Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Blalock,
I received your July 10, 2018 letter attached denying my open records requests of June
28 and June 30. Quite frankly, in having filed hundreds of open records requests in
scores of jurisdictions over the last decade in my election integrity work, I have never
received such an unprofessional and improper response as your letter. It is blatantly
false in many of the assertions and an unethical attempt to conceal public records. I urge
you to reconsider your response in light of your ethical obligations and your duties to
properly represent Hall County Board of Elections.
First, despite your assertions, I have made no statements, much less “express
representations” you claim to Ms. Wurtz or Ms. Ritchie, about any relationship between
my request for these records and the Curling v Kemp litigation pending in federal court.
I very much object to the false statements you have made in that accusation. I am asking
that you retract that false allegation.
I wrote you on July 4th that my public records requests are just that—public records
requests--and not discovery in that case. To the extent that attorneys for any of the
plaintiffs wish to eventually use related information in litigation, that is a decision they
would consider after conducting discovery. While discovery has not opened in this case,
public records access does not close for anyone, litigant or not, when litigation is
pending, as you are well aware. If a litigant plans to use public records obtained under
the open records statutes in litigation, they are to copy opposing counsel on the request,
so that they may obtain a response. As I pointed out, plaintiffs’ counsel do not have
enough information to make such a determination. In the meantime, my individual
access to public records should be in no way legally impaired. As I pointed out to Mr.
Smiley, such a public policy as you wish to unilaterally impose would have perverse and
absurd consequences. For example, under your theory, I would not have been able to
access a copy of the agenda on the table for the public at yesterday’s Election Board
meeting because it is a public record related to Georgia elections.
I have repeatedly asked Hall County to produce the legal authority on which you are
relying to deny these records, and you have refused to do so, instead claiming some
nonsensical position that civil litigation that is on the same topic in another county
permits withholding of public records. As you know, no such authority exists.
Hall County certainly maintains the original electronic records and at least one paper copy of the
paper records I have requested. Otherwise, Hall County would be in violation of federal and
state law that requires them to maintain the original records for at least 22 months.
You are certainly aware that the only original copy of these records is not under seal and has not
been delivered to the court, which would leave the County without such a record.
Such disingenuous arguments on Hall County’s part are clearly purposely dishonest and
unacceptable. The Hall County Board of Elections has an obligation as repeatedly expressed by
Chairman Smiley yesterday to operate in a transparent and legally compliant fashion.
Fabricating claims that all the records sought are under seal at the state court is in direct conflict
with the manner in which Chairman Smiley claimed that the board would operate. I urge you to
reconsider your response.
As for you statements that my request for ballot images (cast vote records) are not available
because they are under seal and somehow not compilations that exist today is just incorrect. As
you are aware, I have received such documents from other Georgia counties. The records are
maintained in the GEMS database, which I am confident is accessible and not under seal,
although one electronic copy of it may be under seal.
Moreover, looking at the substance of this issue, serious discrepancies from the machine
tabulation report have been identified by candidates on the May 22, 2018 ballot, and
Hall County Board of Elections is refusing to provide the public with information
concerning this very concerning discrepancy. Instead, the position of the Board is that
there were “no discrepancies” despite the clear evidence that has been shown repeatedly
in photographs of the erroneous machine tape and that at least 3 eyewitnesses reported.
During the meeting yesterday, it was shocking that the Board, having seen the
photographs of the machine tape missing candidates’ names, and losing vote count
made no attempt to ask that the original tape be brought into the meeting for
examination, but merely adopted Ms. Wurtz’s obviously inaccurate assertions that
“there were no discrepancies,” and declared it so.
Hall County poll officials signed off on the machine tape that fails to include nine races,
including federal office and loses vote count. Such discrepancies were reported to Hall
County by at least June 28, yet on July 10, the Board and Ms. Wurtz were still taking the
position that there were “no discrepancies.” Further, the “trust us, there were no
discrepancies” attitude is appalling and not in the spirit of Georgia’s election laws that
demand transparency and accountability of election officials.
I urge you to reconsider your response to my records request, and will remind you again
that the production of the records is long overdue.
Additionally, it is imperative that the records requested be preserved and not destroyed
or altered. This includes electronic records that have been requested.
I look forward to your response. Feel free to contact me for further discussion if you
think it would be helpful.
Marilyn Marks
704 552-1618
Marilyn@AspenOffice.com