[Massachusetts-NFB] FW: Uniform Ballot Measure in Massachusetts explained further

Thu Sep 14 11:30:15 UTC 2023

Good Morning All,

We had a meeting with Democracy Live, the Bay State Council and a lobbyist
for this bill, last night to further discuss the  measure. Justin Salisbury
was in attendance. Below he has listed some of our concerns. As always,
Justin has a very good understanding of how to  change legislation in the
way that best aligns with NFB Policy. Thank you Justin for your diligence in
always working to advocate for all of us. 

Shara Winton

President, National Federation of the Blind of Massachusetts

617-304-0347

From: Justin Salisbury <PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:04 PM
To: sharawinton at gmail.com; Lou Ann Blake <LBlake at nfb.org>; Debbie Malone
<dmalone510 at gmail.com>
Subject: Uniform Ballot Measure in Massachusetts

Hi Shara, Lou Ann, and Debbie,

I've composed my thoughts and reflections, parts of which are copied and
pasted from thoughts shared by Lou Ann previously. 

The bill itself is extremely short. It appears to be just an amendment. I'm
going to paste it here as found on the MA legislature
<https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD2757> 's website: 

Section 44 of chapter 54 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2020
Official Edition, is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph:-

Ballots shall be uniform in size, material and content for all voters in a
polling place, regardless of whether the ballot is voted on a ballot-marking
device or directly on a paper ballot. Ballots shall be tabulated directly
from the voter-marked selections and not from a barcode, QR code or other
representation not marked by the voter, either on a ballot-marking device or
directly on paper.

It sounds like the bill would require the ballots used for marking by hand
and marking with an accessible ballot marking device (BMD) be uniform.
Currently, there are multiple BMDs that produce a ballot that is different
from the hand marked ballot in size and content. For example, some BMD
ballots show only the candidates selected by the voter, while the hand
marked ballot displays every candidate in each contest. Consequently, if
only voters with disabilities are using the BMD, the voters with
disabilities who used the BMD do not have a secret ballot. In addition, when
the BMD is intended as a separate system only for voters with disabilities,
there is a tendency for poll workers to be inadequately trained on how to
set up and operate the BMD. Our blind voter surveys have consistently shown
that one-quarter to one-third of blind and low-vision voters have found that
the BMD was not set up when they arrived at the polling place, and that poll
workers did not know how to set up or operate the machine. Requiring the
ballots to be uniform may ensure that ballots cast by voters with
disabilities are more effectively secret, but it will maintain a separate
voting system for voters with disabilities, and the inherent problems
associated with such a system. 

As stated in Resolution 2019-05
<https://nfb.org/resources/speeches-and-reports/resolutions/2019-resolutions
#05> , it is the policy of the NFB that the primary ballot marking tool
should be an accessible ballot marking device to ensure the secrecy of
ballots cast by voters with disabilities, and to eliminate the provision of
a separate voting system for voters with disabilities, and the inherent
problems associated with a separate system.  Using the BMD as the primary
ballot marking tool also has several advantages over hand marking of
ballots:

*	Eliminates the stray marks associated with hand marking of ballots
*	Prevents over voting a contest, and warns the voter if they under
voted a contest
*	The voter can change their mind prior to printing the ballot.

Furthermore, this amendment focuses on banning tabulation via QR codes and
bar codes and instead requires that ballots shall be tabulated directly from
the voter-marked selections. Based on the first sentence of this amendment,
"Ballots shall be uniform in size, material and content for all voters in a
polling place, regardless of whether the ballot is voted on a ballot-marking
device or directly on a paper ballot." If these things are achieved, then
either everyone uses bar codes or QR codes, or nobody uses them. The
uniformity has already been established. I also have yet to find any
evidence indicating that QR codes or bar codes would create a problem for
broader election security. 

During our Zoom meeting with Democracy Live and the Bay State Council of the
Blind on Wednesday, September 13, 2023, we were able to ask them about some
of these details. In my opinion, DemocracyLive has done a lot of great work
to make voting accessible, and I am happy to praise them for it. In this
case, I think we have some disagreement, which I think could be easily
resolved through an amendment. Let me now describe the disagreement.

During the September 13 call, a member of the National Federation of the
Blind (NFB) asked a few questions, and proponents of the current language
did not seem to receive these questions well. When the NFB member asked for
confirmation about whether the proposed amendment would still maintain a
separate-but-equal ballot marking system, by-hand versus a Ballot Marking
Device (BMD), the eventual answer was that it does indeed maintain a
separate-but-equal ballot marking system. Then, the NFB member asked why we
would need to ban ballot tabulation via QR codes or bar codes after we've
already required that "Ballots shall be uniform in size, material and
content for all voters in a polling place, regardless of whether the ballot
is voted on a ballot-marking device or directly on a paper ballot." The
proponents of the current language insisted that the current language of the
bill could not be amended and that the purpose of banning tabulation via bar
code or QR code was a matter of ensuring a uniform process for the
tabulation of ballots. The NFB member asked if the bill could be amended to
replace the language about QR codes and bar codes with a statement that the
process of tabulating ballots shall also be uniform so that ballots marked
by a BMD shall be tabulated in the same manner as ballots marked by hand.
This suggestion was rejected by the proponents of the current bill language.

In my opinion, this bill and the marketing for it sound nice on the surface
level, but, when we look at the details, we find some conflicts. The
separate-but-equal ballot marking system does not align with NFB policy, but
I'd like to get some more input from our national headquarters about whether
we should oppose efforts to improve the separate-but-equal ballot marking
system because it perpetuates a separate-but-equal system. With regard to
the bar codes and QR codes, I think we would want a simple amendment that
removes mention of bar codes and QR codes and instead requires that the
process of tabulating ballots shall also be uniform so that ballots marked
by a BMD shall be tabulated in the same manner as ballots marked by hand.

We are told that the hearing on this bill will occur on Tuesday, September
19, at 1:00 PM Eastern in the Joint Committee on Election Laws. We have to
make decisions quickly. Much of what is in this email can comprise our NFBMA
written testimony. I can continue to adapt it.

Justin

Justin Salisbury (he/him)

2117 Chestnut Hill Ave

Athol, MA 01331

Phone: 808.797.8606

Email:  <mailto:President at Alumni.ECU.edu> President at Alumni.ECU.edu 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org/attachments/20230914/53d21b22/attachment.html>