxxxx>, joseph richey
<richey80304@xxxxxxxxx>, Marilyn Marks
<Marilyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Citizens for
Verifiable Voting
<cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stith Bennett
<stith@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Geof Cahoon
<gcahoon@xxxxxxxxx>, Paul Walmsley
<paul@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Neal McBurnett
<neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re[2]: April Fool's: Fake Xcel letter
threatens to cut power to Boulder voters who favored
municipalization - Boulder Daily Camera
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:05:48 -0600
Lou,
As
I understand it, it is to keep the sheets of the
ballot together.
It's
a lame reason.
Ralph
Tuesday,
April 3, 2012, 8:54:17 AM, you wrote:
|
I have often wondered if the state-mandated
anonymity could be defeated by a poll observer
using the serialized bar coding printed on the
ballots? What is the purpose of the bar
coding?
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:07 AM,
Mary Eberle <m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Friends of Good Voting Practices,
Please see the following article, which is on
the front page of today's Daily Camera:
http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_20307046/april-fools-fake-xcel-letter-threatens-cut-power#.T3sBhfl6JeE.email
It is shocking that two journalists wrote
that ballots are confidential and not subject
to open records requests. Journalists do not
know the Colorado Open Records Act.
Please add your own comment that focuses on
ballots ARE open records. Thanks!
Here's what I said:
Here is the real April Fool's joke: "The
letter says the company used an
open records request to get access to voter
files to learn how people
voted. Yet ballots are confidential and not
subject to open records
requests." Actually, ballots are not
confidential, like your medical
records, which you, your doctor, and the
insurance company can see but
no one else can see--that's confidentiality.
Ballots are mandated to be
anonymous. ...
|
--
Best
regards,
Ralph
mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx
|