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