I'm at the Duval County Supervisor of Elections' canvassing board meeting where @chrishandjax is arguing, on behalf of @DuvalDEC, that the board overturn its rule banning cameras and that the board consider live-streaming its meetings since there is a 10-person limit.

Banning photos of ballot inspections would have prohibited photos like the famous hanging-chad photos in 2000.

The last issue Hand is bringing up is the ability of voters to challenge the board's determination of voter intent on ballots. The board says observers can only challenge ballots if observers think the ballots are illegal, not if they think the board is misconstruing voter intent

Ed Birk, lawyer for @wjxt4, is now speaking about need for media access to canvassing board proceedings. He notes the ability of media to livestream court proceedings. "One of the reasons the process in 2000 was successful was the degree of access the public had to the process."

"I think we can all remember the photos from, I think, Palm Beach County. ... Public trust has been eroded, and now more than ever, we need to restore public trust."

Duval County Judge Brent Shore, chairman of the canvassing board, notes he was the chairman in 2000 as well.

Leslie Goller of Terrell Hogan is talking about how in the past the board showed ballots when they were duplicated and presented to the canvassing board. This time, she said, the board is not allowing the public to see the duplication of the ballots.

Jason Teal with the city's office of general counsel is now responding. He said Hand didn't cite any legal authority that said canvassing board meetings, specifically, should be public. Hand pointed to the FL constitution and laws that require board meetings be open.

Teal notes that voter signatures are not public records that can be duplicated.

As to the question of observers filing challenges, Teal said parties can note whatever ballot numbers they have problems with and then later challenge them in court. "I'm not concerned about the preservation of evidence, someone to present evidence to mount an election contest."

The burden of proof in court is on the party to show that “rejection of a number of legal votes [is] sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.”

Teal says that ballots are different now since they aren't punch cards anymore, which makes things different. ... (If I remember correctly, Duval didn't have punch cards in 2000, despite Duval allowing the public in for canvassing. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Teal also says the election laws have changed since 2000, though I didn't hear him cite what specific changes are relevant here.

Teal said they will project the ballots onto the screen.

Ed Birk now speaking. "Whether the public had access before or after the election in 2000 doesn't matter."

Teal is saying that because public records will be presented that could be redacted, they shouldn't allow live-streaming. Even though in court, every single day, lawyers present evidence that could be redacted in front of TV cameras.

Teal is saying that revealing records that are exempt is opening a Pandora's box. In Florida, records custodians are allowed to release exempt records. The fact it's exempt means that it is up to the discretion of the custodian whether they release it or not.

Goller notes that the email from the division of elections that Teal is relying on just said that observers can't determine intent, and they're arguing for the right to challenge voter intent determinations, not to actually determine them.

Jason Teal does not seem to understand the legal differences between "exempt" records and "confidential" records, but this is the same OGC that also thinks "shall" means "may", so your mileage may vary.

I'll also say that Teal misrepresented Hand's letter. Teal said Hand offered no legal basis for making canvassing board meetings open to the public.
You can read the letter here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a6otf9-GnCzTzCNM4JHlh0DKAln4k7If/view?usp=sharing

Teal: "Voter turnout is enormous. The pressure on the board and staff is tremendous." He says the procedures are designed to make this more efficient.

Michael Boylan, former head of WJCT public radio: "I've not heard anything here that the law requires cameras."

Ed Birk asks to speak up again. Shore asks that he's brief. "There's a technological solution here that would allow live-streaming and protect the canvassing board under public records law. We've done it in courts. We can do it here."

Shore: "The canvassing board is all in agreement, and we're in agreement with our counsel's position."

Duval canvassing chairman Shore: "Mr. Hand, let me say, I'd read all of these. I re-read them. I know you cited your three counties. I have no idea. Whatever they do and you're comfortable with, that's fine. I don't know what they're doing. I haven't been in contact with them."

Shore: "The decision of the canvassing board is we are going to stand by the Duval County Canvassing Board procedures for observers. The memos distributed Oct. 9, 2020."

Chris Hand asks if this means no one can even file challenges to voter intent to preserve on the record. Shore: "That's correct."

We are now going through ballots. I intend to continue photographing, FWIW. They ruled this a no vote on retaining Justice Muñiz

Here are the rules the board is continuing.

They ruled this one, where someone filled in Biden’s bubble and less than half of Trump’s bubble, as an overvote

Judge Shore is now asking @schindy if she is filming. She said she is. And now they're telling First Coast News and News4Jax to stop recording.

Jason Teal is no reading the rule he wrote. "Unless otherwise permitted by law, cameras, video cameras and cell phone cameras are not permitted to be used during ballot canvassing." Shore: "You can stay but your cameras can't be on."

