Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
...
|
| (CO) 06/2012 - IT'S OFFICIAL: THE PUB... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 11666
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 3 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 - 5:09 pm: | 
|
Colorado Supreme Court Decision Assures That Ballots Remain Public Records
Aspen, Colo., June 28 ---The Colorado Supreme Court's decision has reaffirmed that election ballots are open public records. As a result, the public will be able to verify that untraceable votes are accurately interpreted and counted. This decision comes as election officials are preparing for the 2012 presidential election.
In September, 2011, the Colorado Appeals Court ruled that ballots are indeed open public records. The City filed requested that the Colorado Supreme Court reverse the decision. The Supreme Court has now decided not to hear the Koch v. Marks case. The Court chose to end the controversy in favor of election transparency.
"This is a welcome decision that reconfirms the vitality of the Colorado Open Records Act as a powerful tool that permits ordinary Coloradans to hold their state and local governments accountable," said Marks's attorney Robert A. McGuire of Denver.
"Colorado elections once again belong to the people. This decision puts to rest a long-standing controversy between the public and election officials across the state who improperly prohibit the public and press from verifying Colorado's elections. Just as Florida officials welcomed the press to analyze voted ballots in the 2000 Bush/Gore controversy, Colorado officials needed to accept similar transparency rights in our election battleground state," said Marilyn Marks, founder of Citizen Center, and plaintiff in the Aspen case that began in 2009.
"Colorado election officials have fought transparency, despite numerous pro-transparency court rulings and Secretary of State Gessler's guidance that anonymous, untraceable ballots are open public records. Voters' ballots must be untraceable, voted in private and counted in public, as the courts continue to affirm," Marks added.
The Court of Appeals awarded attorney's fees to Marks in an amount yet to be determined. Marks states that the fees incurred to date exceed $100,000. "Each party has well over $100,000 in resources invested in this litigation. The government must pay reasonable attorneys' fees when they improperly withhold records and the courts intervene. I trust that the City will want to put this controversy to rest and that we can come to a reasonable settlement without controversy that would be a further waste of public funds," Marks said.
The Court's decision is an important one for the work of Citizen Center, currently in litigation against the Secretary of State and six Colorado County clerks in Citizen Center v. Gessler, et al. The lawsuit seeks to vindicate Colorado voters' constitutional rights to a secret ballot. In recent years, many Colorado election officials have used computerized voting systems and record-keeping to compromise the voters' right to maintain private ballot choices and keep them secret from the prying eyes of government.
Secretary Gessler and the defendant clerks of Boulder, Chaffee, Eagle, Jefferson, Larimer, and Mesa claim that Colorado voters have no constitutional right to a secret ballot. These officials believe that Colorado election officials are not prohibited from knowing how individual voters' vote. "The Supreme Court of Colorado obviously disagrees with the outrageous position of these election officials," said Marilyn Marks. "We hope that the federal court will act in time to protect the 2012 presidential election from the clerks' improper continuing practices of creating traceable ballots."
Harvie Branscomb, election quality advocate who has worked with Marks since 2009 to seek the Aspen ballots for analysis of the Instant Runoff Voting process said, "The Supreme Court decision serves as a valuable reality check. Colorado election officials must now recognize that we ordinary citizens deserve the access we need to independently count our publicly owned and untraceable ballots."
Colorado Voter Group Trustee, Al Kolwicz, said, "The Court's decision strongly supports the concept that elections belong to the people, not to government bureaucrats."
Marks acknowledged the research, support and expertise provided by Bev Harris and BlackBoxVoting.org. as instrumental in helping achieve this victory. "The Colorado Project" of BlackBoxVoting.org also supports the efforts of Citizen Center through providing expertise and technical resources on matters of election transparency.
