Slashdot Mirror
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.
The secretary is covering up a fraud.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
What possible reason could there be to not let anyone who wants to look at the audit trail of election votes?
What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America by Thomas Frank
...the definition of "something's fishy".
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?
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Who's funding Clarkson's lawsuits?
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
You should move to one of those utopian failed states.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> '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?
So, if the government stores information in an inconvenient format, that makes it exempt from freedom of information requests?
Pathetic.
You mean the red states that consistently receive more in federal funds than they contribute in tax dollars? Oh yeah those places....
It's a amazing how many folks have a "Government is hiding something" default setting here. Who, without reading the background material, conclude that the Kansas Secretary of State is stonewalling with the "it's not legal to release this information" argument.
I urge you to read both the above article AND the one it links to. You will discover that this researcher filed almost the EXACT same lawsuit years ago and LOST in court back in 2013. The courts agreed with the Secretary of State that the release of this information was illegal according to Kansas law.
All that's happening now is the researcher is trying to find a judge who might rule differently by filing another lawsuit. She is answer shopping and hoping to "get lucky" this time around. IMHO this is a waste of time and is clogging up the courts with worthless lawsuits.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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?
No, they tell you that In-Person Voter Fraud is close to nonexistent, the most uncommon variety, the hardest to perform, and the least rewarding.
They also tell you that In-Person Voter Fraud is the only form prevented by Voter ID laws.
And that in an effort to stop those tens of invalid in-person votes per year on a national scale, the trade off is disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters nationwide. Voters who are overwhelming tend to be poor/minority/democratic voters. There are still several other forms of fraud that are easier to perform, and much more affecting of the outcome of an election, which Voter ID does nothing about.
Do try to learn about the topic before speaking.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I'm sure that's what you see.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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?
It's politics. You have to cheat at least as much as your opponent just to keep the game fair.
She is asking for a copy of the tapes. That is very different than the tapes being reviewed.
Look at and copy are very different things. She wants a copy.
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.
Both parties run out of money. One of them does it by not taxing enough, the other does it by spending too much.
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.
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.
'There are multiple exemptions to what types of records are available under the Kansas Open Records Act.' ref.
@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.
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.
No lawsuit needed!
So, you're saying it's less corrupt because everyone else is also corrupt?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Because DMV offices are only open during business hours and not on weekends in poorer areas.
How are the Democrats gerrymandering Kansas when it's controlled by the Republicans?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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".
No, I'm saying that the OP is a partisan jackhole who only looks at one sides dirt.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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?
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.
Except that the tapes contain no personally identifiable information, so that claim is bullshit.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
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.
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.
It is the counter that counts. I think it might be time to examine this issue in other states as well.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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?
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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?
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Look at and copy are very different things.
Why lie when we can look back one post and see your lies?
Learn to love Alaska
How exactly did I lie?