Read on Twitter
I'm back at the Duval (Jacksonville) Canvassing Board. The computer screens are showing Zoom. Duval Dems have asked the Board to follow Broward's lead in live-streaming meetings. So far, the Board has made the process of counting ballots less transparent: https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/26/duval-county-canvassing-board-proposes-election-rules-updates/6038676002/ https://twitter.com/apantazi/status/1320712093184741379
Supervisor Mike Hogan: "Yesterday we canceled the meeting. One of the reasons, the primary reason, we were looking for more ideas to give more access to the hearing for the public, and that takes a lot of work."
Assistant General Counsel Jason Teal: "We looked at some of the other counties around the state to see what they were doing. … What we would propose to the canvassing board is to allow a Zoom live webinar."
Teal is explaining the difference between Zoom webinars and Zoom meetings. "We don't have to worry about muting microphones. We don't have to worry about people posting things on their webcameras that are inappropriate."
Teal: "There doesn't allow any public participation. It's video and audio only. No public comment."
Teal: The overhead projector with the ballots would be shown on the Zoom stream. "This would require that when staff is going through the initial evaluation of the ballots, they would have to cover over any voter identification issues on the ballots" like initials or names.
I don't understand this. Names and initials are not exempt from public record, but Teal keeps acting like they're confidential. Only signatures have an exemption. Even then it's a very narrow exemption for copying, and it's up to the discretion of the board if they share it.
Teal says they would not record the Zoom meetings. In Broward, Gov. DeSantis' appointee has livestreamed meetings on Zoom and posted recordings on the Broward elections website.
Boylan asks Teal: "Certainly I'd prefer the more transparent process. Although we can't record here, the media could record it?"
Teal: Yes.
Teal: Yes.
Leslie Goller with the Duval Dems: "I appreciate the move toward greater transparency. Thank you very much. The people still in the room, we can still see the Vote-by-Mail signatures, correct?"
Teal: Yes. You will see everything the canvassing board sees.
Teal: Yes. You will see everything the canvassing board sees.
Shore interjects that after the public comments, he wants to clear up "misconceptions in the media."
Chris Hand with the Duval Dems asks why the board wouldn't record the meetings.
Teal says: "It's in essence another thing that staff could be tasked with."
Chris Hand with the Duval Dems asks why the board wouldn't record the meetings.
Teal says: "It's in essence another thing that staff could be tasked with."
Teal: "There's plenty for Supervisor Hogan's limited staff to deal with. ... There's no legal need for it."
Hand: "My impression is that it's a simple function of turning on a record button for every session, which doesn't seem overly taxing."
Hand: "My impression is that it's a simple function of turning on a record button for every session, which doesn't seem overly taxing."
Teal: "Once we generate the public record we to maintain it." He said the rules banning photography/video should stand because "the concerns are third-party folks who we don't have any control over what they film, what they don't."
Shore: "They can record the webinar if they want."
Teal: "Correct."
Teal: "Correct."
Ed Birk, lawyer for @wjxt4: "We're here not to violate any rules. My client WJXT and I believe the other media are not trying to put any name or identity with any vote. We understand the secrecy of the ballot. … We don't see any reason … recording should be prohibited."
Birk: "My client agrees to voluntarily not record signatures."
Teal: "It goes back to what's your comfort level in that confidential or exempt voter information won't be captured."
Again, Teal does not know the difference between confidential and exempt.
Teal: "It goes back to what's your comfort level in that confidential or exempt voter information won't be captured."
Again, Teal does not know the difference between confidential and exempt.
It's hard to have a charitable view of Teal's ignorance of the law, but this man works for the Office of General Counsel and repeatedly misstates what the law says.
Teal: "If we don't have a bright line rule," then the public could show up and photograph names and signatures.
Birk: Points out that Teal is wrong. It is exempt and not confidential.
Birk: Points out that Teal is wrong. It is exempt and not confidential.
Shore: "As Mr. Teal sort of mentioned, you may be willing to do that. Some of the other media may be willing to do that. But what's to stop someone else from doing that?"
Birk says he believes a more legally compliant rule is to prohibit recording by cell phones. Teal: "I don't legally know how to do that." He says there's no more First Amendment protections for the media that the public doesn't also have.
City Councilman Boylan: "I think we are providing the largest concern here, which is allowing the citizens out there to watch what we're doing here."
A JSO officer just showed up. Not sure if this is in case any reporters photograph ballots and need to be removed.
Teal: "There's not only the public records piece of it" about his advice they redact things not redactable under law.
Teal says "we're going beyond the public records piece to a secret ballot piece to maintain ballot secrecy. I would say this is a strong policy issue."
Teal says "we're going beyond the public records piece to a secret ballot piece to maintain ballot secrecy. I would say this is a strong policy issue."
I spoke up to say the law doesn't exempt names just signatures. Teal said this isn't a public records production. I said then they can't issue a prior restraint if this is just a public board meeting. Hogan said they do redact names, contrary to what his lawyer said.
Teal: "If someone writes on a write-in line because they changed their name above it, that's a different story."
They've said that write-ins can be redacted if it's a voter's own name.
They've said that write-ins can be redacted if it's a voter's own name.
Shore says the write-in spot should only be made public if the person voted for a valid write-in candidate, which is not what the law says.
Shore keeps saying that if someone writes their own name, then that's exempt. Which is not what the law says. I'm stunned at how these lawyers just keep talking about what they want to do and aren't citing any laws.
Chris Hand: "Transparency and elections shouldn't be an either/or thing. I believe this is an incomplete solution for a number of reasons." To start, the Zoom meetings should be recorded, he said.
