Keene Sentinel editoral...

[SethCohn]

http://www.sentinelsource.com/main.asp?SectionID=43&SubSectionID=105&ArticleID=172035

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Privacy victory
   
It's being hailed as a victory for the Libertarian Party, which it is. But it's really a victory for everybody in New Hampshire, because there's a little bit of libertarian in all of us.

Last week, Superior Court judge Carol Ann Conboy struck down a law that allowed the state to sell detailed information about voters. Conboy noted that the law put small parties at a disadvantage.

Heck, it put everyone at a disadvantage.

Before the law went into effect this past July, a small amount of voter information had always been publicly available at town clerks' offices and from the secretary of state. Nothing particularly sensitive: names, addresses and — for those who've left a trail — party affiliations. But the new law put some additional information on the market — for a fee. It let major political parties buy from the secretary of state voter lists that also included voters' years of birth, their gender and their overall voting histories. Secretary of State William Gardner opposed the scheme.

Strangely enough, this law's new disclosure system applied only to political parties that received at least 4 percent of the vote for governor or U.S. Senate in the last election. That is to say, the law applied only to Democrats and Republicans. The information could not be sold to the Libertarian Party, which went on to bring the lawsuit, and it was still considered to be "private and confidential" under state law, so it couldn't be distributed to the general public. In short, what the Legislature did was to let Democratic and Republican candidates have a peek at our private lives that was denied everybody else.

The main idea, of course, was to help the state and the two major parties make a buck. And that worked well. The Democratic and Republican Parties bought voter lists for about $450 a piece. Then the Democrats sold their lists to presidential candidates for $65,000 each. Probably told them they fell off a truck.

No more. Judge Conboy ruled that the voter information list was created to help the state run elections, not to help parties and politicians — especially selected parties and politicians — prepare their strategies.

So the sale is off. The only question remains is what's going to be done with the files that have already been purchased. Conboy says she'll rule on that matter after a hearing is held.

A solution could pose a problem for state Democrats, who have already put the information they've purchased into a hugely expensive data base. They say they'll have trouble sorting it out.

Too bad.

They knew there were problems with the law. They knew a lawsuit had been filed. They should have anticipated this decision. We say hit the control-delete button.

[StaggerLee]

the scams that people seem to come up with. . .makes you not want to even register to vote.  Very interesting!

oh yeah hi everyone this is my first post. haha.

[Pat McCotter]

When it comes to my personal information I consider the government like the internet; all of the information they have on me is public. If I don't want the info to be public I don't give it to them.

[Dave Ridley]

If I continue hearing the words Libertarian Party associated with the word Victory i might start thinking the party is effective after all...

good job all involved
maybe this is what th LP is best at...doing stuff that does not involve running candidates on the LP ticket.

http://www.sentinelsource.com/main.asp?SectionID=43&SubSectionID=105&ArticleID=172035

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Privacy victory
   
It's being hailed as a victory for the Libertarian Party, which it is. But it's really a victory for everybody in New Hampshire, because there's a little bit of libertarian in all of us.

Last week, Superior Court judge Carol Ann Conboy struck down a law that allowed the state to sell detailed information about voters. Conboy noted that the law put small parties at a disadvantage.

Heck, it put everyone at a disadvantage.

Before the law went into effect this past July, a small amount of voter information had always been publicly available at town clerks' offices and from the secretary of state. Nothing particularly sensitive: names, addresses and — for those who've left a trail — party affiliations. But the new law put some additional information on the market — for a fee. It let major political parties buy from the secretary of state voter lists that also included voters' years of birth, their gender and their overall voting histories. Secretary of State William Gardner opposed the scheme.

Strangely enough, this law's new disclosure system applied only to political parties that received at least 4 percent of the vote for governor or U.S. Senate in the last election. That is to say, the law applied only to Democrats and Republicans. The information could not be sold to the Libertarian Party, which went on to bring the lawsuit, and it was still considered to be "private and confidential" under state law, so it couldn't be distributed to the general public. In short, what the Legislature did was to let Democratic and Republican candidates have a peek at our private lives that was denied everybody else.

The main idea, of course, was to help the state and the two major parties make a buck. And that worked well. The Democratic and Republican Parties bought voter lists for about $450 a piece. Then the Democrats sold their lists to presidential candidates for $65,000 each. Probably told them they fell off a truck.

No more. Judge Conboy ruled that the voter information list was created to help the state run elections, not to help parties and politicians — especially selected parties and politicians — prepare their strategies.

So the sale is off. The only question remains is what's going to be done with the files that have already been purchased. Conboy says she'll rule on that matter after a hearing is held.

A solution could pose a problem for state Democrats, who have already put the information they've purchased into a hugely expensive data base. They say they'll have trouble sorting it out.

Too bad.

They knew there were problems with the law. They knew a lawsuit had been filed. They should have anticipated this decision. We say hit the control-delete button.

[David]

I saw that in the paper the other day.  I was so shocked I went home and showed it to my roommate.  It was actually a very fair editorial.  I'd say the two major parties showed how greedy and partisan they are to the point that it actually disgusted the editors. If I wasn't biased in favor of libertarians, I'd say the paper actually showed a libertarian bias. 
Another reason I like this town.  It has a liberal reputation, but I don't think it is as liberal as people think it is.