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.
...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?
Who's funding Clarkson's lawsuits?
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
> '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.
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?
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.)
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'
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 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?
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.
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".