From a point of investigation, we don't know so normally we would pursue all the possibilities.
It's technically possible they used a printer that treats colours differently but this raises a serious question in itself.
You're meant to make documents like that difficult to reproduce. That typically means you can't just print them off on any random printer. Virtually all certificates and any critical document has some basic pattern or something to make them difficult to copy.
If you don't have that then you break you election. You can't call it. Even the most innocent explanation is likely to invalidate the election. Normally when you have something to make ballots difficult to simply copy it might not be impossible to overcome but at least if someone does it narrows the scope of investigation a lot as to who might be capable.
"Different printer." is a very bad excuse. It's not sufficient either. You now must provide said printer and explain all the rules for printing, watermarks, etc. People don't realise that the way you make excuses day to day for things is not applicable in cases like this. Your excuses will be fully investigated and will need to be verified. If you're unable to provide evidence that actually means ruling against accepting the result. Just to think one person not following basic instructions might disqualify any number of votes.
Good thing they didn't shred anything for no reason in secrecy.
the "watermark" looked solid grey because they were likely copy counterfeits.
They really don't want an audit to happen of these ballots...
but surely after all this time they have been shredding evidence.
Then they filled out one ballot scanned it and printed out how ever many they needed.the watermark turned gray when they scanned the ballot
From a point of investigation, we don't know so normally we would pursue all the possibilities.
It's technically possible they used a printer that treats colours differently but this raises a serious question in itself.
You're meant to make documents like that difficult to reproduce. That typically means you can't just print them off on any random printer. Virtually all certificates and any critical document has some basic pattern or something to make them difficult to copy.
If you don't have that then you break you election. You can't call it. Even the most innocent explanation is likely to invalidate the election. Normally when you have something to make ballots difficult to simply copy it might not be impossible to overcome but at least if someone does it narrows the scope of investigation a lot as to who might be capable.
"Different printer." is a very bad excuse. It's not sufficient either. You now must provide said printer and explain all the rules for printing, watermarks, etc. People don't realise that the way you make excuses day to day for things is not applicable in cases like this. Your excuses will be fully investigated and will need to be verified. If you're unable to provide evidence that actually means ruling against accepting the result. Just to think one person not following basic instructions might disqualify any number of votes.
This is good, but notice, she only noticed THREE such ballots. Of course, perhaps there were many, many more.