<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Greetings, all!</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> 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.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Best!</p>
<p>Al Sten-Clanton</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Here's the resolution as I found it via a search engine.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3><strong>Resolution 2019-05</strong><br>
<strong>Regarding the Use of Accessible Ballot-Marking Devices as
the Primary Ballot Marking Tool</strong></h3>
<p>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</p>
<p>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</p>
<p>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</p>
<p>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</p>
<p>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</p>
<p>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</p>
<p>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</p>
<p>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</p>
<p>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</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><strong><br>
</strong></h3>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/14/23 23:01, Justin Salisbury via
Massachusetts-NFB wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0115DEF0-DCCA-4104-B59C-F88FBA716170@alumni.ecu.edu">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hi Sandy,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Justin Mark Hideaki Salisbury</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mobile: 808.797.8606</div>
<div>Email: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:808salisbury@gmail.com">808salisbury@gmail.com</a> </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span
style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">ResearchGate: <a
href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin_Salisbury"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin_Salisbury</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;"><span
style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">LinkedIn: <a
href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-salisbury"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span lang="EN">https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-salisbury</span></a> </span></p>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"><span
style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">“In
the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies,
but the silence of our friends.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"><o:p
style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"><span
style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr.</span></p>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Sep 14, 2023, at 8:20 PM, Sandra
Burgess <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:sandraburgess@msn.com"><sandraburgess@msn.com></a>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span>Justin,</span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Best,</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Sandy</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>On Sep 14, 2023, at 8:18 PM, Justin Salisbury <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:PRESIDENT@alumni.ecu.edu"><PRESIDENT@alumni.ecu.edu></a>
wrote:</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Hi everyone,</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>I'm writing to offer a little bit more context. This
is still not meant to be interpreted as a final word.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Does this make sense?</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Be well,</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Justin</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Justin MH Salisbury, MEd, NOMC, NCRTB</span><br>
<span>English Pronouns: he/him/his</span><br>
<span>Phone: 808.797.8606</span><br>
<span>Email: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:President@Alumni.ECU.edu">President@Alumni.ECU.edu</a></span><br>
<span>________________________________________</span><br>
<span>From: Massachusetts-NFB [<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:massachusetts-nfb-bounces@nfbnet.org">massachusetts-nfb-bounces@nfbnet.org</a>]
on behalf of Sandra Burgess via Massachusetts-NFB [<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:massachusetts-nfb@nfbnet.org">massachusetts-nfb@nfbnet.org</a>]</span><br>
<span>Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 5:22 PM</span><br>
<span>To: NFB of Massachusetts E-mail List</span><br>
<span>Cc: Sandra Burgess</span><br>
<span>Subject: Re: [Massachusetts-NFB] FW: Uniform Ballot
Measure in Massachusetts explained further, a question</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Hi Masha,</span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Best,</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Sandy</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>From: Massachusetts-NFB <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:massachusetts-nfb-bounces@nfbnet.org"><massachusetts-nfb-bounces@nfbnet.org></a>
On Behalf Of Al and Masha Sten-Clanton via
Massachusetts-NFB</span><br>
<span>Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 3:44 PM</span><br>
<span>To: Shara Winton via Massachusetts-NFB <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:massachusetts-nfb@nfbnet.org"><massachusetts-nfb@nfbnet.org></a></span><br>
<span>Cc: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:sweeties2@verizon.net"><sweeties2@verizon.net></a></span><br>
<span>Subject: Re: [Massachusetts-NFB] FW: Uniform Ballot
Measure in Massachusetts explained further, a question</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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?</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Thank you to anybody who knows what's up here.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Best,</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Al</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>On 9/14/23 07:30, Shara Winton via Massachusetts-NFB
wrote:</span><br>
<span>Good Morning All,</span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Shara Winton</span><br>
<span>President, National Federation of the Blind of
Massachusetts</span><br>
<span>617-304-0347</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>From: Justin Salisbury <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:PRESIDENT@alumni.ecu.edu"><PRESIDENT@alumni.ecu.edu></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:PRESIDENT@alumni.ecu.edu"><mailto:PRESIDENT@alumni.ecu.edu></a></span><br>
<span>Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:04 PM</span><br>
<span>To: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:sharawinton@gmail.com">sharawinton@gmail.com</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:sharawinton@gmail.com"><mailto:sharawinton@gmail.com></a>;
Lou Ann Blake <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:LBlake@nfb.org"><LBlake@nfb.org></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:LBlake@nfb.org"><mailto:LBlake@nfb.org></a>;
Debbie Malone <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:dmalone510@gmail.com"><dmalone510@gmail.com></a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:dmalone510@gmail.com"><mailto:dmalone510@gmail.com></a></span><br>
<span>Subject: Uniform Ballot Measure in Massachusetts</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Hi Shara, Lou Ann, and Debbie,</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>I’ve composed my thoughts and reflections, parts of
which are copied and pasted from thoughts shared by Lou
Ann previously.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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<a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD2757"><https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD2757></a>:</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Section 44 of chapter 54 of the General Laws, as
appearing in the 2020 Official Edition, is hereby amended
by adding the following paragraph:-</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>As stated in Resolution 2019-05<a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://nfb.org/resources/speeches-and-reports/resolutions/2019-resolutions#05"><https://nfb.org/resources/speeches-and-reports/resolutions/2019-resolutions#05></a>,
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:</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>1. Eliminates the stray marks associated with
hand marking of ballots</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>2. Prevents over voting a contest, and warns the
voter if they under voted a contest</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>3. The voter can change their mind prior to
printing the ballot.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Justin</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Justin Salisbury (he/him)</span><br>
<span>2117 Chestnut Hill Ave</span><br>
<span>Athol, MA 01331</span><br>
<span>Phone: 808.797.8606</span><br>
<span>Email: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:President@Alumni.ECU.edu">President@Alumni.ECU.edu</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:President@Alumni.ECU.edu"><mailto:President@Alumni.ECU.edu></a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Massachusetts-NFB mailing list</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:Massachusetts-NFB@nfbnet.org">Massachusetts-NFB@nfbnet.org</a><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Massachusetts-NFB@nfbnet.org"><mailto:Massachusetts-NFB@nfbnet.org></a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org">http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your
account info for Massachusetts-NFB:</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org/sweeties2%40verizon.net">http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org/sweeties2%40verizon.net</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Massachusetts-NFB mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:Massachusetts-NFB@nfbnet.org">Massachusetts-NFB@nfbnet.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org">http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org</a>
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Massachusetts-NFB:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org/sweeties2%40verizon.net">http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/massachusetts-nfb_nfbnet.org/sweeties2%40verizon.net</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>