Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News Thursday 01/12/06

[Wilms]

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.



Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.

If you can:

1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.

2. Post stories using the new Spring 2006 Edition of "Election Fraud and Reform News Directory" listed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x407240

3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.

4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.

Please "Recommend" for the Greatest Page (it's the link just below).

[Wilms]

1. NY: U.S. Threatens to Sue Albany Over Voting

U.S. Threatens to Sue Albany Over Voting

By MICHAEL COOPER

Published: January 12, 2006

ALBANY, Jan. 11 - The federal Justice Department has threatened to sue New York State over its failure to modernize its voting system, saying New York "is further behind" every other state in complying with new guidelines stemming from the 2000 presidential election dispute.

The state has yet to decide what kind of new voting machines it will certify, leaving many local elections boards in uncertainty as they try to modernize their voting systems in time for next fall's primary elections. And the state missed the Jan. 1 deadline for creating a statewide database of registered voters, as required by the federal Help America Vote Act.

New York is behind all other states and territories in deciding how to spend its share of $2.3 billion in federal aid to modernize voting machines and other elections technology. So far the state has received $220 million to replace its 20,000 aging voting machines, train local election officials to use the new machines, and create the voter database. The money is unspent and collecting interest, officials say.

A Justice Department letter told state officials this week that it had authorized a lawsuit against New York for failing to comply with the law. The letter said that the department hoped to settle the matter by negotiating a court order with the state instead going to court but that "we are prepared to file a complaint if the matter is not resolved expeditiously."

snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/nyregion/12vote.html


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408755

[Wilms]

19. NYVV and LWV Say Paper Ballots Could Help End NY HAVA Lawsuit

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

Thursday, January 12, 2006

From:

Aimee Allaud LWV
Bo Lipari NYVV

NYS League of Women Voters, New Yorkers for Verified Voting

Say Department of Justice Action Makes

Selection of Optical Scan Voting System Essential

Election reform groups today reacted to the Department of Justice threat to sue New York State for HAVA non-compliance. Organizations opposed to electronic touchscreen voting systems (DREs), said the DOJ action makes the case for adopting optical scanners/ballot marking devices (PBOS) more compelling than ever.

Widespread concerns have been raised about the security, accuracy, and costs of electronic touchscreen voting systems by computer experts, legislators, and citizens. Optical scan systems, a reliable, mature, auditable and cost effective voting system, are being adopted in states around the United States to meet HAVA compliance and should be used in New York State as well.

“By moving quickly to certify precinct based optical scan voting systems which have already been federally approved New York State can be in full compliance with HAVA requirements.” said Aimee Allaud, Elections/Government Specialist of the League of Women Voters of New York State. “PBOS voting systems with the addition of a ballot marker will provide secure, accurate, recountable and accessible voting. DREs currently being demonstrated in NYS cannot, at present, meet that standard.”

“The impending action by the Department of Justice to enforce HAVA compliance makes it urgent that New York adopt optical scanners now.” said Bo Lipari, Executive Director of New Yorkers for Verified Voting. “If the DOJ action results in New York’s loss of HAVA equipment funding, we would still be required to replace lever machines. But without HAVA funds, New York’s taxpayers will pay the full purchase cost out of their own pockets. Adopting optical scanners rather than touchscreen voting machines will save New Yorkers over $100 million dollars in acquisition costs. There are many excellent reasons for adopting scanners. More than ever, the scanner alternative has become a no-brainer.”

The groups called on the State and local Boards of Elections to adopt statewide use of optical scanners and ballot marking devices as New York’s plan for rapid HAVA compliance.


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408815

[Wilms]

25. Department of Justice Threatens To Sue New York State

Department of Justice Threatens To Sue New York State

By Warren Stewart, Director of Legilative Issues and Policy, VoteTrustUSA
January 12, 2006

Election Reform Groups See Action As Another Strong Argument In Favor of Paper Ballot Optical Scan

In a letter to the New York State Attorney General and the State Board of Elections, the Department of Justice (DoJ) has threatened to sue the state for its failure to comply with the January 1, 2006 deadlines of the Help America Vote Act. According to a New York Times article, "New York is behind all other states and territories in deciding how to spend its share of $2.3 billion in federal aid to modernize voting machines and other elections technology." The state has received $220 million for machine upgrades and training but has yet to formulate a plan for how that money will be spent.

The DoJ's action raises many questions and has ramifications for other states that are not yet in compliance with HAVA. According to the results of a survey conducted by the National Association of Secreatries of States released in December, as many as a third of the states failed to meet the January 1, 2006 deadlines. However, all those states are ahead of New York in implementation. There has been speculation that the DoJ action is politically motivated but it is clear that New York is unlikely to have HAVA compliant voting technology in place in time for elections this year and their voter registration database is still in the early planning stages.

The letter, signed by Wan J. Kim, the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil rights division, was scathing in stating that "it is clear that New York is not close to approaching full HAVA compliance and, in our view, is further behind in that regard than any other state in the country." New York only adopted a state HAVA plan as required by the federal law last summer, long after many states were already well underway in implementing the voting system upgrades and statewide voter databases required for compliance.

State officials do not dispute the DoJ's assessment of New York's progress toward compliance. The Times article quoted Lee K. Daghlian, a spokesman for the state's Board of Elections, who confirmed that the board received the Justice Department letter on Tuesday. "We don't dispute that we're not in compliance," he said, adding that the state had been in contact with the Justice Department. "What we've given them is what we're doing, and what kind of process we're making. And we're quite behind."

snip/links

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=722&Itemid=113

[Steve A Play]

20. IL: Election panel criticized over new strategist

Election panel criticized over new strategist

By Robert Sanchez - Daily Herald Staff Writer

Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2006

DuPage Election Commission officials were on the defensive Tuesday following an Internet report that the commission hired a Republican media consultant.

Bev Harris, an election reform activist, posted on her Web site that the commission in 2004 paid nearly $30,000 to Frank Salvato, a political media strategist with ties to the Republican Party.

“He’s basically a political operative,” Harris said of Salvato during a telephone interview. “He has multiple media outlets where he publishes very partisan stories exclusively.”

Harris said the commission’s hiring of Salvato to promote a voter registration effort didn’t violate any laws. But it has “the appearance of impropriety,” she said.

“When you see them hiring very partisan groups for election-related functions, it’s a red flag,” Harris said.

Election Commission Executive Director Bob Saar reacted by taking aim at Harris’ Web site, blackboxvoting.org.

“It’s Black Box attempting to create a black list to go back to the days of Joe McCarthy, where an individual is somehow vilified because they have some sort of political life outside of their job,” Saar said.

Saar said Salvato was hired as a media consultant to help the commission develop and execute a public service campaign about voter registration.

<more>

http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=141586

[Wilms]

29. BradBlog:DoJ Threatens to Sue NY State and BoE for Lack of HAVA Compliance

by Brad on 1/12/2006

DoJ Threatens to Sue NY State and Board of Elections for Lack of HAVA Compliance!

Even While the Feds Own Inability to Meet HAVA Reqiurements Continues

EXCLUSIVE: Complete Letter from DoJ's Civil Rights Division to NY AG Elliot Spitzer

Additional Reporting by John Gideon

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice threatened in a letter to sue New York state over its failure to modernize its voting system in compliance with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. The BRAD BLOG has obtained a copy of the complete letter sent from Asst. Attorney General Wan J. Kim, of the DoJ's Civil Rights Division, to NY's Attorney General Elliot Spitzer and General Counsel Todd Valentine.

In the letter, Kim informs the state that he has received authorization to file "a lawsuit on behalf of the United States against the State of New York as well as the New York State Board of Elections, et al."

That, despite the Federal Government's own egregious failures to fully comply with HAVA requirments. The lawsuit against the "blue state" would be the first attempted action taken against any state by DoJ for failing to meet the requirements of HAVA since one of its major deadlines passed on January 1 of this year.

The complete letter from the DoJ is posted at the bottom of this article.

snip

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002270.htm

[Wilms]

2. More (?) from Judge Alito on One Person, One Vote

Election Law Blog

January 11, 2006

More (?) from Judge Alito on One Person, One Vote

by Rick Hasen

Via Campaign for the Court and SCOTUSblog, it appears that Sen. Grassley asked Judge Alito about his 1985 job application's statement about the Warren Court's reapportionment decisions.

