home

Voting Rights Victory in WA

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 07:45:22 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Democracies depend upon citizens exercising their right to vote. Arbitrary deprivations of that right undermine democracy. Judge Michael Spearman in King County, Washington, stood up for democracy by declaring unconstitutional a state law that denied ex-offenders the right to vote if they failed to pay "any and all legal financial obligations" required by their sentences.

"There is simply no rational relationship between the ability to pay and the exercise of constitutional rights," the judge, Michael S. Spearman of King County Superior Court, wrote.

Denying the right to vote to people who simply can't afford to make prompt payment of (often burdensome) fines, court costs, and restitution payments violates their right to equal protection of the law. Judge Spearman noted that Washington was unable to explain why defendants with enough wealth to make immediate payment should have the right to vote, while poorer defendants who had to rely on payment plans should be deprived of that right.

The A.C.L.U. sued on behalf of three former prisoners who were paying off fees and fines, with court approval, at the rate of $10 or $20 a month. "It will likely take years before each plaintiff will be able to complete the payments," Judge Spearman determined.

Indeed, one plaintiff, Beverly Dubois, a 49-year-old former park ranger, found her debt growing over time. Ms. Dubois had spent nine months in jail for growing and selling marijuana. She still owes the state almost $1,900 for court costs, a county "drug enforcement fund" and a "victim assessment fee." Though Ms. Dubois pays the state $10 a month, her debt has increased over time because of the 12 percent interest she is charged.

Washington is apparently the only state that denied voting rights to ex-offenders soley because they owe debts arising out of their convictions. As TalkLeft asked here:

Washington denies the right to vote -- a right as precious as liberty -- to people who haven't paid their court debts. Why should the right to vote depend on afflluence?

Judge Spearman answered correctly: it shouldn't.

< Moussaoui: Closing Arguments and the Martyr Issue | Lead Prosecutor and Agent in Detroit Terror Trial Indicted >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Voting Rights Victory in WA | 22 comments (22 topical)
    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lora on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 01:11:57 PM EST
    Wonderful that the right to vote was upheld for those who are poor. However if they (and all of us) cast their votes on electronic voting machines, will they be disenfranchised again? The right to vote should extend to the right to have your vote counted as you intend.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#2)
    by glanton on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 01:55:53 PM EST
    Lora: Now you're just getting greedy!

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 02:38:25 PM EST
    Oh Lora. Please don't be a Luddite. There is nothing that makes it any easier to conceal votes DREs than using paper ballots, given the intent to conduct election fraud. I would like to see DREs produce a paper record of the vote after each vote is cast, to be placed in a physical ballot box for auditing and recounts. Until then, come join us in the 21st century!! P.S. Sorry TL for going off topic; I just had to.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lora on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 03:18:03 PM EST
    I'm gonna push this, on or off topic, because the right to vote means absolutely nothing if the vote is not counted as intended. There are about a hundred ways to tamper, manipulate, change, hack, whatever you want to call it, an electronic vote, vs. about five for paper. Even a paper printout is no guarantee. Not every one will verify it. The ballot on the computer screen could be changed subtlely to affect how the voter will vote. Current computer technology does not provide a safe, secure, tamper-free vote. It's "trust us" technology. Look at how many problems, breakdowns, glitches etc. have occurred with electronic voting to date. Certification did absolutely nothing to prevent them. We are being asked to put our trust in the integrity of our election process in corporations that are blatantly partisan, that keep their software secret, that make systems that have been proven to be easily hackable, that infest the certification process, and that are run by convicted felons, at least one of whom was convicted of computer fraud. Our election officials are unable to verify the vote. They must trust the makers to do the job that was once entirely theirs. "Trust us?" You've got to be kidding.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    Please don't be a Luddite. There is nothing that makes it any easier to conceal votes DREs than using paper ballots
    Since I work in IT, including hardening workstations against intrusions, I can say with complete assurance that Chase' statement is BS. e.g. How many people are involved in a paper recount? The handler, the dem rep, the repub rep, and the 'disinterested' parties over seeing the count. How many people are involved in a paperless recount? None. The software made the original count, the 'monitors' ask the machine again, it spits out the same numbers. Aside from calling us 'morons' chase is attempting to equate counting physical ballots in front of multiple people to taking the word of a software company that has ties to bush and refuses to release their code.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 03:42:04 PM EST
    P.S. Sorry TL for going off topic; I just had to.
    No, you didn't have to go off topic, you just felt compelled to insult another commenter.
    Until then, come join us in the 21st century!!
    Your condescending, insulting posts are not only offensive, they show your complete ignorance of the technical matters involved.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 04:11:39 PM EST
    Be like those nice folks in Duval County who let those rnc folks take the ballots home to count in 2000 so they wouldn't miss out on any family time over the weekend. Wasn't that sweet?

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 04:44:48 PM EST
    Before you accuse me of being offensive and condescending (I was--my apologies to Lora), because my comments
    show [my] complete ignorance of the technical matters involved
    because you
    can say with complete assurance that Chase' statement is BS
    you had damn well better make sure your comments can be held to an equally demanding standard. Oh, like this one:
    How many people are involved in a paperless recount? None. The software made the original count, the 'monitors' ask the machine again, it spits out the same numbers.
    You're an IT guy? I'm a local elections judge. Not as prestigious sounding as the IT field, but lemmie tell ya, I know the elections process to a T. Here in Bexar County, Texas we don't use Diebold machines; our DREs are manufactured by ES&S. Granted, they don't conform to the audit standard I personally support (that of the Verified Voting initiative), they do provide for a numerically verifiable recount. Also granted: our machines don't currently permit the matching of individual vote to individual voter. There are some outstanding vote security issues that currently slowing deployment of this feature down. However, once a vote receipt feature is included, you're continued exaggeration of the dangers of vote fraud on DREs will be unnecessary. No system is perfect. But the benefits of DREs outweigh the potential costs, particularly vis-à-vis the inefficiency of paper ballots.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 07:03:57 PM EST
    Before you accuse me of being offensive and condescending (I was)
    'nuff said.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 08:10:34 PM EST
    Sailor: I suppose it was. As an IT guy, what do you think it would take to have a secure DRE machine? The move in that direction is inevitable, is it not?

