SandBox is going to try a new form of posting some commentary. Inserting annointed text commentary (in this case from Marks) into the actual article or column. Since one can never really tell what Jack is going to deem respond to as a "All responsible and serious queries and emails"; this just might get a broader viewpoint out into the public eye.
Let Nanny know how you like it.
"Election law is complex. It is also important. Marks v. Koch seeks to overturn a century’s worth of election law and should be reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court."
[The election law has not been overturned in any way. The Open Records Law, in place for over 40 years, which allows ballots to be public records has merely been upheld. It is modeled after the same open records law that permitted the Bush/Gore ballots or the Coleman/Franken ballots to be reviewed by the press and public to reach their own conclusions.]
No elected or appointed official in Aspen invented Colorado election law or the secret ballot. They are only charged — for our benefit and upon our behalf — with interpreting and implementing it. Average citizens, the press and even loud-mouthed local public policy columnists all very much take the secret ballot for granted. We have forgotten, if we ever knew, how hard it was to win the right to such because much of the intellectual thought regarding election law and the right to a secret ballot was settled in the 19th century.
[Actually “secret” ballots were allowed until 1947, and even the 20’s Colorado ballots were traceable if an official peeked at the concealed ballot number on the voted ballot. “Secrets” to be shared with and by election officials are subject to abuse. So, in 1947, the constitution was changed to guarantee that ballots are anonymous and the officials could obtain no “secrets” about how we vote. The only “secret” is your privacy in the act of voting the anonymous ballot.]
In a nutshell, ballots are cast and then counted. Results are determined and announced. Some people celebrate and drink beer and cheer the results, others not so much. Later, audits are performed and tests for accuracy are conducted.
[ The first such audit in Aspen was in 2011. Counties have had years of post-election audits.]
This all occurs in public and at specific times and places determined by law.
[starting in 2011 in Aspen.]
Then there exists a “contest” period during which the results may be challenged. Anyone can request a recount and have one conducted. But when recounts are conducted they occur under very strict procedures and are overseen by a judge.
[No, the recount is performed by the election commission and local citizen election officials No court is involved. Johnson has confused a “recount” with an “election contest.”]
After the contest period is over ballots are sealed in the ballot box for six months and then destroyed.
[No, the ballots are sealed on election night and the ballot box entered for various needed functions, including auditing, canvassing, recounts, election complaints, etc. In municipal elections ONLY, ballots are destroyed 6 months after election day, not 6 months after the contest period ends, as Johnson incorrectly states. In county, state and federal elections the ballots are preserved for at least 25 months, and may be maintained for years. ]
However, during these six months a judge can order a recount if sufficient proof of fraud can be shown.
[There are other criteria for a contest other than fraud.]
If one has evidence of fraud or corruption it should be produced, shown to the judge and if a recount is ordered it will be under court supervision.
[ No, recounts are NOT under court supervision. Johnson is referring to an election contest—a very different process.]
That’s what the law prescribes and it does so to protect our right to both verify the outcome of an election while also protecting our right to a secret ballot.
[Johnson assumes that the public can verify any election by asking for a recount and/or mounting a court supervised election contest. Both are expensive, barring most candidates or public from such an activity. But, in county, state and federal elections in Colorado, ONLY the LOSING candidate may request a recount, thereby making “verification” through a “recount” off limits to all but a few well -funded losing candidates.. Even then, Colorado recount laws require recounting on the same machines, which may just replicate the error in the first count, and no real verification is possible. Election contests are available only to those who can prove that the outcome of the election would change if the court considers the evidence. That is hardly a way to verify any election, even if the applicant had the scores of thousands of dollars to mount an election contest. Jack is completely off base in his claim. ]
Secret ballots were an improvement in election law history because they made vote buying all but impossible and made it easier to vote one’s conscience without influence from others.
[Mail-in ballots make vote buying and selling quite easy and leave no trace of the nefarious activity.]
There are other reasons but secret ballots, recounts overseen by courts,
[recounts are not overseen by the courts]
employing uniform legal procedures and the eventual destruction of ballots are progressive improvements to our voting system and should be respected and strongly defended.
