When ballots lose their secrecy - Mail-only voting open to coercion

[Wilms]

I don't want to be dismissive of this concern, but it seems that coercion could be accomplished by forcing someone to use an absentee ballot.

So I think I'll take a pass on this argument. You? :shrug:




Sunday, January 29, 2006

When ballots lose their secrecy
Mail-only voting leaves some open to mate's coercion

By Julie Muhlstein
Herald Columnist

Lisa Aguilar understands my concern. Her business is helping victims of domestic abuse. My worry is mail-only voting.

What does one have to do with the other? Think about it. You don't have to think too hard to see the possibility of problems.

"Without a doubt, there could be coercion," said Aguilar, a legal community services manager with the Snohomish County Center for Battered Women. "In the typical abusive situation, regardless if it's a man or a woman, whoever is calling the shots is going to be making that decision on the way to vote."

snip

My thoughts of coercion at home were sparked by another letter to the editor last week, from Joan Van Volkenburg, who wrote: "Polling places were safer for secrecy."

snip

Gronke said my concern did come up during the study, but no real evidence of domestic partners forcing their views was found.

"It's certainly a weakness of this kind of balloting system," Gronke said. "To fake a signature is a felony, but it's not a felony to have someone fill out a ballot, and you sign it."

snip

http://heraldnet.com/stories/06/01/29/100loc_b1julie001.cfm

[democracyindanger]

1. Well, I'll be dismissive of it.

Vote-by-mail increases voter participation. It's only arguably less secure--and there are plenty of arguments that it's even more secure.

Frankly, for the columnist to use domestic violence as a reason against mail-in ballots is pretty disgusting.

[eomer]

2. We have had significant problems in S. Florida with ballot brokering.

It seems that the same problems we've had with absentee ballots would be possible with mail-in.

I don't know whether the pros outweigh the cons. Maybe it would vary from one part of the country to another depending on social issues. But down here we've had plenty of problems with it.

[Wilms]

4. It seems the main benefit of mail-in is the loss of the DRE.

It's also the potential loss of Precinct Based Op Scan over Central Count which is a bit less preferable.

So far, I don't know that it ever led to Hand Counts.

I've heard turn-out is enhanced, but I'm not settled on mail-in being a desirable way to increase participation.

In CA, some BoE's/counties are pushing mail-in as they wrestle with the prospect of not being able to use Diebold equipment, at least in the short term. Perhaps they're using this as an opportunity to do a polling-place-less election.

Easier for them, but what's in it for democracy?

[Amaryllis]

5. OR had 86% turnout last election. No lines. No waiting. No voter

disenfranchisement. No DRE's.

[Wilms]

19. OK. OK. Just add that absentee ballot could have the same effect.

And read reply #18, below.

[Einsteinia]

7. What is ballot brokering?

Is it selling one's ballots?

[Amaryllis]

11. Yes. never heard of it happening in OR. I am guessing it's a felony

but OR is a state that actually has election officials that enforce election law! What a concept!

[eomer]

27. It is selling other people's ballots.

The voters are not paid (I think). They would be elderly or uninformed and probably not realize anything is wrong.

The broker goes around collecting ballots, telling the voters who to vote for and providing the witness signature.

Apparently some of the brokers can't get as many votes as they'd like this way so they go a step further and somehow prepare ballots for dead voters (with the help of family members of the deceased?)

I'm not sure about some of the details -- does the absentee ballot have to be requested by the voter and mailed to their address or can the ballot broker obtain a supply of blank ballots? The latter would make it much easier to go into a neighborhood or a facility for the elderly and come out with a bunch of votes.

[Steve A Play]

16. "significant problems"?

Do you have a link or two? :shrug:

[eomer]

26. Here are a couple of links to stories about the most famous incident.

Xavier Suarez was removed from office as Mayor of Miami in 1998. Nearly 70 percent of ballots cast in Little Havana were by absentee. Ballot brokers were caught, tried and convicted. I guess the good news is they were caught. But there were surely other instances of ballot brokering here that were not caught.

