Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kansas Secretary of State Blocks Release of Voting Machine Tapes

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

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

31 of 288 comments (clear)

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

    The secretary is covering up a fraud.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:In other words. by Kreplock · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

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

      The secretary is covering up a fraud.

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

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

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

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:In other words. by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "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.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    5. Re:In other words. by garcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

      This needs to change.

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

      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.

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

      This needs to change.

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

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

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

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

      --
      No sig today...
    9. Re:In other words. by suutar · · Score: 4, Informative

      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).

    10. Re:In other words. by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 3, Informative

      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...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    13. Re:In other words. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    14. Re:In other words. by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

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

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

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

    16. Re:In other words. by Your.Master · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    17. Re:In other words. by tburkhol · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    18. Re:In other words. by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    19. Re:In other words. by bobbied · · Score: 5, Informative

      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....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    20. Re:In other words. by multimediavt · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    21. Re:In other words. by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

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

    Authority without Accountability = Authoritative Abuse(s)

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  3. Special Interests, a question by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who's funding Clarkson's lawsuits?

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  4. Really? by wiggles · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  7. Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here? by suutar · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.)

  8. Re:There is no voter fraud! by dywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

    Do try to learn about the topic before speaking.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  9. So then... why bother with the bloody paper tapes? by Average · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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