The constitutional mandate of absolute secrecy could not be
adequately accomplished by just having government employees
use their own discretion as to what is identifying on a ballot and
what needs redaction. Nor are such employees even in a position
to accurately ascertain what information could or could not be used
to identify a vote. For example, only two citizens voted at the voting
machine in this election. If someone had staked out the machines
and saw who voted on them, that information combined with copies
of the voting machine votes and metadata showing when they were
cast could be used to identify who cast those votes. Likewise,
patterns in voting data and how information can be used to identify
voters may not be readily apparent to an election employee who
may not have all election data before him at once or may not be a
trained computer data expert. For example, disclosing a fax cover
sheet separate from a fax vote would not seem problematic—
unless you realized only one fax vote was cast. Likewise, a ballot
with a write-in vote for John Smith may not seem on its face to
identify who the voter is, unless you also know John Smith is the
voter who cast the ballot. Election employees are not permitted to
know who cast a ballot.
The sheer number of documents that would have to be
reviewed for redaction by fallible humans without any rules or set
procedures and the numerous unpredictable ways the documents
could reveal voter identity are such that mistakes would be made
absent clear protective rules and set procedures. If a ballot has a
handwritten name is the chance someone will identify the
handwriting a sufficient reason for nondisclosure? Is disclosure of
a write-in vote in the same name as the voter a violation of absolute
secrecy? Is a doodle on the ballot