Category Archives: voting

I Have Questions

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that Maricopa County, AZ, has developed a hoary history of election ballot and counting irregularities, most recently in the 2022 election in which the county was unable to deliver sufficient ballots in sufficient numbers to accommodate the voters, many of whom were denied their right to vote by those ballot failures. Maricopa County investigators, led by Former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor, have released their report on causes of those…snafus.

Between the August primaries and the November general contest, the county expanded the length of the ballots from 19 inches to 20 inches in order to include all of the required information. The increased ballot size in combination with the use of 100-pound ballot paper, the report concludes, was too great a strain on the printers.
“Based on our tests, and for the reasons described in this report, we concluded that the combined effect of using 100-pound ballot paper and a 20-inch ballot during the 2022 general election was to require that the Oki B432 printers perform at the extreme edge of their capability, a level that could not be reliably sustained by a substantial number of printers,” the report states.

That raises questions in my poor, dumb, flyover country northern Texan mind.

Who reviewed the performance specifications for the Oki B432 printers?

Who tested those printers on the larger paper?

Who tested those printers on the heavier-weight paper?

Who tested those printers on the combination of larger size and heavier weight?

Finally, an encompassing question: of the County’s election officials and staff, for how long have the staff members—the bureaucrats and volunteers, not the elected officials—been in place?

One More “Be Like Europe” Plea

Posted on by
Reply

Expat (Paris) James Lieber and Temple University law teacher Peter Spiro want American expats to have their own quasi-State, to have territorial delegates in Congress á la DC, Puerto Rico, et al., and be directly represented in our Congress, albeit those delegates wouldn’t have any votes.

No. Expats already have direct representation, should they choose to exercise it by, you know, voting. They’re represented by their representatives and senators in their home district and State. Nor are expats’ votes any more diluted than are the votes of their fellow citizens still resident here at home.

In the end, too, the expats are that of their own volition; no one is making them live abroad.

Lieber’s and Spiro’s argument that Italy, France, and Portugal do things differently, and therefor so should we, is just cynically disingenuous. We are not Italy, France, or Portugal, nor are we any other European nation or nation elsewhere in the world; we’re unique, and that’s on purpose.

It’s only necessary to peruse our Constitution and compare it with the constitutions of those other nations, along with the histories behind them, to see both the differences and the reasons for them.

A Couple of Questions

Posted on by
Reply

In an article centered on ballot paper shortages in the 2022 mid-term elections in Harris County, Texas (County Seat: Houston), and De Kalb County, Georgia (County Seat; Decatur), accepting $2 million of Zuckerbucks in the 2020 Presidential election, there was this bit from KHOU 11 regarding the Harris County shortage:

“After reviewing help desk logs and calling presiding and alternate election judges, the county estimated 46 to 68 voting centers ran out of their initial allotment of paper[.]” However, comparing ballot paper packets distributed to the total number of votes cast, KHOU 11 “discovered 121 voting centers did not initially receive enough ballot paper to cover voter turnout[.]”

And Governor Gregg Abbott’s (R) tweeted reaction:

Harris Co. election ballot paper shortage far bigger than initially estimated. It’s so big it may have altered the outcome of elections. It may necessitate new elections. It WILL necessitate new LAWS that prevent Harris Co. from ever doing this again.

Invalidating the just completed elections and holding replacement ones may be beyond the Governor’s authority, but the thrust of his beef is valid. And beside my point here. The problem—and questions—flow from this:

[W]hile [Harris c]ounty Elections Administration Office told KHOU 11 that historical data was used for determining ballot supply needs for voting locations, the news outlet found that 52 voting centers received less ballot paper in 2022 than the number of ballots cast in 2018.
Election Administrator Clifford Tatum had told county commissioners that supplemental paper supplies were sent by his office throughout Election Day. When KHOU 11 asked Tatum where the supplies were sent, he didn’t provide any details.

The larger problem and my questions are these:

Where did they get the supplies?

If historical records actually were used, why weren’t those supplies sent at the outset instead of being withheld?

Jim Crow 2.0, Deprecated

Posted on by
Reply

The Just the News lede tells the tale after President Joe Biden’s (D) widely spread conspiracy theory.

A full 0% of black voters in Georgia report having a “poor” experience voting in the 2022 midterms, a notable showing after several years of Democratic politicians arguing that the state is working to suppress black votes.

The University of Georgia’s School of Public & International Affairs ran a poll:

Among black voters, more than 72% said “excellent,” 23% said “good,” just under 9% said “fair,” and 0% said “poor.”

Will Biden or anyone in his syndicate apologize for his smear?

Nah. Suggesting that would be carrying conspiracy theories to ridiculous extremes.

In Which the Vermont Supreme Court is Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

Vermont’s State government enacted a law allowing non-citizens to vote in certain local elections. In particular, the law allows Montpelier and Winooski to change their charters so that non-citizens can vote in those municipalities’ elections. Suits ensued, and the matter wound up before Vermont’s Supreme Court.

That court then proceeded to rule in favor of the law, arguing in part

[W]e conclude that the statute allowing noncitizens to vote in local Montpelier elections does not violate Chapter II, § 42 because that constitutional provision does not apply to local elections.

The court, right after that claim, actually quoted that chapter and verse:

Chapter II, § 42 of the Vermont Constitution provides:
Every person of the full age of eighteen years who is a citizen of the United States, having resided in this State for the period established by the General Assembly and who is of a quiet and peaceable behavior, and will take the following oath or affirmation, shall be entitled to all the privileges of a voter of this state:
You solemnly swear (or affirm) that whenever you give your vote or suffrage, touching any matter that concerns the State of Vermont, you will do it so as in your conscience you shall judge will most conduce to the best good of the same, as established by the Constitution, without fear or favor of any person.

The court then went through a convoluted argument to claim that the text of this Chapter and Section does not say what it says.

It’s really cut and dried, and hung in the cold cellar. Only persons who are citizens and have met a couple of additional—not substitute—criteria are permitted, via the plain, obvious, and rational meaning of the State’s constitution, to vote in any election, at any level of jurisdiction, in the State.

The State’s Supreme Court…messed up.

The Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling can be read here.