Thursday, August 2, 2012


I realize this is Cameron county where actual knowledge of the law is not something found among its lawyers. Here are two good related articles on the issue of ballot secrecy.  This is a very live case in Colorado.  I very strongly suggest that lawyers for both side go to Pacer and download the pleadings in the case.  What both sides agree on is, no one can inquire about how someone voted.

I will make this clear, if any lawyer or any person under the direction of the lawyer or party attempts to ask a voter how they voted, I will take the lawyer to the State Bar.  I am  fully aware of allegations coming from both sides that seniors were intimidated into voting a certain way.  I  fully expect both sides to examine the mail ballots and start interviewing the voters.  Again, any lawyer or anyone under their control asks how a voter voted, I will take that lawyer to the State Bar in addition to asking the Civil Rightes Enforcement Section of the Department of Justice to investigate said lawyer and his/her client.  The lawyers need to learn the proper process and not just wing it in court and hope for the best.

Competent lawyers know how to do election contests.  If both candidates intend to interview voters, they better well be prepared to spend money on competent attorneys.  This is not a joke.  Voters do not have to tell anyone who they voted for.  It is that simple.  It would be malpractice for Erin Garcia's campaign to not file a counterclaim so that they can then have mail ballots for Yolanda Begum voided.  Again, no one better be asking how a person voted, without leave of court.  Even then I would hope one of the parties would take the court on immediate mandamus so that the Texas Supreme Court can outline a constitutional method for determining how someone voted.

I strongly recomment both sides go to the court and secure permission for what ever they intend to do.  I personally believe the judge has a duty to appoint an ad litem to represent the interests of the voters.  Without a prima facie case that there were irregularites with a particular vote no party even has standing to ask the court for permission to ask the voter to disclose how they voted.  This must be strictly controlled by the court.  I was shocked in the Pena/Hernandez case how the voters rights were so openly violated by Pena and the court.  Both showed an extraordindary  contempt for the voters and their right to privacy.

Below go to page 102 and look to the testimony of Elisa Medrano.  I was in court when she asked the question about the loss of her privacy.  At no time did the court admonish her she had an absolute right to not answer any question about who she voted for.


It is basic law that any law which impacts the right to vote or the vote itself is subject to the Strict Scritiny test.  This means the state must prove a compelling state interest to justify any law which voids a voter's ballot for reasons caused by a 3rd party.  No such compelling state interest exists, especially since the state can enact criminal penalties to punish the 3rd parties and prevent the conduct.

No comments: