Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kansas Secretary of State Blocks Release of Voting Machine Tapes

Posted by timothy on from the don't-you-worry-your-pretty-little-head dept.

PvtVoid writes: Wichita State University statistician Beth Clarkson has filed a lawsuit under Kansas' open records law to force the state to release paper tape records from voting machines, to be used as data in her research on statistical anomalies in voting patterns in the state. Clarkson, a certified quality engineer with a Ph.D. in statistics, has analyzed election returns in Kansas and elsewhere over several elections that indicate 'a statistically significant' pattern where the percentage of Republican votes increase the larger the size of the precinct. The pattern could be voter fraud or a demographic trend that has not been picked up by extensive polling. Secretary of State Kris Kobach argued that the records sought by Clarkson are not subject to the Kansas open records act, and that their disclosure is prohibited by Kansas statute.

17 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. In other words. by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The secretary is covering up a fraud.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:In other words. by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The secretary is covering up a fraud.

      Or, attempting to follow the law as the secretary claims is the case.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:In other words. by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I did read that the secretary of state considered that the records aren't subject to the Kansas open records act. In my eyes any such avoidance of disclosure means that there's something to hide.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:In other words. by garcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The law should NEVER, EVER, EVER, provide protection over any data available behind public sector activity.

      The public sector frequently claims the release of information will be burdensome; however, the public sector actors are not always forced, by statute (as they are in Minnesota) to ensure records should be held in a way which the sector cannot claim burden in failure to comply.

      This needs to change.

    4. Re:In other words. by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This needs to change.

      Perhaps it does, however until the law IS changed the Secretary of State is correct, it is illegal for these records to be released because of a FOIA request. The person filing this lawsuit has already lost a nearly identical lawsuit in 2013 (the only difference I know of was the date of the election for which records where requested). They are just hoping to "get lucky" and find a sympathetic judge this time around.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:In other words. by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, when it's _us_ they're talking about it's all, "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about".

      When it's _them_? That's a different story....

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:In other words. by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not the first time I've heard the argument that access to voting records can reveal supposedly secret votes. Of course, what this argument reveals, if accurate, is that voting officials are routinely able to determine supposedly secret votes, as they have access to the voting records they refuse to reveal to the public.

      The long-term solution is to ensure that all voting records are routinely made available to the public, meaning that any systems which acts to violate the secrecy of the vote will do so equally for all, leading to the withdrawal of such systems on the grounds that they do not meet the baseline requirements for a voting system meant to maintain the supposedly sacrosanct secrecy of the vote.

      I would have thought this common sense when I was younger.

    7. Re:In other words. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      LMOL, umm no Zippy the people of Kansas have said no such thing. It's the Kansas Secretary of State. It would be very interesting to see if the people of Kansas mind. So much for open government.

    8. Re:In other words. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a HUUUUUUUGE difference between the state asking for location data on a private citizen, and citizens asking to audit the state. The state exists to do the citizens' will and for the citizens benefit. A state's rights are granted to it BY the citizens, not the other way around.

      That said, data should be anonymized if it isn't already. When I vote, my ballot doesn't have any identifying information on it, so releasing records exactly as they were captured wouldn't tell you anything about me at all.

  2. Complete bullshit by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Authority without Accountability = Authoritative Abuse(s)

    When are people going to demand an open and transparent government?

    More important, who stands to gain (or be hurt) if this information was released?

    1. Re:Complete bullshit by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The People really don't want one either. People don't really want to know what is being done in their name by politicians, or else they would be pissed off. Plausible deniability. It is how many Germans ignored the Nazis.

      To know, would require a person of any amount of conscience to act.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  3. Really? by wiggles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > 'a statistically significant' pattern where the percentage of Republican votes increase the larger the size of the precinct.

    The larger the precinct in geographical terms, the more spread out the population. The more spread out, the more rural, the more rural, the more Republicans per capita. Where's the problem here?

  4. Poor excuse by mschaffer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, if the government stores information in an inconvenient format, that makes it exempt from freedom of information requests?
    Pathetic.

  5. It is amazing... by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a amazing how many folks have a "Government is hiding something" default setting here. Who, without reading the background material, conclude that the Kansas Secretary of State is stonewalling with the "it's not legal to release this information" argument.

    I urge you to read both the above article AND the one it links to. You will discover that this researcher filed almost the EXACT same lawsuit years ago and LOST in court back in 2013. The courts agreed with the Secretary of State that the release of this information was illegal according to Kansas law.

    All that's happening now is the researcher is trying to find a judge who might rule differently by filing another lawsuit. She is answer shopping and hoping to "get lucky" this time around. IMHO this is a waste of time and is clogging up the courts with worthless lawsuits.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  6. Re:There is no voter fraud! by dywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, they tell you that In-Person Voter Fraud is close to nonexistent, the most uncommon variety, the hardest to perform, and the least rewarding.
    They also tell you that In-Person Voter Fraud is the only form prevented by Voter ID laws.

    And that in an effort to stop those tens of invalid in-person votes per year on a national scale, the trade off is disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters nationwide. Voters who are overwhelming tend to be poor/minority/democratic voters. There are still several other forms of fraud that are easier to perform, and much more affecting of the outcome of an election, which Voter ID does nothing about.

    Do try to learn about the topic before speaking.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  7. Re:There is no voter fraud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There was 235 MILLION registered voters in the 2012 election. Hundreds of thousands is a statistical fluke. A difference of a few degrees outside is also likely to affect turnout by 0.05%. New Hampshire typically schedules their elections on a Tuesday in March, sun or snow. Heck, a few years ago turnout was so low our vote on a town policy didn't reach quorum. A strong effort to boycott the election may also have helped. Yes, you read that right. (The difference between a "No" vote and a failed vote had something to do with how the measure could be re-introduced later.)

    Check your claim that it "overwhelming tends to be poor/minority/democratic" voters, too: Much Ado About Nothing? An Empirical Assessment of the Georgia Voter Identification Statute

    Substantively, the law lowered turnout by about four-tenths of a percentage point in 2008. However, we find no empirical evidence to suggest that there is a racial or ethnic component to this suppression effect.

    Voter ID laws don't suppress democrats, either. Well, not living ones, anyways.

    I don't like encouraging the spread of ID requirements by the government either... you know, having to get permission from the federal government to TAKE A JOB comes to mind. But voting? Seriously? It's a state ID for a state purpose.

  8. So then... why bother with the bloody paper tapes? by Average · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it's legally impossible to request a review of them, why bother with creating and storing the paper tapes in the first place?

    Which leads, I guess, to the next question. If it's legally impossible to review an election, why bother holding them in the first place?