According to Campaign for the Court, "Alito reiterated that he thought one-man, one-vote was a 'good principle' but that the court had taken 'it to extremes' with its subsequent insistence that districts be drawn in such a mathematically precise way as to allow practically no variation whatsoever."

At this point, we are not likely to get any more on this issue from the hearings. I'm looking forward to Sam Issachroff's testimony on this issue later in the week.

snip/links

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/004725.html

[Wilms]

15. VIDEO: Alito Ducks, Dodges, Dances on Bush v. Gore Question

VIDEO: Alito Ducks, Dodges, Dances on Bush v. Gore Question

by Brad

1/10/2006

Refuses to Answer Question or Comment on 'Judicial Activism' of Supreme Court in the Landmark Case...



snip

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002262.htm

[Wilms]

3. CA: Alameda County to seek mail-in ballot

Wed, Jan. 11, 2006

Alameda County to seek mail-in ballot

By Guy Ashley
Knight Ridder

Alameda County supervisors on Tuesday voted to push for state legislation that would allow the county to eliminate most polling places for the June statewide primary and conduct the balloting mostly by mail.

The board of supervisors voted 4-0 in Oakland to support the plan offered by Elaine Ginnold, the county's acting registrar of voters, who said a mail-in election could help the county sidestep protracted controversies about the security of electronic voting equipment.

Alameda County has used touch-screen voting equipment manufactured by Diebold Elections Systems. But the county's elections future was thrown into turmoil in 2004 when then-Secretary of State Kevin Shelley decertified all electronic voting systems in California because of security concerns.

The county had planned a $6 million upgrade of its system in time for this year's elections -- a move designed to meet new state requirements that e-voting systems provide voters with paper receipts verifying their selections -- but that plan was scuttled late last year when the state refused to certify new systems offered by Diebold and other manufacturers.

snip

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13598825.htm

[Wilms]

4. CA: Enthusiasm swells for all-mail vote

Enthusiasm swells for all-mail vote

Officials in various counties consider all-absentee election; lawmakers wary of change

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

snip

By late afternoon, local elections officials in at least 12 counties, all in Northern California and including San Mateo, Marin, Solano and Sonoma, had signaled an interest in perhaps joining Alameda County's legislation for much the same reason.

snip

Lawmakers contacted Tuesday declined to weigh in on Alameda County's effort, saying they hadn't seen the bill yet. But politicians have been wary of changing the dynamics of the campaigns that got them elected, and as recently as last year, they rejected six counties' effort to try an all-mail election.

"It hasn't happened yet; I can't imagine it'll happen now at the last minute," said one Democratic staffer.

Still, Alameda County's effort comes at a time of surging popularity for voting by mail, with 40 percent of voters in the last statewide election casting absentee ballots. Mail-in balloting is even more popular in the Bay Area at 45 percent of the turnout in the November special election, with Alameda County at 47 percent and counties such as San Mateo and Solano at or above 50 percent.

snip

A fourth vendor, Omaha, Neb.-based Election Systems & Software, has a ballot-marking device called the AutoMark that fits the bill and is approved for use in California. But state elections officials recently threatened to withdraw certification of ES&S' latest voting system because of several problems, including inaccurately counting votes in the last election.

snip

http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/localnews/ci_3391091

[Wilms]

5. CA: Voter Confidence Headed For Palo Alto

Voter Confidence Headed For Palo Alto, CA

According to this agenda (.pdf) the Human Relations Commission of Palo Alto, CA will be considering the Voter Confidence Resolution (VCR) this Thursday night. I found out about this from Commission member Shauna Wilson.

Back in September I linked to a previous HRC agenda (.pdf) that included discussion of a Voter Confidence Resolution. I wrote that I found the Commission members' contact info and would be following up. I did that but never reported further because the story went cold. I had found Wilson and she said the previous agenda item was tabled and the resolution still needed work. It looked like she was writing something entirely separate from the VCR created at GuvWurld and adopted (.pdf) by the City Council of Arcata, CA.

