Ruling Shreds Hopes For Paper Ballot, Highlights Need For Legislative Election Reform
There will be no paper ballot and no printed receipt from the electronic voting machines when you go to the polls on Saturday for the primary or in November for the general election.
To no one’s surprise, Superior Court Judge Julio Brady dismissed the complaint filed by former Sen. Adelbert “Bert” Bryan which challenged the Board of Election’s decision not to provide an official paper ballot as an option for voters who distrust the electronic voting machines or do not want to use a provisional ballot.
The decision came after Brady told a packed courtroom on Tuesday that no testimony or evidence would be presented by anyone other than Bryan and the Government. Those in the packed courtroom, some who had come with the intent to testify and had prepared documented evidence to support Bryan’s claim, were stunned at the judge’s pronouncement.
The courtroom drama began before the start of the hearing when a Court Marshal reportedly called Bryan out of the courtroom and into Brady’s chambers, where the government attorneys, including Asst. Atty. General Carol Thomas Jacob were already present. And it was there he learned that the hearing would proceed without testimony or evidence and that the court would hear only from Bryan and Jacob.
We can debate endlessly whether the decision was fair or whether the foundation issue – which is whether or not voters have the right to vote with a paper ballot – was ever addressed. But for now, the decision stands and there will be no change before Saturday’s critical primary election.
It troubles us greatly that voters are restricted to voting machines they don’t trust; or a provisional ballot, that requires a great deal of paperwork, compromises confidentiality, and delays the final tally of election results. But rather than burn energy on things past, let us stay focused on the issue at hand.
This issue emerged with the rising awareness of the electorate that our processes, and the people elected to protect them, are flawed. Ambiguity and inconsistency in our laws opened the door for the confusion we are facing – so one of the first priorities for the new Administration should be election reform. That should include some tighter restrictions on the criteria for individuals who can be considered for the Board of Elections, as the connections between some members of the current board and the Administration raise serious conflict of interest concerns.
But we implore you – do not view this ruling as a defeat. Give all due commendation to the members of the community who raised the issue initially on the airwaves; those who filed formal complaints with the Board of Elections; to Bryan for filing the suit; and to all those who were there and willing to testify on behalf of fairness and – dare we use the word – transparency in the election process.
If this does not incent us to go to the polls on Saturday, then we are no better than those we are now challenging. Let them see, by our numbers and our vigilance, that no obstacle, however cumbersome, will be enough to keep us from going to the polls, waiting in line if necessary, and casting our vote.
Anything less would be surrender – and surrender is not an option.
Loading ...
Well, provisional ballot it is then. I don’t care if they know who I am. Adventists get to vote on Fridays before, I might just go in on Friday and ask to vote early. Or if they say no, I’ll wait until Saturday and go to a different polling place and vote by provisional ballot. I recommend that everyone else do the same.
Sounds like Attorney Bert, who thinks he a should represent himself in court, has a fool for a client!
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4661704&fbid=427470359268&id=298132069268#!/photo.php?pid=4661705&fbid=427470364268&id=298132069268
Congratulations to Bert!
Bert Bryan exposed the Board of Elections and Court Jesters for all to see.
Bert’s courage woke the sleeping up.
And he got the biggest fool of all to make a fool of himself by implying Bert, as a leader, is a fool.
Our only hope to achieve real change Saturday is for all of us who are registered democrats to go to the poll in droves. There is strength in numbers. We may not have win the battle yet, but we cannot use that as a excuse to stay home. If we continue to be vigilant, we will win. We just have to keep pushing for election reform even after the election season is over.
By the way, moments that define the (lack of) character by those in authority who make decisions that do not uphold the spirit and intent of the law by convoluting outcomes are always available as subjects of debate because those moments they create the fuel needed to justify legitimate positions against injustice.
