5/17/2023 0 Comments Imagecast paper ballotIn many cases, local election officials aren’t aware of the ballot image question at all. They’ve found that leadership on ballot image preservation from local Secretaries of State and chief election officials is lacking. Alongside John Brakey, co-founder of the Arizona chapter of Americans United for Democracy, Integrity, and Transparency in Elections (AUDIT), Sautter is currently on the ground evaluating the ballot image question state by state. States must preserve election materials for six months in state elections and 22 months in federal elections. Alabama was home to much controversy surrounding the 2017 US Senate special election when it surfaced that the state failed to even keep ballot images.ĭigital voting equipment can be set to either preserve or toss ballots, a design feature that violates federal law, Chris Sautter - a political media strategist and election attorney - told WhoWhatWhy. Public access to ballot image records, though, is phase two of a longer process - many counties do not save ballot images at all. “It’s very important that the public has access.” Preserve First. “The ballot images make it much easier for the public to have confidence that the machines accurately counted,” Douglas Kellner, co-chair of the New York State Board of Elections told WhoWhatWhy. The defendants in the case argue they infringe on voters’ privacy - despite the fact that ballot images contain no identifying information.Įlectronic ballot images do not replace paper ballots as the legal vote record, nor do secure paperless voting machines, but the images can be a useful tool to ensure a degree of transparency. New York state election law states that paper ballots are accessible only through a court order, but in her lawsuit, Kosmider maintained that electronic ballot images were another matter altogether, and valuable tools in building more transparent elections. The conflict hinges on whether or not electronic ballot images and paper ballots are subject to the same rules. Photo credit: Rusty Clark ~ 100K Photos / Flickr (CC BY 2.0) The county refused and filed an appeal in a non-unanimous decision made April 12, the appeals court ruled in Kosmider’s favor, granting public access to electronic ballot images. Justice Martin Auffredou ruled in her favor, demanding Essex County release the ballot images. Kosmider appealed and was denied - then she filed a lawsuit against two Essex County Election Commissioners and the Board of Supervisors chairman. Dan Manning, the county attorney, refused on the grounds that Kosmider needed a court order to access the information. Whitney, began in 2016 when Bethany Kosmider, chairwoman of the Essex County Democratic Committee, tried to access ballot image records for the county. Now, the public can access electronic ballot images under freedom of information laws, a change that could influence election transparency efforts nationwide. Essex was one of the few counties in New York that still required a court order to view ballot images. the highest court) ruled last week that Essex County’s electronic ballot images are public records. The Appellate Division of the state’s Supreme Court (in New York a “Supreme Court” is a trial court, while the Court of Appeals is what most states refer to as their supreme court, i.e. That is precisely why this case from upstate New York is a major victory for transparency advocates. Knowing that the public has some measure of verification is an important deterrent against tampering with elections. Therefore, easy access to these images is crucial. That is particularly important because most Americans cast their ballots through some kind of electronic voting machine - despite their proven vulnerability - and ballot images provide the public with at least some measure that their votes are counted accurately. Election-integrity advocates hailed the recent decision of a state court that could have a sweeping effect on election transparency throughout the country.Īt issue was whether electronic ballot images - the kind captured by optical and digital ballot scanners - are public records and therefore subject to freedom of information laws.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |