Kansas Secretary of State Blocks Release of Voting Machine Tapes

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.

Comments

In other words.

[Z00L00K]

The secretary is covering up a fraud.

Re:In other words.

[fustakrakich]

Well, yeah!

Too bad it won't motivate us all to trash these contraptions. They are designed to commit fraud. So, in that case, they are working perfectly and we should keep them!

Re:In other words.

[Kreplock]

Maybe. Did you read TFA? They did respond, they just didn't give her what she wants, which they say would be really hard to produce. Yes, they could be full of shit, but that's not a foregone conclusion. Need more data.

Re:In other words.

[bobbied]

The secretary is covering up a fraud.

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

Re:In other words.

[Z00L00K]

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.

Re:In other words.

[_Sharp'r_]

"Each person’s vote in the 2013 election takes up about 27½ inches of the electronic machine’s paper trail. Each roll from the 2014 election is 385 feet long, and stored in 42 boxes that are not segregated by precinct or voting district."

Definitely not as easy as making a photo copy. Maybe they could let her pay to hire someone to sort through, find the right roll (without damaging anything), then carefully unroll and photograph it for later study before re-rolling it?

One issue of course would be that the voting registry (which is public already and contains who voted and is time stamped, so also in what order) could very easily be used to guesstimate matching up specific people with specific votes, as the roll is going to be in chronological order as well. I'm not totally familiar with Kansas law, but there's a good chance they're legally supposed to have a secret ballot.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or from the summary 'and that their disclosure is prohibited by Kansas statute.'

Is it right? Maybe. You could use those records to target people you didnt like for voting how you didnt like. It has been done in the past. It is why the records are typically locked up and only brought out if there is a challenge.

However it is the law. The law is there for a reason. Disagree with that law? First move to Kansas. Then work to get it changed.

Re:In other words.

[bobbied]

Did you read the part of the linked to article that says that a similar request was refused and the court agreed that these records are not releasable though a FOIA request back in 2013? Yea, didn't think so...

Re:In other words.

[garcia]

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.

Re:In other words.

[circletimessquare]

The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are separate concepts.

The laws are often written where vague terminology, grey areas, and wiggle room can be extended or limited according to whim.

I do hope she gets the records another way, that satisfies all of the legal snags, real and ridiculously interpreted.

Even better if the Secretary helps Beth do that. Right?

But if another attempt results in another overly aggressive block, maybe you should stop defending the corrupt and believing their lies.

Re:In other words.

[bobbied]

No, the secretary of state is correct. There was a nearly identical court case brought by the same person for the same kind of records which was ruled on in 2013. The court sided with the Secretary of State's position. It's unlawful to release these records because of a FOIA request. This researcher is just trying her luck in court hoping for a different ruling.

Re:In other words.

[bobbied]

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.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I should have access to your taxes returns, right?

The reason why census data is protected for 70 years is because people would be much less honest if they thought everything they report would be immediately made public information.

I don't know where this election data sits on the spectrum between taxes and census data, where there's ample support for confidentiality, and something like expenditure accounting, where any secrecy is of little value and at high risk for abuse.

Also, let's not forget that aside from national security concerns, courts have the power to view any kind of public record. The only limitation is being able to make a prima facia case to the court without the benefit of the records of interest. But in the vast majority of fraud cases there's plenty of other evidence available.

Too many things are kept out of the public sphere. But we'll never improve the situation using uninformed arguments.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

First move to Kansas. Then work to get it changed.

Nah, I would rather watch Kansas continue to implode.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

There is a good reason for these laws.

Here is a nice movie to watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505

One of the central points of the movie is how voting is manipulated thru force. People buying votes then making sure you vote correctly.

Think about it this way. You work somewhere. Your not very good at anything else and the closest comparable job is 100 miles away. This job is all you got. Moving is not an option. You walk to work and are barely getting by. Your boss comes in and says 'you are voting for X and I want to see proof of it on my desk tomorrow after you vote or find another job'. What do you do? Most people tuck tail suck it up and vote how their boss wants.

These laws were created to stop that sort of abuse. It is the reason you can not take a selfi at the polls. Basically thugs buying/bullying votes and if they didnt get their way would hurt you and your family financially and/or physically.

If the machines are faulty you will need to prove that. Go... do so. However the records are probably off limits. Which is going to make your job extremely hard to do. But if someone can write an emulator I think someone can reverse engineer one of these boxes easily enough.

Re:In other words.

[JackieBrown]

I thought there was no voter fraud? Isn't that what is said when states try to pass voter id laws?

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the letter of the law is too specific, there's no room for the spirit of the law.

Loopholes almost always come about from laws being _too_ narrow and _too_ specific. If you're a lobbyist, you craft or have your congress critter craft the law to be extremely detailed. And hidden in that detail you insert a distinguishing characteristic that excludes you from the class of persons regulated by the law.

Rare is the law which is considered so vague that courts are reluctant to enforce it. And usually this only occurs in the context of criminal law.

If you want fewer loopholes, you want laws to be written the way they were 100 or 200 years ago--using abstract legalese and more general language. Then wait & watch as the courts apply it to specific situations. Usually they'll do the right thing. If they don't, you then carefully amend the law to include or exclude the cases you think were interpreted wrongly. Rinse & repeat.

But that would be expecting too much. The modern form of drafting legislation has proved too fertile for lobbyists, so I don't expect it to change. And conservatives have done too well convincing the public that "activists" courts are somehow a bad thing, and that judges should have less freedom in interpretation. The only way to remove such freedom is to write legislation with increasing detail.

Re:In other words.

[Joce640k]

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....

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

So secret that no one can look at it?

there are rules in place for those are may be required to look at it in the performance of their official duties, and it's not unheard of for researchers to be allowed access to such if they are willing to undergo and fulfill the same requirements, NDAs, etc.

Re:In other words.

[suutar]

I wouldn't call it "nearly identical". Clarkson's new request better maintains the anonymity of the votes, by eliminating a geographic factor (which should also reduce the burden on the state, since one of their gripes was that they don't keep the tapes grouped by district) and it looks like the anonymity issue is what got her refused last time (by the judge).

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

I somehow doubt her intent to publish who voted for what.
someone has to have access to the actual ballots.
there is no reason she can't simply follow the same rules in order to perform her research.

Re:In other words.

[Capt.Albatross]

Did you read the part of the linked to article that says that a similar request was refused and the court agreed that these records are not releasable though a FOIA request back in 2013? Yea, didn't think so...

And that proves there's nothing to hide because...?

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about Republican voter fraud. Voter ID laws can't be allowed because they would impede Democrat voter fraud.

Re:In other words.

[Opportunist]

More likely he knows that those machines are crap, that it was proven they're crap, that he knew they're crap and yet greenlit them, and that he fears for his comfy seat when the uncomfortable questions start rolling in.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case I agree with you but don't get ahead of yourself with the "NEVER, EVER, EVER." There are a ton of things that the public sector deals with that isn't and shouldn't be public:

Veterans services records, foster care records, food stamp and other need based case work, adult healthcare records, women centers data, domestic violence support data, child protective services data, tons of HIPAA data and medical records, employees personal data, public school student data, criminal investigations, and many, many other things.

Most people haven't the slightest clue about the breadth of data that even a moderately sized city or county government deals with and how much of it is protected private data. As someone who worked in the public sector and was involved heavily in complying with public records requests, it's not as simple as "open everything up". Not to mention that people fail to realize how much of their own personal information is in these systems (lots).

Re:In other words.

[mtrachtenberg]

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.

Re:In other words.

[penguinoid]

One issue of course would be that the voting registry (which is public already and contains who voted and is time stamped, so also in what order) could very easily be used to guesstimate matching up specific people with specific votes, as the roll is going to be in chronological order as well. I'm not totally familiar with Kansas law, but there's a good chance they're legally supposed to have a secret ballot.

Secret ballots are primarily supposed to be secret from the government.

Re:In other words.

[Nemesisghost]

Did you read the part of the linked to article that says that a similar request was refused and the court agreed that these records are not releasable though a FOIA request back in 2013? Yea, didn't think so...

And that proves there's nothing to hide because...?

The same as there's nothing to hide by your refusal to hand over your phone's GPS data to a cop just because he asks. Oh, you don't like everybody & their dog knowing what you did or who you voted for? Neither do the people who live in Kansas.

Re:In other words.

[oh_my_080980980]

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.

Re:In other words.

[Nemesisghost]

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

Even if that data might reveal information about private citizens? Have you considered the fact that the people this data is about might not want it made public?

What if someone voted for the candidate that their spouse is violently opposed to? Should we endanger that person because you want to know how everybody is voting? That's obviously an extreme case, but the scenario is a valid one. How many people would vote differently if they knew that information would be made public?

I'd agree with you if this was government data about government activities. But this is government data about private citizens private activities.

Re:In other words.

[topology]

Did you read the part of the linked to article that says that a similar request was refused and the court agreed that these records are not releasable though a FOIA request back in 2013? Yea, didn't think so...

And that proves there's nothing to hide because...?

It is standard practice for bureaucratic offices to deny requests which are not made through proper means. Citing that the request was made through improper means does not entail that there is something to hide, merely that the bureaucrats are either lazy or just not prone to sharing information unless required to by law.

The belief that "there is something to hide" is not supported by the events and is a projection of a mind prone to paranoia. That's not to say that there isn't something to hide, but merely that inferring such from the events is not a sound inference.

Re:In other words.

[oh_my_080980980]

Where the hell does it say that requesting those records is illegal? All it says it that it would cause undo burden. Apparently you can do any research. http://bethclarkson.com/?p=463 The 2013 lawsuit was rejected, again, on the ground that it would cause undo burden and **NOT** because the request was illegal.

You can stop trolling now.

Re:In other words.

[oh_my_080980980]

"It's unlawful to release these records because of a FOIA request."

No, not illegal just undo burden.

Re:In other words.

[khallow]

If the machines are faulty you will need to prove that. Go... do so. However the records are probably off limits. Which is going to make your job extremely hard to do. But if someone can write an emulator I think someone can reverse engineer one of these boxes easily enough.

Which is real convenient here. I don't buy it at all. It's three years after the elections in question and it'll be even later than that by the time any access is obtained, if ever. That's a ridiculous delay for any sort of vote coercion to occur.

I think there's a reasonable case here for illegal vote manipulation and that this illegal activity is just as bad as vote coercion.

