[EL] Court affirms public right to examine ballots

[Paul Lehto]

On 9/9/11, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall at gmail.com> wrote:
> Voted opscan ballots are not necessarily anonymous...
> New Research Result: Bubble Forms Not So Anonymous
> https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/wclarkso/new-research-result-bubble-forms-not-so-anonymous
> Results like these have lead many to recommend not releasing images of
> ballots publicly...

So the government and/or its contractor errs in such a way as to
violate the right of voters not to have their identity associated with
a ballot (a primary purpose of which is to protect voters against the
government itself), and the government seizes on its own error in
adopting voting systems that allow this violation to attempt to
justify withholding ballots from the public generally?

Do we have to whip out our Latin dictionaries of legal terms and use
Latin terms for the proposition that the government and its
contractors can't seize on their own error to justify other errors and
violations?  Or can we just say that this is wrong?

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)