Paper Ballot Complaint Moves to Superior Court After Federal Judge Dismisses Bryan Complaint
The question of the paper ballot is now in the hands of the Virgin Islands Superior Court.
Judge Harvey Bartle III dismissed a motion filed in Virgin Islands District Court by former Sen. Adelbert “Bert” Bryan concerning the use of provisional ballots in the upcoming elections, upholding the government’s position that Bryan lacks “subject matter jurisdiction” to file the complaint.
Bartle concluded that Bryan’s assertions are wholly “insubstantial and frivolous” and “completely devoid of merit,” and that the determination of whether Bryan has standing to file the complaint under local law “lies with the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands.”
The matter will now be heard on Tuesday, September 7 at 10 a.m. before Judge Julio Brady.
The basis of the complaint is a decision made in a July 30 Board of Elections meeting that voters who choose not to use the electronic voting machines must use a “provisional ballot” instead of a traditional paper ballot to cast their vote. A growing number of local voters who distrust electronic voting machines have mounted a campaign to allow eligible voters to use a paper ballot that they would fill out at the polling place, place in a sealed envelope and deposit in a ballot box to register their vote.
The “provisional” ballot on the other hand is defined in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) as a means for voters whose eligibility is in question to cast a vote that will be counted after his/her eligibility has been verified. It requires that an affidavit certifying eligibility and an application be completed at the polling place in addition to the ballot.
Judge Bartle ruled that the Federal court was the incorrect jurisdiction for the complaint; that the Board’s action simply affirmed that provisional ballots would be available and did not affect Bryan or others who were recognized as eligible voters; and that the board violated no rules in cancelling the registration of some 6,000 voters who have not participated in the past two elections.
Proponents for the paper ballot have been vocal on radio programs, and some filed official complaints with the Board following its July 30 decision. Bryan filed his motion for a restraining order on August 17, and asks that the court “prohibit defendant from utilizing and enforcing their decision of July 30, 2010 and August 4, 2010” … and enter an order that would allow eligible voters to utilize “an official paper ballot to be placed in the ballot boxes and counted accordingly.”
Judge Bartle’s Decision
Bryan Challenges Board of Elections
Apparently, the apple does not fall far from the tree…….Anne and Carmen Golden. Two birds of a feather.
Ask Elections where is the write in slot for delegate on the absentee paper and provisional ballots? Either they are trying to de-federalize this election by keeping her name off so as not to be in violation of HAVA to provide paper ballots on demand or vvpats. Is Tito Morales trying again to make sure incumbents are not challenged? Why can’t I write in another Democrat’s name for Congress. I am a democrat and I might not want her to represent me. This election is illegal.
The delegate is not on the primary ballot so if you demand a write in ballot and the person you write in gets a few votes she looses, right?
Well try it and see but the BOE is going to tell you that you vote doesn’t count because you cast a vote for a position that was not on the primary ballot. Strange for sure but only in the Virgin Islands.
It is probably a violation of the FEC since here position is a federal one. Problem is that she has power and may put a hurting on you if you raise this issue. Remember the BOE screwed up, you didn’t and have a right to make this case if you choose.
What’s the real secret?
Bryan’s request to have ballots placed within a ballot box is very reasonable and should be granted. For certian, it assures complete anonymity, in fact, more so than using a voting machine. Perhaps that is the real secret: Voting by a machine is really not secret at after all.
It is always intriguing to note the processes leading up to and following casting a vote via a machine. Think about the identification and voting steps. The steps involve having names logged and written sequencially in a book, then the vote, then another step to complete the process.
The machine also records votes sequentially. Which reasonably means, the data between the books and the cartridges can later be cross-referenced and voters identified with a high degree of accuracy. Whether this actually has or will happen is not the point.
Also, what happens after the data is entered, no one really knows, that is, except for the programmer, perhaps. This is especially disturbing when the software is a proprietary, closed system, software as opposed to an open system software, since courts have ruled that proprietary software code is subject to confidentiality.
On a related note…
Some have argued for having a paper receipt for the voter. Why? Any good programmer worth her salt can program a machine to print out 123 while it records 456.
There are both pros and cons for and against using a machine or paper ballot. Under these circumstances, though, with all that is at stake, paper is the way to go.
Or just say you are Adventist or an orthodox Bobo dread and go into elections tomorrow to vote.
VOTE VOTE VOTE THEM OUT !!!!!!!!!!!
Adventists can vote on Thurs and Fri on paper ballots. Therefore everybody can vote today Sep 9 if you tell them that your religion does not allow you to vote on Saturdays. Let’s put deJongh out BEFoRE primary day. The people in Brady’s court room who were laughing yesterday because they won the right to steal our vote electronically will not win tomorrow. Vote privately and early and securingly at the election offices on Stx and stt.
The one who laughs last laughs best.
@U-Turn re; Golden
Golden is not past because that case set a precedent. Not for questionable conduct and poor taste. Just ask Hope Gibson is she felt it was poor taste after John Abramson said the Board of Elections was NOT going to fill that seat after decertifying Carmen Golden. It set a precedent that exposed how far the Board of Elections will go to compromise themselves to endorse one candidate they prefer over a candidate they oppose.
Carmen Golden was decertified by the Board of Elections based on an opinion THEY asked for from Alva Swan. That decision by itself should have stood. BUT Federal Judge Finch RULED Carmen Golden was not entitled to that seat. John Abramson’s statement really meant they were not going to fill that seat if their only option was Hope Gibson. A**HOLES!
No suh! The Board of Elections demonstrated they believe THEY are the law and above the law. And they just spit in the voter’s face BIGTIME!