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 09:09:36 PM EST
    Chase, Why is the move inevitable? It only happens if actual human beings act. These things don't fall out of the sky one day. And the few companies that produce these machines have greased plenty of palms. I mean, come on, the head of Diebold saying he'd deliver every vote he could for Bush, you can hardly get more conflicted interest so publicly proclaimed. Technology doesn't take over until we flip on the switch. And, I ask you, why is it better to NOT have actual human beings, American citizens, involved personally, hordes of them, in the counting of the ballots? Do you think it's BETTER FOR OUR DEMOCRACY to have machines controlling the count? With software that can be tampered with, affecting a million ballots in a keystroke (an ease of corruption that CAN'T be done in a human hand count)? Again, the only things that are inevitable are those which we CAN'T control. This is not one of those things. Citizen control is a must. Go to blackboxvoting.org if you want really detailed information. That is all they do. And they're about the only ones doing it. Peace.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 29, 2006 at 10:53:12 PM EST
    Sailor, Chase and Dadler: I also work in IT and I agree with Sailor. For anything important, I would NEVER believe a result produced by a machine that could not be verified by examination of the physical records. Computers merely follow the instuctions of the person who programmed them, and who knows what that person had in mind? That's why companies have to maintain separately verifiable audit trails for all financial transactions. Shouldn't there be laws requiring equivalent controls for elections? If such scrutiny is not possible then at very least the voting machines should not be trusted, and unless one is very trusting, one should question the motives of anyone who opposes the demand for auditability.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#13)
    by Lora on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 06:44:11 AM EST
    Chase, I appreciate the apology, and I appreciate the fact that as an elections judge, you choose to get involved in this topic. This is rare indeed and I thank you for it and encourage you to explore this issue further. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that you must accept the numbers generated by your ES&S machines. As long as no obvious errors turn up, no machines break down on elections day, the numbers that show up at the end of the day on the computer screen or at the central tabulator are the ones you will be verifying as an accurate count of the votes in your jurisdiction. Should any unexplained errors occur, I'm guessing that an ES&S representative would be the one you would call to fix the problem, and that you would accept what they told you as being valid. Now, I'm sure you have various assurances from the company as well as state or perhaps federal certification boards that these machines are safe and accurate. Do you know how much input the manufacturers themselves have in the testing and certification process? Do you have a list of all the tests the machines are subject to? Do you have enough of an understanding of computer technology to know if the testing is sufficient to guarantee your machines? I encourage you to follow the link in Dadler's post above to black box voting. There are some excellent reports, findings, tests, and discussions that will give you critical information about the machines that you have. Please keep an open mind about what you read. Voting integrity is a non-partisan issue.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 07:11:58 AM EST
    I think we can all agree the widespread use of DREs is a little premature. While I'm not as suspicious of results as some of you, I also don't think all DRE systems are "ready for prime time." Lora: ES&S, to my understanding, does initial testing on each machine, and prescribes the testing procedures to be carried out before each election. As to the actual tests themselves, they are run by individuals at the county elections department. In the recent primary, there was a countywide problem that led to delays in the reporting of returns as a result of a mis-programmed poll-closing time. ES&S had programmed the machines to close at 8pm instead of the legally dictated 7pm. When 7:01 came around and we tried to tabulate the votes, the machines balked and forced us to do a manual shut-down. While this was only a minor headache, it does illustrate how the reliance on technology can have consequences, some more grave than others. I encourage everyone interested in elections technology (and oh what a geeky topic it is!) to check out Verified Voting.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 07:36:22 AM EST
    I don't know of any machines that are ready for prime time, but there is no reason they couldn't be. The software should be open source, it is a relatively programming task to accurately record votes, there is no reason that the code shouldn't be examined and verified. This in no way makes it easier to hack, it just adds transperancy to the process.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 08:07:07 AM EST
    The software should be open source, it is a relatively programming task to accurately record votes, there is no reason that the code shouldn't be examined and verified.
    You don't think those parties interested in 'hacking' the machines would salivate at having the code publicily available? Also, under the current system, elections machines are big business with huge costs. What is the incentive for a software developer to design and develop open source software? Is there a model for making money here?

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#17)
    by Lora on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 08:56:44 AM EST
    Chase, One problem with not having open source code is that the manufacturer can hack the system better than anyone else! Also the Diebold system was hacked by an outsider anyway - you may be aware of the "Hursti Hack" in Florida. I have not researched ES&S in particular, but I have read many informative articles and discussions about the various ways all electronic voting systems are vulnerable to manipulation. Even those with voter-verified printed out ballots have many vulnerabilities, for example: Ballot-stuffing can still occur, many voters may not actually verify the printout, the ballot that voters see on the computer screen may be manipulated, influencing a slightly careless voter to vote differently than they wouldd otherwise, there is no guarantee that the votes on the printout match the votes on the machine, there may be laws in place preventing counting of the printouts, and, very worrisome to me, is the fact that it might only take a few switched votes per machine in a swing state to change a presidential election outcome. Say a machine was programmed to vote for a particular candidate every 10th time, regardless of the voter's choice, and only a certain percentage of voters actually verified their vote, maybe a few switched votes would get caught and chalked up to a "glitch" and maybe 5 or 6 would sneak through. If every machine in enough key counties were so programmed, it could switch an election outcome. The point being, you might never know that an alteration was committed.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 09:33:36 AM EST
    You raise some interesting issues. I do not accept the premise that "careless" voters can be relieve of their duty to review their ballots. If the machines used in your hypothetical used open source code that was reviewable by non-partisan programmers and verified, would that not correct such an issue? I think a printout of votes, to be deposited in a ballot box is the ultimate check on the system. If the vote is close enough to warrant a recount, the DRE results can be matched to the printed results. If there is a huge discrepancy between the electronic count and the paper receipt count, this could be taken as evidence of programming fraud.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#19)
    by HK on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 09:46:39 AM EST
    This is really awful. The right to vote should not depend on wealth. I also find it appalling that interest is charged on the amount owed in fines and costs by individuals who have committed themselves to repaying this debt. This again is hitting the poorer offenders. If their debt is being perpetuated in this way and their right to vote is threatened, what incentive do they have to attempt to make amends by repaying what they owe and living a law-abiding lifestyle?

