Skip to comments.Federal judge says no constitutional right to secret ballot in Boulder case
Posted on 09/22/2012 10:41:52 PM PDT by newzjunkey
Saying there is no fundamental right to a secret ballot, a federal judge Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by elections integrity activists that challenged whether counties can print ballots with identifying numbers that critics say can be traced back to individual voters easily. ...
[Judge] Arguello said activists had not shown the plaintiffs had suffered or would suffer any specific injury that could be remedied by a federal court. She said that even if a ballot could be traced back to a specific voter, it doesn't show that a person's voting rights were violated, saying there was no "fundamental right" to a secret vote in the U.S. Constitution. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at vivacolorado.com ...
The judge ruled there is not issue since no voter has yet demonstrated harm from their votes being known.
In addition to gov't knowledge of who voted how, the Open Records Act ensures the public can inspect ballots too.
Yep, no good will come from this.
“We know where you live, so you better vote the correct way”
The judge is a moron
dismissed a lawsuit filed by elections integrity activists that challenged whether counties can print ballots with identifying numbersYeah, well, it would be better if it were even easier to stuff the ballot box. Bad judge, bad, bad!
Hmm.. Researching this a little makes me scratch my chin. In a way, it looks like those opposed to this ruling are concerned that Democrat vote fraud might be easier to ascertain (and therefore, prosecute). Note that this article is from the Hispanic, illegal alien version of the Denver Post.
When I get a receipt after I vote, I want to know that my ballot didn't get thrown into San Francisco Bay. I want to be able to have my ballot produced if the need should arise.
"We know you live in Mexico, so you better vote there instead of here."
Off of the top of my head I can’t think of any reference in the Constitution to secret ballots.
It's probably hiding under one of the penumbras or emanations or something.
if there is a secret balance reference, it must be chosen (or not) by the legislatures of each state.
... and NOT any judge, for sure.
Biographical Directory of Federal Judges
Arguello, Christine M.
Born 1955 in Thatcher, CO
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
Nominated by George W. Bush on July 10, 2008, to a seat vacated by Walker D. Miller. Confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 2008, and received commission on October 21, 2008.
Associate & full professor, University of Kansas School of Law, 1991-1999
Visiting & adjunct professor, University of Colorado School of Law, 1999-2002
Visiting professor, University of Denver College of Law, 2003
If there is a "right to privacy" which even includes dismembering a child within you, how could it be that voting is something which the armed gangbangers known as The State can force you to reveal?
Maybe this little Wise Latina made a big Ooopsie which could be exploited to kill the Roe monster.
Yep - it doesn't avoid privacy at the booths, it makes a traceable record in case anyone ever really wanted to investgate fraud...
Voting was public and in person in early Virginia too. On that day every free man with minimal property was equal to the wealthiest Planter.
In Texas and most (but not quite all) states, people that vote in Primaries are identified by which party’s primary they voted in. So, at least in my case, being that I vote in Republican primaries, it’s a pretty safe bet who I’ll vote for in November. And if Obama wants to sick the IRS or some other government agency on me, he’s already had plenty of chances and hasn’t yet done it.
I’m tending to like the idea of a paper trail, and the Republicans could (but won’t) use it as a campaign weapon - with advertising pointing out that each vote is traceable. It would SCARE THE HECK out of the Illegals.