Letters to the editor
Dear editor:
The Monitor Dec. 21 article concerning paper ballots quoted four people giving anecdotal information and subjective opinion as response to testimony offered by election judges in …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Attention subscribers
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
Letters to the editor
Dear editor:
The Monitor Dec. 21 article concerning paper ballots quoted four people giving anecdotal information and subjective opinion as response to testimony offered by election judges in commissioners’ court Nov. 28. The information judges offered came from the Election’s Office and tally tapes from the voting machines. These four claimed the judges had “an agenda.” The agenda is election integrity. These four belong to a group opposing election integrity initiatives around the country.
The Secretary of State calls for a single media to be used in the election: paper ballots or programmable electronic voting machines, but not both. Federal law mandates an ADA compliant machine be made available to handicapped individuals who might benefit from its use. In direct contradiction to SoS rules, the Elections Office directed judges not to attach the ADA devices to the machines which could have resulted in fines to the county. In no case were any of the ADA machines “tucked into a corner” as the WCM reported. All were located adjacent to the voting booths in such a way to allow for wheelchair access. The Elections Office issued a script encouraging voters to vote on the machines. This misinformation was an abuse of our citizens.
The question repeatedly put to commissioners’ court which they conspicuously fail to answer is, “Can you name a single advantage to Wood County that justifies spending in excess of a million dollars for equipment, maintenance fees, programming fees and licenses?” Keep in mind that we had numerous failures of this brand new equipment, that the programming is written in Austin, that the maintenance contract is with a company out of Austin, and that the licensing fees are paid to a company in Austin. Why do we want to send all of Wood County’s money to Austin? The only evidence of any sense of economy was when they sent the early voting Republican election judge home to save $20 in overtime costs.
If you want to talk about agendas, ask us who authored the script, issued to each polling location, advising voters to use these machines.
Terrell AronSpeer
Quitman