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#20)
    by Lora on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:26:57 AM EST
    Chase, Well perhaps "less-than-vigilant" voters? I think the average voter would check reasonably well, but if someone is out to subtly manipulate the screen and you are unsuspecting, if the printout is hard to read, or the printer suddenly "malfunctions" and the voter doesn't scream and holler and refuse to leave without seeing a printout...I mean, if you're not anticipating fraud, an average voter could be disenfranchised not even through carelessness, but by being generally trusting. I might think, "oh well, I'm in a hurry, I don't want to raise a fuss, I don't need to wait to verify a printout, I'll just go and I know my vote got accepted." If you verified that the number of voters matched the number of votes per machine or precinct, that could avert ballot stuffing. Consider this: 6 switched votes per machine times 30,000 machines = 180,000 votes. Think Ohio. And even if you spot-checked, a discrepancy of 6 wouldn't trigger an audit.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    I still cannot forgive voters for not being vigilant. In my experience on election day, voters tend to be over vigilant rather than the contrary. Anyway, in my estimation, the receipt isn't for them. In fact, I wouldn't permit them to leave the polling place with any paper record of their votes. That would facilitate the selling of votes and voter intimidation.
    If you verified that the number of voters matched the number of votes per machine or precinct, that could avert ballot stuffing.
    That's the process, at least in Bexar County where I am.
    And even if you spot-checked, a discrepancy of 6 wouldn't trigger an audit.
    Ha. I vehemently disagree. I laugh because this was almost a problem in the last primary. At the end of the day, the total number of votes registered at our site, as reported by the final printed tape, must match the number of voters registered in the poll list. If they don't, talk about a headache. And that's for a single vote--if it were 6 votes off, I can't even imagine the migraine that would be.

    Re: Voting Rights Victory in WA (none / 0) (#22)
    by Lora on Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 02:09:52 PM EST
    Chase, I also am not in favor of a receipt, for the reasons you gave. I was talking about verifying a printed ballot that would be retained at the site. I haven't thoroughly studied nor do I remember all the ways a voter can be manipulated by tweaking the computer display and programming in "malfunctions" but they have been examined and identified (they are posted and/or referred to and linked on the black box voting site). Again, this goes beyond normal vigilance, this is deliberate fraud that might only be tried a small percentage of the time on unsuspecting voters and only work a small percentage of the time. I'm glad to know how careful you are with your number of registered voters, and how insistent you are that the number of votes match the number of voters! The 6-vote glitch that I referred to isn't a discrepancy between the number of voters and votes, I meant a discrepancy between the number of votes for a particular candidate. In other words the discrepancy is the difference between the number of votes for Candidate A on paper, off by 6 from the number of votes for Candidate A on computer. If you spot-checked and/or counted a percentage of the printed paper ballots by hand, I'm not sure the difference would show up. You'd have to count all the paper and compare the numbers for each machine. What if only some of the machines were funny. Spot-checking might not turn this up. Same problem could happen using op-scan machines to tabulate paper ballots. There are just too many opportunities for fraud.

    Voting Rights Victory in WA | 22 comments (22 topical)