Andy Rose writes…
The reason they can't be identifiable…vote buying. Potential buyers obviously don't like to shell out the money unless they know that you actually voted for their candidate like you claim you did. An easy way to make that possible would be for them to insist, "Make [some specific] mark on the ballot where we can find it later."
It probably seems like a silly thing in L.A., but I spent several years in eastern Kentucky, where it is still a big problem.
So then my question becomes how the rule stops that. Let's assuming I wanted to buy your vote in the last election and I somehow have access to inspect the ballots. I pay you $3.85 to vote for Bob Barr for president and then, instead of telling you to make that specific mark on the ballot, I instruct you to write in "Bullwinkle Moose" for some judgeship. It makes your ballot identifiable to me. What difference would it then make to ban "identifying marks?"
For that matter, we have a growing vote-by-mail trend in this country. If I want to buy votes, I can buy hundreds of thousands of them. I give you money. You give me your mail-in ballot with everything filled in except the votes. I fill in the votes I want and drop your ballot into a mailbox. No identifying marks necessary.
If I can buy votes that way, why would I bother with the method you describe?
In any case, I've been intermittently watching the live feed of the vote counting in Minnesota and I've watched Mr. Franken go from 150+ votes down to, at this moment, only 30 down. At this rate, he'll pass Coleman before they're done. I've only seen a few "calls" by the judges that strike me as arguable and I've seen none where I thought they were wrong. The same was true yesterday when I watched them ruling on the ballots that were more likely to go Coleman's way. It's a nice, transparent process…and I wonder how many other countries could ever have something like this where ballots are (re)counted in full public view.
On the matter of identifying marks, they seem to be allowing any vote where the voter's intent is clear, regardless of scribbles in the margins. The only exceptions are when the scribbles might denote the voter's name. So that's how they're interpreting the rule, which is not how the candidates' lawyers did in issuing their challenges. And while I've been typing this, Franken has picked up five more votes.