[Massachusetts-NFB] FW: Uniform Ballot Measure in Massachusetts explained further, a question
Al and Masha Sten-Clanton
sweeties2 at verizon.net
Fri Sep 15 15:47:12 UTC 2023
Greetings, all!
I saw nothing in the text of H3577 that looks like a loophole allowing
non-uniform tabulation, so I don't think that's a likely problem.
Please let me know if I'm missing something.
You can argue that the language about bar codes or QR codes is kind of a
sideshow. I think it came up because if the new Automark machine using
the QR code replaces the old one but balloting generally remains as it
is, there will be regular ballots for most people and Automark receipts
for those of us who use those machines. That's utterly non-uniform and
more than worth preventing.
I happen to think that using bar codes or QR codes would indeed be a
problem here, even if that's what everybody got from a voting machine.
Unless I'm mistaken, these things mean that a voter can't read the paper
ballot that comes out of the foting machine and so must submit it to the
counting system trusting that the machine did its job right. Especially
in these days when theories about corrupt voting systems abound, I'd bet
a lot of voters would be unhappy to the point of having rabies. I would
myself, even though I can't read the paper my vote lands on either via
the Automark or the Democracy Live online system that I've now use
twice: I see no reason for anybody who can read the printed page not to
be able to see what's on that page between voting and submitting it for
the count. (If it were feasible, I'd want Braille output so I could do
the same. I don't know whether getting really good with a relevant
smartphone app would allow me to read a ballot.) Sandra mentioned
security as a possible reason for wanting these codes, and she may be
right, but I have no idea how that would work. Therefore, unless
somebody can make a clear case why voters should get these bar code or
QR code receipts out of a voting machine instead of a paper
representation of what was on the screen of the machine when they voted,
I'm glad for the language barring them.
It doesn't look like H3577 conflicts with NFB policy as expressed in
Resolution 2019-05, which I'll paste below. That resolution says
nothing about bar codes or QR codes. The bill says nothing about
whether or not ballot-marking devices should be the primary ballot
marking tool. I have great doubts about the wisdom of that resolution,
which was adopted before the politics about voting became truly
turbulent and often bizarre, but that's a babble for another time. For
the current effort, I think it's fair to say that we can support H3577
with no fear of violating that policy.
Finally, I've known from the first that Democracy Live may have a
financial stake in this business. From the little I heard at an earlier
meeting, it may even have a good competitor to the Automark. I'm a fan
of Democracy Live, since it allowed me twice to cast votes that I think
were truly private or as much so as possible. If there's a machine that
is better because of quality, price, or both, then that's what the state
should use. But unless the bar code or QR code approach is truly better
than the current one and is worth the price, I'm happy to see it
excluded. After all, when we buy things, we exclude from our
consideration any product missing something important to us or having
some "feature" we dislike, if at all possible.
At any rate, this is my take for now. Let me know if I have any facts
wrong, or if you think there's a better way to look at the same facts.
This is not a great piece of writing, but I hope it does its job.
Best!
Al Sten-Clanton
Here's the resolution as I found it via a search engine.
*Resolution 2019-05*
*Regarding the Use of Accessible Ballot-Marking Devices as the
Primary Ballot Marking Tool*
WHEREAS, the ability to cast a secret ballot independently is a
cornerstone of our democracy that enables citizens to vote their
conscience without fear; and
WHEREAS, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires
that voters with disabilities be afforded an opportunity to exercise the
right to vote that is equivalent to the opportunity afforded to voters
without disabilities; and
WHEREAS, the majority of state and local elections are conducted using
paper ballots with the accessible ballot marking device (BMD) limited to
voters with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, election technology developers, such as Elections Systems and
Software (ES&S), Dominion Voting Systems, and Unisyn Voting Solutions,
have designed accessible BMDs that produce ballots that are different in
size and/or content from the ballot that is hand marked by the majority
of voters; and
WHEREAS, because the BMD ballots cast by voters with disabilities are
different in size and/or content from the hand-marked ballots cast by
the majority of voters, the BMD ballots can be identified as having been
cast by a voter with a disability and are, as a result, not secret
ballots; and
WHEREAS, a state or local board of elections may be in violation of
Title II of the ADA when it does not provide voters with disabilities
the same opportunity to cast a secret ballot that it provides voters
without disabilities; and
WHEREAS, BMDs are the superior method for marking ballots because they
prevent the stray marks and over-votes that can result when ballots are
hand marked; and
WHEREAS, the Protecting American Votes and Elections (PAVE) Act,
introduced in the United States Senate on May 15, 2019, mandates a
hand-marked paper ballot, limits the use of BMDs to voters with
disabilities, and provides state and local governments with enough funds
to purchase only one BMD per polling place, thus denying voters with
disabilities a secret ballot: Now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in Convention
assembled this eleventh day of July, 2019, in the City of Las Vegas,
Nevada, that this organization demand that the Senate amend the PAVE Act
to make BMDs the primary method for ballot-marking and provide
sufficient funds to state and local governments to purchase the required
number of BMDs for use by the majority of voters; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization demand that state and
local governments implement the legislation and election procedures
necessary to make the use of BMDs the primary method of ballot-marking
for the majority of voters, thus ensuring that voters with disabilities
have a secret ballot.
*
*
On 9/14/23 23:01, Justin Salisbury via Massachusetts-NFB wrote:
> Hi Sandy,
>
> I didn’t realize that I had suggested that disabled people were forced
> to use a ballot marking device. I don’t believe that to be the case at
> this time.
>
> What you are describing is what the prevailing narrative about this
> bill is, but the problem is that the prevailing narrative about the
> bill does not align with what is actually in the bill and what the
> actual implications are.
>
> There’s more to this than what we’ve been talking about, and when we
> take the time to notice the full picture, it doesn’t seem so good anymore.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Justin Mark Hideaki Salisbury
>
> Mobile: 808.797.8606
> Email: 808salisbury at gmail.com
>
> ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin_Salisbury
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-salisbury
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-salisbury>
>
>
> “In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the
> silence of our friends.”
>
> Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
>
>
>> On Sep 14, 2023, at 8:20 PM, Sandra Burgess <sandraburgess at msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Justin,
>> In Massachusetts, disabled people are not forced to use a marking
>> device. We can do what you did in the states you mention. For
>> example, a sighted person, comfortable with Spanish, may choose to
>> use Auto Mark speaking in Spanish.
>>
>> While the new auto mark utilizes a QR code, other machines do not use
>> any code. We are not debating over code veaersus no code; we are
>> debating our want to have a ballot that looks like all the other
>> ballots. If everyone hands in a slip of paper witha code, so be it.
>> If everyone hands in a paper the size of which we are familiar, so
>> be it.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Sandy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2023, at 8:18 PM, Justin Salisbury
>> <PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230915/00024667/attachment.html>
More information about the Massachusetts-NFB
mailing list