Local Election Issues: Informal Petitions of Aspen City Council

Please join the effort to communicate with City Council on two near term election quality issues. These two informal petitions will be provided to City Council to request that 1) scanned ballot images be made available for public review, and 2) a decisive question be placed on the November, 2009 ballot to allow voters to return to the traditional run-off election method for local elections or maintain IRV. (see more details below.) click the link at the end of EACH petition to add your name to the list of supporters.

INFORMAL PETITION ONE (not necessary to be Aspen Voter)

INFORMAL PETITION

(Request of Aspen City Council Concerning Release of Ballot Images)

We the undersigned hereby request that the City of Aspen make available to the public the electronic images of ballots recorded during the May 2009 City election. The images are an important record, which should be made available upon request for the purpose of reviewing election procedures and maintaining confidence in the election based on independent confirmation of ballot interpretations and tabulations.

Aspen City Council decided to employ progressive technology tools for transparency, which we urge the City to fully utilize and make available to the public. Releasing electronic ballot images, previously shown to the public on projected screens, is a key part of continuing this commitment to transparency.

We acknowledge that the ballots are anonymous, and no personal information is available on the ballots or ballot images. Honoring this request can in no way compromise the secrecy of an individual’s vote.

Further we request that the City cooperate fully in an Independent Review of the May election, and provide all requested election materials.

Click here to support this petition (Not limited to Aspen Voters.)

http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2k1xhqefy3e9lmw/start

=====================================================================

SECOND INFORMAL PETITION (Aspen Voters ONLY, please.)

INFORMAL PETITION

Request of Aspen City Council

REQUEST FOR BINDING BALLOT MEASURE ON IRV

(TO ALLOW VOTERS TO REPLACE IRV WITH TRADITIONAL RUN-OFF ELECTIONS)

The undersigned, qualified electors in the City of Aspen, do hereby request that City Council place a binding question on the November 2009 ballot regarding the method of voting for City Council and Mayor’s offices. We request that the ballot question allow the electorate to vote to re-enact the pre-November 2007 charter language requiring run-offs in the case of a candidate’s failure to achieve stated thresholds (50% for Mayor, and 45% for Council members.)

We request that the ballot measure include the ability to replace the Instant Run-off voting with the previous traditional Run-off elections.

click here to support this petition (Aspen Voters Only Please) http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2k1yn20fy3g98yu/start

Letter to Editor with More Details:

August 7, 2009

Dear Editor:

Come to Saturday Market to enjoy the local creations! And please stop by to sign two informal petitions to City Council.

Although on election night in May, many if not all anonymous ballots were projected in public during scanning, the City no longer considers these ballot images to be public information. One petition is a request that the City release the scanned images for purposes of following through on Aspen’s promised transparency of its new election method. Confirmation of both ballot interpretations and tabulations is a part of a planned Independent Review of Aspen’s novel election, intended to bolster voter confidence and to provide valuable information to Aspen as well as to other towns and counties seeking to improve their elections.

There is NO reason that I am aware of to question the outcome of the election. Citizen oversight ought to apply to any election, without requiring suspicion of wrongdoing.

Council wisely chose improved technology for transparency in May’s election. The benefits from use of new tools should also be made available to the public. The ballots remain anonymous as long as the City maintains no records which connect a voter to her/his ballot. Whether or not you are a local voter, this transparency issue is an excellent one for voters everywhere to support by signing this petition.

The second petition requests that Council construct a decisive ballot question on IRV.

Greatest among the concerns about IRV is the prevention of a focused issues-oriented runoff between the top candidates, after a large field of candidates is narrowed. In addition, the legality of IRV is questionable, tabulation methods are confounding, mathematical anomalies can produce unexpected results, and voter confidence may consequently erode.

Signers of the second petition request the opportunity to change the charter in November to again allow the traditional style of elections with subsequent run-offs to achieve a majority winner. Council desires only an advisory vote this November, which gives inadequate time to make effective changes for the 2011 elections.

Please stop by Saturday Market table to make these requests of Council. Otherwise, please use our on-line form on www.TheRedAnt.com.

Marilyn Marks

Aspen, CO

And many more details at:

http://aspenelectionreview.blogspot.com/

Comments

[Marilyn]

Stop the Greed Now (in Aspen Times blog) wrote:
Golly, I'm not qualified to opine on state law.
THE ISSUE THAT THE CITY ATTNY IS ADDRESSING IS LOCAL LAW, AND SAYING THAT ST LAW DOES NOT PREVAIL.
I can only tell you what I think the city attorney is saying and why I believe the city council feels compelled to follow his advice.
SURE, IT'S A BIG STEP NOT TO FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, AND THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A PUBLIC DIISCUSSION ABOUT THIS. TO CREATE MORE UNDERSTANDING.

And, for the record, it is not only Mick who is following this advice, but the entire city council, including Dwayne Romero.
I AGREE THAT THE MAJORTIY SEEMED TO ACCEPT THE ADVICE, AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT ADVICE.AND WHAT THEIR FEARS OR CONCERNS ARE.

(I do wish we'd stop with the conspiracy theories about staff and their collusion in some sort of illegal course--the city attorney has been around since the mid-1990's, well before Mick).

I'M NOT SUGGESTING ANY COLLUSION, ONLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC.
Anyway, I think the city attorney is saying that state law creates certain privacy interests in voting and ballots that preclude the disclosure of the ballots.
I BELIEVE THE PRIVACY ISSUE HE IS CITING RELATES ONLY TO THOSE BALLOTS THAT MIGHT HAVE IDENTIFYING MARKS, OR HANDWRITING FOR WRITE IN CANDIDATES. MY LAST RECORDS REQUEST EXEMPTED THOSE WITH WRITE IN CANDIDATES TO SATISFY HIS CONCERN.
This is like an employment file, doctor records, abortion records, etc.--all of which have been recognized as "private" even where the patients are "anonymous." So it is a right to privacy that is implicated and perhaps also city liability upon disclosure.
IF, IN FACT, YOUR PRESUMPTION IS CORRECT AND SOMEHOW THE CITY HAS RECORDS ON WHO VOTED HOW, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT INDEED WOULD BE VERY BAD, AND WE SHOULD KNOW THAT---NOT HIDE THAT. BUT I KNOW OF NO CONCERNS OF THAT TYPE.
More, cont'd
Why not askSo, I guess what I'd suggest is that you actually engage the city attorney and try to understand his legal objections.
OH YES, WE HAVE HAD CORRESPONDENCE AND MEETINGS SINCE JUNE 1 ON THIS ISSUE. AND VERY LONG AND CORDIAL MEETINGS. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I AM DOING SHOOTING FROM THE HIP. THIS IS WITH EXPERT LEGAL ADVICE AND AFTER HOURS OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY ATTNYS.
I'm pretty sure they are well-reasoned, and while it's possible he is wrong, it is entirely unreasonable to expect city council to ignore their legal council and invade the privacy of the voters.
CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE FEAR ABOUT "PRIVACY"? IF YOU CAN, THAT MIGHT REALLY BREAK A LOG JAM.---BECAUSE MANY OF US, AND THE VOTER INTERGRITY GROUPS LOOKING AT ASPEN NOW, DON'T UNDERSTAND. THIS IS WHAT i WROTE TO A BLOGGER WITH THE SAME CONCERNS ON THE DAILY NEWS POST:
MRM COMMENT--The voter integrity groups around the country watching Aspen don't understand what the potential harm is that might be done. Or what the public's perception is of that harm.
Facts:
1) The ballots are anonymous, and can't be traced back to an individual.
2) The ballot images have already been projected on a big screen one by one on election night.
3)A sample of the ballots was available for observing by the public, and two of my representatives did so on May 7 scanning test.
4) The ordinance adopting the election process specificied the public observation of the ballots.
5) The data interpreted by the scanner from each ballot image has been released to the public as promised.
6)This is merely a copy of an existing CD of the ballot images being requested, which does not involve touching the physical balllots. No fear of ballot damage.
7)The adoption of IRV processes was based on maximum transparency, and allowing everyone to see "everything for themselves."
8)The election outcome is NOT in question in any way. NO amount of auditing would change the outcome.

What is the specific concern about the harm that might be done?

Your input would be appreciated.
=================================================================

And, I do entirely understand the logic of your argument that these ballots are truly annonymous, so what's the harm. But this is something that has actually been dealt with in other contexts, especially abortion clinics and their statistics and number of patients, etc. All anonymous, but still something that threatens the privacy of those patients and hence has been protected. That is probably the logic here.
SEE MY COMMENT ABOVE, ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE CITY IN NO WAY (!!!) SHOULD HAVE SUCH RECORDS, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY DO.
But what's the point, really? Can't we debate whether we have IRV or runoffs without the ballots?
STG---THANK YOU FOR ASKING. THERE IS MUCH CONFUSION ON THAT. HARVIE'S REVIEW IS NOT AT ALL ABOUT IRV---BUT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW FROM THE REGISTRATION PROCESS, TO BALLOT CONTROL, TO SCANNING MACHINE ACCURACY, TO POST ELECTION REPORTING. THE THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN ALL ELECTIONS---IRV OR NOT. IT IS THE NEW SOFTWARE THAT WAS NECESSARY TO RUN IRV THAT BROUGHT THE ABILITY FOR A CITIZEN TO DO A COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT. HIS TYPE OF REVIEW SHOULD BE ROUTINE FOR EVERY ELECTION---AND BE ABLE TO BE PERFORMED BY ANY INTERESTED CITIZEN.---IRV ELECTION OR NOT.

THE CONFUSION COMES IN PART BECAUSE SIMULTANEOUSLY I AM ASKING FOR A CHANCE TO HAVE VOTERS REPEAL THE IRV METHOD. PEOPLE ARE NATURALLY CONFUSING THE TWO SUBJECTS, SINCE THE IRV MATH AND BALLOTS WILL ALSO BE A SUBJECT OF HIS REVIEW.

Might we also concentrate our energy on verifying whether our voters are truly residents as required? MUSIC TO MY EARS!!! YES. AND I EXPECT AND HOPE THAT HARVIE WILL BE INCLUDING THAT IN HIS REVIEW PROCEDURES.

WHAT YOU HAVE REINFORCED FOR ME IS THAT SENSE THAT WE NEED A CC WORKSESSION TO AIR THESE QUESTIONS AND CLARIFY THINGS. PARTICULARLY BECAUSE ASPEN MADE HUGE STEPS IN TRANSPARENCY METHODS FOR THE MAY ELECTION. EVERN IF WE VOTE OUT IRV, WE NEED TO STILL MAINTAIN THAT NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT PROVIDES TRANSPARENCY AND THE ABILITY OF ANY CITIZEN TO "SEE FOR HIMSELF."
WE DON'T NEED TO LOSE THAT NOW.

I APPRECIATE YOUR SERIOUS RESPONSES. AND WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION EVEN MORE IF YOU CHOSE TO SHARE IT.
i HOPE YOU HAD THE CHANCE TO FOLLOW THE LINK TO WHAT THE ORDINANCE PROMISED IN TERMS OF PUBLIC OBSERVATION OF BALLOTS.

FEEL FREE TO WRITE ME OFF LINE TO DISCUSS FURTHER IF YOU WISH.