Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:It is amazing... (Score 1) 268

I guess you never heard of an audit. Too bad Zippy.

Again dopey... Here's what the Secetary of State is saying... http://www.hdnews.net/opinion/...

There’s an important reason why neither I, nor Sedgwick County officials, can hand over any ballots to the WSU employee — because it’s a crime to do so. Under K.S.A. 25-2422, it’s a felony to “disclos(e) or expos(e) the contents of any ballot” after the election contest period has ended, even if the names of voters are redacted. Another Kansas law, K.S.A. 25-3107(a), specifically prohibits county election officials from unsealing the containers in which ballots are kept after an election. Only under a judicial order, when the outcome of a specific race has been contested, can those containers be unsealed.

And there’s something else Lowry failed to mention. When the same WSU employee filed a nearly identical lawsuit a few years ago, seeking records from the 2010 elections, the district court judge ruled against her. The judge held that “disclosure of the records requested is not authorized under K.S.A. 25-2422.” The judge also pointed out if the ballots were disclosed, it might be possible to determine the votes of specific voters, even if the names were redacted. The potential loss of ballot privacy could make many people wary of voting.

Seems like it would be illegal for the records to be released in any form other than the already tabulated and available election results.

Comment Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here? (Score 1) 268

Oh yes it was.... Read this: http://www.hdnews.net/opinion/...

Specifically where he says the following:

Secretary of State Kobach filed a legal challenge to the suit. It states the records are sealed by state statute and that he is not the custodian of the records. It also points out Carlson filed a similar lawsuit for the paper records in 2013 and was denied access to the paper trail. The judge ruled that the records, even though they did not contain personally identifiable information, were still ballots.

Comment Re:In other words. (Score 1) 268

AND.... In the Secetary's own words... http://www.hdnews.net/opinion/...

There’s an important reason why neither I, nor Sedgwick County officials, can hand over any ballots to the WSU employee — because it’s a crime to do so. Under K.S.A. 25-2422, it’s a felony to “disclos(e) or expos(e) the contents of any ballot” after the election contest period has ended, even if the names of voters are redacted. Another Kansas law, K.S.A. 25-3107(a), specifically prohibits county election officials from unsealing the containers in which ballots are kept after an election. Only under a judicial order, when the outcome of a specific race has been contested, can those containers be unsealed.

Comment Re:In other words. (Score 5, Informative) 268

http://www.hdnews.net/opinion/...

There’s an important reason why neither I, nor Sedgwick County officials, can hand over any ballots to the WSU employee — because it’s a crime to do so. Under K.S.A. 25-2422, it’s a felony to “disclos(e) or expos(e) the contents of any ballot” after the election contest period has ended, even if the names of voters are redacted. Another Kansas law, K.S.A. 25-3107(a), specifically prohibits county election officials from unsealing the containers in which ballots are kept after an election. Only under a judicial order, when the outcome of a specific race has been contested, can those containers be unsealed.

That is in the Secretary of State's own words. He'd be committing a crime... It's illegal....

Comment Re:In other words. (Score 1) 268

Secretary of State Kobach filed a legal challenge to the suit. It states the records are sealed by state statute and that he is not the custodian of the records. It also points out Carlson filed a similar lawsuit for the paper records in 2013 and was denied access to the paper trail. The judge ruled that the records, even though they did not contain personally identifiable information, were still ballots.

From: http://sunlightfoundation.com/...

The request may not be illegal, but fulfilling that request WOULD be illegal due to state laws which are designed to protect the anonymous voter from having their secret ballots exposed. Or, perhaps YOU would want us to publish who voted for who? No? Me neither.

Comment Re:In other words. (Score 1) 268

"It's unlawful to release these records because of a FOIA request." No, not illegal just undo burden.

No, illegal.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/...

Secretary of State Kobach filed a legal challenge to the suit. It states the records are sealed by state statute and that he is not the custodian of the records. It also points out Carlson filed a similar lawsuit for the paper records in 2013 and was denied access to the paper trail. The judge ruled that the records, even though they did not contain personally identifiable information, were still ballots.