Well this past Sunday Wilson called to thank me for providing such a useful template. We discussed some potential additions to the election reform platform, but otherwise she said it would be the model language coming forward. She was optimistic about passing it, sending it to Palo Alto's City Council in February, and watching the 3-2 progressive majority do the right thing.

snip/links

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2006/01/voter-confidence-headed-for-palo-alto.html


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408682

[Wilms]

6. CA: Humboldt Voters Association forms to advocate ranked-choice voting

Humboldt Voters Association forms to advocate ranked-choice voting

by Shane Mizer, 1/10/2006

Revitalizing efforts to bring ranked-choice voting to Humboldt County, past members of the Voter Confidence Committee have established a new voter reform group known as the Humboldt Voters Association.

“In order to better undertake the strategies we would like to follow to realize an election system that would more accurately reflect the opinions of the voting populace, we decided it would be best to start a new organization,” Scott Menzies, a Eureka resident and one of the original co-founders of the Voter Confidence Committee, said in a news release.

Currently, Eureka’s elections are set up to reward the candidate with the highest number of votes in its general elections, which could be obtained by reaching a plurality rather than a majority. The difference between reaching a plurality and majority in election matters is that a plurality can be reached by gathering less than 50 percent of the total votes, whereas a majority can only be obtained by achieving 50 percent plus one of the voting populace.

If voters in Eureka were to approve a revision to the city charter to adopt ranked-choice voting, also known as instant run-off voting when describing single-seat races or choice voting when referring to multiseat races, ballots would allow voters the ability to rank candidates in order of preference. “It would be a lengthy and complicated process which may involve the creation of a charter commission,” Eureka city clerk Kathleen Franco Simmons said.

snip

http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=7186

[Wilms]

7. CT: Blumenthal investigating voting machine company

01/11/2006 04:35:44 AM

Blumenthal investigating voting machine company

EDWARD J. CROWDER

BRIDGEPORT — State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Tuesday that his office is exploring whether a Simsbury company broke the law when it offered a failed bid to provide Connecticut's next-generation voting machines.

Danaher Controls was the state's first choice to upgrade 3,300 aging mechanical voting machines.

But Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz last week announced the state had dropped the company after learning its machines were not certified for use in national elections.

The development caused the state to miss a Jan. 1 deadline to line up new voting machines to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act in time for this November's elections.

snip

http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_3390944

[Wilms]

8. Connecticut State Officials Attempt To Change the Subject

Connecticut State Officials Attempt To Change the Subject

By Warren Stewart, Director of Legislative Issues and Policy

January 11, 2006

Is the issue Federal Qualification or Federal Funding? Letter from the Department of Justice reveals more than state officials choose to mention.

According to an article in the Connecticut Post, State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is exploring whether a Danaher Controls broke the law when it offered a failed bid to provide Connecticut federally qualified voting machines. Blumenthal's investigation appears to be directed toward pinning the blame for the state's failure to comply with the terms of the federal law on the vendor. "We're actively exploring possible action to recoup damages to state taxpayers," Blumenthal said. "We need to investigate further what was told the secretary of the state's office — when, exactly, statements were made by the company and how grave the impact will be, both short- and long-term."

Blumenthal's statement follows on the announcement last week by Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz that the state had dropped the company after learning its machines were not certified for use in national elections. The Connecticut Post article reported that Bysiewicz said on Tuesday that Danaher had made misleading statements on written communications submitted to her office, as it sought the state contract and did not disclose that its machines lacked federal certification until Dec. 21, after all of the bidders demonstrated their offerings statewide and the state chose Danaher for the contract. "Contrary to their written representations, they had no federal certification and hadn't even applied for federal certification," said Bysiewicz.

Updated lists of qualified voting systems are published on the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) website regularly, and the status of pending applications for qualification can be ascertained by a phone call to the ITA Secretariat. Apparently, it did not occur to the Secreatary of State's office to confirm Danaher's claims of imminent certification. In fact, VoteTrustUSA learned through such a phone call that Danaher still has not even initiated the qualification process for the machines that Connecticut was planning to purchase. Connecticut requires NASED qualification before a voting system can be certified for use in the state.

