Secret Ballots

In California, all elections must be conducted using the two envelope or "secret ballot".

The Members are each sent specific instructions on how to prepare the ballots for delivery using the "secret ballot" method as prescribed by Section 1363.03 of the Civil Code. The outer envelope must have the Members printed name, address and signature. The inner envelope contains the ballot with no Member idenifying marks.

In your opinion, if the Member/Owner chose to put an idenifying mark, signed the inner envelope, wrote their address or something on the actual ballot, would that invalidate the Members vote?

My understanding is that IF the Member/Owner chose to make an idenifying mark on the inner envelope or ballot, they in fact have given up their right to make their ballot secret, but the vote would still count.

May I go further to ask opinions about why or in what circumstance voters would like to sign their ballots? For example, some voters may not trust the inspector on counting their votes, so after the election they would ask to inspect the ballots and make sure their votes are counted. I believe with the "standard" election procedure by secret ballots, there is still big wide open space for manipulating the election result. I really believe that a MC is not a good candidate for the inspector of election; why? not just because MC is commonly perceived/considered not an independent third party due to the fact on conflict of interest, but also because the fact that the inspector is the only one that handles the ballots from receiving ballots to the end of the election and he/she should not also be the one who prepares the ballots. If a MC is selected as the inspector and who also is requested to prepare the ballots, etc. and who at any time before the end of the election has sole access to the ballot box and empty ballots, you can imagine ... JMHO