The Secretary of State cannot legally release this information.

Comment Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here? (Score 1) 268

Secretary of State Kobach filed a legal challenge to the suit. It states the records are sealed by state statute and that he is not the custodian of the records. It also points out Carlson filed a similar lawsuit for the paper records in 2013 and was denied access to the paper trail. The judge ruled that the records, even though they did not contain personally identifiable information, were still ballots.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/...

What say you now Dopey?

Comment Re:In other words. (Score -1, Troll) 268

Did you read the part of the linked to article that says that a similar request was refused and the court agreed that these records are not releasable though a FOIA request back in 2013? Yea, didn't think so...

And that proves there's nothing to hide because...?

Never claimed that there was "nothing to hide" only that the courts have already said the researcher may not get the information in her FOIA request.

Why is it folks default setting that when a FOIA request is refused on legal grounds you can assume somebody is hiding something? Might it be a Secretary of State who is just trying to uphold the laws of the state?

IMHO All that's really going on here is some researcher is trying to apply pressure in the press to get data she wants but is not entitled to get and is making unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in an attempt to bolster her case. Nobody has any evidence of vote fraud here, only theories born of ideological bias..

Comment Re:gee I wonder why all the need for secrecy here? (Score 1) 268

If the state law says the voter must remain anonymous and the court has previously said that releasing the records violates that law, this is NOT different.

It doesn't matter what the researcher says she will do with the information, it matters what the state releases. So even if the researcher says they won't release any voter identification information, it doesn't matter, she cannot, by law, have it.

Comment Re:Special Interests, a question (Score 1) 268

I have no dog in this hunt as I don't live or vote in Kansas...

The courts already decided that the Secretary of State is correctly refusing the FOIA request and they did so in 2013. The researcher is just fishing for a different answer and hoping for a different judge. Why else would she file this latest lawsuit? For grins?

Comment Re:It is amazing... (Score 1) 268

Read the articles.... This isn't an audit, it's a FOIA request for records the Secretary of State is not allowed to release, by law. Further, the courts have already decided, back in 2013 for the same records for a different election, in favor of the Secretary of State's position.

Comment It is amazing... (Score 3, Insightful) 268

It's a amazing how many folks have a "Government is hiding something" default setting here. Who, without reading the background material, conclude that the Kansas Secretary of State is stonewalling with the "it's not legal to release this information" argument.

I urge you to read both the above article AND the one it links to. You will discover that this researcher filed almost the EXACT same lawsuit years ago and LOST in court back in 2013. The courts agreed with the Secretary of State that the release of this information was illegal according to Kansas law.

All that's happening now is the researcher is trying to find a judge who might rule differently by filing another lawsuit. She is answer shopping and hoping to "get lucky" this time around. IMHO this is a waste of time and is clogging up the courts with worthless lawsuits.

Comment Re:Special Interests, a question (Score 0, Troll) 268

Who's funding Clarkson's lawsuits?

I don't know but I'll bet they where upset when she lost EXACTLY THE SAME LAWSUIT back in 2013... I'll bet they are upset when she looses this one too.

However, it's the liberal way... If you cannot get what you want and cannot change the law, hammer the courts repeatedly until you get a ruling you like.

Comment Re:In other words. (Score 4, Insightful) 268

This needs to change.

Perhaps it does, however until the law IS changed the Secretary of State is correct, it is illegal for these records to be released because of a FOIA request. The person filing this lawsuit has already lost a nearly identical lawsuit in 2013 (the only difference I know of was the date of the election for which records where requested). They are just hoping to "get lucky" and find a sympathetic judge this time around.

Comment Re:In other words. (Score 4, Informative) 268

No, the secretary of state is correct. There was a nearly identical court case brought by the same person for the same kind of records which was ruled on in 2013. The court sided with the Secretary of State's position. It's unlawful to release these records because of a FOIA request. This researcher is just trying her luck in court hoping for a different ruling.

There are three kinds of people: men, women, and unix.

Working...