Dec 17 2009
Injunction Denied
Judge Jones today agreed to a lot of our arguments, but in the end, disagreed with the argument that our office would suffer irreparable harm should we go forward with the election with the undervote provision in place.
He dismissed the ridiculous claim that the SBE made that we don’t have a fundamental right to a secret ballot. He dismissed their claim that I couldn’t sue over questions about the election code. He also said that our right to a secret ballot was implicated by the law as applied to the equipment we currently have.
What he left open is the question as to how that would be resolved. The SBE could certify other equipment that might satisfy this requirement without implicating the secret ballot. Our own equipment could perhaps be modified. Without a longer hearing and fact finding it was impossible for him to determine that the injunction was the only remedy available.
We’ll put this in place for this election and bring our facts to the case post election. Our case will be stronger as we’ll have the problems from this election to bring to the case.
Would adding “none of the above” as an option for the statewide races solve the problem by allowing private under-voting? I’m sure this would be a popular choice.
We cannot add none of the above without state authorization. New Jersey does this, and yes this would be a much preferred solution to the problem.
This solution is probably similarly prohibited, but are you able to add a line to the ballot which reads something like “I, as a concerned citizen, would like to protect the identity of voters who desire to exercise their right not to vote for a certain office by making this ballot beep,” with only the choice “No?” Alternately, are you able to skip one of the lines so that all of the ballots beep?
Once again, “transparency” has reared its ugly head — SBE considers undervoting a “heinous crime” — It’s not the voter’s fault that NO ONE or some one is considered qualified or honest enough to be elected to that position. Undervoting is a privilege; just as NOT voting is one. The State Board of Elections has no right to corece a voter to vote against their conscience just so a machine won’t “beep”. I also notice that there is NO “beep” for an overvote.
The SBE decision basically forces honest voters to vote for every office, whether they want to or not, in order to keep some “secrecy” in the process. It also will place more burden on the election officials, who will have to explain that infernal “beep” to the voter. If the SBE persists in this farce, at least change it to a inaudible signal, such as a flashing light.