Re:In other words.

[SecurityGuy]

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.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a resident of Brownbackistan... err Kansas, I say let the researcher have the records..

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, it also serves as the perfect cover for actually hiding things, and around and around we go. Transparency shouldn't be a bad thing.

Re:In other words.

[Kreplock]

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.

Of course it could just as easily be that they are understaffed and will not take time to comply with requests they don't have to. Or, they have plenty of staff but can't be arsed to stop updating Facebook to comply with requests they don't have to. Any road, the records are in a rotten format that would take a lot of effort to work through to comply with a request they are not required to comply with. So, quite possible they're saying piss off because they can, not because they have nothing to hide.

Re:In other words.

[erapert]

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.

In which case it also wouldn't prove anything at all, like whether your vote was fraudulent or not.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure votes and the records of them are a matter of public record.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

So secret that no one can look at it?

That's what a secret is.

Re:In other words.

[erapert]

by eliminating a geographic factor...

But from the summary:

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

TFA didn't clarify whether she meant "size" as in "number of people" or as in "area" but the term "precinct" refers to a specific location (area).

Re:In other words.

[Your.Master]

Is that actually the case? I thought a big purpose was to avoid voter intimidation by non-governmental vigilantes who oppose a particular candidate.

Re:In other words.

[Penguinisto]

1) "undue burden" - FFS... I'm not normally a grammar nazi, but that's just plain irritating.

2) If a court said it was "unlawful", they meant "unlawful", exactly as stated. Courts use specific words and do so in a specific language for a reason.

Re:In other words.

[Your.Master]

That's a ridiculous delay for any sort of vote coercion to occur.

How is that in any way ridiculous? The whole point of coercion is they come back and punish you if they find out later. If they can find out in 3 years and use it against you, you can still be intimidated. If you vote that way anyway, they'll come and break your kid's legs, and next year you'll know to vote with the thugs (the police aren't exactly going to be guarding you 24/7 for 3 years just in case this happens). Therefore the law must protect anonymity in these records a lot longer than 3 years.

I think what's needed is an alternate way to keep these records, which is both anonymous and non-burdensome to reveal in aggregation. If for whatever reason individual votes are needed, then shuffle them in random order or whatever. Surely this is technically possible? Maybe Kansas fucked up the record-keeping in the past but we can always fix the record-keeping now. Maybe there was fraud in the past that is unprovable, but that doesn't mean we can't put into place measures that prevent future fraud.

If they really wanted to commit fraud, what stops them from sending back false records, rather than sending no records?

Re:In other words.

[StatureOfLiberty]

Is that actually the case? I thought a big purpose was to avoid voter intimidation by non-governmental vigilantes who oppose a particular candidate.

It is also make it difficult to buy a vote. The buyer can't verify that the seller actually voted for their candidate.

Re:In other words.

[tburkhol]

In which case it also wouldn't prove anything at all, like whether your vote was fraudulent or not.

The point of this investigation is not to determine who voted for whom, which is, in fact, illegal. The point of this investigation is to determine whether, in aggregate, there are discrepancies between voting results and other recognized demographic trends.

If it turns out that a neighborhood of poor black people voted 80% Republican, it doesn't necessarily mean fraud. Maybe the neighborhood got very gentrified between when the demographics were reported and the election. Maybe the particular candidate had a specific message that appealed well to that exact neighborhood. Maybe his opponent's ex-wife lived in the area. Discrepancies between expected population trends and observed population trends are interesting.

Re:In other words.

[omnichad]

A FOIA should probably come with some serious strings attached, because it's just as important to protect the secret ballot and that's at odds with complete freedom of information.

Re:In other words.

[khallow]

As I already said. I don't buy this argument at all.

Re:In other words.

[pla]

Is that actually the case? I thought a big purpose was to avoid voter intimidation by non-governmental vigilantes who oppose a particular candidate.

Absolutely! Your reason also holds true, but it comes in a distant second.

We tend to minimize the "Uncle Sam knows who you voted for" angle precisely because we don't live in a country where we routinely round up people who voted for the "wrong" candidate to torture or execute or "reeducate" them.

By contrast, consider (whatever your stance on the post-9/11 Iraq war) that Saddam Hussein routinely won reelection by an almost unanimous vote for precisely that reason.

Re:In other words.

[Tough Love]

Too bad it won't motivate us all to trash these contraptions.

While at it, what about trashing the perps and the beneficiaries?

Re:In other words.

[kwbauer]

And that information is already available to the researcher. Even the summary said that.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's information about individual citizens, then it's already a corrupt vote since that information does not have any business being in there.

And having it there identifiable to the government or the ballot counters at least ensures that the votes cannot be anonymous, therefore illegal.

Re:In other words.

[jmac_the_man]

Secret ballots are primarily supposed to be secret from the government.

You realize that the researcher works for the government, right? I get it. "Wichita State" is a confusing name because there isn't a state called Wichita. It's really run by the state of Kansas.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

The District Court that ruled in favor of the state was ruled on by an elected official.

http://www.dc18.org/judges/judges.shtml

Seems maybe like a conflict for an elected official to rule for or against a case that deals with elections results, no?

Re:In other words.

[Capt.Albatross]

You are getting confused over who is claiming certainty in this discussion. No-one is claiming that it is proven that something is being hidden, but someone (bobbied, initially) is claiming (or at least apparently trying to imply; he hasn't yet chosen to clarify his comment) that it is out of the question that something is being hidden.

Re:In other words.

[bobbied]

Did you read the part of the linked to article that says that a similar request was refused and the court agreed that these records are not releasable though a FOIA request back in 2013? Yea, didn't think so...

And that proves there's nothing to hide because...?

Never claimed that there was "nothing to hide" only that the courts have already said the researcher may not get the information in her FOIA request.

Why is it folks default setting that when a FOIA request is refused on legal grounds you can assume somebody is hiding something? Might it be a Secretary of State who is just trying to uphold the laws of the state?

IMHO All that's really going on here is some researcher is trying to apply pressure in the press to get data she wants but is not entitled to get and is making unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in an attempt to bolster her case. Nobody has any evidence of vote fraud here, only theories born of ideological bias..

Re:In other words.

[bobbied]

"It's unlawful to release these records because of a FOIA request." No, not illegal just undo burden.

No, illegal.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/...

Secretary of State Kobach filed a legal challenge to the suit. It states the records are sealed by state statute and that he is not the custodian of the records. It also points out Carlson filed a similar lawsuit for the paper records in 2013 and was denied access to the paper trail. The judge ruled that the records, even though they did not contain personally identifiable information, were still ballots.

The Secretary of State cannot legally release this information.

Re:In other words.

[bobbied]

Secretary of State Kobach filed a legal challenge to the suit. It states the records are sealed by state statute and that he is not the custodian of the records. It also points out Carlson filed a similar lawsuit for the paper records in 2013 and was denied access to the paper trail. The judge ruled that the records, even though they did not contain personally identifiable information, were still ballots.

From: http://sunlightfoundation.com/...

The request may not be illegal, but fulfilling that request WOULD be illegal due to state laws which are designed to protect the anonymous voter from having their secret ballots exposed. Or, perhaps YOU would want us to publish who voted for who? No? Me neither.

Re:In other words.

[bobbied]

http://www.hdnews.net/opinion/...

There’s an important reason why neither I, nor Sedgwick County officials, can hand over any ballots to the WSU employee — because it’s a crime to do so. Under K.S.A. 25-2422, it’s a felony to “disclos(e) or expos(e) the contents of any ballot” after the election contest period has ended, even if the names of voters are redacted. Another Kansas law, K.S.A. 25-3107(a), specifically prohibits county election officials from unsealing the containers in which ballots are kept after an election. Only under a judicial order, when the outcome of a specific race has been contested, can those containers be unsealed.

That is in the Secretary of State's own words. He'd be committing a crime... It's illegal....

Re:In other words.

[bobbied]

AND.... In the Secetary's own words... http://www.hdnews.net/opinion/...

There’s an important reason why neither I, nor Sedgwick County officials, can hand over any ballots to the WSU employee — because it’s a crime to do so. Under K.S.A. 25-2422, it’s a felony to “disclos(e) or expos(e) the contents of any ballot” after the election contest period has ended, even if the names of voters are redacted. Another Kansas law, K.S.A. 25-3107(a), specifically prohibits county election officials from unsealing the containers in which ballots are kept after an election. Only under a judicial order, when the outcome of a specific race has been contested, can those containers be unsealed.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe the tapes contain personally identifiable data, and providing the tapes while scrubbing that data would be hard to produce.

Re:In other words.

[ttucker]

As I already said. I don't buy this argument at all.

Nobody cares.

Re:In other words.

[OdinOdin_]

UNDO burden ??? UNDUE burden ???

Re:In other words.

[jklovanc]

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.

There is a huge gap between "can" and " routinely able to". For example, certain people "can" run a mile in under 4 minutes but not everyone is "routinely able to". In the instance of these voting records it would take a lot of work to link a vote with a person. Any government agency doing this would probably have at least one whistle blower who would publicize the effort.

Re:In other words.

[wevets]

A person's ballot is supposed/required to be anonymous to and secret from the people counting the votes or anyone who may ever look at the votes. It is reasonable to assume that regardless of how they are stored, the Kansas voting paper trail upholds that standard. If it is ever possible to tie a specific ballot to an individual person by the methods you propose, then Kansas has a lot to answer for.

Re:In other words.

[compro01]

There isn't any meaningful amount of voter fraud.

What this looks like is electoral fraud, which is something else entirely.

Re:In other words.

[gtall]

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

Could you please post your SS#, public sector activity information wants to be free.

Re:In other words.

[multimediavt]

The demographic info yes, but the researcher is looking at statistical anomalies in voting trends among those demographics, within their respective geolocations to find discrepancies that would possibly indicate voter fraud. Since the Republican party is so worried about voter fraud I don't see why a Republican SoS would NOT want to support research into possible voter fraud in his/her state. Seems more than a little hypocritical if not down right fishy.

Re:In other words.

[multimediavt]

Just because I voted in a polling place between 7:00 and 8:00 AM doesn't mean they can locate MY vote from the dozen voting machines that were in that polling place. There were 11 other people voting along with me and they were supplanted by others during that same window of time I was voting, i.e., people came and went during my time. Sure, you could say these people voted during that period of time in that polling place (after the fact), but that still doesn't give me personal information about those people, nor does it tell me which vote during that time period is theirs. It could give you a ratio of votes for or against something, but it still doesn't tell you who voted which way.

