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

Thu Sep 14 19:43:51 UTC 2023

I think I have marbles in my head instead of brain cells, or I'd have 
asked this question when we first heard ofthis issue:  what are supposed 
to be the virtues of using a bar code or qr code? Why would the Automark 
people or anybody else want to take this approach?

Thank you to anybody who knows what's up here.

Best,

Al

On 9/14/23 07:30, Shara Winton via Massachusetts-NFB wrote:
>
> 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’s 
> website <https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD2757>:
>
> 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: President at Alumni.ECU.edu <mailto:President at Alumni.ECU.edu>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Massachusetts-NFB mailing list
> Massachusetts-NFB at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Massachusetts-NFB:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org/sweeties2%40verizon.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org/attachments/20230914/b248da39/attachment-0001.html>