[Massachusetts-NFB] a view supporting H3577
Al and Masha Sten-Clanton
sweeties2 at verizon.net
Fri Sep 29 19:07:03 UTC 2023
Well, you seem much more certain about who will or won't use the
machines if they're available than I am of mine. What I suppose is that
even if only a few other people use them, we'll have some metaphorical
trees to hide behind. If these things have touchscreens, as I
understand some do 9to go along with the keys that folks like me need),
they probably wouldn't be all that daunting.
Now, I don't claim to know what would happen, but I doubt anybody else
does, either.
Best!
Al
On 9/29/23 12:47, Jeanette Kutash via Massachusetts-NFB wrote:
>
> There is no value in the extra expense of more machines because quite
> frankly people who don’t think they have the need to use them won’t
> and it would be a waste of money. While I want as much autonomy as
> possible, unless you demand that all sighted people type, you will
> never bridge the gap with write-in ballots. Quite frankly I don’t
> think people are looking that closely at the ballots to see whose
> response looks typed versus which response is hand-written and if the
> hand written one is not readable it won’t be counted anyway.
>
> For sighted people with no vision issues our machines are pretty
> daunting and while we can encourage people to use them, I think the
> likelihood that they will is slim to none.
>
> I am with Justin here: people will start using the machines more as
> their vision deteriorates if they have no other way of voting but
> often as not they will get around that by having someone help them
> vote or by doing absentee ballots.
>
> I say let’s get it as close as possible to get it done but not to get
> into an analysis paralysis situation. At that point nothing gets
> accfomplished and I am more in favor of getting the job done.
>
> Jeanette
>
> *From:*Massachusetts-NFB [mailto:massachusetts-nfb-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Mary via Massachusetts-NFB
> *Sent:* Friday, September 29, 2023 11:11 AM
> *To:* 'Justin Salisbury'; 'NFB of Massachusetts E-mail List'
> *Cc:* Mary
> *Subject:* Re: [Massachusetts-NFB] a view supporting H3577
>
> I wrote back to Justin’s message last night, but it doesn’t seem to
> have made it to this list. I hope this message does. I apologize,
> Justin, if you see this twice, or if it did reach this list but
> somehow didn’t make it to our e-mail here.
>
> Al
>
> COPIED MESSAGE:
>
> Greetings!
>
> Justin asks a fair question:
>
> Al, if you really want to have uniform ballots, do you have a plan in
> mind for how we are going to make those ballots truly uniform? When
> people add the names of write-in candidates, how is that going to
> become uniform between those who marked the ballot with a device and
> those who Input the candidate’s name in their handwriting?
>
> My answer is that I can live with the differences, which will be less
> and less frequent if more people find the machines worth using. If
> people are indeed being “invited” to join us in using those machines,
> and not in some way being forced to do it, I’d expect that change will
> be gradual anyway.
>
> I think Resolution 2019-05 referred to a bill then in the Senate that
> would restrict use of voting machines to people with disabilities. I
> have not heard that this became law, so I don’t know what the state of
> Federal or Massachusetts law is on the point. If making those
> machines available to all voters requires changing the law, and if we
> can get more of them, then I’d happily support that: not only is that
> in line with NFB policy, but it makes good sense generally to me. I’d
> guess that can be added to H3577, but it also can be a separate bill
> and is not to me a reason to oppose H3577.
>
> Best!
>
> Al
>
> *From:* Justin Salisbury <PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 28, 2023 7:12 PM
> *To:* NFB of Massachusetts E-mail List <massachusetts-nfb at nfbnet.org>
> *Cc:* Al and Masha Sten-Clanton <sweeties2 at verizon.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Massachusetts-NFB] a view supporting H3577
>
> Good evening!
>
> Clearly, some time and effort went into that email, and I am grateful
> for the willingness of our members to put in that time and effort.
>
> Al, if you really want to have uniform ballots, do you have a plan in
> mind for how we are going to make those ballots truly uniform? When
> people add the names of write-in candidates, how is that going to
> become uniform between those who marked the ballot with a device and
> those who Input the candidate’s name in their handwriting?
>
> I cannot figure out how we are supposed to make ballots look exactly
> the same.
>
> What we have managed to do in other states is allow and invite sighted
> people and otherwise non-disabled people to join us in using the
> ballot marking device. Then, it’s not only us using it.
>
> When something is only the domain of a marginalized group, it is
> maintained less effectively than something that is the domain of all.
>
> Thank you for your contribution to this very important discourse.
>
> Justin
>
> 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 28, 2023, at 1:01 PM, Al and Masha Sten-Clanton via
> Massachusetts-NFB <massachusetts-nfb at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/president%40alumni.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/20230929/fd8e74ff/attachment.html>
More information about the Massachusetts-NFB
mailing list