Re:In other words.

[d'baba]

Definitely not as easy as making a photo copy. Maybe they could let her pay to hire someone to sort through, find the right roll (without damaging anything), then carefully unroll and photograph it for later study before re-rolling it?

It would be as easy as setting up a continuous feed scanner. The mechanical bits being the most problematic. And the added benefit of creating machine readable output.

Re:In other words.

[multimediavt]

One issue of course would be that the voting registry (which is public already and contains who voted and is time stamped, so also in what order) could very easily be used to guesstimate matching up specific people with specific votes, as the roll is going to be in chronological order as well. I'm not totally familiar with Kansas law, but there's a good chance they're legally supposed to have a secret ballot.

Secret ballots are primarily supposed to be secret from the government.

No, they are supposed to be secret to anonymize who voted for what/whom to prevent reprisal or intimidation. I am not sure what history books you're reading or where you get your definitions, but they certainly aren't from factual sources. Try reading this: http://www.iupress.indiana.edu...

Re:In other words.

[rahvin112]

The summarized electronic information is available, not the backup paper tape that records the actual vote and IS the backup for checking the electronic records. The whole purpose of the paper tapes is so fraud can be checked and elections verified. Electronic aggregate records can be tampered with, the only way to alter the paper tapes is to screw with the voting machines before the vote so vote A = B. I check my tapes when I vote to ensure it's recorded correctly and my state encourages voters to do the same. The tape is the official vote record in my state and I'm sure it's the same in Kansas.

What that means is they gave her the unofficial count, not the official records.

Re:In other words.

[rahvin112]

Secret ballots aren't just to protect from the government knowing. They are to protect from anyone knowing. Knowing who votes for who would allow for vote buying, intimidation and all sorts of very negative election behavior. None of which are trivial.

You can't have free elections period if anyone knows who voted for who. A strictly anonymous vote is the only way for democracy to work.

Re:In other words.

[rahvin112]

The tapes have no voter names on them. You're a moron that doesn't know what they are talking about.

Think about it, if there was a way to tie the vote to the voter with any of this information the government would know what every single person voted for and would breach the very idea of an anonymous vote. The names and connection to actual voters is never recorded for this very reason. It's impossible to tie a person to the ballot they cast.

Re:In other words.

[dryeo]

The question is why the government passed a law that makes it illegal to verify that no fraud took place. It seems to be standard procedure to pass laws to make it hard to uncover fraud. My government did it with the Orwellian "Fair Elections Act" that amongst other things declawed the agency in charge of verifying the election was fraud free.

Re:In other words.

[dryeo]

Newsflash, government that wins election through fraud passes law to make it illegal to investigate election fraud.

Re:In other words.

[Capt.Albatross]

You can call defense of democracy an ideological bias if you like, but you won't make many friends here doing so.

Re:In other words.

[thegarbz]

Flip the argument around: A legal precedent exists for a decision not to release documents, so why does that prove something to hide?

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the information is too hard to read, why is it being stored at all?

If the information is plausibly readable, why is it unreasonable to ask for a copy?

And if the information violates voter secrecy then it's a problem whether or not this request is fulfilled, because there are already more than 0 people with access to it and exactly 0 people who are allowed to violate voter secrecy. We can't just plaster over improper voting procedures, at least not if we want them to ever get better.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

If your argument is that there are reasons for the state to keep secrets, and you have reason to believe these records fall into that category, feel free to make that case.

But it's unethical to enforce unjust laws, and we should never value order over doing the right thing, particularly in positions of authority.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the unarmed people that the government is shooting on a regular basis.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

For the election this request was filed for, it was requested during the period, but was ignored for a while, then the above was quoted. Thus the 2nd lawsuit.

Re: In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the government. They are hiding something plain and simple. All levels of government in the United States is corrupt. Different levels of corruption but all are corrupt. We need transparent government and we just don't have anything that resembles it yet.

Re: In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because republicans are not concerned at all with ELECTION fraud, which curiously seems to only benefit them ever since electronic voting machines were voted into existence by those very same republicans.

Re:In other words.

[AaronW]

The republican party is so worried about voter fraud that doesn't benefit them. There, fixed it for you. In virtually every case where they claim widespread fraud and the need for voter ID laws and other restrictions there has been no evidence to support that. In most cases it's voter fraud perpetrated by Republicans trying to limit access to voting to people who won't vote for them, i.e. the poor and elderly who may be less likely to vote for them and they often restrict the number of voting machines and how long the precincts are open in areas likely to not vote for them.

Re:In other words.

[khallow]

The argument is ridiculous because it protects IMHO a violation of the electoral process which is just as dangerous. The whole point of having those tapes was to provide a means to verify the legality of the vote. And the point of providing a copy rather than merely access is that access can be blocked or delayed, but once the investigator has a copy, that sort of obstruction can no longer occur.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

Undo: to perform the inverse of an action; to revert to a previous state

Undue: not justifiable

Re:In other words.

[ndogg]

> If the machines are faulty you will need to prove that. Go... do so. However the records are probably off limits. Which is going to make your job extremely hard to do. But if someone can write an emulator I think someone can reverse engineer one of these boxes easily enough.

That assumes the fraud is happening at the level of the voting machines, when it could easily be at a level higher than that.

Re:In other words.

[cusco]

IIRC, the law says that in order to get the court order to unseal the ballot records the requester must first prove that vote fraud had taken place, but they're unable to prove fraud without access to the ballots. There is only one reason that I can think of to write the laws that way.

Re:In other words.

[cusco]

More often than not it's at the 'Tabulator', the computer in the precinct that sums the votes of all the machines at that location and relay it to the county seat. Interestingly, although the actual voting machines now have to pass some tests (after years of Republican obstructionism) the tabulators do not. They're all highly proprietary, closed source, not interoperable between manufacturers, and most of them use either Access or Excel for their database.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't this imply that audit the election afterwards was also suitable difficult (impossible)?

If so, it sounds like a major flaw in the system.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

Living in northern ireland, we had a problem with voter fraud (the tag line "Vote early, vote often." is still a favourite here) they changed our paper ballots so now each ballot has a unique number on it and that number is noted next to your name on the voter list when you vote. It's perfectly possible to determine who voted for whom if one had access to the ballots.

Re:In other words.

[adhdengineer]

The state should keep my secrets tho. and my secrets include for whom i voted.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

These are public records paid for by citizens that directly determine whether we are a democracy or not. Can you really not see the difference? Really?

Re:In other words.

[Capt.Albatross]

Flip the argument around: A legal precedent exists for a decision not to release documents, so why does that prove something to hide?

You, topology and bobbied are making a basic logical error here. The fact that there is no proof of anything to hide is not proof that there is nothing to hide.

Re:In other words.

[Drakonblayde]

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 the disclosure of voting records is specifically prohibited by statute, as the summary would seem to indicate, that is not indicative of any kind of coverup in and of itself. Non-federal government officials who ignore the dictates of the legislature tend to not fare well. The first step would be to get the legislature to amend or repeal said statute in order to legally make the records able to be disclosed. If they still refused, then it would be a matter of whether or not a coverup was happening

Re:In other words.

[Drakonblayde]

The District Court that ruled in favor of the state was ruled on by an elected official.

http://www.dc18.org/judges/judges.shtml

Seems maybe like a conflict for an elected official to rule for or against a case that deals with elections results, no?

As opposed to an appointed official? Likely appointed by an elected one? That could potentially be an even larger conflict

Re:In other words.

[thegarbz]

It's not a logical error. It's pointing out that the discussion further up amounts to something even less than a presumed crime.

Not releasing proof is not proof of something being hidden.
Not releasing proof is not proof of nothing being hidden.

Both statements are true and independent.

Re: In other words.

[WindBourne]

Except, the tape does not ID a person . so, no, this would not be intrusion into anybodys personal life.

Re: In other words.

[WindBourne]

Except she went through proper channels. She is in court because they denied here. And laziness on SoS part is not a reason to not turn over tapes which do not ID ppl.

Re:In other words.

[ExekielS]

Only the people and the government are not the same thing. If a cop asks me to do something without just cause it is my constitutional right to refuse, if the government refuses to give the people information, they are impeding democracy, covering up the truth, and failing to be an open democracy.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

The comment you replied to was posted by Nemesisghost, not Zippy.

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

also, anonymity is the only way to have true freedom of speech

Re:In other words.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sorry you do not buy my argument. Having worked with and met some real lets put it nicely 'interesting' people over the years. I could 100% see them doing something like I argued. The only reason they dont is because they can not get away with it. Not that it is illegal (which never enters their minds). Just that they can not actually physically do the coercion because there is no 'proof' to gather.

That's a ridiculous delay for any sort of vote coercion to occur.
I have seen people hold a grudge for 40+ years. What makes you think someone irrational enough to do this would 'let it go' as it were? They are by definition already doing bad things. They do not care. They just want you to fall in line and do what they want. Lets say you voted 3 years ago. Today they find out you did not vote the way they wanted. Do you think the anger has worn off? No, they are going to be pissed *right* *now* and take care of it *right* *now* because to them it is new. Still dont think so? Take for example the recent hack of ashley madison. I was reading about a dude who signed up on it years ago. Never really used it but he is 'in the system'. His bride to be that he met last year and to be married in 3 weeks looks him up. Now is she going to be rational and calm? No, her fiance used a cheaters website! People are not rational when they 'just find out'.

Do not let the politics blind you. These laws exist to protect people and our system. As you rightly are thinking 'but it lets people get away with things in secret'. Yes it does. Which makes vigilance even harder. I agree with you if something happened it should be investigated. But the law as it is currently written does not allow for this sort of investigation. Then when you create 'exceptions' you create loopholes for people to exploit. This case yes a good amount of time went by. But lets say you let the exception you are talking about. What stops someone else from creating a 'study' but the 'study' is just a way to find out who voted for what? How do you stop that? Keep in mind things like what the NSA does anyone else can do with metadata matching.

You are assuming people are not dicks. They are.

Re:In other words.

[un1nsp1red]

Now if they could just find a way to prevent fraud due to amnesia.

Re:In other words.

[davsi]

haha "anonymized"

Re:In other words.

[khallow]

And we should allow a major crime to go unpunished because someone might hold a grudge for more than four decades? This is nonsense, especially since you have yet to explain how someone will determine who voted for who.

