[EL] Secret signatures and secret ballots

Fri Oct 21 23:08:39 PDT 2011

Ballot secrecy needs further definition.  A ballot can be secret from 
the government but not secret from manipulators.

For the past decade, Oregon has had ballots that are secret from 
government but not secret from manipulators.  All voting is my mail (or 
drop-off).  The completed ballots are secret from government (assuming 
that the government employees and temp workers follow all the rules), 
because each completed ballot is inside a sealed "secrecy envelope."  
The voter inserts the secrecy envelope inside the outer return envelope 
and signs the outer envelope. When the government receives the ballot, 
it checks the signature on the outer envelope.  If it looks OK, the 
secrecy envelope is then tossed into the pile to be opened and counted.  
The voter need not appear in person anywhere and need not provide 
identification other than a signature.

The ballots are not secret from manipulators, because any voter could 
place his or her authentic signature on the outer envelope and then give 
it, along with the ballot it came with and the secrecy envelope, to 
anyone who wishes to buy votes.

The photo below shows that Oregon does not take the step of having the 
signature intersect the the boundary between the envelope and its sealed 
flap.  Thus, the envelope can be signed without first being sealed, 
which makes vote selling look easy.  Even if the signature line were 
placed on that boundary, a voter could sell to a manipulator the blank 
ballot and the service of signing the envelope after the manipulator 
completes the ballot.

I would be interested in the opinions of the list members about the 
security of this arrangement.

Oregon vote envelope

Dan Meek
dan at meek.net
	10949 S.W. 4th Ave
Portland, OR 97219 	503-293-9021
866-926-9646 fax

On 10/21/2011 6:31 PM, Doug Hess wrote:

Sorry for the confusion ...what were the other reasons?

Doug

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Lowenstein, Daniel
<lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>  wrote:

>        I did not suggest eliminating circulators and having petitions signed at government-controlled locations as a solution to possible problems of bribery and intimidation.  I said I favored that change for other reasons.  As it is, I tend to agree that bribery and intimidation are not likely to be widespread means for obtaining signatures.  It simply isn't necessary, as Bob Stern and I showed in an article on Meyer v. Grant in the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, I believe in 1988.
>
>              Best,
>
>              Daniel H. Lowenstein
>              Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
>              UCLA Law School
>              405 Hilgard
>              Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
>              310-825-5148
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Hess [douglasrhess at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 5:51 PM
> To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Secret signatures and secret ballots
>
> One other thought: Is there any recent evidence of substantial intimidation to get people to sign or not sign? Arguments about solutions for policy problems that don't include some empirical investigation means we don't know if there is a problem nor the true nature, scale, and consequences of the problem. After all, Dan's solution (have petitions at government controlled locations) might be a solution worse than the problem.
>
> -Doug
>
>   From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>  [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene [VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu<mailto:VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 3:16 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Secret signatures and secret ballots
>
>        I appreciate Dan's point, and if indeed the main reason for the secret ballot is preventing voters from being bribed to vote in favor of an initiative, then I agree that there's a difference between secrecy of the ballot and secrecy of initiative/referendum/recall signatures.
>
>        But it seems to me that at least a very large part -- perhaps the largest part -- of the modern support for the secret ballot is that it lets people vote their conscience without fear of retaliation (not just from signature gatherers but also from others, including initiative opponents).  This is both seen as fairer to voters, and more likely to reflect actual public sentiment, unaffected by the fear of retaliation.  In this respect, the worry isn't just that people will be intimidated into signing a petition (I agree that this risk remains present regardless of whether either ballots or initiative signatures are kept secret).  The worry is that people will be intimidated into not signing a petition, and not voting for the initiative.
>
>        And this concern, it seems to me, counsels equally for secrecy of signatures as it does for secrecy of ballots.  Again, perhaps the recall example might be especially helpful:  We have a secret ballot as to candidates partly because we don't want incumbents to intimidate people into voting for them.  (We also don't want challengers to do the same.)  Likewise, we have a secret ballot on the recall for precisely this reason.  Wouldn't having secrecy of signatures as to the recall petitions likewise serve the same goal, to pretty much the same extent?  True, such secrecy wouldn't prevent intimidation of voters into *signing* the petition; but it would minimize the intimidation of voters into *not signing* the petition.  And if that's so as to recalls, it seems to me it's comparably so as to initiatives and referenda.
>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111021/5c5c79f5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: s5000271.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15733 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111021/5c5c79f5/attachment.jpg>