Humboldt Transparency Project Hits Legal Snag

We Do Not Consent

The blog, the book, the birth of peaceful revolution
for conscientious objectors everywhere...

Humboldt Transparency Project Hits Legal Snag

by Dave Berman

June 19, 2006

I spoke to Humboldt County Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich this morning, inquiring when she would appear before the Board of Supervisors to request funding for the Humboldt Transparency Project (HTP). I had previously been told this would occur either last Tuesday or tomorrow but the published Supes' agendas said otherwise. The program has hit a snag, Crnich told me, and would have to be shelved, at least for now. She described herself as "heartbroken" and said she is "not going to give up." It seems the problem is section 17306D of the California election code:

Sealed ballot containers may be opened if the elections official determines it is necessary in a shredding or recycling process. Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow packages or containers to be opened except for purposes specified herein. The packages or containers shall otherwise remain unopened until the ballots are destroyed or recycled.

This would seem to undercut the very premise of the HTP, which was to be a groundbreaking experiment in verifying election results. Images of ballots would be put on CDs in .tif form and made available for any individual or community group wishing to verify the results. I previously mentioned HTP in my election day press conference remarks. It was also described in this VoteTrustUSA article by Warren Stewart. This is a popular idea with promise and I'm sure Crnich isn't the only one who won't want to let it go.

http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2006/06/humboldt-transparency-project-hits.html

This is an interesting story that has only just begun to unfold

Or am I missing something? If they're counted, why can't they be scanned and their image stored at the time of counting? I presume you're talking about something like the Diebold optical scan ballots we use at my polling station in Blue Lake-- why can't the poll workers scan them for image storage, with the voter present to watch, then run them through the Diebold scanner? Or run them thru the Diebold machine and then the image capture? At any rate, the ballots are unsealed from the time the voter marks them until whenever they're sealed-- why not image them then?

First, in Blue Lake it is the same as in the rest of Humboldt. You can apply your polling place experience to imagining solutions to this situation.

What you seem to be suggesting is what I've been wondering too: can the ballots be "scanned," in whatever method the HTP has designed, before the ballots are "scanned" by the Diebold optical scanners for the "official" count? I really think this is where the troubleshooting is likely to go next and I have no idea yet what implications or additional hurdles this may present.

As for doing it the other way around, my understanding is that the "officially" scanned ballots go directly into the Diebold machine and stay in there, the "container" which at least the section of the law referenced in the OP (by Crnich, the Registrar) is saying can't be opened to then allow the "scan" for HTP. But now that I think about it, this seems not right because the ballots are supposed to be preserved for a period of time, I think 22 months, and that could mean those scanners/"containers" would not be available for subsequent elections during that period while they still hold ballots from the previous elections. Since the primary and general elections are less than 22 months apart, how could we use the optical scanners again (not that I want to use them at all)?

This is a developing story and I hope to have an update by tonight. When I spoke to Crnich yesterday she said she would be putting out a public message today to inform the citizens' Election Advisory Committee of the setback.