This inattention on the part of state election officials and alleged misrepresentation by Danaher has resulted in missing the January 1 deadline to upgrade voting systems to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in time for this November's elections. The state has received over $33 million in federal funds, contingent on meeting that deadline. The Secretary of State has announced that a new procurement process would be initiated, but that for the 2006 election cycle the state would continue to use lever machines. Despite official assurances to the contrary, it remains to be seen if the state will be penalized for failure to meet the HAVA deadline.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=712&Itemid=113

[Wilms]

9. CT: Doug Jones to testify before the CT Voting Technology Standards Board

Doug Jones to testify before the CT Voting Technology Standards Board

Professor Douglas Jones, a nationally renowned expert in voting technology, will be presenting Expert Testimony to Connecticut's Voting Technology Standards Board

When? Friday January 12, 2006

What Time? Approximately 12 Noon

Where? Legislative Office Building, Hartford, CT

snip/discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408678

[Wilms]

10. CO: County Clerk Postpones Purchase of New Voting Equipment

Colorado: County Clerk Postpones Purchase of New Voting Equipment

By Boulder County Clerk Press Release

January 11, 2006

In a move to assure Boulder County voters that the upcoming 2006 primary and general elections will produce an accurate, timely and secure tallying of votes, the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder’s office decided today to not pursue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for acquiring new voting equipment for Boulder County in 2006.

Boulder County Clerk and Recorder Linda Salas and her staff decided to use existing voting equipment after thoroughly reviewing public input provided in recent weeks and analyzing ongoing technical and legal challenges in other counties and states. As a result of this assessment, Salas determined that her office did not want to subject Boulder County to the same problems currently being experienced across the nation.

“When we do purchase new equipment, we want to make sure we make an informed decision that provides an accurate, reliable system to the people of Boulder County. We want a system that the voters will have confidence in, and one that we as election administrators have confidence in as well,” Salas said. “There are still too many unresolved technical and legal issues with the new voting equipment offered on the market for us to feel secure in making a purchase of new equipment for Boulder County this year. This is a very important decision and one that should not be rushed.”

Using Boulder County’s existing voting machines which digitally scan paper ballots will allow elections officials to conduct this year’s elections with equipment they have experience with, and procedures already in place. This decision will also allow for a much longer timeline to facilitate a full public process in purchasing new equipment.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=710&Itemid=113

[Wilms]

11. It's been a long trek since Nov. 2, 2004 -- now getting shorter

It's been a long trek since Nov. 2, 2004 -- now getting shorter

by Robert Lockwood Mills

January 11, 2006

Dear Friends: It took the downfall of a lobbyist who dresses like a Hasidic rabbi one day and a baseball coach the next to make it happen. But if looks as if our 14-month-long effort to expose the fraud in Ohio that gave the 2004 to Bush is bearing fruit at last.

Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) was one of the architects of HAVA (Help America Vote Act). In that role he worked with Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and others to reform certain election procedures that�had arisen�from the controversial 2000 election. But where electronic voting machines were concerned, the HAVA architects neglected accusations that they were "hackable" and focused instead on lesser issues, in particular making it easier for blind people to vote.

Diebold, Inc., from Ney's home state of Ohio, is�the leading company in electronic voting machines. In response to public demand dating back to 2000 for verifiable paper trails to accompany�its machines (similar to their ATM machines' transaction receipts), Diebold argued that it wasn't practical. Ney, using his Congressional clout, blocked every piece of legislation that would have mandated such paper trails, even after the 2004 election and�reports from Ohio and elsewhere that hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of votes had been flipped from Kerry to Bush. As many of you know, I witnessed this very thing in Florida as a pollwatcher.

When Jack Abramoff began to spill his guts in connection with the charges against him as a crooked lobbyist, Ney's name surfaced immediately as one who received money and favors from him. One of Ney's more recent free trips abroad, financed by Abramoff, he struck it rich, winning $34,000 on a single $100 bet...quite convenient, because his credit card bills at that point had risen to over $30,000.

snip

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2006/1702


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408740

[Wilms]

12. Accessibility For All Voters - Has It Arrived?

Accessibility For All Voters - Has It Arrived?

By Pokey Anderson, for VoteTrustUSA

January 11, 2006

An Interview with Dottie Neely, Advocate for the Blind

Dottie Neely has been visually impaired from birth. She can tell barely tell the difference between dark and light, but she can tell when her kids are smiling. "I would worry about how much less of my children's smile I would see from day to day," she says. "And then I learned that I could tell how much they smiled by listening, and by actually being closer to them."