Re:In other words.

[bobbied]

You are a partisan in this, or at least being influenced by partisan rhetoric.

These documents where declared "Ballots" by the court back in 2013. The documents being requested are NOT legally releasable because we vote by "secret ballot" in this country. State law reflects this reality and makes it clear that ballots may not be released for any reason EXCEPT to determine the actual winner in an election, and then only if ordered by the court in response to a dispute over the election results and then, only to be counted again. Research is NOT a valid reason under the law.

Re:In other words.

[bobbied]

The law predates this guy's term in office by decades, like way back before 1974 by my research... You are a partisan hack...

Re:In other words.

[bobbied]

Incorrect... The law says:

25-2422. Unauthorized voting disclosure.

(a) Unauthorized voting disclosure is, while being charged with any election duty, intentionally:

(1) Disclosing or exposing the contents of any ballot, whether cast in a regular or provisional manner, or the name of any voter who cast such ballot, except as ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction in an election contest pursuant to K.S.A. 25-1434 et seq., and amendments thereto; or

(2) inducing or attempting to induce any voter to show how the voter marks or has marked the voter's ballot.

(b) The name of any voter who has cast a ballot shall not be disclosed from the time the ballot is cast until the final canvass of the election by the county board of canvassers.

(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the disclosure of the names of persons who have voted advance ballots.

(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit authorized poll agents from observing elections as authorized by K.S.A. 25-3004, 25-3005 and 25-3005a, and amendments thereto.

(e) Unauthorized voting disclosure is a severity level 10, nonperson felony.

Re:In other words.

[bobbied]

The tapes have no voter names on them. You're a moron that doesn't know what they are talking about.

Think about it, if there was a way to tie the vote to the voter with any of this information the government would know what every single person voted for and would breach the very idea of an anonymous vote. The names and connection to actual voters is never recorded for this very reason. It's impossible to tie a person to the ballot they cast.

The judge in the 2013 case called these records "Ballots" and said that even though they didn't have voter's names, they where not releasable under state law. Nothing material has changed. These records are not releasable to ANYBODY except when there is an election result dispute and a recount is ordered. the researcher cannot legally obtain these records. The only unique difference in the researcher's new lawsuit is her claim that by requesting more ballots there is no way to determine what an individual's vote was because she is requesting a larger sample size. However, the law clearly says that "ballots" may not be released under any circumstances except to be recounted by the election board to settle a dispute over election results. Research is simply not a lawful reason for the records to be released.

Re:In other words.

[cusco]

None of that has anything to do with unsealing the ballots, unless you have some magical way to link that ballot with a specific voter (hint: there isn't, even in these clusterfuck systems).

Re:In other words.

[bobbied]

You are arguing with the court then. The Sedgwick County judge found these records to be "ballots" in 2013 and blocked their release. So if you don't like this, you need to move to Kansas and get the law changed, or perhaps you can move to Wichita KS and get the Sedgwick County Judge replaced too.

The judge said that even though an individual ballot might not have a voter's ID attached, it constituted a "ballot" and releasing these ballots might possibly lead to exposing who someone may have voted for. The law makes it clear, ballots are NOT EVER released into the public domain. Even during a recount they are counted by election officials and resealed, only to be opened by court order.

So... This researcher may not have these records, the Secretary of State may not release them, and the court has previously decided this vary issue back in 2013. You need to get over it now and let the partisan nitpicking stop.

gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[Anonymous Coward]

What possible reason could there be to not let anyone who wants to look at the audit trail of election votes?

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want my employer to know that I usually vote for Democrats.

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[Fire_Wraith]

That's easily fixed by making sure the results provided to the FOIA/etc type request are sufficiently anonymized. The audit trail shouldn't rely on matching each vote to a specific individual voter. If there is fraud involved, it will show up through other patterns, because they don't match what reality would be expected to generate, and tend to stand out as massive statistical outliers.

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[hawguy]

I don't want my employer to know that I usually vote for Democrats.

Don't the audit tapes just have anonymous ballot numbers? if you don't share your ballot receipt with your employer, you should be safe, especially if your employer is not the researching seeking the tapes since he, presumably, is doing statistical analysis and is not posting them online.

Though if your employer cares enough about how you vote that it actually worries you if they found out, perhaps you ought to get a new job

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[bobbied]

What possible reason could there be to not let anyone who wants to look at the audit trail of election votes?

Perhaps it is unlawful to release these records Kansas? Oh wait, that's what the secretary of state is claiming....

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[Anonymous Coward]

The audit trail shouldn't rely on matching each vote to a specific individual voter.

That's literally the only way to verify that each voter only voted once, and that no votes were cast by persons who don't exist or didn't vote.

If there is fraud involved, it will show up through other patterns, because they don't match what reality would be expected to generate, and tend to stand out as massive statistical outliers.

Knowing that there were extreme statistical outliers did nothing in the case of the 2000 election. Clearly, it's not enough. People need a smoking gun.

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[Anonymous Coward]

to coverup a fixed election

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[suutar]

and the researcher says that the statute requires them to remain anonymous, not unseen. If her plan keeps the records anonymous, then is it still illegal? (I haven't looked up the statute itself, but I assume if it clearly refuted the "anonymous, not unseen" part someone would have mentioned it in the news stories.)

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[oh_my_080980980]

Oh wait it isn't....sorry Zippy....

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[Bartles]

or 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014.

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[bobbied]

If the state law says the voter must remain anonymous and the court has previously said that releasing the records violates that law, this is NOT different.

It doesn't matter what the researcher says she will do with the information, it matters what the state releases. So even if the researcher says they won't release any voter identification information, it doesn't matter, she cannot, by law, have it.

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[bobbied]

Secretary of State Kobach filed a legal challenge to the suit. It states the records are sealed by state statute and that he is not the custodian of the records. It also points out Carlson filed a similar lawsuit for the paper records in 2013 and was denied access to the paper trail. The judge ruled that the records, even though they did not contain personally identifiable information, were still ballots.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/...

What say you now Dopey?

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[bobbied]

Oh yes it was.... Read this: http://www.hdnews.net/opinion/...

Specifically where he says the following:

Secretary of State Kobach filed a legal challenge to the suit. It states the records are sealed by state statute and that he is not the custodian of the records. It also points out Carlson filed a similar lawsuit for the paper records in 2013 and was denied access to the paper trail. The judge ruled that the records, even though they did not contain personally identifiable information, were still ballots.

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[suutar]

The court has ruled that releasing records from a single district violates that. Perhaps releasing records sampled over multiple districts randomly doesn't. Or perhaps it does. It's not about what she's going to do with them, it's about which records she gets to look at and whether there's enough information in that data set to reduce anonymity.

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[Anonymous Coward]

The comment you replied to was posted by bobbied, not Zippy. You're not very good at this.

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[bobbied]

Still, the researcher is "answer shopping" hoping for a different judge and a different decision. Which is may point. The Secretary of State cannot legally release the ballots to the researcher under any circumstances. He correctly claims that the ONLY valid reason these records can be looked at is if an election result is contested and the court agrees to an inspection of the ballots is necessary to clear up who won the election. Research is NOT a valid reason for the records to be released.

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[suutar]

I'm not aware of a law saying that the results flatly cannot be released, and what I've heard of the previous judge's ruling doesn't imply that ("would not be sufficiently anonymous" is much different from "not releasable for any reason other than recount"). Do you have a pointer to that law?

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[bobbied]

Results? Who's talking about results?

It's the ballots that cannot be released to *anybody* for any reason other than a court ordered recount by Kansas state law and then only to the election officials charged with counting the votes in the recount. The researcher may not have the records she seeks because they are essentially ballots being a hard copy record of individual's votes that was printed at the time the votes where cast. We vote by "secret" ballot in this country, so in order to protect a voter from inadvertent exposure of his/her actual vote these records are NOT made public. Kansas state law is simply to protect voters and keep their ballots secret.

So this isn't about "results" being released, the vote counts are totally in the public domain and already available to the researcher, it's about the researcher asking for records which cannot be released, about abiding by the state law designed to keep secret ballots, secret.

And an excellent pointer into the State law comes from the Kansas Secretary of State himself where he explains this.. http://www.hdnews.net/opinion/...

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[suutar]

Thanks, that link was quite informative. What I had previously read of the judge's decision was apparently incomplete.

Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here?

[bobbied]

IMHO Most of what's written on this is apparently biased for partisan reasons. A bunch of news outlets have a bee in their collective bonnets and are trying to apply the pressure of public opinion by misleading folks about the actual facts in this case. Basically the democrats got their collective panties in a wad and are trolling the sheeple who don't know any different.

What the Fuck is the Matter with Kansas?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America by Thomas Frank

Re:What the Fuck is the Matter with Kansas?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both sides take advantages for the same reason. The sooner we admit to this and drop our little cheerleading act the sooner we'll become a more progressive (whatever that may mean) nation. People need to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Big brother only sees us as cattle.

Re:What the Fuck is the Matter with Kansas?

[HornWumpus]

In American politics: Progressive: A reactionary wanting to return to the politics of the 1930s.

Somebody just re-defined...

[cloud.pt]

...the definition of "something's fishy".

Re:Somebody just re-defined...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is that? If the government doesn't answer it because the person asking must be corrupt.

IRS, no reply to Judicial Watch FOIA requests for over 2 years.
Clinton, no reply to Congressional subpoena for 14 months, then deletes requested data. (I know not an FOIA request)
CRU in England, no reply to FOIA requests for 7 years, then deletes requested data a month before losing a court case forcing them to turn it over.

All these cases I was told the FOIA was being abused and the requestor was corrupt. So I am going to have to assume all ignored FOIA requests are from corrupt people and it is right for government to ignore them. Or were you of the opinion that people you don't like shouldn't be allowed to use FOIA and people you do like should never be denied an FOIA? Sounds like you want a dictatorship, not a transparent democracy.

Re:Somebody just re-defined...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the old two wrongs makes a right argument...

Complete bullshit

[UnknownSoldier]

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?

Re:Complete bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

The "people" don't deserve one.

Re:Complete bullshit

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re: Complete bullshit

[ravenshrike]

Perhaps we should start with cook county illinois as outside of miami dade that's where the dead are most likely to vote.