[Modern election law does not require destruction of those records. Aspen’s law does, and it should be changed. There is no reason to destroy anonymous ballots. Prior to 1947 there indeed was a reason to destroy marked, identifiable ballots. I would hope that the Florida 2000 ballots have been archived and well preserved as an important piece of history.]
Why not turn over the ballots for “public” inspection as Marks v. Koch seeks? There are at least two types of secrecy in voting — one is that of voting in private so that no one else knows how we are voting while we are actually voting. Privacy screens and sleeves, no identifying marks traceable to an individual voter, etc., preserve this type of secrecy. But there is another aspect of secrecy more difficult to explain but equally important.
[yes, it’s hard to explain because Johnson has it wrong. ]
Procedures for counting and the methods for the examination of ballots after they’ve been cast, counted, audited, certified — these were put into law to protect this sort of secrecy.
[ No, the counting auditing and certification process is required to be in public---NOT in private. That is why we have citizen watchers and allow the press to observe the counting process. Anonymous ballots create no need for secret counting of votes!]
Eventual destruction of said ballots ensures secrecy forever.
[anonymous ballots do not need to be secret or destroyed. County, state and federal ballots are NOT required to be destroyed.]
The main issue in Marks v. Koch is whether or not ballots and their images (from 2009) are subject to Colorado’s sunshine laws. If so, they should be available for public inspection. District Judge Boyd ruled that ballots were constitutionally exempt from the sunshine laws and held there is no difference between a ballot and a copy of that ballot. The Colorado Court of Appeals recently ruled in effect that copies aren’t originals and since the constitution says nothing about copies the city of Aspen should make the copies available.
[ No, the Court reaffirmed that BOTH the paper ballots and their copies are both public records available to anyone who asks. ]
It is certainly true that copies aren’t originals or we wouldn’t call them copies, would we? So the letter of the law is being upheld but the spirit is completely and, wrongly, being ignored. Would the court rule your original tax return is secret but if someone in the IRS made a copy it could be published in the paper? If a copy were made of your medical records could they be read aloud over the airwaves? Of course not. This is sophistry.
[Johnson’s analogy fails in that tax returns and medical records ARE confidential documents, for which copies are not materially different, and also confidential. Ballots are NOT confidential records, so their copies are not confidential either. ]
The relevant section of the constitution was written in 1889 or something and never amended. So this flap rests on the notion of whether copies are originals and we have two conflicting opinions. Of course the Supreme Court should hear it. The outcome is too important not to. Why? For one reason because the reactionary and (nosey) forces wishing to look at the image of your 2009 ballot are now doubling down and want to see your actual ballot from 2011.
Fortunately the city has denied this effort and proactively seeks a ruling from the District Court. I voted in that election and Elizabeth Milias and Harvie Branscomb seek to review ballots similar to mine — perhaps even my exact ballot for all I know.
[No one examining the ballots will ever know Jack’s ballot for anyone else’s anonymous ballot. ]
For the reasons I briefly outlined above, I believe I would suffer harm from their inspection of any ballots and most definitely from inspection of mine.
[What possible harm could that be for the inspection of ballots which cannot be traced to a voter?]
No one should be allowed to take the ballots home and come up with their own count over a box of wine while watching American Idol.
[Why not? We can take other public records home and review them and even make false claims about them if we want. Others can check our credibility. By all means, we should be allowed to create our own accurate or inaccurate re-tabulations from COPIES, of course. That is the American way. Would Johnson have blocked the Washington Post from recounting the Bush/Gore ballots? Sounds like it.]
I want the city to vigorously defend my right to a secret ballot as outlined in the state constitution. I ask the court to uphold my right to a secret ballot. The desire to personally count the ballots does not trump my right to a secret ballot.
[there is no need to have these rights compete to trump each other. Rights to an anonymous ballot in fact facilitate the right to have anyone count the ballots. ]
See how great this kind of chat posting is!! The Bee's Knees!!
(Read original article? Click title. Comment to discuss)
"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
No comments:
Post a Comment