Dottie has advocated for the blind for the past thirty years. Dottie's caseload consists of legally blind or potentially legal blind people. She works for the North Carolina Division of Services for the Blind, and the Guilford County Social Service Department. She has served her state's National Federation of the Blind (NFB) as president and board member, and has been active in a raft of other offices and groups.

She believes that "everyone ought to have the right to vote no matter what their disability," and has been eager to try out various kinds of voting equipment. She finds some systems fall short of providing the accessibility that Congress legislated in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The system in her county, the Votronic, currently lacks even a basic headphone with audio instructions for the blind.

Dottie adds, "Not only do we have a problem of getting a machine that's accessible, but with all of this, there ought to be strong voter registration drives, and strong educational campaigns to alert people to the fact that there are machines, and they're not going to be treated like second-class citizens or like dummies when they go to the polls." In the past, typically, an election official would be assigned to assist a disabled person cast her vote. That doesn't always turn out to be nonpartisan. She says, "Oh, I've actually been to the poll, and voted, and had the person say, 'Why do you want to vote that way?!'"

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=714&Itemid=26

[Wilms]

13. PA: Statewide rule sought on voting machines

Statewide rule sought on voting machines

Thursday, January 12, 2006

By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

With a federal deadline looming and more than $100 million in aid at stake, the future of high-tech voting in all of Pennsylvania's 67 counties is going before Commonwealth Court.

A judge in Westmoreland County yesterday pushed the issue to the state level, making Pedro A. Cortes, secretary of the commonwealth, a defendant in a lawsuit that seeks more public input as county officials prepare to buy tens of thousands of new electronic voting machines for the upcoming May primary.

Last week, a group of voting rights activists, including state Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, sued Westmoreland County to stop commissioners there from buying 750 touch-screen machines -- similar to ATMs -- from Nebraska-based Election Systems and Software Inc.

The lawsuit argues that, under the state constitution, voters must have a chance to decide if they want electronic machines.

snip

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06012/636545.stm

[Wilms]

14. PA: Westmoreland computerized voting lawsuit heads to Commonwealth Court

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/pittsburgh/

Westmoreland computerized voting lawsuit heads to Commonwealth Court

By David Hunt
TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

A lawsuit alleging that the Westmoreland County Board of Elections violated the Pennsylvania Constitution by not seeking enough public comment on computerized voting machines will go to a higher court.

snip

McDonald said the suit filed in Westmoreland County is the first he has heard of in Pennsylvania.

County Solicitor R. Mark Gesalman said the Commonwealth Court would provide one ruling on the issue for the state.

"That's obviously our concern and the commonwealth's," he said. "You don't want to have 20 different outcomes."

snip

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/newssummary/s_412527.html

[Wilms]

17. PA Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408790

[Wilms]

16. AL: Voting machine cost an issue

Voting machine cost an issue

By Steven Jones

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:39 PM CST

The Selma Times-Journal

snip

In order to offset the cost, the commission is considering whether or not to combine about four to six polling places, thereby reducing the machines needed.

In order to do that, the commission must get their plan approved by the U.S. Justice Department.

Jones said that begs a question.

"Is it really worth it," he said. "We've voted at these places for years and years and years."

Commissioners have called a special meeting on Tuesday at 10 a.m. to discuss the new voting machines. The meeting is open to the public.

snip

http://www.selmatimesjournal.com/articles/2006/01/12/news/local/news2254.txt

[Wilms]

18. AZ: Harper withdraws his election lawsuit (expected to file a new lawsuit)

Harper withdraws his election lawsuit

Casey Newton
The Arizona Republic

Jan. 12, 2006 12:00 AM

A state senator investigating a disputed election has withdrawn a lawsuit seeking access to the ballots, but he said he would file a new suit soon.

Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, said he decided to drop his suit in Superior Court after the Maricopa County Attorney's Office opposed his request for a continuance.

snip

Harper said he expected to file a new lawsuit after Jones releases his report.

