2-26-2024 Glenhaven - Whatcom County - Recently Malcolm received his Presidential Primary Ballot in the mail like every other Washingtonian registered to vote. But to his surprise, he noticed there was a checkbox on the outside to declare which party he is voting for in the primary. As he had never noticed that before, he posted it on Nextdoor to find out more about this, asking: "Have you always had to declare your party on the outside of the mail in ballot?" He further stated: "I thought voting in this country is [supposed] to be a private decision of each individual. Maybe it has always been this way and I just [don't] remember?"
Nope, apparently, change whereby the party choice is clearly on the outside of the ballot, started a decade ago when "The Washington Legislature passed Senate Bill 5124 in 2011 requiring all counties to conduct all elections entirely by mail ballot"(7); something controversial and believed to compromise ballots.
Therefore anyone handling the ballot during it's delivery, knows which party you're voting in. Another person commented that they were more offended that their signature is on the outside than their party affiliation. And that is a good point because scammers can scan your signature and use it in every kind of criminal manner imaginable, e.g. identity theft. In fact in 2020 the then "Secretary of State Kim Wyman cite[d] privacy concerns for her decision to skip Washington's presidential primary."(8)
The rules for primaries are different than the rules for the general election. Nevertheless, your choice must match the slate of candidates of your party selection on the outside. ***And failing to mark one of the 2 party boxes on the outside unfortunately, will disqualify your ballot. Also this doesn't tie you to a party in the general election. (more on that below)
So I looked up the statute that protects your right to a confidential / secret ballot, and there are 3 instances in Washington State Statute RCW 29A.04.611(3)
"(11) Procedures to ensure the secrecy of a voter's ballot when a small number of ballots are counted;"
"(34) Standards and procedures to guarantee the secrecy of ballots;"
"(39) The aggregation of precinct results if reporting the results of a single precinct could jeopardize the secrecy of a person's ballot;"
Thus one can clearly see that at worst it's a direct if not bordering on violation of Statute RCW 29A.04.611(34) or at the least in the statutes intent. While they say the general election ballot will respect the statute, some think this is an attempt to test the voters' view of this security issue; if not noticed and no uproar, then will they proceed to change the statute? But I think such thinking might be a little extreme. But why cause voters to feel intimidated?
Unfortunately this is turning voters off, as Malcolm further responded:
"My wife refuses to vote in this primary for this reason and I kind of agree", and many agreed too! Personally, a friend of mine almost mailed her ballot to herself, as she put it back in the envelope she recieved it in, by habit of doing that in the past when party choice was still confidential.In fact, most voters were upset, but some said it was good for sorting while others said every ballot is accounted for, so if there's a difference, then there's an investigation. Honestly, anyone in the computer programming field knows privacy can so easily be maintained while keeping the sorting process efficient. It's known as good computer programming.
(1) What if the mailman or people working the machines at the post offices that the ballot travels through, hate Democrats or vice versa and toss them?
(2) Or one of the persons handling them is a fanatic and decides to bully, hurt or even murder the person whose party choice has been divulged? Even if this rarely happens, it would be 1 too many. Who will be responsible? Obviously the Secretary of State, but who pays for the litigation and relief? None other than the taxpayer!
(3) Finally, the secretary of state seems to assume everything will be handled in the most honorable way, however the reality of human nature often shows the opposite.
(4) Neighbors commented about investigations if ballots don't add up, but those take time, and will they be followed through if the victims are not in the party the investigators like?
(5) And who investigates the investigators?
***Finally, why create all these problems that disenfranchise voters, when keeping the confidential inside the ballot where it belongs and was easily be done in the past?
Campaignlegal.org gives a good lesson on the "Secret Ballot: "The modern conception of a “secret ballot” originated in Australia and was initially adopted in the American electoral system during the 1888 presidential election. By allowing voters to keep their ballots secret, they could make their voices heard without the fear of coercion or intimidation."(5) Yes we need to get back to that, otherwise there may be abuses or knowing human nature, there will definitely be abuses.
Perhaps secretballotatrisk.org says it best: "Our findings show that the vast majority of states (44) have constitutional provisions guaranteeing secrecy in voting, while the remaining states have statutory provisions referencing secrecy in voting. Despite that, 32 states allow some voters to transmit their ballots via the Internet which, given the limitations of current technology, eliminates the secrecy of the ballot. Twenty-eight of these states require the voter to sign a waiver of his or her right to a secret ballot. The remainder fail to acknowledge the issue." Wow, very interesting and sad.(6)
There's another problem, people can declare a party but are not tied to it during the presidential election. Thus if enough people in party A declare party B they can choose the less effective candidate in that party and skew the results. Of course, they are losing their ability to declare their party A and choose a candidate; but what if there's only 1 real candidate and they do not have to worry about that candidate getting the nomination? Therefore this needs to change, they should only be allowed to vote for those in their party so as not to "game" the system; simply put RCW 29A.04.620 needs to be changed to force the secretary of state or legislature to tie voters to the party declaration. Thus this is a very bad change on the ballot and should be changed back to respect confidentiality. Maybe you and your friends can send the governor, and state legislatures letters to respect voters confidentiality for party affiliation, signature exposure to possible criminal activity and gaming capability even for primaries?
(1) https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voters/helpful-information/presidential-primary-faq
(2 ) https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/data-research/history-laws-and-litigation/history-washington-state-primary
(3) https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.04.611
(4) Pic of the ballot: Me
(5) https://campaignlegal.org/update/voters-have-right-secret-ballot
(6) https://secretballotatrisk.org/
(7) https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/washington-ballot-with-party-affiliation-envelope-is-presidential-primary-only-2024-03-06/
(8)Thanks Jake - https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/presidential-primary-secretary-state-not-voting/281-c8ff140a-bf7a-4888-ae38-aa0155d52715
[ ] Brackets are used to correct the spelling of a person's quote to avoid English and Literature Teachers from having a heart attack, LoL.
By Chief Editor Angelo-Lk-Whatcom-Rider-Writer, Posted 3-2-24 & Updated 3-3-24
About The writer: I've lived in Bellingham since February, 2011, and love the beautiful trees & greenery producing all that oxygen, and of course, the lake, bay, hills and mountains too. I've also been in the lovely Anacortes area for part of that time, going back and forth, since moving here.
Educational/Professional Background: Economics & Political Science Degrees at UCF. Attended Graduate School of Economics at FSU, and have worked for the FL Labor Dept as well as consulted for the FL Labor Dept on behalf of the US Labor Dept. I've been happily working in my own businesses since 1993.