NO RIGHT to a secret ballot ...ya gotta be kidding me

[littlewolf]

http://www.dailycamera.com/2012election/top-stories/ci_21600956/federal-judge-throws-out-bid-block-printing-boulder


U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello said there is no fundamental federal constitutional right to an anonymous ballot, and that the plaintiffs could not show any "actual or imminent" harm.
Marilyn Marks, president of Citizen Center, the organization that brought the case, called the outcome "shocking." She plans
to consult with the organization's attorneys about whether to pursue the case in state court or appeal in federal court.

snip

"To hear the court say that it's OK for the clerk and all the election works to have access to how we vote is just shocking," Marks said.
Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall said she was not expecting the entire case to be dismissed, but was "very pleased" with the outcome.
"This will allow us to focus as we always have on the integrity of the upcoming election," Hall said.

snip

Until recently, every Boulder County ballot had a unique number that distinguished it from every other ballot. That number made it easy for election workers to retrieve a specific ballot if it wouldn't scan properly or had over- or undervotes that needed to be assessed manually.
However, election integrity activists contended that through comparisons with voter rolls, those unique numbers could reveal how individual people voted.

snip


In an attempt to resolve the issue, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler issued an emergency ruling earlier this year that prohibited any identifying markings on ballots. Because Hall wanted to keep numbers on the ballots to facilitate finding problem ballots during counting, she proposed to repeat each ballot number across precincts and ballot styles so that the number would no longer be unique.
The Secretary of State's Office accepted this solution, at least for the November election, but activists still had concerns that the ballots could be identified. A similar system was used in the June primaries, and activists say those ballots can be traced to individual voters. They continued to ask for a restraining order and injunction against the relevant counties to stop them printing ballots with identifying marks.

alot more at the link

[nichomachus]

1. Just like Saddam Hussein used to do

All ballots had identifying codes and could be traced to the voters. He usually one with overwhelming numbers.

[brooklynite]

3. Actually, this is probably true...

...the "secret ballot" didn't become prevant until the mid-19th Century. In Kentucky, oral votes were given to the Clerk until the 1890's. I don't dispute that they're preferable, but there's limited historical or Court precedent to guarantee the right to them.

[LiberalFighter]

10. I agree.

I remember reading an account of voting taking place with voters going to the county seat in the public square and they would call the roll with those in attendance announcing how they were voting.

[Recursion]

4. That's never been a Federal constitutional right

And it's only comparatively recently that the states guaranteed it.

[JimDandy]

6. Which is why,

since state court clearly has jurisdiction, they should have taken it there first time around.

[littlewolf]

7. ahem ... oops sorri ... it seems

my outrage was misplaced ....

[JimDandy]

8. Your outrage

is spot on! I bow to your outrage. I live here in Colorado and have been following this case locally. I have just enough background in the law though to ALSO be upset that time and resources were wasted pursing this in the wrong courts. Carry on!

[Riftaxe]

9. From the title I assumed this was a card check post

[NYC Liberal]

11. That's correct. There is no constitutional guarantee to a secret ballot.

States started using secret ballots only around the mid-19th century.

That doesn't mean an open ballot is a good idea.

[Monk06]

12. It's my understanding that in the US you have to declare your party affiliation when registering to

to vote. That or register as an independent.

In Canada all I need to do is go on the internet and give my current address, name and SIN number and I am registered. No official working for Elections Canada is entitled to ask who I intend to vote for.

When I show up at to vote all I need to show is a driver's license or a Provincial Personal ID card. If I don't have that when I show up to vote, all I have to show is a recent utilities bill with my name on it and my SIN card. No picture ID is required in that case. In fact I can use the second alternative if I don't want to show picture ID to vote.

I can vote right away. No provisional ballot to be fought over after the election. My vote counts at the booth.

The most important point, in Canada and every other Commonwealth nation, political parties cannot control election rules and do not count or certify the ballots and nobody, that is NO PRIVATE CITIZEN can challenge my right to vote.

The US electoral system seems designed for fraud and political interference.

If I have that wrong I apologize in advance.

[littlewolf]

13. you declare your party affiliation

so that you can get junk mail ....

seriously ... party affiliation is only
for primaries .... in the general
it isn't even asked ....

[Monk06]

14. So when election 'monitors' challenge your voter registration they don't know your party

affiliation? How is it that Republican operatives can get you kicked off the voter's list by robo calling with phoney voting times and locations? I still don't get it. They couldn't do that unless they knew your voting preference before the election. Also if you register Republican in the Primary can you switch parties when you vote on Nov 6? All very confusing.

[littlewolf]

17. as far as Primaries go

you can only vote in one ...
in MOST states ...
if you are Republican you have to vote in the GOP Primary
if you are Democrat you have to vote in the Dem primary
if you are an Independent you can vote in either ...
some states will allow any registered vote in either primary
it all depends on the state laws ...

the robo calls are based upon your party affiliation ...
they don't know how you vote ... they just know your party affiliation.

[Monk06]

18. So what is it election 'monitors' allowed to do? How can they challenge a voter in a polling place?

In 2010 I saw threads in FR where Texas residents said they were getting on a plane to cities that historically vote Democrat in order to challenge voter's registration. The targets were almost all polling places in predominantly black precincts in places like Philidelphia, Newark etc.

I saw a vid in 2010 where two white guys, obviously well off driving a rented SUV, were chased out of voting site by people who lived there, who were almost all black.

So how can people who live outside your precinct challenge your vote and what in particular are they empowered to do?

Be assured I am not claiming the Canadian system is more secure or fair compared to the US system. In the last election, Harper's conservatives used political consultants and operatives who worked for the Republican party in the US. As a result for the first time Canadians started to receive robocalls misdirecting them to phoney polling places on voting day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocall_scandal

[littlewolf]

19. I have no idea about challenging ....

can someone else help here .....

[silentnomore_62]

15. Now on Youtube!

[link:

|
Obama's 2016

[Iggo]

16. "silentonceagain" more like it.