Replies

Why Does Florida Senate Bill 7050 Subvert Public Election Transparency?

https://miamiindependent.com/why-does-florida-senate-bill-7050-subvert-public-election-transparency/

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/7050/Amendment/333316/PDF

Excerpt:

Questions continue to swirl around Florida election bill SB7050 sponsored by Senator Travis Hutson. Sen. Hutson stated the bill was created by Secretary of State Cord Byrd, the Florida Supervisors of Elections (FSE) and other legislators. Interestingly enough he did not mention any input was adopted from the public or election integrity advocacy groups.

SB7050 contains a clause that allows Gov. DeSantis to run for President while remaining Governor. The clause should have been decoupled from the other election bill provisions that raise questions remaining to be answered or resolved before Gov. DeSantis signs the bill.

While the bill certainly contains some minor election integrity improvements, it also appears to contain provisions that remove transparency and public visibility into the elections process. These provisions seem to be far more damaging than the new improvements the bill provides.

The decrease in transparency is particularly of concern in light of the recent discovery of thousands of blank voted ballots in Broward and other counties for Florida’s last major election. These generated an unbelievable 10% or more blank ballots cast as previously reported.

At a minimum, the voters of Florida deserve concrete answers to the following questions about SB 7050:

Why is the requirement for a voter to return an address confirmation request being eliminated? (See line 328)

Why does the bill eliminate sending an address confirmation final notice when there is no response from a voter to an address confirmation request? (See line 301)

Why is duplicate registration data received from another state or entity so confidential that it should not be subject to Florida Open Government Sunset Review Act? (See line 347)

Why is there no longer a requirement to produce voting history within 30 days after election certification? (See line 817)

How can voter secrecy be fragile that the systems must falsely report the votes by ballot type as zero when there are less than 30 voters for the ballot? (See line 949)

Why are the voter’s precinct, unique identifier and voting type being eliminated from legislative report requirements? Why are general specifications for the report being eliminated? (See Line 845)

The bill requires transmission of some of the above Legislative Report data but that does not necessarily make it publicly accessible. Although technical specifications can logically be removed to rule much of the business specifications needed for election verification are at risk of being eliminated.

These are just some examples of bill changes that do not appear to be in the best interest of the public. While they may be legitimate explanations for some of these examples, together they paint a picture of a nefarious attempt to hide future errors and fraud. In light of our recent reporting on the Miami Dade’s reluctance to comply with reporting requests, the people of Florida have reason to be concerned.

We have included a link to the bill in this article and some sample text below so voters can make their own decision.

MI Staff

CONFIRMED! Pleased to welcome 45th President of the United States Donald Trump back to North Carolina for the 2023 NCGOP State Convention!

Visit https://t.co/Jbi6pYYFmf to learn more!#ncpol pic.twitter.com/vZyObDOV6L— NCGOP (@NCGOP) May 8, 2023

***Questions continue to swirl around Florida election bill SB7050***

Podcast commentator Graham Ledger states that his source says that the bill is being written by Dominion and other voting machine mfr lobbyists. If so, we Floridians are betrayed by RINOs.

Great questions!!

I'm sorry but as long as DeSantis is hainging with any Bush and his billionaire buddies, I don't trust him any more. And this bill appears to be more crap.