|
Voting Rights Destruction (Part 2): Lack of Transparency
Monday 04 August 2008
by: Heidi Stevenson, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
(Artwork: Doug Griswold / KRT)
It is not enough to have the right to vote. The people also need to know that their votes are counted in an open and fair manner. Without that transparency, there is no way to be sure that an election was fair or that one's vote mattered. The result of that lack is a people who have no faith in their government, who cannot trust that members of the legislature or any other administration position truly respond to them. There can be no assumption that the government is supported by its citizens.
Such a state must rule by force, as it does not rule by the sufferance of the people - even if the people actually did vote for their leaders. Without the ability to see and document that all votes are counted, there is no reason for the people to believe that their leaders are who they selected.
That is where the United States is heading. The following tale, which just happened in California's Monterey County during the June 3 primary election, is a case in point. Jim March, a member of the board of directors of Black Box Voting, wrote of this incident, "The collapse of transparency was deliberate and systematic, and violated state laws, the certification rules promoted by the California Secretary of State's Office and democratic principles in general."
Pre-Inspection Process
Brian Rothenberger and Jim March presented letters to Monterey County, California, Registrar of Voters Linda Tulett, who is the chief election official for the county. The letters stated their credentials, as outlined by California's Election Code 15004. As required, they represent a qualified political party and there are only two of them, the number specified by law. Code 15004 is quite clear about what they are entitled to observe in elections:
(a) "... the preparation and operation of the tabulating devices, their programming and testing, and have the representatives in attendance at any or all phases of the election."
(b) The representatives may be present at "the central counting place or places ... to check and review the preparation and operation of the tabulating devices, their programming and testing, and have the representatives in attendance at any or all phases of the election."
The elections official may limit the number of observers to a total of 10, but in this case, the only people attempting to observe were Rothenberger and March, as representatives of a bona fide organization according to Code 15004, and Lane, who wished to observe according to Code 15204, which allows members of the public. The law does not provide any means for an election official to refuse observation status to anyone who meets the requirements, as the Green Party representatives clearly did.
Monterey County has an elections observation manual, which was reviewed by Rothenberger, March and Lane. It states that no cameras may be used, giving as reason the privacy of staff. March noted, though, that this argument is specious, since the areas involved have ongoing video cameras, which produce video that is available to the public via county public records.
On first meeting with the Registrar on May 31, Tulett indicated she needed time to study Election Code 15004 and speak with the county's counsel about it. March and Lane returned on June 2, the day before the election, about 8:30 in the morning, and spoke with her again. She stated that she hadn't yet spoken with the attorney, so they rescheduled for 4 that afternoon.
|
