Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:16:49 -0700 From: ernesthancock@INFICAD.COM (Ernest Hancock) Subject: voter database To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
Many of you have been following this issue and have privacy concerns of your own (being gun owners and such). So I post this for those of you interested. If not, hit delete now!
Sent to all legislators
From: Ernest Hancock, ernesthancock@inficad.com
The folowing is a portion of an article that will appear in the next Arizona Libertarian that is sent to all registered Libertarians and media. I apolgize for spelling and grammer errors since this has yet to be proofed. But with news that you'd be presented with a bill reguarding the voter database I thought it best to send this to you right away.
Included in this small portion of the article is:
1) The real reason that the Libertarian Party threatened internet posting of the voter database. 2) The real reason the County Recorders want the law changed. 3) And what really needs to be done.
Thanks for your time.
............................Why? Because the day after the story broke in all its glory in the press I was on the Jay Sharpe show on KFYI by phone with Representative Steve May (R) in studio. Representative May was campaigning for a bill that he introduced to make it more difficult for banks to sell their customers personel information without their knowledge. Of course my concern was that this standard was not being applied to the information that was provided for free to the political parties. May began to argue in support of the idea that politicians had a greater right to the data than the people had to their privacy, but he quickly (and wisely) saw that he was getting the crap beat out of him by the host and myself on this issue and the double standard that he was trying to apply. Representative Steve May then did us a great favor (that he'll regret and hear about from his colleagues till the end of time). He said, "Ernie, your a master marketer. I have been asked by the Governor to give her names that she would appoint to a "privacy commission" and I'll make sure you are on it". This prompted a commitment in the form of a promise that was forced on the Representative by the talk show host Jim Sharpe. Mr. Sharpe asked to be kept up on Rep. May's promise..... haven't heard a peep Jim. But I did get a call from Speaker of the House, Jeff Groscost' office requesting that I attend a meeting in his office that Thursday afternoon at 4pm.
The meeting consisted of an aid, the Speaker, three lobbyist and myself. It was my impression that the Republicans were represented, the Democrats and the AFL-CIO (labor unions). The short of it was this. The labor unions wanted easier access to the data without having to pay a lot for it (to which I made it clear that the data was accumulated from tax dollars and that we have been making it available to anyone for legal use for free since 1994. But for some reason they were pushing very strongly for the data being made much cheaper for direct access to PACs. The Democrats had little to say (a former State Senator represented them). But the other gentleman couldn't understand what the big deal was, "everybody knows that any of this data is out there for anybody to get, so what's the big deal"? Here is where I made my case to the people that make the law. "THAT is the big deal. If you want to instruct your party's candidates to run on that sentiment then I thank you. Our Libertarian candidates will argue that it is the government that is selling our identities and our privacy". "The protection of personal data is allowed in Title 16 but only for government employees. I say that this is a constitutional violation of equal protection and the voters will say the same thing". "Here you are arguing how much MORE available your going to make this data available while refusing to address the privacy issues. What you are advocating is the idea that I must first _buy_ my right to vote with my personal information so that it can then be sold by the government for a profit. And any claim that all of this data is required for security is crap. If that is so then what do you need my occupation for"? "I have teenage children that will soon have the chance to register to vote, and guess what, I'll council them NOT to register to vote as long as they do not have the opportunity to keep their data private". "Anyone with an eighteen year old daughter going off to college has to know that anyone can find out the most personal data with just a name if she is registered to vote". "I'm pushing for awareness on this issue not only as a Libertarian but also as a father that wants his children to be able to exercise their 1st Amendment rights by voting without giving up their right to privacy for government and political parties to gain more money, power and control from me, and as time goes by, my children." It was made clear to me that in no way were they going to address the issue of privacy this session and that the only bill that was going to be introduced, to make nice with labor, was the bill to expand access to the data. I told them, "I have no problem with the data being available as long as individuals have the chance to have their data deleted from the database, just as the government employees do". "But, maybe I would want to publish on the internet the voter ID # along with the voting history of that number? Anyone would be able to look at their ID # on their voter card and go to the web to see the history that was recorded. I wonder how many people would complain that they were listed as having early voted in elections that they had not voted in"? Wow! It got quiet then. "The law is very clear. I could have just posted this information on the internet and publisized where it was. In fact that is what the Arizona Republic wanted me to do. But this would have been in violation of what the Libertarian Party stands for and I was glad when so many people recognised that fact, 'that wouldn't be very Libertarian, would it'"? "So the message is getting out". "My point is that it is legal right now". ""Even if you do as the County Elections wishes (and they'll be down here I promise) and pass legislation that forbids the use of the internet to distribute the data for political purposes, you are not likely to be asked to allow the voter the choice to have their personal data kept secret like is available for police and judges". ""The County Recorders will still wish the ability to contract for the release of every voters personal informatio n at a profit". "So you see what this is about for us IS privacy of our personal data and the right to vote without being forced to sell your privacy". "And the issue for the County Elections Department is the maintaining of the monopoly of selling of this data for commercial use and profit without giving the voter the option of keeping his personal information from being distributed for as payment for the "right" to vote".