A. The 1997 Primary Mayoral Election, Miami, Florida

Perhaps the best-known contemporary case of uncontroverted absentee ballot fraud is
the disputed 1997 primary mayoral election in Miami, Florida.⁶⁶ Running for reelection
as mayor, Joe Carollo received 51.4 percent of the ballots cast at the polls, while his opponent,
former mayor Xavier Suarez, received 61.5 percent of the absentee ballots, giving
Suarez a slim lead (155 votes) over Carollo in total balloting. Because neither candidate
received more than 50 percent of the vote, a run-off election was held, and Suarez narrowly
won both the precinct and absentee ballots.⁶⁷

Immediately after the November 4 election, Carollo challenged the results, claiming
fraud in the absentee ballot vote that swung the election to Suarez, thus denying Carollo
the majority support he received at the polls and forcing him into a run-off. A week
after the election the Florida Department of Law Enforcement arrested two Suarez supporters
for buying absentee ballots and falsely witnessing absentee ballots. The day after
he lost the run-off election to Suarez, Carollo petitioned the Circuit Court for the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida to overturn the results of the November 4 election
on the grounds of voter fraud.

The trial was held in February 1998. For two and a half weeks, the trial court heard
evidence and read depositions from 87 witnesses and examined 195 exhibits.⁶⁸ Its
March 3 decision noted “a pattern of fraudulent, intentional and criminal conduct” in
the extensive abuse of absentee ballot laws.⁶⁹ An expert documents examiner testified
that 225 absentee ballots cast had forged signatures; there was evidence of 14 stolen
ballots and 140 improperly witnessed ballots. Another 480 ballots were procured or
witnessed by 29 “ballot brokers,” 27 of whom invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination instead of testifying at trial. One such ballot broker was
92-year-old Alberto Russi, a campaign volunteer for Humberto Hernandez, a Suarez
ally on the five-member City Commission. Within days of the November 4 election,
Russi was arrested and charged with three counts of election fraud. Police traced Russi
to the absentee ballot of a dead man whose ballot he witnessed. When police searched
Russi’s home they seized 75 absentee ballots already filled
out and intended for the November 13 run-off, many of
which were addressed to Russi’s home in the names of other
voters. A separate grand jury, convened to investigate the
fraud allegations and make recommendations for improvements
in the absentee ballot process, found that absentee
ballots were stolen from mailboxes, that “unscrupulous
individuals” had secured ballots for people under the guise
of “helping the voter,” and that voters had been coerced
into voting for particular candidates in return for past favors
done for them.⁷⁰

At the center of what the trial court subsequently found
to be “a massive, well-conceived and well-orchestrated
absentee ballot voter fraud scheme” were a large number
of absentee ballots—nearly 70 percent of the total—cast from
Little Havana. Little Havana voters reinstalled Commissioner
Hernandez, the embattled Suarez ally who won reelection
to the City Commission by a large majority after being
removed from office by the governor following a 23-count
indictment for bank fraud and money laundering.⁷¹ An
expert in statistical analysis testified at trial that the large
number of absentee ballots from Little Havana were a statistical
“outlier,” the Little Havana absentee ballot rate an
“aberrant case” so unlikely that it was “literally off the probability charts.”

http://www.demos-usa.org/pubs/EDR_-_Securing_the_Vote.pdf

And, the State of Florida has a history of campaign fraud with absentee ballots. In fact, the Miami Herald received a Pulitzer prize for uncovering the absentee voter fraud in the 1997 Miami election for Mayor. In fact, an appeals court threw out 4,799 absentee ballots in the first election; and all 44,000 votes in the run-off and declared the loser in the first election the winner.

In that race there were reported "ballot brokers" passing out absentee ballots and helping people vote for the "right" candidates.

http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS11-00MQC/11-15-2000.1.html

On edit: Here's the appeal court decision:

<snip>

The uncontradicted statistical evidence presented by Kevin
Hill, Ph.D., a political scientist and expert in research
methodology and statistical analysis, indicated that the amount
of fraud involved in the absentee ballots was of such consequence
so as to have affected the outcome of the election. Dr. Hill
analyzed the absentee ballot voting, finding that the absentee
ballots cast in Commission District 3 could not be explained by
any normal statistical measurement. District 3 is
the area which the trial court found "was the center of a
massive, well conceived and well orchestrated absentee ballot
voter fraud scheme." Dr. Hill referred to the results of the
absentee ballots as an "outlier" and an "aberrant case" so
unlikely that it was "literally off the charts" of probability
tables. The odds of this occurring by chance were 5,000 to 1.
(Final Judgment, n.7).

Dr. Hill finally concluded it was "reasonable" that the
absentee ballot deviation in favor of Suarez resulted only from
voting fraud, ruling "out almost every other conceivable
possibility to a high degree of probability."

An expert documents examiner, Linda Hart, concluded that 225
illegal absentee ballots were cast, in contravention of statutory
requirements. An FBI agent with 26 years of
experience, Hugh Cochran, identified 113 confirmed false voter
addresses. There was evidence of 14 stolen ballots, and of 140
ballots that were falsely witnessed. In addition,
evidence was presented that more than 480 ballots were procured
or witnessed by the 29 so-called "ballot brokers" who invoked
their privilege against self-incrimination instead of testifying
at trial.

The trial court specifically found that the above described
absentee ballot voter fraud scheme, "literally and figuratively,
stole the ballot from the hands of every honest voter in the City
of Miami". The trial court further found that, as a result
thereof, "the integrity of the election was adversely affected."
Based on our review of the record, there was certainly ample
evidence of fraud to support the findings of the trial court's
Final Judgment. See Peacock v. Wise,
351 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); see also
generally Wald v. Shenkman, 664 So.2d 10
(Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Gimbert v. Lamb, 601 So.2d 230
(Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

<snip>

http://election2000.stanford.edu/inreprotest.html

[Boredtodeath]

3. No one cares about ballot secrecy

Georgians have been screaming about the loss of ballot secrecy with early voting for almost 2 years.

No one cares.

If you think you're going to win a battle on THIS issue, you are sadly mistaken.

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA

(as amended through the November 1998 general election)

ARTICLE II.

VOTING AND ELECTIONS

SECTION I.

METHOD OF VOTING; RIGHT TO REGISTER AND VOTE

Paragraph I. Method of voting. <b>Elections by the people shall be by secret ballot</b> and shall be conducted in accordance with procedures provided by law. (emphasis added)
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/conart2.htm

Unlike the paper absentee ballot, DRE absentee ballots are tracked to the voter on the computer in the event of a challenge. After the July 2004 presidential primary in Georgia, Fulton County Election Superintendent, John Sullivan revealed "Early votes are marked with a numbered identification in case they are later challenged" to the Board of Elections. Unlike the outer envelope of a paper absentee ballot which is discarded to protect identity, DRE absentee voting abolishes the secret ballot. In the November 2004 General Election, 367,777 Georgia voters unknowingly gave up the secrecy of their ballot.

And the response to it is a very loud collective yawn.

[Einsteinia]

6. OUTRAGEOUS!

Isn't a the right to a secret ballot part of the Constitution?

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

8. Actually no, it's not in the Constitution at all.

Years ago, voters were asked when they got to the polling booth whether they were a Dem or a repug. Depending on their answer they got a different colored ballot. So as they walked into the booth everyone could see how they were voting.

[Einsteinia]

9. So where is that right?

Does anyone know?

[Einsteinia]

10. Wilms, I've been collecting pros and cons

on this issue for a couple of weeks now. I'm about to compile it for all to see, because I'm quite distressed that we're once again going from the frying pan to the fire (just like when we went from punchcards to DREs).

There is such a long list of concerns, but my main issue is the consolidation--the centralization--of power, and the temptation for abuse therein.

I'll try to finish that list and post it asap.

[Amaryllis]

13. IT is hardly the frying pan to the fire. It is FAR better than DRE's and

prevents MUCH of the voter intimidation and disenfranchisement such as what happened in OH and FL. HOWEVER, as we have discussed, any system in a corrupt environment can be corrupted. However, it is far easier to move large numbers of ballots with a paper ballot based system than with DRE's. You just have to have the right checks and balances, as with ANY system.

[Einsteinia]

15. Correction--I meant the way it has been

proposed for California. We need to clarify which model we're talking about, i.e. the CA, the OR, the AZ, the GA.

Because otherwise we're comparing apples and oranges. Also, what might work in OR, which is small vs. CA are likely different.

I don't think many would argue that the current system OR has is superior over over what CA currently has.

#: )

[Wilms]

17. Thank you for introducing that, E. n/t

[Amaryllis]

21. Absolutlely! OR has MANY checks and balances built into the VBM

system that simply don't exist with absentee ballots. People keep saying VBM is essentially the same, but it is NOT the same as absentee ballots when you have an entire state using the same system and coordinating with the post office, the county election clerks, the SOS and the Director of Elections at the SOS's office, and you have years of refinement and many checks and balances and good chain of custody. AND, elecion officials who are accessible to the voters and who really care about fair elections. Our county election clerks are very accessible to us. YOu are very correct that it's apples and oranges, and you can't just lump it all into vote by mail, or mail-in ballots. So, henceforth when vote by mail is discussed, we need to distinguish between the OR system, and other proposed systems, and to distinguish betweeen an entire VBM system and absentee balloting.

