HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Court Of Appeals To Hear ...

Sat May 15, 2021, 02:38 AM

Court Of Appeals To Hear Arguments In Lawsuit That Seeks Public's Right To Realistic View Of Ballot

Source: Arizona Daily Independent

Court Of Appeals To Hear Arguments In Lawsuit That Seeks Publicís Right To Realistic View Of Ballot Counting
May 14, 2021 Terri Jo Neff



A Maricopa County early mail-in voter took picture of their ballot before Sharpiegate became known. Only after the issue made the news did they review the photo and notice that the bleed through of ink was obvious and wide-spread


The Arizona Court of Appeals has announced it will hear arguments later this month in a lawsuit by two Maricopa County voters who contend county elections officials did not comply with the letter or the spirit of the law on Election Day.

Laura Aguilera and Donovan Drobina experienced problems while attempting to vote in-person at separate voting centers on Nov. 3. Both testified they left not knowing if their ballots were counted, and as a result, they wanted to observe the adjudication process utilized by Maricopa County.

Electronic adjudication involves poll workers reviewing digitalized images of damaged or defective ballots in an attempt to determine a voterís intent. Aguilera and Drobina contend state law requires electronic adjudication to be performed in a location open to public viewing.

Last December they sued then-Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes, the countyís five-member board of supervisors, and the county itself. The Arizona Democratic Party was granted status to intervene in the case and is thus recognized in the appeal as well.

Read more: https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2021/05/14/court-of-appeals-to-hear-arguments-in-lawsuit-that-seeks-publics-right-to-realistic-view-of-ballot-counting/

9 replies, 1982 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Court Of Appeals To Hear Arguments In Lawsuit That Seeks Public's Right To Realistic View Of Ballot (Original post)
Judi Lynn May 15 OP
gab13by13 May 15 #1
thesquanderer May 15 #3
TomCADem May 16 #8
thesquanderer May 16 #9
gab13by13 May 15 #2
csziggy May 15 #6
Grins May 15 #4
LeftInTX May 15 #5
TomCADem May 16 #7

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat May 15, 2021, 07:24 AM

1. 4 years ago I voted in Pa

on a machine that has no paper trail so I asked if I was allowed to take a picture of the screen of my vote. I was told absolutely not.

This article is confusing to me, I realize I am slow, but is this the photo of the person's ballot after it went through the counting machine? I need more information in the article for me to understand it. I mean there were recounts in Maricopa county, did the recounts encounter smudged ballots like are shown in the article?

What's the freaking summation of the point of this article? I thought the Sharpie issue was settled?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gab13by13 (Reply #1)

Sat May 15, 2021, 09:30 AM

3. re: summation of the point of this article

Ambigous ballots go through an adjudication process. The issue being discussed in the article is whether or not such process must be viewable by the public. (The photo of the ballot merely iillustrate's why the person's ballot was subject to adjudication process in the first place, its not actually important or specifically relevant to the legal issue discussed in article.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #3)

Sun May 16, 2021, 05:33 PM

8. Except it is not clear that the ballot pictured is ambigous.

It is only ambiguous if you have somebody crossing out vote targets. Just because there is bleed through does not affect a scanners counting unless the ballot is stupidly printed in a way so that targets on side line up with the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #8)

Sun May 16, 2021, 06:43 PM

9. *Something* made the ballot subject to adjudication.

The assumption is that it was the sharpee bleed through, but that's irrelevant. Whatever it was, it resulted in the lawsuit which is the subject of the article, i.e. whether the public has a right to be present for adjudication.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat May 15, 2021, 08:00 AM

2. OK now I get it,

They didn't notice the Sharpie bleed through the ballot, which I find unbelievable. They only noticed it later when they reviewed the ballot photo. Why did they use a Sharpie in the first place?

Something doesn't jive with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gab13by13 (Reply #2)

Sat May 15, 2021, 11:32 AM

6. Here, a Sharpie type pen is provided in the polling booth

And voters are told that is the ONLY marker that should be used to fill out the ballot. I've never seen it bleed through like the one in the photo provided. Maybe it was the bamboo ballots from China that allowed that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat May 15, 2021, 11:13 AM

4. And gee.... They voted Republican.

How did I know that before I read the story?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat May 15, 2021, 11:19 AM

5. Interesting

In Texas, you are marked as "Voted" when you check in or when your ballot is received. (Not when it is counted/tabulated)

If you vote in person and there are problems with the ballot, you have a chance to correct it until it is in the tabulator. We get a receipt, but I believe the receipt belongs to the county. (I forgot to get one when I voted a few weeks ago)

If there is a problem with the mail ballot, sometimes the clerk will call the voter. However, if there is no time to correct the mistake, they won't contact. I believe last November, our county had a system where mail voters could check their entire ballot status. (It was a secure type thing that required a social security number and I don't vote by mail)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun May 16, 2021, 05:31 PM

7. Big Woo. There is some bleed through.

If you run it through a machine, then that still should not affect the count. The only problem you would have is if the ballot is printed in such a way that that mark on one side shows through the vote target on the other side. Based on the picture, this is not happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread