Friday’s article by Gary Harmon – “Mesa County converts to stubless ballot” – demands further investigation.

If Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Sheila Reiner’s claim that the “change saves money [and] boosts anonymity” is true, that is surely a good thing – but also proves that Reiner could have “boosted” the integrity of the secret ballot without participating in needless and expensive litigation.

Marilyn Marks remains “unconvinced” by Reiner’s assurances for two reasons.  First, Reiner has been less than candid about her locally discretionary procedures in the past—insisting that they were all required by state and/or federal laws, rules, and/or regulations (and/or “best practices”), when they were obviously not.

Second, pending further explanation of procedures applicable to processing “stubless ballots”, it appears that the secrecy of the ballot is actually being further eroded.

Thus, heretofore, the detachable ballot stub bore a number identifying the “ballot style”.  That stub could be compared to the voter’s signature and expected ballot style without examining the face of the voted ballot containing the voter’s selections.

Absent a detachable stub, election judges and/or other officials will now apparently have to examine the face of the voted ballot itself to determine its style and then compare it to the voter’s signature to confirm that voter’s expected style (to preclude fraud).  Thus, more people (not fewer) will have direct access to a voter’s election choices.

If accurately described, this procedure is consistent with the Colorado County Clerks Association’s contention, and the legal position taken by Reiner and the other defendants in Marks’ federal lawsuit, that “there is no fundamental constitutional right” to vote by secret ballot, and that – even there were such a right – “secrecy” applies only as against the public (and the press) and not as to “sworn” election officials.

Therefore, the Sentinel should seek additional clarification.

                Bill Hugenberg