Note: Standing for lawsuits is all important and sometimes takes time as does the awakening of the voter to certain issues. Soon a federal Lawsuit will be filed to oppose the statute that allows "special rights & privilege to government employees that do not apply to all voters". This is an equal protection clause violation,... clear and simple,... no matter what the courts say.
So. Is there a hero at the legislature that will make an amendment that will amend ARS 16-153 so that any voter may retain their privacy? It's simple just add the words, ANY REGISTERING OR REREGISTERING VOTER to paragraph A. Ask around and find out where the real opposition to freedom comes from.
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/16/153.htm 16-153. Voter registration confidentiality definition
A. Justices of the supreme court, judges of the court of appeals, judges or commissioners of the superior court, municipal court judges, peace officers or victims of domestic violence may request that the general public be prohibited from accessing the residential address, telephone number and voting precinct number contained in their voter registration record.
B. Justices, judges, commissioners or officers may request this action by filing an affidavit which states all of the following:
1. The person's name.
2. The position the person currently holds and a description of the person's duties.
3. The reasons for reasonably believing that the person's life or safety or that of another person is in danger and that sealing the residential address, telephone number and voting precinct number of the person's voting record will serve to reduce the danger.
C. The affidavit shall be filed with the presiding judge of the superior court in the county in which the affiant resides. To prevent a multiplicity of filings, peace officers shall deliver the affidavit to their commanding officer, who shall file the affidavits at one time. In the absence of an affidavit that contains a request for immediate action and is supported by facts justifying an earlier presentation, the commanding officer shall not file affidavits of peace officers presented to the commanding officer more often than quarterly.
D. Upon receipt of an affidavit or affidavits, the presiding judge of the superior court shall file with the clerk of the superior court a petition on behalf of all requesting justices, judges, commissioners and peace officers. The petition shall have attached each affidavit presented. In the absence of an affidavit that contains a request for immediate action and is supported by facts justifying an earlier consideration, the presiding judge may accumulate affidavits and file a petition at the end of each quarter.
E. The presiding judge of the superior court shall review the petition and each attached affidavit to determine whether the action requested by each justice, judge, commissioner or officer should be granted. The presiding judge of the superior court shall order the sealing of the information contained in the voter record of the justice, judge, commissioner or officer if the presiding judge concludes that this action will reduce a danger to the life or safety of the affiant.
F. Upon entry of the court order, the clerk of the superior court shall file the court order with the county recorder. Upon receipt of the court order the county recorder shall seal the voter registration of the justices, judges, commissioners or officers listed in the court order no later than one hundred fifty days from the date of receipt of the court order. The information in the registration shall not be disclosed and is not a public record.
G. If the court denies an affiant's requested sealing of the voter registration record, the affiant may request a court hearing. The hearing shall be conducted by the court where the petition was filed.
H. Upon request by a domestic violence victim and presentation of an order of protection issued pursuant to section 13-3602, an injunction against harassment issued pursuant to section 12-1809 or an order of protection or injunction against harassment issued by a court in another state, the county recorder shall seal the voter registration record of the domestic violence victim. The record shall be sealed no later than one hundred fifty days from the date of receipt of the court order. The information in the registration shall not be disclosed and is not a public record.
I. For the purposes of this section, "domestic violence" has the same meaning as prescribed by section 20-448.