John Abramson is bound by the laws passed by VI Senators. Since they will not likely change the process then another solution is to try to propose a referendum. This manner in making laws is very very difficult as it was set up to be in the VI. Another immediate near term dagger is to require all those running for the Senate to answer the intention on changing the election process. Of course we they are sworn in some senator will already have a bill submitted to legal counsel….but it will never see the light of day just like the so called bill to repeal Act 6905…the theft and plunder of the public purse that still is hidden away by an anti-transparency rule that permits this game playing.
So much for the promise of transparency and accountability by senators that will get your vote again and again, not because they keep their promise to you, but because they are running in a popularity contest. That’s it!
Federally mandated Voter Verifiable Paper Trail Audits are coming.
Quando Vegan Quando? Unless there is action by the V.I.Legislature to make the changes required by the VVA it will not happen soon. Yes there could be court challenges, appeals, and an ultimate consent decree that will take years to implement. The preferable method is for our senators to do what is right and make the required changes. That they could do tomorrow but of course won’t. Even if they promise you for your vote, you will never see it happen since the author of the bill, like in the case of the 6905 repeal bill, will never be revealed and the matter will simply languish.
A voter initiative referendum is another path but, as I mentioned in a previous post, the burden on the presenter is nearly a statistical impossibility in the VI. The federal legislation did it this way to make sure not to much law making power went to the people, such as in California where every election has dozens of “proposition” where the voters decide.
And when the Board of Elections changes complexion they will pass policy adding a paper receipt thatis verifiable by the voter. The don’t need new legislation for that.
The Shouptronics voting devices in use here today do not support a paper receipt. These “machines” as they are called are very old. The electronics have been updated but the mainframe is no longer in much use. The computer language is also more than 20 years old. The solution is a totally different process. In the mean time paper ballots and optical scanners to count them and totally seamless…and recounts are possible either manually or with another optical scanner.
When voters loose faith in the process justice weeps. The Shouptronics/Dibold voting devices do not comply with VVA. Why throw good money after bad? These devices need to be sent to Zimbabwe or Hugo Chavez where votes don’t count anyway. There are so many different, modern, and safe technologies for voting. Even with the common paper ballots with optical scanners to ease in the count, the key issue is to restore faith in the process. The Shoups don’t seem to have the confidence of many. Many object to the loss of suspense in the old counting process, and they didn’t mind staying glued to their radios till dawn. Should not people or voters,not politicians, get the system they wish and have faith in?
Point blank dejongh cheated. Now lets either TRY to do something about it or just move on. Sad but true.
Donastorg/Baptiste In MY Heart WAS the ONLY Choice For CHANGE!!
Herb, disagreeing with the establishment??? Beware that they turn off your internet access to CIF at your government office. You are right of course, there is nothing wrong with feeling confident about your vote. We all want a paper audit trail that we can verify. Now whether the machine spits out our paper ballot, or we write it in ink, that is what we want. I encourage everyone to visit verifythevote.org and see the movement across the country. No, Raymond, we here are not the only crazy paranoid ones.
Island Mommy, weep not. Foncie will be our proud public servant in one way or the other for years to come. Join us in this new wave for retaining him as a write in senator. There is also space for him in the Mapp administration with the passion and the integrity that he brings.
They can’t steal all the votes. So please don’t get disenchanted. Come to the polls.
And PS. fifty three percent of the votes is not an impressive showing, even if it were real. Hold strain.
Corrections: Shouptronics/Danaher not Diebold who was also in the voting device business until selling out in September 2009 after the security of their AccuVote-TS machines was brought into serious question. I believe we have the Shouptonics/Danaher Model 1242 which were sold by several counties in Tennesee and North Carolina for $25 each back in 2007 after their penchant for “under counting” or lost votes was discovered. Required is change, right? Now when are candidates going to make it clear that at least the voting process will change if they are elected or re-elected?
Does anyone know who’s the Douglas (caucasian) guy that Usie called out today? The guy was upset and then called back and said that he didn’t appreciate what Usie did and to not ever do it again….lol.
VOTE FOR ANYONE BUT JOHN AND MAPP!
WRITE IN YOUR CHILDREN NAMES
@ Anyone 6:53
You might as well just stay home. You think?