[Wilms]

18. "It is FAR better than DRE's..." I think that's what's called false choice

Earlier today I got to thinking that in OR, the choice may have been between DRE's and Mail-In. Ok. We're happy for you in OR.

Now A, how about a county that has Precinct Based Op Scan?

How about a county that has Precinct Based Hand Counts!?!

This is like that the statement, "Diebold stole the election" and someone walks off thinking ES&S is ok.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please be more careful.

You also said that mail-in "prevents MUCH of the voter intimidation and disenfranchisement...". What kind are you referring to? I don't know that it would help if you've been purged.

Finally, anyone who wants to vote mail-in CAN, though they'd have to bother to ask ahead of time.

[Amaryllis]

22. Einsteinia was talking about vote by mail replacing Diebold voting

machines in CA, and I believe vote by mail is far preferable to Diebold DRE's. She may not have said this, but I know from talking with her that this is the case, and that is what my response was based on when she said out of the frying pan, into the fire. And no, the choice in OR was not between DRE's and VBM. VBM I believe replaced punch card systems, but it's been so long that I can't remember for sure. We have never had DREs. OR State law requires a ballot that can be hand recounted; in other words, paper. I think we were the first to have this law. Our SOS got it passed a number of years ago. SHelley was the first SOS to require paper backup in a state with voting machines,but our SOS required a paper BALLOT which means the Automark is the only machine that works with OR law.

And of course if you've been purged, you don't get to vote in any system, so that is a moot point. however, our ballots are sent out two weeks before the election and if we don't get one we can go to BOE or call them and if there is a problem we can come in and re-register if for some reason there is no record of us. A record is kept of who has turned in ballots becasue when they verify the signature on the outside secrecy envelope, it's entered itno the computer, so you can always get a ballot if you havent' been entered into the computer as already having turned one in. Now, that being said, we are back to: if you export it to a corrupt environment, it WILL be corrupted. Our county election clerks will tell you that. Still, it is far more difficult to move large numbers of votes with VBM than with Diebold DRE's.

If you really wanna check it out, here's the VBM section of the SOS's website with the VBM handbook.

With VBM, you dont have any lines, or waiting to vote on a machine, or not enough machines in minority precincts, so it eliminates that kind of voter suppression. That's what I was referring to.

[Wilms]

24. Thanks.

I realized the lead time to do something if you haven't gotten a ballot. Perhaps in some states, provisional ballots would otherwise be the recourse if your name was purged...but I'd want to double-check that.

And got it now. With VBM, polling machine and even polling PLACE shortages are not at issue. I've never seen long lines at a polling place...except in pictures from Ohio. :grr:

Thanks, too, for pointing out that one should not confuse absentee and vote by mail balloting.

[Amaryllis]

25. You're right- provisional ballots would be the recourse in states without

lead time. With VBM, ALL ballots are treated the same, so you don't run into the problems like in OH with provisionals often not being counted. I believe this happened in NM and other states too. MCM goes into it in his book, I think. Of course, when you have lead time on ballots being returned and you don't have good chain of custody, it opens the way for "losing" ballots, so I would be concenred about this in states like OH and FL that are hell bent on fraud.

We specifically asked one of our county election clerks if VBM would work in other states, and why it works so well here, and there are a myriad of reasons, but the clerk specifically said OR doesn't have the history of organized crime and Jim Crow issues that states like OH do and there are states where election officials are appointed by the governor so it's far more partisan, and then there are the states where the SOS is appointed rather than elected.

So it's a whole package deal and I often think that too much credit is given to VBM as a system and not enough attention paid to how our whole election official structure is set up, which I don't have time to go into, but it's a huge part of why it works so well. We like to think of it as a three parter- people, process, and politics. You can't just export the VBM process part of it and ignore the rest and expect it to work like it does in OR. Too often the process part is the only part that is considered. We actually feel that some of our OR activists who don't get that are in a sense dangerous because they just promote the process part.

[Wilms]

20. Looking forward to that.

I'd like to understand this issue better than I do.

[Einsteinia]

23. hahahahah!!!

It'll have a prolog

[Boredtodeath]

12. The hell it's NOT

It IS in the Georgia constitution:

Method of voting. Elections by the people shall be by secret ballot and shall be conducted in accordance with procedures provided by law. (emphasis added)
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/conart2.htm

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

14. woe is me.

I am so sorry, you're talking about the Georgia Constitution. Sorry. I thought you were talking about eh US Constitution. My bad.

It's actually not in the US Constitution which scalia brought out in gore v bush.