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

Fri Sep 15 00:17:56 UTC 2023

Hi everyone,

I'm writing to offer a little bit more context. This is still not meant to be interpreted as a final word. 

As we continue these deliberations, we receive more information about what is going on. I will do my best to summarize what I'm hearing and learning in a strengths-based approach for all parties. If you have any information that indicates that what I'm saying is false, please do share it. I am doing the best I can to gather info from a variety of sources. There's always some potential for an error, but I think these details are right from what I can tell. 

The folks who are leading this initiative to pass this bill may have a financial incentive in passing the bill, where they could profit from being able to contract with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to provide this service. That is not, by any means, an automatic indicator of corruption, so don't anybody assume that's what I'm saying. This is about context. Of course, if someone can profit off something, I expect them to speak up for it. It's natural. 

There are other systems for ballot marking, such as the ExpressVote, that do involve a bar code or QR code. These entities are competitors for voting-related contracts with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, so the language in this bill about banning tabulation via QR code or bar code may make it harder for the ExpressVote to become what the Commonwealth may choose for a ballot marking device, thus reducing competition for AutoMark. I'm not suggesting that AutoMark is a bad product, but I would pose the idea that we, as blind people may not want to participate in limiting our own options.

When we talk about uniform ballots, there are multiple ways to achieve this. In Maryland, for example, all voters, disabled or not, are offered the choice of whether they want to use the ballot marking device or to mark a ballot by hand. Therefore, there are lots of nondisabled people choosing to use the ballot marking device. If this were to become the practice in Massachusetts, then all polling places would be required to set up the ballot marking device so that EVERYONE could have a chance to use it, not just the disabled voters. This could be true with the AutoMark or ExpressVote...or something else. 

When I voted in Philadelphia and in Honolulu, this was the norm. Everyone had a chance to use the Ballot Marking Device. A lot of people really liked it because they knew that the machine reading the ballots wouldn't get confused by any human errors in how completely they had filled in a bubble, hanging chads, etc. It also gave them a chance to change their mind or correct a mistake. Paper ballots are not so forgiving. 

Whether or not the ballots go to a QR code or bar code is irrelevant once the ballot marking process becomes shared by disabled voters and nondisabled voters. If all of our ballots from the ballot marking device use a QR code, then we're all in the same boat, and disabled people aren't going to be left behind. 

The Bottom line is that the argument being used to get rid of QR codes is to make tabulation uniform, but the bill doesn't actually align with the spoken justifications for it. If you want to make tabulation uniform, then make tabulation uniform. Don't go off on tangents about QR codes and bar codes if what you really want is uniform tabulation. Also, if you want tabulation to be uniform, this bill doesn't actually require that. It just requires that tabulation is done from teh selections marked by the voter and not from a bar code or QR code. Well, I've got news for you. It's still possible to read the selections chosen by the voter and NOT be uniform. So.... We could still end up with a tabulation process that isn't uniform because we spent our time attacking QR codes instead of advocating for uniform tabulation.

The QR codes and bar codes are not the boogeyman that people are saying that they are; the lack of uniformity in ballot marking and ballot tabulation is the boogeyman. 

In summary, the current bill undermines market competition for voting technologies, which may favor a particular group that is advocating in favor of the bill, while also failing to secure uniform ballot marking processes or uniform ballot tabulation processes. Again, I like DemocracyLive for all the work they've done on electronic ballot return, and I want us to maintain a good relationship with them. I also want us to speak for what's best for blind people.

Does this make sense?

Be well,

Justin

Justin MH Salisbury, MEd, NOMC, NCRTB
English Pronouns: he/him/his
Phone: 808.797.8606
Email: President at Alumni.ECU.edu
________________________________________
From: Massachusetts-NFB [massachusetts-nfb-bounces at nfbnet.org] on behalf of Sandra Burgess via Massachusetts-NFB [massachusetts-nfb at nfbnet.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 5:22 PM
To: NFB of Massachusetts E-mail List
Cc: Sandra Burgess
Subject: Re: [Massachusetts-NFB] FW: Uniform Ballot Measure in Massachusetts explained further, a question

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