On July 9, the 5th circuit heard oral arguments in Texas Democratic Party v Williams, 07-51064. The issue is whether the U.S. Constitution, especially the Equal Protection Clause, prohibits Texas from using one voting system in some counties that causes many undervotes, while at the same time using other kinds of voting systems in other counties that do not create many undervotes.
Hart’s InterCivic’s eSlate machine does not do a good job, making it clear to voters that if they use the straight-ticket device, and then also vote for an individual nominee of that same party, that they have then erased their own vote for that particular office. In other words, if a Republican voter clicks the choice on the computer screen for the Republican straight-ticket device, and then the voter also votes individually for Kay Bailey Hutchinson for U.S. Senate, the machine (which had previously recorded that voter’s vote for all Republican nominees on the ballot), then deletes the voter’s vote for U.S. Senate!
By contrast, if a voter took the same action on a paper ballot, whether it is counted by hand or by a scanner, the voter’s vote for U.S. Senate would be preserved.
The Texas Democratic Party is asking that the Secretary of State be required to de-certify eSlate until eSlate fixes the problem. The Secretary of State argues that there is no problem, because when the voter who has already clicked the straight-ticket device for one party, then also votes for an individual candidate of that party, the computer screen flashes, “Be aware that you are changing a straight-party choice.” But the Democratic Party argues that this message doesn’t mean much to most voters. The Democratic Party suggests that if the machine said, “Caution: you are no longer voting for Kay Bailey Hutchison”, or “Caution: you are no longer casting a vote for U.S. Senator”, the problem would be alleviated.
The party also complains that the final summary screen the voter sees, if that voter has clicked a straight-ticket option and then proceeded to cast a vote individually for each nominee of that party, is “Straight-Party Republican”, but then the summary screen also lists each office and says “no selection”. The summary screen is what pops up on the screen just before the voter leaves the voting booth. The party says many people will see the summary screen’s message as confirming that they did vote Republican for all nominees, when it is really telling them that they just cast a completely blank ballot.
U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks had ruled against the Democratic Party on August 16, 2007. The 5th circuit panel consists of Judges E. Grady Jolley (a Reagan appointee), and Edith Clement and Priscilla Owen (Bush Jr. appointees). At the oral argument, Judge Clement said, “There might be something wrong with the voters if they’re not reading and following instructions.” The evidence shows an undervote rate of 7% for voters who use eSlate and use a straight-ticket device. The decision is expected quickly. It will be especially interesting to see if the decision comments on Bush v Gore. The U.S. Supreme Court said in Bush v Gore that it is unconstitutional for Florida to use different standards in different counties for determining what is a valid vote. The Texas Secretary of State argues that Bush v Gore’s ruling cannot be extended to any other lawsuits. Of course, such a statement is tantamont to accusing the U.S. Supreme Court of having made up a special rule just to decide the 2000 presidential election, instead of a general principle mandating equal treatment of all voters.
Legal voting (by following instructions) = Legal
Illegal voting (by NOT following instructions) = Illegal
So very hard — especially for functional illiterate voters.
In 2000 Florida had NO definition of a *legal* vote with the various MORON election methods.
See the sentence in the Fed HAVA law — a monument to the infamous MORONS in the entire FL regime.
PAPER MAIL BALLOTS NOW — regardless of ALL MORON voters and election officials.
The problem is that a paper ballot doesn’t give feedback, and isn’t expected to.
Democrats don’t run candidates for many statewide offices. On a paper ballot a voter would put a check mark next to the pitcher of the Yellar Dawg (D) and deposit their ballot in the box. They wouldn’t worry that they hadn’t marked an X by the name of Nellie Mae (D) and Bubba Joe (D), or that for some race where there was no (D) candidate that they hadn’t voted for either the (R) or (L) candidate.
But after 2000, people became generally aware of undervotes, and that it could be associated with victimhood. So when the eSlate systems were devised, they displayed a summary page, and a voter would see several races where they had not expressed a preference if they had voted straight ticket (D).
In addition, since voters had to scroll through several pages of races, they would notice that they hadn’t voted for Nellie Mae (D) and Bubba Joe (D). That is, the original programming was to display a literal facsimile of a paper ballot, and interpret it according to State law.
If someone wanted to mark the straight ticket Yellar Dawg (D) plus vote for Nellie Mae (D) they could, and the summary would show that they had voted for Nellie Mae (D). Or if they hadn’t voted for Nellie Mae (D), the summary would still show it based on their straight party vote.
But since some people had voted the Yellar Dawg (D) and were confused when it didn’t show an X next to Nellie Mae (D), the eSlate’s were programmed to automatically put an X next to Nellie Mae (D) if they had checked the Yellar Dawg (D).
But now when someone reached Nellie Mae (D) and selected her again. Her X went away. It works just like a check box field in a Windows UI – you click on it to select, and also click on it to de-select. This is also used in cases where you decide you don’t want to vote for anyone in a particular race.
And now you have a dilemma. Should you go by the Yeller Dawg (D) selection, and automatically re-select Nellie Mae (D) or simply leave the box unchecked. And secondly, how should it be interpreted – remembering the fundamental principle of being faithful to voter intent.
(a) Was the voter simply doing like they had always done and voted twice, and shouldn’t the ballot be interpeted as a facsimile of a paper ballot? But if this is true, then a straight-ticket vote should not automatically show a vote for individual candidates – even though that is the intent of a straight-ticket vote.
or (b) Should it be interpreted as a sequence of interactions with a UI? In which case someone is clearly making an exception to their straight-ticket vote, by actively overriding their choice.
And remember, if a voter did not vote a straight-ticket, that clicking on a selection a second time is the only way to vote for no one in that race.
Note that this might be a preferable interpretation simply from the point of view of permitting someone to not vote in a particular race. It is easy to vote a (D), (R), or (L) straight-ticket and vote for someone of another party or an (I) in a particular race. But what if a voter wants to vote a straight-ticket and vote for no one in a particular race. Surely that is a fundamental constitutional right – to not vote. Just because someone wants to vote for all (D)’s except their ex-spouse’s new spouse, shouldn’t require them to vote for another candidate – or not use the straight-ticket device at all.
Alternatively, it would be better to remove straight ticket voting entirely.
Or another option would be to provide for a None of These Candidates box for each race. Then if someone selects a straight-party ticket, all the candidates of that party could be selected, and in races where the party did not nominate a candidate, it could be shown as a vote for None of These Candidates. Or in fact, this could be the default choice for all races before any selections were made. Then if a voter wanted to change a selection they could do so by making another selection (the eSlate prevents overvotes by doing this already when someone makes a second selection). The only limitation is that the voter would be required to vote for None of These Candidates when they really wanted to abstain, but this seems rather trivial.
Is everybody a New Age victim for being STUPID and NOT able to follow election instructions designed for 10 year old folks ???
Heaven help the U.S.A. from its New Age MORONS and the other party hack usual suspects (Casablanca movie, 1942 — during World War II — defeating the EVIL party hack MONSTERS in the Axis regimes at very great cost in dead, injured and property destruction).
Oregon continues to manage to survive with only paper mail ballots — regardless of any MORONS and usual suspects in the State.