Column: It’s your right to know

It was not so long ago that part of the public’s right to election results meant anyone could enter a polling place to witness the counting of ballots.

Of course, no one could interfere with that process or be disruptive in any way — a reasonable standard. Election workers couldn’t be interrupted in the process of recording ballots cast in person on Election Day or adding results of absentee ballots, another very reasonable standard.

It’s still the way the Shelter Island School District handles vote counts. Anyone who cares to know the results with immediacy is able to enter the polling place while votes are being counted.

In 2023, when the Island had a spring Democratic primary for Town Board candidates, it was still that way. I was assigned to check votes at the polls last November, and didn’t know that the Suffolk County Board of Elections had to receive a request in advance from anyone wanting to access a polling place after voting had been concluded.

Imagine my surprise when I arrived on the night primary ballots were being counted this past spring to be told I couldn’t enter the room when the vote concluded without the necessary documentation from the County.

It used to be illegal for people — not just the press — to be banned from observing the vote counting on the theory that if that process is done behind closed doors, it could result in tampering with ballots.

Following up the Suffolk County Board of Elections further, I was given an email address to use to send a request that would be considered, and a decision rendered on whether I or any of my colleagues would be granted the necessary permits to enter the polling place.

That’s troublesome. It could ban someone from being allowed to witness the vote count based on a decision resulting in someone’s personal gripe and, possibly, rendered with no explanation of why that person was denied the necessary permit.

What’s more, to gain access, the request would have to list the name or names of people seeking to be allowed to witness the vote count. Does that mean if a news organization, for example, had a last minute change in the ability of that named person to gather the votes, no one else could be allowed to substitute?

Frankly, it’s all very unclear and efforts to gain clarification have provided no additional information about why the change.

Are there records to show requests that have been rejected along with the reason why someone was banned?

It would be clearer if someone in the room became disruptive and had to be removed. That’s far different from a blanket requirement for advance permits that are acted on by some faceless bureaucrat.

That’s not democracy in action.

An emailed query to the Committee on Open Government in Albany provided no answers except to say it’s not in that organization’s purview to render opinions on such topics. It apparently can only respond to a specific instance in which a member of the press or the public is banned from an event they believe should be open.

Apparently, no one has filed such a specific case.

Members of the press aren’t asking for anything more than what all residents should be allowed — free and unfettered access to represent the public’s right to know how their government is functioning.