Jim Piggot of Ch. 4: "So the public cannot see this."

Shore is reiterating they need to turn the cameras off but can use audio recording. Piggot notes we can barely hear Shore. “Fine, I’ll scream.”

Jason Teal says the prohibition on cameras is so the board doesn’t have to babysit us.

Piggot: "So the public can't see the questionable ballots?"
Teal: "The public can come down here."
Schindler: "With social distancing?"

Shore is exasperated. Says he didn't tell anyone to leave, but cameras must be off. "You can audio-record. We just can't have it appear."

Shore: "I don't want to babysit it at all."
Schindler: "With all due respect, we sit in courtrooms all the time. We follow the rules."
Teal: "This was a rule. You didn't follow it."

Chris Hand urges civility: "Mr. Teal has referred to the media being here as babysitting."

With that, media are packing up and leaving. Duval County's Canvassing Board is placing a limit on the number of observers and saying that there can be no video recording of the process of determining voter intent.

I spoke too soon. TV reporters are in the hallway talking to supervisors about next steps.

Judge Brent Shore has been on his phone for much of this meeting. I've requested his text messages.

Shore points to one ballot where someone put a signature on the ballot and says this is an example of confidential information. That's an interesting interpretation of law.

Florida law says signatures used in voter registration are confidential and exempt. The Florida attorney general has repeatedly ruled that this doesn't mean signatures on ballots or on mail envelopes are confidential. I don't know of any ruling that they should be confidential.

Judge Shore is a county judge in Duval. He says this is an example of something that if we photographed, it would be a "Pandora's box". He did not cite any law to defend his position that signatures on ballots can't be made public.

Here's the law: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0097/0097.html
Here is one of the AG opinions: http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/2FB794E1CFD5FEE8852569F2006226C0

I did find this from the Division of State rules, which says a 2005 amendment extended the confidential rule to signatures on "voting related records". https://opinions.dos.state.fl.us/searchable/pdf/2012/de1210.pdf

I'll still say that Judge Shore and Jason Teal would do well to learn the difference between confidential and exempt. The updated law doesn't make signatures confidential. It makes them exempt, which means it's at the discretion of custodians whether they release copies.

In one ballot, someone filled in the full circle for John Rutherford and Donna Deegan and then wrote something next to the vote, but the handwriting wasn't very clear. The board ruled it a vote for Rutherford.

I'd love to share a photo of the ballot, except they banned photos of ballots. Maybe someone else could read the handwriting better than I and would've seen intent. I certainly didn't. But even if someone disagreed, general counsel says they can't dispute the board's decision.

Wow. Judge Shore just said someone didn't vote for Deegan because it didn't get in the bubble. In reality, the person overfilled the bubble so you can't see the outline of it, but it's a clear vote for Deegan. Councilman Boylan disagreed with Shore. I think they're reprinting.

Shore said the bubble for the write-in spot was Deegan's bubble. It wasn't.

If the board makes errors, Jacksonville general counsel says no one can dispute them to the board.

Chris Hand just asked to see duplicated ballots, not just the originals, which he said is allowed by law. Shore said they will not go back and review duplicated ballots.

Shore said they will start showing both the duplicated and original ballot on the screen, but the disgruntled judge added, "Unless you think I'm lying, I read every vote."

We have a county judge here who has talked about "babysitting" journalists and has accused the local Democratic Party of saying he's "lying" when they ask to exercise their rights.

Before these ballots come in, elections staff go through and make a duplicate where staff fill in the bubbles. Sometimes, Shore said, the staff fill in bubbles when there's questionable voter intent, and sometimes they don't.

I will also say that despite Judge Shore earlier saying he would scream so he could be heard, his voice is still faint, so I can't always hear what he's saying for some of these voter intent decisions.

Most of these decisions are easy, like a pen rested on a bubble and left a small dot but a different bubble was filled in.

One woman appears to have voted for Biden then filled her own name on the write-in line. The board ruled that a vote for Biden.

The board has finished for the day and is now scheduling its next meeting. The staff will continue opening/processing ballots.

Shore said they will have their next meeting at 9 o'clock on Monday.

Another OGC lawyer is being pretty heated with Leslie Goller over the question of whether observers can observe the memory stick being taken to the tabulator. Shore says this seems like a trust issue.

Goller: "I think public oversight is a good thing."

Shore is asking OGC to research if public oversight "applies to everything, not just the recount." He was again muffled but I think he then just made a remark comparing watching voting procedures to public access to bathrooms.

Reminder: Shore rejected requests to have microphones placed at the canvassing board table so we could hear him and the others.