Being wrong will bring more changes than right

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it better be "significant enough" to be the difference in a statewide election. If it's not, or if it's real, then all the research will have done is shown those republicans where they have over saturated some areas and it's time to redraw some lines. My guess, is that's the worst case scenario for the "researcher" and that if it is legit we'll never hear from the again.

Re:Being wrong will bring more changes than right

[jafiwam]

Well, it better be "significant enough" to be the difference in a statewide election. If it's not, or if it's real, then all the research will have done is shown those republicans where they have over saturated some areas and it's time to redraw some lines. My guess, is that's the worst case scenario for the "researcher" and that if it is legit we'll never hear from the again.

Wait. Are you saying it's appropriate to "redraw some lines" based on what party won a district?

Corrupt much?

Re:Being wrong will bring more changes than right

[HornWumpus]

Every state in the union.

CA has a supposed bipartisan redistricting board. It's BS, still gerrymanded for Ds.

Re:Being wrong will bring more changes than right

[Anonymous Coward]

CA has a supposed bipartisan redistricting board. It's BS, still gerrymanded for Ds.

I just looked into this and I see no sign that the failure of Republicans in CA is due to redistricting which looks very fair compared to redistricting in my state, TX. Republicans just aren't as popular in CA as they once were and they really failed to get out the vote.

Re:Being wrong will bring more changes than right

[HornWumpus]

I'm sure that's what you see.

Re:Being wrong will bring more changes than right

[tbannist]

So, you're saying it's less corrupt because everyone else is also corrupt?

Re:Being wrong will bring more changes than right

[HornWumpus]

No, I'm saying that the OP is a partisan jackhole who only looks at one sides dirt.

Kris Kobach is

[Anonymous Coward]

secretary of the great state of Kansas and don't expect miracles out of nowhere.

now, carry on wayward son, there will be peace when you are done, lay your weary eyes to sleep and don't you cry no more.

old news

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this was the court ruling.

Re:old news

[bobbied]

No, this is a NEW lawsuit which is basically the same lawsuit which was ruled the records where not subject to FOIA in 2013. The researcher is trying another trip to court with what amounts to the same question, albeit for a different election's records. The secretary of state is right, she cannot release these records legally.

Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

Just whiny liberals crying in their lattes...as usual. Kansas is red, get used to it.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, election fraud is far better than everyone knowing who everyone else voted for. Information should not be free, in this case at least.

Re:Nothing to see here

[compro01]

Except that the tapes contain no personally identifiable information, so that claim is bullshit.

If you've got nothing to hide

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've got nothing to hide...

I guess they can't swallow the same crap they expect us to take.

Considering Republicans are literally murdering...

[Anonymous Coward]

people for asking about voting fraud, you know damn well it is happening. I live in Seattle where we are forced to vote by mail, and the Republican rulers here throw away votes by the thousands. Since Microsoft created a web page where we could see if our vote was thrown away, I haven't found a single progressive that has had their vote counted. The Republicans here are throwing them in the trash. In the trash. According to the fraudulent "official" stats here, in the last Presidential election Rmoney got 15% of the vote in my neighborhood. We all know damn well that didn't happen. There's no fucking way that 15% of the people I live near are that stupid. The HOA sent door to door and couldn't find a single one of those Republicans. Not a one. The Republicans magically turned 15% of the votes their way. If Seattle wasn't so crooked, that number would have probably been below 1%.

Don't care.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll still be voting republican. Taxation is theft.

Re:Don't care.

[Black Parrot]

You should move to one of those utopian failed states.

Re:Don't care.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the blue states that waste all their money on dem programs?

Re:Don't care.

[Bugler412]

You mean the red states that consistently receive more in federal funds than they contribute in tax dollars? Oh yeah those places....

Re:Don't care.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes those Blue states where they ran out of everyone elses money to spend.

Re:Don't care.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Don't listen to these leftist liberals who are so stupid. Its a proven fact that blue states take in far more tax (read: stolen) dollars than they give back. For every dollar stolen from a hard working red state resident through taxes, some hippy liberal ASSHOLE in a blue state is taking 50% for their wasteful and completely useless social programs.

Re:Don't care.

[Anonymous Coward]

You couldn't be more wrong.

Re:Don't care.

[omnichad]

Both parties run out of money. One of them does it by not taxing enough, the other does it by spending too much.

Special Interests, a question

[Virtucon]

Who's funding Clarkson's lawsuits?

Re:Special Interests, a question

[bobbied]

Who's funding Clarkson's lawsuits?

I don't know but I'll bet they where upset when she lost EXACTLY THE SAME LAWSUIT back in 2013... I'll bet they are upset when she looses this one too.

However, it's the liberal way... If you cannot get what you want and cannot change the law, hammer the courts repeatedly until you get a ruling you like.

Re:Special Interests, a question

[Anonymous Coward]

However, it's the liberal way..

--
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck.... Shoot it!

Is the conservative way to shoot animals on site without reason?

Re:Special Interests, a question

[Anonymous Coward]

What a surprise. A republican supports hiding of voting records.

Re:Special Interests, a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the conservative way to shoot animals on site without reason?

If you think there is no reason to shoot ducks, you don't know much about ducks.

Re:Special Interests, a question

[oh_my_080980980]

So your true colors show. Sorry moron it's not illegal, just a burden that's all. Look it up sometime.

Re:Special Interests, a question

[pr0fessor]

Well Beth needs to get off KU campus and go take a drive through the rest of Kansas listen to some local radio maybe she won't need records when she finds she can't throw a rock without hitting Republican.

Re:Special Interests, a question

[khallow]

Could be libertarians. Ron Paul was on the wrong side of many of these anomalies.

Re:Special Interests, a question

[bobbied]

I have no dog in this hunt as I don't live or vote in Kansas...

The courts already decided that the Secretary of State is correctly refusing the FOIA request and they did so in 2013. The researcher is just fishing for a different answer and hoping for a different judge. Why else would she file this latest lawsuit? For grins?

Re:Considering Republicans are literally murdering

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow...it's getting deep in here. By the way, corpses vote Democrat. Just check the ballots in Chicago.

Re:Considering Republicans are literally murdering

[Anonymous Coward]

> Microsoft created a web page where we could see if our vote was thrown away

https://info.kingcounty.gov/elections/ballottracker.aspx

It's very unreliable since they're attempting to use Windows as a server, but it's better than nothing. I entered about a dozen of my friend's names in 2008 after the Presidential election, and not a one was counted. Seattle threw away all of our votes. It sucks that the state forces to vote by mail then just throws away our votes.

And to Nick Howell that works at the state election commission, screw you for calling my boss and trying to get me fired from work. I called you on your fraud so you lashed back out at me.

Really?

[wiggles]

> '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?

Re:Really?

[jafiwam]

> '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?

And she's relying on polls as the baseline.

Last election, lots of people realized they didn't want to talk to obama's cronies and told them to fuck off.

I am not seeing anything that screams voter fraud in KS. Shitcago on the other hand...

Votes are supposed to be secret, her assumption based on bullshit lies that something is wrong is not a good enough reason to let her see everybody's vote.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you, as a slashdot reader, probably understand this better than a stats PhD who studies these kinds of fraud and systems reliability cases for her career.

Common sense is the only sense science needs.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

the stupid is strong with this one

Re:Really?

[HornWumpus]

I'm sure she understands, but is grandstanding.

Re:Really?

[Mycroft-X]

Same pattern happens in reverse -- take Illinois voting returns, for example. Rural precincts with fewer voters compile and report their results quickly, so Illinois goes deep red. Then Cook County (Chicago), which represents 1,635 of Illinois' 57,915 square miles, or about 2.8%) reports and the state goes blue.

Using 2012 as an example, Cook County contributed 1.94 million votes to a 5.1 million total. So 2.8% of the land area represented 40% of the results that decided 100% of the electoral votes of the state. I'm pretty sure the 97.2% of Illinois that works that land to feed the remaining 2.8% feels pretty crappy about that imbalance.

Re:Really?

[jlowery]

Obviously you've studied this in depth. No wild-assed speculator, you.

Re:Really?

[Darinbob]

The votes are still secret. A voter's name or identification is not on the vote itself and should not be on any receipts (unless they chose some horrifically designed voting machine).

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh so now we weight our voting by land ownership?

Re:Really?

[HornWumpus]

Have you ever been to Kansas?

There is no speculation here. Kansas still runs a 'prohibition party' candidate for most political offices, and they get votes. Note: That's a party that wants to bring back prohibition of alcohol.

That said. The butthole of Kansas, Johnson County, is also very conservative. (Wyandotte county is an anal fistula attached to Johnson.)

Re:Really?

[jwdb]

Using 2012 as an example, Cook County contributed 1.94 million votes to a 5.1 million total. So 2.8% of the land area represented 40% of the results that decided 100% of the electoral votes of the state. I'm pretty sure the 97.2% of Illinois that works that land to feed the remaining 2.8% feels pretty crappy about that imbalance.

Yes, I'm sure those 97.2% of Illinois's acres of land feels really bad about supporting the other 2.8% of acres of land. On the other hand, the *minority* of rural voting humans don't have a leg to stand on when the *majority* of urban humans overrules them.

Do you want a state electoral college that choses the governor and legislators, with the electors chosen by each district, as they do at the federal level? Or maybe, say, one vote per person per acre owned?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

From GP:

So 2.8% of the land area represented 40% of the results that decided 100% of the electoral votes of the state.

From PP:

On the other hand, the *minority* of rural voting humans don't have a leg to stand on when the *majority* of urban humans overrules them.

Forty percent does not a majority make. It does, however, make baby Jesus weep for your math skills.

Re:Really?

[T.E.D.]

Additionally, Kansas has a very unusual history wrt the major parties. Look up Bleeding Kansas. Until fairly recently, the Democratic party wasn't a politically viable option at the state level or lower, so the national blue-red divide tends to play out there within the Republican party.

That means most of the political rules of thumb that apply elsewhere in the country don't necessarily apply there.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does make a plurality. Weep for his english skills, not math skills. But we do need to ditch first past the post voting, if that was where we're all going with this.

Re:Really?

[jwdb]

Well, either the urban crowd *does* have a majority, regardless of the numbers GP pulled out of his ass, or the rural crowd is not as unified as GP thinks. Either way GP's an idiot for conflating land holding with voting rights, and I don't care enough to be precise.

Baby Jesus can go fsck himself, my math skills are fine.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another Kansas resident here, and this state is not nearly as conservative as it appears. There are definitely some that are hardcore Republican, even some areas that consider the Republican party too "liberal" for their tastes, but they are far from the majority. Most Kansas residents are moderate conservatives or moderate liberals. So why do the Republicans dominate every election in a landslide?

I can tell you. After keeping a close watch on Kansas elections for the last 15 years, I am convinced that there is massive election fraud. Rigged voting machines, rampant Gerrymandering, ballot stuffing, dead Republicans casting ballots, etc... It's amazing that they get away with it, but when you combine the systematic effort of the Republican state government to stay in power, with the conservative local media's efforts to help them cover it up, then it looks at first glance like legitimate results. This is further skewed by the fact that most Kansas Democrats are registered as Republicans so we can vote in the Primaries (there are rarely Democratic primaries in Kansas while some positions only have Republican candidates so the Primary is your only chance to vote). Then fewer Democrats want to run, since they have no chance of winning the rigged elections, so then Republicans start winning unopposed.

Unopposed races and unanimous victories in State level elections are a clear sign that something is rotten. No collection of millions of people has such a monoculture that there is absolutely no political disagreement. It is no coincidence that Kris Kobach's biggest supporters are the Koch family that has a large vested stake in maintaining the Republican stranglehold on the State.

There is no voter fraud!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democrats tell us that there is no such thing as voter fraud, which is why attempts to require IDs are entirely racist. Therefore, since we only have two options, it must be that the polling is wrong.

Problem solved. No lawsuit required!

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[dywolf]

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.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[Ichijo]

First, we zoned minorities out of white neighborhoods. Now we're also trying to keep them out of voting booths. Is this country becoming more racist?

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[Anonymous Coward]

shut your fucking juice-box, you fuckwit.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[GoChickenFat]

I keep hearing this argument that voter ID requirements disenfranchise the poor and minorities. Why is that a given? Why can't poor people get the free ID or what possible connection do being a minority have to do with not having an ID? I don't get it. Poor and minorities use ID's all the time for buying alcohol, cashing checks and getting title loans...all of a sudden they can't find their ID on election day? But I'll agree with you - the greatest fraud will be found in the vote harvesting that is increasing with the expansion of early voting. The biggest threats to our voting as I see it are early voting, open primaries and touchscreen voting machines - more so than voting day fraud.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[Bartles]

Isn't the article alleging In-Person Voter Fraud?

No lawsuit needed!

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[Overzeetop]

235 million registered voters, barely over half of which voted.

Still an anomoly? At the presidential level, possibly. Though 74,000 votes separated Obama from Romney over 29 electors in Florida, for example.

But you don't even have to drop to the state legislature to see small numbers matter. In 2014, Martha McSally beat Ron Barber in Arizona for the US House of Representatives by 219 votes. That's a pretty slim margin for a district with 640,000 residents.

So, yes...it actually does matter.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[Mantrid42]

Because DMV offices are only open during business hours and not on weekends in poorer areas.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because by definition, they can not legally drive to the DMV to get the free ID, and many DMVs are not easily accessible by bus or whatever. Finally as the other responder indicated, the DMVs have worse business hours than even banks that the working poor cannot abide.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[GoChickenFat]

Because DMV offices are only open during business hours and not on weekends in poorer areas.

That's a stretch... its also not true in my state where voter ID laws have been derided with the same fact-less "poor, minority, democrat" nonsense. There are weekend hours and extend evening hours during the week. These same "poor" seem to have no trouble using the SS office hours to get their "paycheck".

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[Mantrid42]

Oh, well, if that's the case in your small corner of the country, great. Around here, most DMVs don't have that. And how long are the extended hours for your DMV? Long enough for someone with only access to public transportation to get from their job to the DMV? What if they need to pick up their kids first?

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[rahvin112]

The poor and elderly often don't have drivers license and the only place you can get these "free" ID's is often hundreds of miles away and only open during business hours. If I took your car away and told you the only way you could vote was to take a day off work, spend 4 hours and $6 on a bus each direction while giving up a days pay while living paycheck to paycheck would you do it?

What if you didn't have a car, were elderly, of ill health and living on social security and having to skip a meals several times a month to survive?

I simply can't believe you are this ignorant of what it's like to be the working poor. Either you are a child or just an ass.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[Anonymous Coward]

@GoChickenFat, Your characterization of what poor people use ids for is bigoted, racist and misinformed. Your questions SHOW your ignorance of the history of voter suppression in parts of this country that's been going on since Reconstruction. The government issued photo id requirement is a descendant of the voter's "literacy test" and the poll tax. It goes along with closing polling places and places where you can register to vote in "unfriendly" i.e. poor or minority areas.

To get a title loan, you have to have a car that you own. There are lots of people who don't own cars OR have access to one. There are lots of older people who depend on their family or neighbors to bring them groceries and medicine or the bus to get anywhere. My grandmother died at age 98. For the last 15 years of her life she didn't have a driver's license or *any other* id that would pass muster with most of these new laws. She was sharp as a tack until the last month or two before her death. Her life (like many older seniors) was spent dealing with doctors, medicines and just the ordinary chores of living, which get much harder when you get really old.

Vote harvesting? Early voting? Open primaries? NO. All of these have to do with people voting WHO HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO VOTE. You sound like someone who is onboard with the idea of denying the vote to people who disagree with you or that you feel superior to.

Manipulation of voting machines is different. Less visible, easier and more effective since it doesn't happen one vote at a time.

A risk management manager at a bank once told me that the only people who try to rob banks by personally going into a branch are the stupid ones. The same goes for someone trying to commit voter fraud by casting a single ballot. The big frauds are happening via unrepresentative redistricting and voting machine manipulation.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[GoChickenFat]

I'm sorry - your rebuttal is full of straw man conjecture - "hundred's of miles?" come on. I'm middle aged and very aware of being working poor myself. I think it's amazing that its too burdensome to get and ID but on election day all of a sudden the burden is removed. I live in the country and my voting precinct is as far away as the DMV - a 20mile round trip and no bus or taxi is ever going to come out here to give me a ride - certainly not for $6 - so does that make me already disenfranchised? I just don't get the defense here. Why is it so bad to prove who you are when participating in something as important as voting? To be honest, I really don't want people voting that can't take the time to fully participate in the process and that has nothing to do with race, income or party.

And to answer your question - yes, I made voting important enough to forgo other useless activities like playing the lottery, buying drinks at the bar, and not wasting money on cigarettes - all while living paycheck to paycheck and borrowing to get by. it's called priorities. I'm sorry I'm not sympathetic to people with misaligned priorities trying to vote without an ID. That doesn't make me ignorant or an ass.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[Anonymous Coward]

There you go again. You must live in a cartoon.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on the state. Southeastern Virginia has a large poor, black population and a reasonably efficient bureaucracy. The DMV is open 8:00 AM to noon on Saturdays.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[AK Marc]

Why can't poor people get the free ID or what possible connection do being a minority have to do with not having an ID?

"Free" IDs require a non-free application process.

And minorty has to do with it because poll taxes, like required ID, were started in the late 1800s explicitly to keep ex slaves from voting. You do realize that most ex slaves were minorities, right? And the minorities are still disproportionately poor, so anything targeting the poor is inherently racist.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[AK Marc]

Poor and minorities use ID's all the time for buying alcohol, cashing checks and getting title loans...all of a sudden they can't find their ID on election day?

Yeah, but what about the poor that don't have an ID? Sure, they can't buy alcohol (really, when was the last time you were carded?), cash checks (many places don't require ID for that, you claim to have been working poor, but apparently were never poor-poor, and look down on those who are), or get title loans on the cars they don't own, and can't vote. If you can't afford the poll tax, we don't want you voting, anyway.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[GoChickenFat]

Poor is a state of mind. Your arguments are no more in depth than any other I've heard. Its all conjecture. You're free to continue peddling your "victimology" as I'm done with this useless thread.

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[AK Marc]

When the law is explicitly stated as being a barrier to voting, how is it "victimology" to point out that it's a barrier to vote?

Re:There is no voter fraud!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Alabama, they're currently planning to close all but four DMV offices in the entire state. We're not talking about a 20 mile round trip.

Poor excuse

[mschaffer]

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

Re:Poor excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. Just means that any request will probably be answered with the bureaucratic equivalent of 'It's a pain in the ass, so it's gonna be expensive and take a long time. Decide if it's worth it.' That's pretty standard for FOI requests for materials that are difficult to access or which have information that can't be released with the records (like personally identifying information).

Re:Poor excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Yes. I work for a public college that has been hit with a rash of records requests. Some legit, some from crazies (e.g., have never attended the school, never lived in the state, nor know anyone who does. The requester admitted this in his request, but he still thought we had records on him personally (and no doubt had a closet full of tinfoil lined hats).

So, our lawyer told us to not do routine file restores anymore. Backups would be solely for disaster recovery. If it was an undo burden to comply with the requests (even if that undue burden was an intentional outcome), we could refuse some of these requests.

Pathetic.

I feel the same way. But, on a practical standpoint there needs to be a way to weed out the crazy too.

It is amazing...

[bobbied]

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.

Re:It is amazing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently he's never heard of the word "appeal"

Re:It is amazing...

[oh_my_080980980]

I guess you never heard of an audit. Too bad Zippy.

Re:It is amazing...

[jklovanc]

An appeal is to take the original case to a higher court and ask them to overrule a lower court. What she did was re-file the same case years later with the same court. That is not an appeal.

Re:It is amazing...

[bobbied]

Read the articles.... This isn't an audit, it's a FOIA request for records the Secretary of State is not allowed to release, by law. Further, the courts have already decided, back in 2013 for the same records for a different election, in favor of the Secretary of State's position.

Re:It is amazing...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between ILLEGAL to release and the State is not required to release due to UNDUE BURDEN. I believe the prior lawsuit was dismissed because of undue burden. If ILLEGAL then someone would have been fined or gone to jail if the records had been released.

As to the privacy argument. The tapes do not have any personal information on them.

AC

Re:It is amazing...

[bobbied]

I guess you never heard of an audit. Too bad Zippy.

Again dopey... Here's what the Secetary of State is saying... http://www.hdnews.net/opinion/...

