Questions About the Rhode Island Recount Controversy

According to Benjamin N. Gedan in today’s Projo, Rhode Island Superior Court Judge Stephen Fortunato has ruled that the state Board of Elections must make copies of “ballots that [did] not register a vote during a recount” that can be examined by individuals not associated with the Board. The BOE objects to Judge Fortunato’s ruling and has delayed the recounts that were in progress while it seeks to have it overturned…

The Board of Elections yesterday asked the state Supreme Court to delay enforcement of a Superior Court decision mandating that hundreds of ballots be segregated and photocopied during machine recounts.
On Tuesday, Judge Stephen J. Fortunato Jr. ruled that ballots that do not register a vote during a recount be photocopied to potentially allow a manual examination to determine if the voter’s intent can be learned.
The Board of Elections strongly objected, saying the removal of ballots for photocopying would slow recounts, increase mistakes and facilitate a manual review process that would mirror the tortured presidential election recount in 2000.
The recounts yet to be finalized involve Allan Fung in Cranston, Joseph Larisa in East Providence as well as local races in East Greenwich, Portsmouth and Tiverton.
My question is this: Is the BOE objecting to specific procedures that have been laid out by the Judge, or are they objecting to ever letting anyone from outside of the BOE see the ballots? If the objection is the more general one, then my second question is what good is it to keep a paper-audit trail if you are never going to let anyone from outside see it?
(Also, a minor digression: I wonder if Judge Fortunato had an opportunity to extol the virtues of Marxism to the judges from Russia who paid a visit to the Rhode Island courts earlier this week?)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
johnb
johnb
14 years ago

great points, andrew.
to add to your post, according to state law, paper ballots are stored at local town halls under lock and key for 22 months after results have been certified. Yes, 22 months. What are they doing there if not to provide a check against machine counts?
two additional thoughts:
1. in light of the problems we have seen with diebold machines, i think it’s only prudent that individuals outside of the BOE are given access to the paper ballots. paper ballots are after all anonymous, and as far as i can tell are public records.
2. rhode island saw an above-average voter turnout this past election with approximately 380,000 people going to the polls. 380,000 people. The Bronx had almost the same vote total in the 2004 elections. if there is any state where it would be manageable to verify the all-knowing machines, it’s rhode island.

SusanD
SusanD
14 years ago

1.) What is the B.O.E. afraid of here?
2.) Under no circumstance should we “upgrade” our current voting method to Diebold (paperless) machines.
Dead and duplicate voters. “Jammed” voting machines in John Harwood’s district a couple of elections ago. Diebold’s programmable chips will be as irresistable as an open box of chocolates to some people.

Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
14 years ago

1. Public access to ballots is already provided depending on what you qualify as “access”. Do you mean you want the public unlimited access to handle ballots as they see fit? State law requires voted ballots be sealed for 22 months. They can only be unsealed by a court or the Board of Elections for a recount. During a recount, the public is invited to attend. The process is open. Usually a dozen or so machines are used. Although the public is not allowed to touch or handle ballots as they are re-fed into the machines, they are able to observe the votes on the ballots as they are entered. Technically, observers could keep a tally of their own if they question the machines’ accuracy. 2. What is the BOE afraid of? RI purchased these machines to increase the integrity and accuracy of its elections. These machines are designed to read a specific mark (connecting the head and tail of the arrow). State law requires this connection for a vote to be counted. Counting underlined or circled names would encourage voters to mark their ballots incorrectly and in a manner in which the machine cannot recognize. It would be akin to you going to take your SATs or LSATS and indicating your answers by marking outside the oval next to your choice. You’d flunk. In a statewide recount, imagine the debacle of looking through over a million ballots for ballots of voters who marked their ballots incorrectly and not in accordance with state law. All they have to do is follow the instructions on the ballot, in the booth, on the privacy sleeve, on the posters in the poll, and in the Voter Information Handbook, among countless other sources. 3. Diebold is only one of several companies which produces DRE… Read more »

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.