Citizen Center is a non-profit non-partisan organization based in Aspen, Colorado, with a focus on government transparency and election quality. For more information on The Citizen Center, visit:
http://www.thecitizencenter.com |
Tom Courbat
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Leftisbest
Post Number: 127
Registered: 6-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 - 11:58 pm: |
|
How absurd we the people have to go to court to have our right to monitor OUR elections confirmed by the courts. And how haughty of elections officials there to fight such an effort, and to essentially declare they have a right to deny any ability of the citizenry (sp?) to verify the elections. It all becomes so much clearer when I see the name "Koch" it the lawsuit.
My heartfelt thanks to Marilyn Marks, Harvie Branscomb, Al Kolwicz and of course, Bev Harris and Black Box Voting for your persistence. When you are right, no matter how long the fight, it is ALWAYS worth it. You are shining examples for all of us. Thank you, thank you, thank you!! |
Tim White
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tim_white
Post Number: 1
Registered: 6-2012
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2012 - 12:23 am: |
|
This is a cheering victory!
Our San Juan County WA group has been in touch with Kolwicz, Branscomb and attorney McGuire for years on parallel efforts to restore the secret ballot by removing illegal serial number bar codes.
BBV & CO public records strategy has borne sweet fruit.
Our suit moving in San Juan Co Superior Ct directly challenges the unique identifiers themselves. (Next court appearance in coming weeks.)
Ballot images in WA
Separate from but complementary to the White v Reed secret ballot suit, we have had our Public Records Act requests for ballot images denied by the 21 WA counties with Hart bar code serial numbers on the ballots--the same voting system used in some CO counties.
The Denials sent were tweaked from a common template possibly coordinated by SOS Sam Reed's office, which supports serial numbers as an elections "Best Practice" despite state law.
Rationale for Denial doesn't mention the real reason--that they know releasing ballots with serial numbers compromises the secret ballot. Instead, the Denials spin interpretation of multiple statutes and agency rules into a new, previously unknown and unidentified exemption from disclosure not on the list of 317 or some such number of legal Exemptions identified by recent legislature-mandated Sunshine Cmte review.
WA's Public Records Act specifies that a legal Exemption must be explicit, specific and legislated into statute--no mere implications, generalities or provisions of WA Administrative Code (the implementing rules issued by state agencies)--which is what their Denials all rely on.
We would challenge the Denial if not stretched to tension on White v Reed. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 11674
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, July 2, 2012 - 7:02 pm: |
|
Tim, I am so glad to hear your important update. You have an important case.
One of the things that will get us to critical mass is more lawyers with the skill and willingness to take on these cases. They can often get their fees back if they win. |
Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Realkurtb
Post Number: 104
Registered: 6-2011
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 6:42 am: |
|
Any form of identification, including but not limited to a barcode, is a "Worst Practice" that would VOID every single ballot as illegal in my state. How can what is expressly illegal (even in the text of our constitiution, not mere statute) in one state be an alleged "Best Practice" in another?
Hrmmph! Maybe "they" ARE right. Colorado and Washington really ARE in a different country (planet?) than Pennsylvania is. |
Francois Choquette
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ronrules
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2012
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 10:58 am: |
|
That's not what my Riverside County Registrar says.
Here's an excerpt from a letter received today, dated July 2, 2012:
The June 5, 2012 Election was officially certified on June 22, 2012. Therefore the ballots are now sealed and may not be opened.
Sincerely,
Kari Verjil,
Registrar of Voters. |
Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Realkurtb
Post Number: 105
Registered: 6-2011
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Francois,
1) It's Riverside County (CA?). Not exactly a paragon of transparency.
2) LOTS of places seal ballots after the challenge period has past. In the Aspen CO case, they were never available. PA also seals everything after the election contest window has closed, and it takes a court order to reverse that. Ballots are NOT available to "researchers" outside the context of a live election contest. By contrast, the actual official count, beginning the Friday after Election Day, is completely public. You get to find out if the election was close before you decide to spend your November getting more familiar with an election staffer than you had ever dreamed. |
|
|
