Editorials: Voting ‘reform’ across the ages | Philadelphia Inquirer

Once upon a time, American elections were rife with corruption. Party bosses bought votes with strong drink and cold cash, or stuffed ballot boxes with bogus names. Then along came the good-government reformers who cleaned up our democracy with new election laws and regulations. That’s the story we all learned in high school. And it’s true, up to a point. But it leaves out a crucial fact: Those measures also sought to bar certain people from the polls. The goal of election reform wasn’t simply a clean vote; it was also to keep out the “wrong” kind of voter. Pennsylvania’s voter-ID law, which is being challenged in state court, follows this pattern. On its face, it seems neutral and unimpeachable: Who could object to safeguards against fraud? But in practice, as opponents told the court last week, it would make it harder for poor people and minorities to vote.

Colorado: Why votes in Larimer County CO aren’t as secret as you think | The Coloradoan

It’s a secret locked away from lovers, parents, children and best friends. Now a voter-advocacy group is suing some Colorado election officials, including Larimer County Clerk and Recorder Scott Doyle, to assure that greater ballot security keeps voters’ preferences from prying eyes. Because of the way they are sorted, stored and preserved, each voted ballot in some counties — including Larimer — can be traced back to the individual who cast it, the Citizen Center claims in its federal lawsuit against six county clerks and Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler. Legal pleadings of the election officials and conversations with others leave little doubt that ballot data in some counties can be mined deep enough to reveal who cast each ballot and, consequently, how they voted. “We acknowledge that there are some traceable ballots,” said Andrew Cole, spokesman for the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.

Colorado: Aspen City Council forecasts complicated process in viewing voted ballots | Aspen Daily News

Before the public can look at voted ballots from recent city elections, officials will have to go through each one and decide on a case-by-case basis if stray markings could be enough to identify a voter, under procedures being drafted by the City Clerk’s office.  In the case that a ballot is marked up enough that it may not be anonymous, City Clerk Kathryn Koch said she will recommend that the person’s votes be copied onto a duplicate ballot without the stray markings. Koch will present her proposed procedure for viewing ballots to the city’s Election Commission, in a meeting tentatively scheduled for late next week. The state Supreme Court ruled in June that it would not hear the city’s appeal in the case of Marks v. Koch, brought by citizen activist Marilyn Marks. She sued the city after it denied her request in 2009 to see ballots from that year’s municipal election. The Supreme Court this week declined the city’s request to reconsider aspects of the case. Marks prevailed at the appellate court level in September 2011 after a local district court judge ruled in the city’s favor. The city fought Marks’ open records request on the grounds that releasing the ballots would violate a state constitutional provision guaranteeing a secret ballot.

Colorado: How secret is your ballot? | Summit County Citizens Voice

A see-saw Colorado legal battle over voter privacy has ended with a win for open-access advocates, who claim that the public’s right to inspect voting results at least equals the right to private voting — as long the ballots can’t be connected to individual voters. The Colorado Supreme Court last week let stand a lower court ruling that gave losing Aspen City Council candidate Marilyn Marks the right to inspect the instant runoff voting information from the 2009 election. While there may not have been as much at stake as in the hotly contested 2000 Gore versus Bush presidential election, Marks cited the inspection of the ballots in Florida as part of her legal arguments in the Aspen case, according to city attorney Jim True. The case was complicated by the fact that the State Legislature changed the with regard to ballot privacy after the election, during the course of the lawsuit. Under the revision, adopted in May, 2012, state lawmakers said they want ballots to be considered open records, viewable by anyone as long as their are privacy safeguards.

Colorado: Marks prevails in lawsuit over Aspen election ballots | AspenTimes.com

Election activist Marilyn Marks has prevailed in her quest to inspect ballots cast in the 2009 city of Aspen election. The Colorado Supreme Court has reversed its decision to hear the case, the city learned Thursday morning. That means a Court of Appeals ruling that supports Marks’ position will stand. The state’s high court had agreed in April to hear the city of Aspen’s motion to appeal the Court of Appeals decision. There was no explanation from the Supreme Court regarding its change of direction, but it means the Court of Appeals ruling in Marks’ lawsuit against City Clerk Kathryn Koch, custodian of the ballots, has been upheld. “Marks v. Koch is now clearly the law of the land,” Marks said. “I love closure,” was all Koch had to say about the latest development.

Colorado: State high court to review Aspen ballot-images case | AspenTimes.com

The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear the city of Aspen’s motion to appeal September’s state Court of Appeals ruling that favored political activist Marilyn Marks’ lawsuit challenging the city’s denial of her request to view ballot images from the 2009 mayoral race. According to the city, the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the Colorado Constitution does not protect the secrecy of ballots. On Nov. 11, the city requested a review of the case by the state Supreme Court. “In elections, there is a functional conflict between two important values: the ability to verify election results and the right of voters to a secret ballot,” the city’s motion states. “All election systems used in the United States since the introduction of the secret ballot in the (late 19th century) have sought to strike a compromise between these two values. In arriving at a compromise, election systems have uniformly given greater weight to secrecy over verifiability.”  The motion goes on to say that since 1876, the Colorado Legislature has enacted numerous laws to secure the purity of elections and “guard against the abuses of the elective franchise.”

