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

Thu Sep 14 21:22:48 UTC 2023

Hi Masha,
The only reason I can think of is that the only people knowing who we vote for will be the people who tabulate the votes as they will be the ones who scan the code.  Of course, what we are focusing on is that the code will be on a small piece of paper instead of a page the size of the regular ballot.

Best,

Sandy

From: Massachusetts-NFB <massachusetts-nfb-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Al and Masha Sten-Clanton via Massachusetts-NFB
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 3:44 PM
To: Shara Winton via Massachusetts-NFB <massachusetts-nfb at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton <sweeties2 at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Massachusetts-NFB] FW: Uniform Ballot Measure in Massachusetts explained further, a question

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><mailto:PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:04 PM
To: sharawinton at gmail.com<mailto:sharawinton at gmail.com>; Lou Ann Blake <LBlake at nfb.org><mailto:LBlake at nfb.org>; Debbie Malone <dmalone510 at gmail.com><mailto: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:

1.       Eliminates the stray marks associated with hand marking of ballots

2.       Prevents over voting a contest, and warns the voter if they under voted a contest

3.       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<mailto: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/20230914/179bc988/attachment.html>