Ehrlich Seeks Probe Over Ballot Machines

[Bushfire]

Contractor, Reviewer Used Same Lobbyist
By Ovetta Wiggins
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 28, 2003; Page C08


Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) has asked state investigators to look into the opposite interests of a well-known Annapolis lobbyist who represents two companies involved in the overhaul of the state's voting machine system.

Ehrlich requested the inquiry last week after learning that Gilbert J. Genn, a former Montgomery County delegate, is registered as a lobbyist for Diebold Election Systems Inc., the company that has a $55 million contract to provide the state with its electronic voting system, and Science Applications International Corp., the computer security company the state recently hired to examine the Diebold voting machines for flaws.

"It was a complete surprise to the administration," Shareese N. DeLeaver, a spokeswoman for Ehrlich, said yesterday.

The request by the governor to the State Ethics Commission was first reported yesterday in the Baltimore Sun.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11151-2003Sep27.html

[Jared]

1. Good.

I'm surprised that a Republican had the gusto to do this, but that's even better for us! The GOP can't claim it as a witch-hunt instigated by the liberals/democrats...

Hooray. I hope that this pans out and our TRUE votes can be counted. I am not walking away from this election.

[jiacinto]

5. Well

MD is a heavily Democratic state. And I guess Ehrlich is afraid that they will use the machines in Montgomery County, PG County, and Baltimore City, where most of the state's Democrats live, to manipulate elections.

MD was the site of a very close Governor's race back in 1994. Ellen Sauerbrey (R) was running against Parris Glendening and she was catching up to him. It was the worst election year for Democrats in decades and some pundits had expected her to win. She was within strking distrance.

Anyway, on election night, Sauerbrey led for most of the night. I went to bed that night arond 11-11:30 PM, and she was still ahead with 95% of the precincts reporting. I was dejected that she was going to win. Then, when I woke up the next morning, she was down by 6,000 votes. Apparently late reporting precincts in Baltimore City, PG County, and Montgomery County did her in.

For the next three months the matter dragged on. When absentee ballots failed to put her in the lead defeated candidate Ellen Sauerbrey accused everyone of cheating. She claimed that "dead people voted" even though news reporters found out that they were alive. She claimed that Baltimore City's--maybe even Baltimore County's too--elections board cheated. She did not relent until Glendening's inauguration. The media referred to her as "Ellen Sourgrapes".

So then, in 1998, when Glendening ran for re-election, she jumped into the race again. Glendening was unpopular throughout his two terms. Anyway she ended up losing to him in a landslide. And that was sweet revenge to see her exit stage right. Then Ehrlich won in 2002.

To make a long story short Ehrlich is afraid of something similiar happening in the future. After all he expects a tough match against Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley in 2006. Also he knows he is only Governor because people voted for him, not as a voice of support, but rather a staement of dislike against KKT.

[mbee]

6. During the MD campaign I saw a story in the SUN of how

some people were paid by some pugs to show up at the debate wearing Democrats for Ehrlich shirts when in fact I don't believe they were really any such thing. Since we had some touch screens in the 2002 election (I think so anyway) maybe some hanky panky has already taken place. I hope not, but I wouldn't count it out. I think the Georgia election was questionable as well as some others. Also, I do not believe that Mondale lost either. I think the cheat machine is in full gear, but I can't prove it so I hope someone does if what I think is true!

[MGKrebs]

2. I am unclear on the implications of this?

Certainly it is not illegal for this guy to be representing two different clients? Is the implication that the companies may be related and therefore the security review might have been rigged? And yet, the review was fairly damning.

:shrug:

[stickdog]

4. The review missed the point.

No GEMS software.

No mention of a paper trail.

[stickdog]

3. My God, SAIC & Diebold are connected???

Who could have possibly suspected?

[Bushfire]

7. Bring this up to anybody who mentions the Rubin/VoteHere connection n/t