Colorado: Bar codes allow ballots to be traced back to voters in dozens of Colorado counties | The Colorado Independent

The challenges mounting on Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s desk go beyond whether to mail ballots to residents who haven’t voted in a while. He has another predicament: bar codes. Unique identifying numbers, or bar codes, that can trace citizens to how they voted appear on ballots in dozens of counties in Colorado — a revelation that is not only troublesome but possibly illegal. Ballots are not allowed to have “distinguishing marks,” according to state law. A coalition of Colorado voters is suing Gessler (pdf) and a half dozen county clerks in a Denver federal court, contending the officials are presiding over unconstitutional elections. The litigation stems from a separate dispute over whether cast ballots should be made public so that elections can be verified by someone outside of government. When clerks argued ballots could not be seen by members of the public because it was theoretically possible to figure out how specific people voted in certain elections, the bar code problem became apparent. “We didn’t think the clerks were serious. We thought they were pulling our leg, putting up a smokescreen,” said Aspen-based election activist Marilyn Marks. “We didn’t think it was true, but it is.”

Voting Blogs: Colorado’s super-secret ballots | State of Elections

Colorado is currently in the midst of a heated legal dispute over whether images of local ballots should be made available for public scrutiny in an election dispute. The controversy started in 2009, when Marilyn Marks lost the Aspen city mayoral election to Mick Ireland. Marks petitioned to view images of the anonymous ballots (sometimes referred to as TIFF files), but the city denied her request.

She then filed suit in state court under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), but the district court ruled against her. She appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court in September of this year, holding that the contents of the ballots should be released.

The substance of the issue is that the city contends that the images constitute ballots, and thus are barred from public release by the provision of Colorado’s constitution which protects the secrecy of ballots as well as local regulations as to the disposal of ballots. The Court of Appeals’ holding rejected both of these arguments, holding that the images are not ballots, and that the state constitutional protection only extends to the identity of the voter, not to the substance of the ballot.

Editorials: Maurice Emmer and Harvie Branscomb: Why insist on secrecy but dismiss anonymity? | AspenTimes.com

We both write repeatedly about the importance of election transparency. We present facts. We don’t make things up. Stories about revealing ballot “secrets” often sound like scary tales told to children. They are designed to frighten, not inform. Jack Johnson’s scary story recently published in another paper might trigger your instinct to fight, but that’s what fiction and political propaganda are intended to do.

Johnson’s column, and recent announcements by the city of Aspen, misconstrue election and open-records law as well as misrepresent the Marks v. Koch case and the Court of Appeals’ unanimous opinion in favor of ballot transparency. As untrue assertions have become Aspen’s norm, here we try to separate fact from fiction.

Massachusetts: Bill written by Woburn’s city clerk would combine presidential, state primaries | wickedlocal.com

A State House bill that would combine the 2012 presidential and state primaries to one day has gained support in a number of Massachusetts communities. The bill, written by Woburn City Clerk William Campbell, has bipartisan support on Beacon Hill.

In the past few weeks, 50 communities have voted to request the Legislature approve the bill. “The principal intent of the bill is to allow Massachusetts residents residing overseas, including military personnel, the opportunity to vote and to know their vote counts,” said Campbell. “However, this bill goes further. By combining the two elections, taxpayers will save at least $8 million. Elections are streamlined and the bill reduces voter fatigue.”

Colorado: Aspen files to appeal ballot-images ruling | AspenTimes.com

The city of Aspen has officially filed a motion to appeal a recent state Court of Appeals ruling that favored political activist Marilyn Marks’ lawsuit challenging the city’s denial of her request to view ballot images from the 2009 mayor’s race. According to the city, the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the Colorado Constitution does not protect the secrecy of ballots. The city’s filing of a “writ of certiorari” to the state Supreme Court does not mean the higher court will consider the appeal.

The motion carries Wednesday’s date, beating the Monday deadline to appeal the ruling by five calendar days. City Attorney John Worcester and Special Counsel James R. True are listed as the attorneys for the petitioner, the city of Aspen and City Clerk Kathryn Koch.

Arkansas: Court: Voters can cast ballots in public | Arkansas News

Poll workers cannot force voters to cast ballots in private if they choose to vote in the open, the state Supreme Court ruled today. The high court affirmed a Pulaski County Circuit Court ruling that barred election officials from directing voters to tables set up outside voting booths but that said state law does not require poll workers to force anyone to mark ballots within the confines of a booth.

Today’s decision came in an appeal of a lawsuit brought against the Pulaski County Election Commission by Keith Hamaker in July 2010. Hamaker said he witnessed voters seated at a table at a polling place in Little Rock when he went to vote in the 2008 general election. Hamaker’s lawsuit contended the practice he termed “community table voting” violated the public trust. He asked the circuit court to bar the election commission from allowing open voting.