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
Federal candidates for Delegate to Congress are on the same ballot and automatically federalizes the election.
Judge Bartel was arrogant and wrong.
Bartle is wrong. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 is federal and provides for a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail whenever a congressional seat is on the ballot. Either Judge doesn’t get it or he is in cahoots w deJomgh to steal this election.
Guess the judge isn’t all that into conspiracy theories.
LOL!!
Anon @1:34pm ok if nonconspiracy why not obey the law?
Ask Donahue about his swearing Carmen Golden in after a FEDERAL Judge ruled and said she was not entitled to that seat if he was following the law or just creating a conspiracy theory about election fraud.
Observe the power of case law.
District Court Judge Bartle, if he chose, in his accompanying Memorandum, could have essentially only address subject matter jurisdiction. However, he chose, perhaps wisely, to attend to the meritous arguments or lack thereof of the Plaintiff’s claims, thus establishing as law the decision of the Court.
Judge Brady of the Superior Court, as well as any appeal court, to include the V.I. Supreme Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, will likely rely on Bartle’s findings in making a ruling (if the exact arguments are pleaded before the Superior Court). Remember, Bartle’s ruling (from a Federal Judge) is now law.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the possible death nail for the Plaintiff’s case, if the same arguments are presented, is the ruling by the Third Circuit Court, as noted by Bartle, that the ” Legislature of the Virgin Islands has mandated the use of electronic voting since 1984.”
While being able to vote secretly by paper ballot has great merit, said merit seems to be inconsistent with prevailing V.I. and case law. Therefore, ammendments to the V.I. law will likely be required.
Yes but section 301 E of Hava says that voting systems will include machines “or paper ballots” if requested. It leaves room for an appeal in the federal appeals courts, no?
A voter verifiable papers audit trail is required by law.’
Julio Brady is usually fair.
What you HAVA to say…
HAVA only applies when an election of Federal officials are involved. Judge Bartle noted that it would be inapplicable to the primary election but likely applicable to the general election.
HAVA does not specifically require a voter verifiable paper audit trail. What is required is a permanent paper record with a manual audit capicity. See Title III, Sec. 301, a2Bi. However, the interpreation for the implementation of this provision is and has been decided by individual jurisdictions, either by judicial, executive, or legislative mandate.
In any case, voter verifiable paper audit trail machines have their share of accoutability issues. See http://www.usenix.org/event/evt07/tech/full_papers/goggin/goggin.pdf
While HAVA does allow for the use of paper ballots, See Section 301(c)(2) it does not require that paper ballots be available. Therefore, jurisdictions have flexibility regarding what voting instruments to use. The Legislature of the Virgin Islands has mandated the use of electronic voting since 1984.
For additional facts and misconceptions about HAVA see http://www.votersunite.org/info/HAVAHandout.pdf.
@ U-Turn
Though your research is appreciated, just know that we are in the middle of a REVOLUTION!
Your either with the people or with those who would rather manipulate laws that was never created to serve the massive of the people.
At the end of September 11 the people of the Virgin Islands “WILL” be freed from the tyrant John P. de Jongh, Jr. with or without the help of the Judicial Branch of government application of laws.
This REVOLUTION is about the WILL of the people and not the will of a few. The people of the Virgin Islands will prevail on September 11.
U-Turn thank you once more for your research but just know that you are with the rest of us stuck in the middle of a REVOLUTION.
QUESTION: Are you with the people or with the status quo that chooses to manipulate laws that were never intended to serve the massive of the people?
@uturn Touché. But although HAVA does not require a jurisdiction to use a paper voting system overall, Section 301(2) E does allow for a voter to get a paper ballot. All the big words and legalistic language don’t change the last line.
Another thing. It is wise for any jurisdiction to consider local culture and past performance. Stx senators have gotten vote in Stt. On the machine. This cost confidence. And we are check cashing “money in the hand” people. Why not eliminate any questions by adhering o the vvpat move? If deJongh is reelectectd with this machine and his own employees on the board the lack of voter verification will forever dog you guys at the board.