There’s an important reason why neither I, nor Sedgwick County officials, can hand over any ballots to the WSU employee — because it’s a crime to do so. Under K.S.A. 25-2422, it’s a felony to “disclos(e) or expos(e) the contents of any ballot” after the election contest period has ended, even if the names of voters are redacted. Another Kansas law, K.S.A. 25-3107(a), specifically prohibits county election officials from unsealing the containers in which ballots are kept after an election. Only under a judicial order, when the outcome of a specific race has been contested, can those containers be unsealed.

And there’s something else Lowry failed to mention. When the same WSU employee filed a nearly identical lawsuit a few years ago, seeking records from the 2010 elections, the district court judge ruled against her. The judge held that “disclosure of the records requested is not authorized under K.S.A. 25-2422.” The judge also pointed out if the ballots were disclosed, it might be possible to determine the votes of specific voters, even if the names were redacted. The potential loss of ballot privacy could make many people wary of voting.

Seems like it would be illegal for the records to be released in any form other than the already tabulated and available election results.

Re:It is amazing...

[Fencepost]

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.

Under KS Secretary of State Kris Kobach, creator of the 2-tier voting system (you must provide proof of citizenship, e.g. passports to vote in state and local elections, but not in federal elections because federal law prohibits using that same type of restriction on the federal voting registration paperwork) I'd absolutely believe that he's hiding something. He's shown a history of official decisions that can at least be interpreted from the outside as motivated by politics more than the law, and if there's something squirrely going on with the voting machines I'd be unsurprised to see him working to keep it covered up.

Re:It is amazing...

[Anonymous Coward]

The comment you replied to was posted by bobbied, not Zippy.

Re:It is amazing...

[bobbied]

You are clearly being partisan because Kansas law is clear on this. Ballots may not be released under any circumstances except if there is a dispute about who won an election and the court orders a recount. The Secretary correctly claims that he cannot release the records for any other purpose because they are considered "ballots" under the laws of the state. THIS was decided back in 2013, the question has not changed, no matter how redacted, these documents may not be released.

How following the law and court precedent can be perceived as covering something up is something born of partisan rhetoric, not logical thought.

Re:It is amazing...

[Fencepost]

Perhaps I am partisan, but I'd say that at this point there's enough information to make a credible argument for calling into question any election in Kansas. Of course, that would perhaps be vote fraud not voter fraud, and I'm not sure that the former is as worth of attention as the chance of catching those rare Ann Coulters of the world who vote illegally.

Of course, this could be a rework of the old saying, now to "It is better to hide ballots and let people think there's a criminal conspiracy rather than opening them up and proving it."

I think it'll be interesting to watch recount challenges that would normally be outside the margin where a recount would be allowed. Will they challenge that exclusion based on the unexpected statistical pattern without which they wouldn't be outside that margin?

Re:It is amazing...

[bobbied]

The Secretary of State cannot stop a recount ordered by the court as hard has they might try. The criteria for a recount are very specific in the law so there should be no questions raised. Plus, the records are not in HIS control, but belong to the local officials in charge of elections. They are not his to give away or prevent access to.

Now IF the Secretary of State tries to stop a legal recount, it would justify your suspicions that there was fraud involved, however at this point there is nothing but partisanship rhetoric here from your side. The Secretary of state is attempting to follow the law, has court precedent on his side, and would be committing a felony if he attempted to grant this researcher's request, plus he DOESN'T actually HAVE the records. If the shoes where on the other foot, following the law is exactly what I'd want a Secretary of State to do.

Re:It is amazing...

[Fencepost]

My concerns include the following:

* Candidates may only request recounts in state and federal elections. This leaves lower levels (esp. cities and counties) with no recourse.
* If the margin originally reported is greater than 0.5% then the recount requester has to put up a bond to cover the full cost of the recount. Since the question being researched relates directly to unexpected statistical skew in voting results after voting units (precincts?) reach 500 votes, that skew if artificial and introduced at the tabulating stage might well result in a margin greater than 0.5%.

I'll grant though that perhaps she should have chosen a different place to check since the statistical pattern is not only seen in Kansas - it's just that the researcher is in Wichita, so presumably Kansas is the easiest place for her to work and she's an interested party as a resident of the state.

Re:It is amazing...

[bobbied]

She's been told no by a Wichita judge already for exactly the same records for another election back in 2013. Everybody knows this request will meet the same fate, including the Wichita State professor. So one must ask yourself WHY? Why would you ask the question, knowing the answer will likely be the same?

1. She's stupid enough to think that the judge will buy this "I'm asking for more data so I won't be able to identify individual's votes" theory. She doesn't know this to be true, nor does the judge. This is why the law says NO BALLOTS may be released, regardless of the terms. She's not this stupid, nor is the judge.. This request will be denied too.

2. She's being paid to do this by somebody and just wants their money. That somebody who is stupid enough to pay her (see #1) or has other motives (see #3).

3. She not really interested in research but is primarily making a partisan point full knowing that the "new" request will be denied on the exact same ground as her previous request was in 2013. The point here is to cause as much of a political fire storm as can be created, in hopes of fanning the flames of the partisans, especially those who are not paying attention to the history of this researcher's requests.

IMHO - Let her go get her records from other states as Kansas law prevents her from having what she wants. My guess is Kansas is NOT unique though and she knows her requests will meet similar fate no matter where she makes her request, that the point is to fan the flames of partisan discord and identity politics.

Re:Considering Republicans are literally murdering

[Anonymous Coward]

And to Nick Howell... trying to get me fired

I think his real name is Andy Greeley. He returned my call about my ballot getting "lost" and made my daughter cry. He really shook her up. Of course, nothing ever happened to him, and my votes are still not getting counted.

try a real state

[Anonymous Coward]

She should try a real state. Hint: In real states, the republican majority voting regions are the boonies out in the forest / farm areas.

Re:try a real state

[omnichad]

That's because most poor vote democrat because of social programs that only really work well in urban areas. The rural poor don't get much benefit but still pay the taxes for it. It's nothing to say about how progressive or backward people are. It's all purely selfish motivation and not the best interests of the country/state as a whole.

Re:try a real state

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah...f those farmers, right?

Jackass....

Re:try a real state

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because most poor vote democrat because of social programs that only really work well in urban areas.

I'm curious about which programs these are. The obvious programs that come to mind are food stamps, Medicaid, and the EITC--but none of those depend on population density.

Re:Considering Republicans are literally murdering

[Anonymous Coward]

> the Republican rulers here throw away votes by the thousands.

The King County Elections is horrifically crooked. You're not allowed to vote in person, and they simply don't count many of the mail ballots. I've voted in every mail in election, and my vote hasn't counted a single time. Sherril Huff, their director, is a die-hard Democrat and very politically active. She even ran for office as a Democrat. The person that appointed her is Ron Sims, the former County Executive, that is now Obama's Deputy Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, And, of course a Democrat that ran for office several times as a Democrat. When you have people so politically active in one party in control of your votes with no accountability, there is a problem.

Democrat fraud

[ajzimm3rman]

These liberals and their voter fraud. On the one hand they scream bloody murder if an ID is required to vote, or we dare to propose a law for it. They also support illegal immigration (most from Mexico), and all of them vote Democrat. Then when they bring up voter fraud, they focus on some mysterious Republican anomaly. I am curious: if it was a Democrat anomaly, would their research even happen?

Re:Democrat fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to get the same information for Chicago and you will just disappear.

Re:Democrat fraud

[oh_my_080980980]

Umm you do realize Republicans scream about voter fraud. It's their justification for voter ID. To answer your question: yes it would. You might want to read the article.

Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

"It not the people who vote that matter....it's the people who count the votes that matter." in this case people that protect those that count.

Electronic voting... please it is pathetic. Out of all people members of Slashdot should know better.... If I'm tempted to cheat, those that are actually getting elected WILL cheat. Current system is pathetically unsafe and lucks ANY real security, my Xbox games have better protection than current voting system. Why?? Again:

"It not the people who vote that matter....it's the people who count the votes that matter."

Scantron fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why scantrons are not the panacea to electronic voting machines. It's obvious that Clarkson is wanting to compare the tape counts with the results from tabulation servers which is what the state election board goes by to determine the outcome of elections. The tabulation servers are just as prone to hacking as any electronic voting machine, but there's no laws which call for auditing the system as a whole, i.e ballot->scannner->tape|stored memory->network->tabulating server. In fact, the Kansas law contains a Catch-22: An audit is usually only performed if there is evidence of significant irregularity with the votes. However, in order to discover a significant irregularity, a candidate must first provide a reason for an audit, but without the audit there's no evidence of irregularity. And usually the audit is an examination of the tape, rather than the recount of actually scanned ballots. So the weakness in the system comes from a lack of audit on the scantron to see if scanned ballots are accurately recorded on tape, and to see if the data that's transmitted from the scantron to a tabulating server matches the tape which matches the scanned ballots, and to see if the tabulation server data matches the scantron data which matches the tape which matches the scanned ballots.
 

Kobach has a really bad reputation

[Anonymous Coward]

He's part of the Republican's white-supremacist problem, and says a lot of crazy things.

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article12532439.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/kris-kobach-anti-immigration-laws-sb-1070

He has the mind of a RWNJ blogger, so it's pretty terrible that he has power over normal people.

Re: Considering Republicans are literally murderin

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a Chicago-style Democrat political machine here. My wife worked for the Kitsap county elections for several years, and you don't get promoted unless you're very active in the Democratic Party. It is just across the Sound from Seattle, and things are even worse in King county.

Backups we don't need no stinking backups.

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect what they would find is the tape ran out. So to avoid embarrassment...

JESUS!!!!

[JimSadler]

If anyone wanted to destroy the idea that we vote and elect officials in the US there is no better way to do it than to keep voting records secret. Maybe they can claim it as a national security issue due to the theory that if the public ever figured out what is really going on there would be massive riots across the entire nation. It takes a very dumb official to try and suppress this information.

Re: JESUS!!!!

[jklovanc]

Since when did "not bulk copyable for free by anyone who makes a FOI request" equate to "secret"? Do you have any idea how much it would cost to copy all the tape she requested?

Re: JESUS!!!!

[Enigma2175]

if the public ever figured out what is really going on there would be massive riots across the entire nation.

If only that were true. If widespread voter fraud was clearly identified, I expect the reaction of most Americans would be "Ho-hum, I wonder if anyone liked my Kardashian post on Facebook". Just like the debacle with the NSA spying, they got caught red-handed clearly circumventing the law and spying on US citizens and the collective response from the public was "Nobody cares!".

Re: JESUS!!!!