Hand: "Not allowing media to record these meetings is inconsistent with past practice. We believe it's violative of" the Florida law.
Hand, Birk and myself keep citing laws. Teal, Shore and Hogan keep responding by saying, no, they disagree, but not citing any laws.
Teal: "In any good mediation, both sides are unhappy with the outcome. Where do you draw the line of balancing the interests of the public and balancing the impact on the agency."
Teal says the staff is stressed real thin so it's hard to push the record button on Zoom.
Birk is offering alternatives with more narrowly tailored restrictions on the media or banning recordings just on ballots with signatures.
Teal: "I understand the suggestion of separating out, but it requires staff to interrupt their process."
He has yet to offer a single legal rationale for why they are allowed to restrain the media from recording/publishing.
He has yet to offer a single legal rationale for why they are allowed to restrain the media from recording/publishing.
Teal: "Eventually, Supervisor Hogan has to cry uncle in terms of everything staff is doing."
Shore says they can restrain the media because they will have Zoom webinars.
Boylan agrees and asks WJXT to record the meetings on behalf of the public.
Boylan agrees and asks WJXT to record the meetings on behalf of the public.
Birk: When it's up on Zoom, allow recording.
Shore: how do we preclude someone from recording on their cellphone?
Shore: how do we preclude someone from recording on their cellphone?
I asked Teal what was the legal rationale for this. He said 119.071, which is public records law and not public meetings law. He's wrong. Even if the board discusses confidential/exempt materials, that doesn't automatically restrain media from recording.
These lawyers need to learn how to read and how to practice law. It is stunning to see the incompetence of the Office of General Counsel in the city of Jacksonville.
A 119 exemption does not imply an exemption from the state's public meetings law.
Shore: "I was not here" when the rules were put forth. "There were three members of the Canvassing Board. I wasn't one of them. I had no input into this. I'm going to assume the reporting that was done. You either weren't here. You misunderstood me."
Shore: "Those are the only two I would hope would be true. I had nothing to do with promulgating these rules, even though there's a narrative I did." Yet Shore last week upheld the rules and wouldn't amend them, and today he again wouldn't amend them to allow recording.
Shore is upset that the media reported that he upheld the rules last week when he upheld the rules last week. He refused to change the rules when he was asked to change the rules, but he's not responsible, he says, for the rules, and anyone who says otherwise is disingenuous.
Shore is the same county judge who banned photography/video in a criminal trial and then reversed himself the day of the trial. https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20150708/NEWS/801248839
Shore, Teal and the other great legal minds of our city don't know how to read case law, but here's what the Sunshine Manual says. Yet the Duval County Canvassing Board is banning all photography/video recording of its meetings.
Violating these rules is a huge deal. If a court finds that the Duval Canvassing Board violated the law, the court can require they hold cure meetings and invalidate every ballot decision this board has made. They are playing with fire this close to an election.
I asked Ed Birk if he agreed with my belief this could set vote counting super far back as we approach the election if a court finds they're violating the law and orders cure meetings, and he agreed. "They are risking that."
The Zoom webinar is now live: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_VcPqjZQSSbq7YfDvXF8nsQ
It appears the Canvassing Board is also violating the Sunshine law by requiring people have a valid Zoom account to attend the webinar and requiring people share their name on the meeting. https://twitter.com/daverpvb/status/1321095019701428224
This is what I see when I go to the link. I tried using my work email, and it said I needed a valid Zoom account to attend.
They just changed the settings to no longer "require authentication to join". They're no going through the recording settings to see if they can let attendees record.
If anyone knows how to record a Zoom meeting as a participant, I'd love to have recordings of these meetings. https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_VcPqjZQSSbq7YfDvXF8nsQ
TV offered to record and asked to put microphones near the Canvassing Board, but Judge Shore wouldn't let TV reporters put microphones on the Canvassing Board table or near them. https://twitter.com/daverpvb/status/1321097471028793347
Under the Sunshine Law, boards are not allowed to have "inaudible discussions."
They're going through ballots now to determine whether something is an overvote or a valid vote. They ruled this a valid "no" vote.
The Zoom link is NOT showing the remade ballots. When ballots get corrected, they do so on a new ballot that then gets fed into a machine. Here, they're only showing the original ballot, not the new corrected ballots.
This is a valid vote for Biden. Someone filled in Trump, but then marked it out clearly and voted for Biden, the board ruled.
Here's someone who initially voted for the minimum wage amendment then changed their vote. The board ruled it's a valid no vote.
A ballot came on the screen w/ initials. Even though the law only exempts "signatures" from copying, Teal jumped up to remind Hogan these ballots haven't yet been screened to weed out initials/names. Initials/names are NOT exempt from records law, but that doesn't matter to them.
A lot of folks change their minds on the Soil and Water Conservation seats. A few of these ballots in a row are people switching votes on these seats.
They continue to not show the full ballots on these. In the last case, the staffer asked what the retention vote was on 1st DCA Judge Osterhaus, but Hogan did not show it on our screen or the Zoom screen that I saw.
I'm telling you, these sunshine law violations could lead to a court ruling throwing out all these decisions and requiring them to re-hold these meetings and re-do all this work.
There are also ballots showing people changing their mind on 1st DCA Judge Joe Lewis, the only Black judge on the 1st District Court of Appeal. A lot of Biden-voting ballots show all "no" votes on retention except for with Lewis.
Here's someone who clearly marked their voter intent. Initially voted for the Reform party, then switched to Trump.