Moreover the ballot is supposed to allow for a write-in candidate for congress in the primary. Donna’s name should be on the ballot with the possibility for another Democrat. Is this another attempt by the Board to give the appearance that the Delegate dies not have to seek her party’s nod? Is this the board’s attempt to hide the fact that this is still “federal election” by hiding her name?
At this stage of the revolution control/influence of the Legislature is key. Nothing changes if the V.I. laws on the matter do not change. Going forward we must understand the laws, and create the laws we desire.
HAVA allows a voter to receive a paper ballot only if that option has been afforded by local governing rules and regulations and/or law, not simply because voters want to exercise that choice. How do we exercise this choice? Through the enactment of laws by Legislators.
We cannot choose to ignore the plain language of the law and expect victory. HAVA is binding only if jurisdictions accept Title I funds. And, the sanction for noncompliane with HAVA is having jurisdictions return the portion of unspent funds not used to become compliant.
The revolution cannot be successful on emotions alone. In fact, we cannot prevail on emotions nor on any single strategy. If we choose to ignore the research, particularly what the statutes and case law say on any matter, there will be minimal if any success.
Voters should be afforded the choice of using a secret paper ballot. This choice can only come via law.
I too believe we should have a “Choice” between the voting machine and the paper ballot.
But, I am so glad we have a “Choice for Change” on September 11th!
Donastorg/Baptiste!
There are laws and precedent deeper than HAVA and the “swiss cheese” VI Code that address preclusion of disenfranchisement, fundamental entitlement to vote by secret ballot, and for voters to have utmost confidence that ballots are counted as cast.
Any pattern of conduct or circumstances that opens the door of compromise to election processes and outcomes does not protect those voter’s rights.
Mandating voting methods that disenfranchise voters, expose their ballot, or create reasonable doubt regarding vote casting and tabulation while more reliable and lawful methods are immediately available is unjust and unfair.
Again, A Federal Judge ruled Carmen Golden was not eligible for a Board of Elections seat. If a Federal Judge’s ruling is LAW, especially prevailing law, and a Territorial Court Judge defies that ruling is that Judge breaking the law?
The Golden’s filed suit in District Court regarding a LOCAL Board of Elections postion. Yet, the jurisdiction was there.
So, answer this one question for all of us: Tell us how the swearing in of an individual AFTER an acting AG and Federal Judge officially ruled she was not entitled to that seat, is NOT election fraud?
And voters are supposed to have confidence in the system and methods of voting they decided?
Schizophrenic and arbitrary. Screw “case law”.
Where Will It End?
This blog post title made on July 15, 2009 by Crucians in Focus generated 551 responses.
In a revolution it is important to begin and continue with the end in mind. However, this is not sufficient to ensure success. Many strategies are required. In a country of laws, we must understand and use, not manipulate, laws as one of the strategies to achieve a desired outcome.
Research is the beginning one such strategy. In 2009 while many expressed concern about what is now called Mafolie Gate, no one had taken the time previously to research what the V.I. law said about the matter.
It was on July 22, 2009 at 1:56 pm on this site where the rubber met the road. See U-Turn’s posting– http://cruciansinfocus.com/2009/07/15/where-will-it-end/comment-page-4/. This immediately moved the discussions from one of morals and people’s opinions to a discussion on whether laws were broken.
We must be aware of the encroaching paranoia that is a natural by-product of any revolution: Who do we trust? Do we trust? etc., that creeps in and causes us to doubt and question everything and everyone.
We must, though, be constanly vigilant and remain unitedly, even with different strategies, focused.
Doublespeak.
Speaking about Carmen Golden…
The District Court ruled that the Goldens’ claims were barred by laches. Basically, this means they waited too long before asserting a claim. The court said they waited to see “whether their candidate of choice won the certified seat before briging a legal action…” The Board of Elections, after previously certifying and decertifying Golden, recertified her. This is where the problem lies.
The District Court’s ruling did not order the Board not to certify Golden. It simply said she waited to long to seek relief. Notwithstanding, the Board’s action were definitely questionable and in poor taste. Those questioning the Board’s action should have filed a suit. Lacking such, all rights for relief and redress were waived.
In any event, Carmen Golden is past. Let us focus on the golden opportunities we now have to make a positive change, so that in subsequent years we are not having these same discussions.