[AK Marc]

FOI isn't free, and you will be billed for FOI requests.

So then... why bother with the bloody paper tapes?

[Average]

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?

District gerrymandering

[peterofoz]

...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.

It could also be the effect of gerrymandering by Democrats to consolidate republicans into fewer districts and diluting votes in other districts so more district level elections can be favorably held.

Re:District gerrymandering

[SuricouRaven]

It's politics. You have to cheat at least as much as your opponent just to keep the game fair.

Re:District gerrymandering

[nickweller]

@peterofoz: "It could also be the effect of gerrymandering by Democrats to consolidate republicans into fewer districts and diluting votes in other districts so more district level elections can be favorably held."

Very well spun, you should be working for Faux News.

Re:District gerrymandering

[tbannist]

How are the Democrats gerrymandering Kansas when it's controlled by the Republicans?

Re:District gerrymandering

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's the other way around. Democrats do it, but Republicans do it more. According to http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts-states.html, the most blatantly gerrymandered districts are the following: 2 in Maryland (Dem majority), 2 in North Carolina (Rep majority), 2 in Florida (Rep majority), 1 each in Texas, Louisiana, and Ohio (all with Rep majorities), and 1 in New York, with a split Legislature (Rep senate, Dem house).

Further, in 2012, the Republicans won 49 percent of the popular vote and 54 percent of the seats in the House of Representatives. Here is an article about why: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/19/steny-hoyer/steny-hoyer-house-democrats-won-majority-2012-popu/

If not for this, why do the tapes even exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why keep the tapes if nobody can look at them?

Re:If not for this, why do the tapes even exist?

[jklovanc]

Look at and copy are very different things. She wants a copy.

Re:If not for this, why do the tapes even exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they can be looked at in the case of close election, i.e. a recount. But that's usually the only case where the state allows it.

Re:If not for this, why do the tapes even exist?

[AK Marc]

Nope, they are the same. Look at freely, requires copies. How does she look at it when she wants if someone else is looking at it? How does she look at it with an OCR that puts the aggregates into a table without copying it?

Re:If not for this, why do the tapes even exist?

[jklovanc]

Someone can look at them and that would be government officials who has been allowed to do it by court order. They unseal the boxes, take the tapes out, look at them, return them to the box and reseal them.

How does she look at it when she wants if someone else is looking at it?

I never said she could look at them. Just because she can not look at them does not mean that nobody can.

How does she look at it with an OCR that puts the aggregates into a table without copying it?

She can't without a court order as is the law.

Re:If not for this, why do the tapes even exist?

[AK Marc]

Look at and copy are very different things.

Why lie when we can look back one post and see your lies?

Re:If not for this, why do the tapes even exist?

[jklovanc]

How exactly did I lie?

you fail at formal logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead and validate the results of an election in a system that keeps the identity of each voter private while still revealing the contents of each ballot. The audit seeks to demonstrate that each ballot was unhampered, cast by a legitimate voter, and has been counted. Go ahead and show that anybody other than a straight-ticket voter will have any privacy in that approach.

Re:you fail at formal logic

[mtrachtenberg]

If this were a serious concern for you, you would realize that election officials must be lying when they talk about your ballot's votes being anonymous. I've never heard anyone suggest such a concern, so I assume those who raise "formal logic" issues, with special coded sequences of votes and such, are being, well, politeness prevents me from finishing the thought yet again.

Would you like a verifiable election that doesn't rely on ballots? Fine, here you go: five contests with five candidates requires five scales, five planks of wood, five curtains, and 25 etched glass jars with lids through which beans can be inserted into temporary holding chambers, falling into the jar only when the jar is tilted. The planks go on the scales, the jars on the planks, the jars' etches indicate which choice each jar represents. The scales are checked after each voter to show that no more than one bean's weight was added to each contest by the voter, at which point the plank is shaken or tilted and the beans drop into their jars. The only part of any jar visible to anyone until the end of the election is the part from the etching to the top. Representatives of each candidate monitor the jar collection until each jar is weighed, at which point the jars are sealed and transported. The winners are those represented by the heaviest jar in each contest. Done. And, miraculously, I have not cursed.

Re:you fail at formal logic

[mtrachtenberg]

I neglected to add that this example converts naturally to paper ballots as soon as someone discovers that each contest can get its own slip of paper.

Re:Considering Republicans are literally murdering

[Anonymous Coward]

> The HOA sent door to door

My Condo owners association did that too. They even stopped by a couple of weeks before the election to ask if they could have our ballots so they could fill them out. Stunningly, it is illegal here to put party affiliation or incumbency on the ballot, so since it's quite a bit of work to do research to find-out about the candidates, so almost a quarter of the residents did that. It's depressing living in Seattle where a quarter of the people will just give their ballots to someone else to fill-out.

And, screw King County Elections. I'm the sponsor of my college's young Republican club, and my vote hasn't counted since we moved to mail-in votes and according to our members that checked, none of them had their vote counted in the 2012 presidential election. There's just no accountability.

Re:Considering Republicans are literally murdering

[Darinbob]

I thought that problem was fixed already? We're dealing with modern fraud today not decades old fraud. Or is your justification that because one side cheated that the other side is allowed to cheat to make up for it?

Re: Considering Republicans are literally murderin

[Anonymous Coward]

Sims is a convicted crook. It's ridiculous that the person he appointed head of elections still has her job. I go to church with him, and to say he is biased is an understatement. He was King count exec for 12 years. Off of the top of my head, I can remember six scandals that he was involved with.

Re:So then... why bother with the bloody paper tap

[jklovanc]

She is asking for a copy of the tapes. That is very different than the tapes being reviewed.

Re:Considering Republicans are literally murdering

[Anonymous Coward]

> Ron Sims

I go to church with him and his family so I know him well. He was county exec for twelve years. He was never fired despite being involved with at least six (that I can remember off of the top of my head!) major scandals. The county wasted millions on legal fees defending him. He was rewarded for his illegal actions with a very high position in HUD. That is Chicago-style politics at its worst.

sigh...intellectual dishonesty

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid bitch.

In other words 'a statistically significant' pattern exists where the percentage of Democratic voters increases in smaller districts??

Sigh..when you can't defend your ideology...accuse everyone of being evil...

I love it..

[Anonymous Coward]

2000 election was a big "fraud"..tons' of disenfranchisement with evil overlords controlling everything.
2004 big cover up and fraud again and machine conspiracy and disenfranchisement

lead up to 2008 election on slashdot, reddit, etc "everyone video things and be ready to have evidence of all the voter fraud, hacking , disenfranchisment, and so on that is going to happen!"

Election results come out....and magically the voting system was declared "A OK!" by very same idiots and the media in general.

Intellectual dishonesty....you're all dripping with it....

Exemptions to the Kansas Open Records Act

[nickweller]

'There are multiple exemptions to what types of records are available under the Kansas Open Records Act.' ref.

They just want to aruge.

[Anonymous Coward]

These rats who consider themselves morally and intellectually superior will always argue.

Fact is: India has billions of people, many poor, all have an ID to vote.

Tell them suck on the fat end of a dog turd.

District Judges are elected in Kansas

[Anonymous Coward]

In regards to her previous lawsuit which was ruled on in a district court and a point I haven't yet heard mentioned, in Kansas (unsure of other states), District Court Judges are in elected positions. This means an elected official ruled in favor of the government on a matter that regarded election fraud. To me this represents a gross conflict between the citizens and their representatives. This situation needs more attention than it seems to be getting. I would say the feds need to step in but that would just be a joke I think since this problem is probably systemic.

Not possible to verify votes ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not possible to verify votes from an electronic / black box voting machine, even if it has an internal paper roll. There is no guarantee that what shows up on the paper roll is how the voters actually voted. The only method that can be verified is a real paper ballot system which is tried and true and simple.

vote per acre owned

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, yes, I would like senators to only be elected by landowners. That was, historically, the intent -- to prevent tyranny of the majority from raiding the federal coffers. Direct election of senators has defeated that purpose and consequently, more than 65% of US residents receiver some sort of government money in their households, not counting subsidized student loans.

Re:vote per acre owned

[jwdb]

As opposed to the tyranny of the minority landholding aristocracy raiding the federal coffers?

Well, I'm glad you'll never get your way. Props for being honest, however.

Troll much

[Anonymous Coward]

In what state does one have to go into and office to get an SS check? Direct Deposited or mailed these days.

Re:Considering Republicans are literally murdering

[Anonymous Coward]

My Condo owners association did that too.

The company I work for in Seattle does that. They were pissed when I gave it to them already filled-out in black ink.

Thee possibilities

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual vote tallies are readily available by precinct. So there are three possibilities

The votes were added or posted incorrectly into the into totals.
The machines were biased or counted incorrectly.
Projecting actual votes from polling data or historical results is inaccurate.

Which of these three do you think is most likely?

Voter fraud is a Democrat trick

[Anonymous Coward]

Voter fraud is a Democrat trick and always has been. That's why they're always against voter ID and perpetuate the lie that it "harms" poor and minority voters. Can't collect welfare or even pick up prescription drugs without ID, not to mention by booze or smokes.

Re:Voter fraud is a Democrat trick

[AK Marc]

And box stuffing is the Republican trick and always has been.

Can't collect welfare or even pick up prescription drugs without ID,

I've never had to present ID for either of those two activities. Have you, or are you only making things up?

not to mention by booze or smokes.

ID is not required for either of those. It may be asked for, but the shops that cater to the poor, don't ask anyone for ID. It's only in white surburbia where every checker must put in a manager code and birthdate.

It is not the voter that counts,

[WindBourne]

It is the counter that counts. I think it might be time to examine this issue in other states as well.

USA voting = Banana Republic

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly as a European I can't believe how poor the American voting system seems to be. Massive amounts of fraud, a total lack of transparency, inadequate poorly designed technology plus the complete lack of security on the technology reminds me of nothing more than a banana republic.

You might as well as ask some Zanu PF election monitors to come over from Zimbabwe to oversee your next elections.

More than meets the eye here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to cut the secretary some slack here. Yes, there's possibility for coverup of malfeasance/systematic voting machine hacking. However, there's also the possibility of releasing all names and the way they voted.

Ultimately, I think that voting machines are by and large not up to the task security-wise. There has to be some way of verifying the records so that we know the machines aren't being subverted, without releasing identities of voters linked to which way they voted.