[Massachusetts-NFB] a view supporting H3577

Thu Sep 28 18:00:01 UTC 2023

Greetings!

Given that we are testifying on H3577 as individuals, I wrote in support 
of the Bill last Tuesday.  I believe it aligns with NFB policy, though 
it doesn't go as far as some of us thing it should.

H3577 would require a uniform ballot.This doesn't eliminate the 
differences between the hand-marked and machine-marked ballots, but it 
does go some way in reducing the separateness of our ballots and should 
make it less likely that somebody looking at ballots will know ours from 
those of our sighted peers.    If there are more machines available and 
more voters are persuaded to use them, and if they actually work well, 
then I think our privacy, our anonymity, will be secured.

I doubt that we need to make machines the primary way to vote in order 
to have our privacy.  Resolution 2019-05 does call for that, and if it 
happens by way of persuasion, then that will be great. Having more  such 
machines and more voters using them won't guarantee that poll workers 
will know how to help us blind folks use them, since we will need the 
headphones that sometimes go missing and the speech output that other 
voters won't need. Still, it should help us vote without trouble at the 
polls most of the time.  I also suspect that many if not most voters 
will usually want to mark their ballots by hand, if only to avoid 
dealing with a machine.  I would myself if I could.  If I'm wrong about 
most voters, so be it:  I've certainly done no survey to find out.

What I don't want is for most people to vote using regular ballots and 
us to vote using machines that spit out bar or QR code receipts.  That's 
the very opposite of uniform.  I believe that this is why H3577 contains 
the language concerning these things. If all voters used machines that 
produced these code, we'd have uniformity, but I seriously doubt that 
most voters would like paper ballots they can proofread with their eyes 
to be replaced by paper receipts with cryptic codes they can't read.  
Now, I've never read a ballot of mine after voting, and certainly could 
not have read the paper ballots created by my online votes.  (I've read 
that you can proofread your ballot with the current Automark machines, 
but I didn't know that until last week.) Still, I have no interest in 
denying my sighted peers the ability to check directly with their eyes 
the paper ballots on which they have voted.  I have read Resolution 
2019-05 several times, and it has no reference to bar or QR codes, so I 
see nothing in my view on this that is out of line with our policy--at 
least as set forth in that resolution.

I note that if I'm wrong about these codes, somebody who knows better 
should feel free to correct me.  I stress that I have no idea whether 
they'd cause security problems or not, only that receipts containing 
these codes would not be readable in the way a normal ballot now is.

Justin makes a good point about market competition, but I think that 
point applies only if you want what's on offer.  I hope there are 
several voting machine companies whose devices handle regular, uniform 
paper ballots.  Unless somebody can show me the error of my ways, 
however, I do not want Massachusetts to buy as its choice of machine one 
that, if I understand correctly, substitutes receipts with codes on them 
for ballots.  I'm very glad that Democracy Live has enabled me to vote 
from the privacy of my home, but I have no wish to give it any special 
political advantage: that's often a good way to raise prices and lower 
quality.  I just want a certain quality of voting machine.

Incidentally, for over twenty years I've been annoyed repeatedly with 
the emphasis many people have put on paper ballots.  I'd hoped that we 
could all vote online if we wanted, and that the electronic votes cast 
could be counted almost instantly.  I still hope that can happen, but it 
hasn't and may never happen.  Indeed, in the midst of the conspiracy 
storms about voting machines, paper ballots may be necessary.  If this 
is true, then those ballots should be easily readable by those who cast 
them.

Finally, I do not see the issue here as "separate but equal," at least, 
not primarily.  Rather, as I said earlier, it's about our privacy, about 
the anonymity that makes that privacy possible. I've voted twice online, 
and that system is to some degree "separate," and, I hope, equal:  in 
order to use the system, I needed to say that my reason was a 
disability.  I'd be happier if I didn't have to do that, but unless that 
information goes to those counting the votes, the system should give me 
the secret ballot I claim a right to.  It certainly draws a lot less 
attention to me than using a voting machine at a polling place does.  
Also, since others do vote online, we blind people can hide among them.

In closing, I hope people who plan to send in testimony on H3577 will 
consider what I have written and then testify as they think best.  I 
hope this piece of writing does the job I intend for it.

Best!

Al

On 9/27/23 16:45, Justin Salisbury via Massachusetts-NFB wrote:
> Fellow Federationists:
>
> After extensive deliberation within the affiliate, we finally have an approach to signing on to the full testimony in opposition to H-3577. We still have a few more hours to submit testimony. I plan to submit at the end of the night. This bill that will perpetuate a separate-but-equal approach to voting for blind people in Massachusetts under the guise of supposedly doing good things that the bill actually would not do. This testimony will not be a unified affiliate testimony. It will be a bunch of individuals who have decided that NFB policy is something that they support.
>
> Here's the plan:
> If you read the attached document with a draft testimony, and if you like it, reply to this email or send me a fresh email or text message to tell me your name, any letters that go with your name, like PhD, and the town in Massachusetts where you live. This way, the names signed at the end of the testimony will be specifically only those people who reached out to say they wanted to sign on. It will be like a petition.
>
> At the end of the testimony, it will look like this:
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Justin Salisbury, MEd, NOMC, NCRTB; Athol, MA
> John Doe, MBA; Springfield, MA
> Barack Obama, Esq.; Cambridge, MA
> Jill Biden, EdD; New Bedford, MA
> Elizabeth Warren, Esq.; Cambridge, MA
> Giles Corey; Salem, MA
> Nomar Garciaparra; Boston, MA
> etc.
>
>
> I hope you'll be willing to sign on as individuals.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Justin
>
>
>
>
> Justin MH Salisbury, MEd, NOMC, NCRTB
> English Pronouns: he/him/his
> Phone: 808.797.8606
> Email: 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