Posted on 08/03/2009 8:04:39 AM PDT by george76
Citizens seeking to conduct an independent review of Aspen's last municipal election have run into a road block at city hall, where officials are refusing to release key documents into the public domain.
Democrat election buff Harvie Branscomb has teamed up with former Republican Aspen mayoral candidate Marilyn Marks to analyze the voting methods and software in the city's last election, including the use of instant runoff voting. To audit the vote, Branscomb's team needs copies of April's ballots plus data generated by vote-counting machines, which the City Council asserts aren't public records under state law.
Branscomb's focus is on innovative new ballot counting software by TrueBallot. Because the home rule municipality opted to use Instant Runoff Voting, where voters rank their choices for mayor and city council, vote tallying required advanced software programs and technology, which Branscomb believes are sophisticated and reliable enough to use statewide.
Branscomb wants to compare paper ballots prepared by voters to digital copies used by the TrueBallot software to then tabulate the votes. His request under the Colorado Open Records Act was denied by the city attorney, who maintains that Aspen's status as a home rule municipality allows it to carve out exceptions to the state public records law.
"I don't believe the images of the ballots are public records under the state's open records act," said Aspen city attorney John Worcester.
(Excerpt) Read more at facethestate.com ...
Wow. I’ve been waiting for instant-runoff/single transferable vote systems to come to the united states. I think they will be a good thing for conservative government.
Every document with regard to voting should be a matter of public record especially in cases where irregularities and fraud are suspected. To do otherwise is unconstitutional.
Agreed ballots should be kept confidential. No question. But in the event of a claim of fraud or other voting irregularities, then that claim should be investigated by the authorities or a committee with clear unbiased goals with the idea to keep basic ballot data as confidential as possible with only a very few selected people having access to that data.
The information that they are seeking does NOT supply the name of the voter, just as your ballot does not. At least not the systems used in Texas. We sign in at one desk and then vote at another desk/machine. Our vote is never recorded on the same page as our name.
Besides, they don’t want to compare the “people” who voted from one place to the next, they are wanting to compare the “paper ballot” totals to the “electronic ballot” totals - seems like a good idea to me.
Agreed. And while we are on the subject, it should be mandatory in every voting precinct that a picture ID be shown and verified and authenticated before a person can vote. That will cut way down on voter fraud. And it should be the law of the land across the entire country.
I agree completely!
I wasn’t implying that you wanted the data one way or another, I was just stating that in most cases, voter ID is not stored with actual votes. I apologize if I made it seem otherwise.
*grin* It’s ok. I usually assume that I have been unclear because usually I have been. English is my second language. This is why I talk like an Englishman writing a textbook.
*grin* It’s ok. I usually assume that I have been unclear because usually I have been. English is my second language. This is why I talk like an Englishman writing a textbook.
That’s okay, English is my first language and I have problems, but of course I learned it through the gubmint edukashon sistim! Ha/Ha
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.