Reply #73: I understand all that, what I can't phathom.......

[ParanoidPat]

.......is how any Judge could ignore the fact that the "facsimile ballots" created by this method do not offer evidence of the voters intent, rather, they create a record of the machine interpretation of the original ballot based on a single data point per mark!

The accuracy of this type of "facsimile" ballot may be affected by one or more of the following conditions,

1) The machine's mechanical calibration or alignment may be off just enough for the sensor to miss some properly aligned marks on the originals thereby creating ballots that are not true "facsimiles" of the originals.

2) The machine's electrical calibration may be off just enough to miss triggering on legitimate marks, again creating ballots that are not true "facsimiles" of the originals.

3) Some original ballots may be printed or trimmed slightly out of proper alignment allowing the machine to miss legitimate markings.

4) Some ballots may contain marks made with pens of the wrong type ink supplied by poll workers, that will not trigger the sensors in a properly calibrated machine.

5) Some combination of slight alignment, adjustment and reflectivity errors may stack in such a way as to miss legitimate marks and create ballots that are not true "facsimiles" of the original.

In all of the above cases should a machine miscount a ballot, the fault lies with the State and the voters original intent may be divined only by looking at the original or a "reasonable facsimile" thereof, such as a photograph or photo copy that clearly shows all markings on the ballot regardless of absolute or relative position or the reflectivity of the markings.

In a recount situation, an "equal protection" argument may be invoked if voters anywhere in the same state have their votes hand counted using the originals, as their votes are not subject to the same standards of treatment.

This however is not a recount, rather an inspection of public records under the Sunshine Act so the fundamental question changes. Now we must ask, "Does the public have an inherent right to see the "original" record or a "reasonable facsimile" thereof, or does the State have the right to substitute a synthetic "facsimile" of that record that may be inaccurate and subject to systemic errors in it's creation and offer only it as "the" public record without any way of comparing it to the original?

The legitimacy of our elections hangs on the answer to that question.