"If Jones says that he cannot determine where the nearly 500 new votes showed up, then we need to see the ballots," Harper said. "And I understand that his report says that he needs to see the ballots."

snip

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0112capitol-harper12.html

[rumpel]

21. California Secretary of State Releases Report on Voting System Monitoring

snip

The results conclude, said McPherson's office, that the tested equipment recorded the votes with 100 percent accuracy.

http://www.govtech.net/magazine/channel_story.php/97855

[Wilms]

22. Verified Voting Names New President and CEO

Verified Voting Names New President and CEO

Verified Voting Foundation
January 12th, 2006

Verified Voting Foundation Media Release

Contact: David L. Dill, Founder and Board Director, Verified Voting Foundation

SAN FRANCISCO - Verified Voting today announced the appointment of its new President and Chief Executive Officer, Courtenay Strickland Bhatia. Bhatia comes to Verified Voting after spending the last five years in Florida where she worked to protect the voting rights of Floridians in the wake of the 2000 election.

"Courtenay comes to us with a superb resume in the area of voting rights," said Verified Voting Founder David L. Dill, Stanford University Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering and a nationally recognized expert on systems verification. "Not only has she worked on a broad range of election reform issues and directed a grassroots-based public policy campaign, but she also co-founded one of the most successful local coalitions working in the area of voting systems reform and election verification. I have every confidence that with Courtenay's leadership, Verified Voting will make a vital contribution to the goal of achieving reliable and publicly verifiable elections."

Bhatia will officially take the helm of Verified Voting on February 27, 2006. She is currently the Voting Rights Project Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida. In that position, she has lobbied the Florida Legislature concerning post-2000 reforms, advocated against unnecessary restrictions on provisional balloting, and worked to increase access to the democratic process for voters in language minorities. She also currently serves as Public Relations Director for the League of Women Voters of Florida, and as a board member of the League of Women Voters of Miami-Dade.

"As a voting rights advocate, I have been impressed by the work and reputation of Verified Voting. I am thrilled that the board has placed its confidence in me to take the organization to the next level," said Bhatia, 31, who was selected after a nationwide search. "I feel that my vision for our work is America's vision: the right to vote consists of not only the right to cast a ballot, but also the right to have that ballot counted accurately. I'm dedicated to achieving reforms that will not only ensure reliable, publicly verifiable elections without sacrificing voters' privacy and independence at the polls, but that will also leave no qualified voter behind. Ending voter disenfranchisement must be part of the equation."

snip

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6317

[Wilms]

23. Live On-Line Chat w/Bob Fitrakis Friday here on Election Reform @ 9pm EST

Election Reformers, get your questions ready because DUers will be able to pose their election reform questions to Bob Fitrakis, <freepress.org>, tomorrow, Friday January 13 at 9 pm EST(to allow you left coasters to participate).

Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408819#top

[Wilms]

24. NM: Gov. Wants Standardized Paper Ballots Statewide

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Gov. Wants Standardized Paper Ballots Statewide

By Barry Massey/
Associated Press

SANTA FE — New Mexico plans to move to a paper ballot-based system for its elections across the state and the change could be in place by the November general election.

Gov. Bill Richardson said Thursday he will propose legislation that requires a paper ballot voting system in all counties and he's proposing that lawmakers allocate $11 million to help pay for needed software and voting machines.

Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron and Attorney General Patricia Madrid support the switch to the paper ballot system. Also backing the change are some activists in the state who oppose the use of electronic voting machines.

Currently, 11 counties use the system in which voters are given paper ballots, which are tabulated by an optical scanner machine. All 33 counties use that paper ballot system for mail-in absentee voting, according to state elections director Ernest Marquez.

Voters fill in a space on the ballot for the individual they want to vote for. The voter then feeds the ballot into a tabulation machine.

snip

http://abqjournal.com/news/appaper01-12-06.htm


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x121809

[Wilms]

26. New Jersey: Mandatory Random Manual Audit Bill Introduced in State Senate

New Jersey: Mandatory Random Manual Audit Bill Introduced in State Senate

By Warren Stewart, Director of Legislative Issues and Policy, VoteTrustUSA

January 12, 2006

Bill Would Create An Appointed "Audit Team" To Select and Conduct a Statewide 2% Hand Counted Audit

State Senator Nia Gill (D-Essex and Passaic) has introduced S. 507 (full text), a bill that requires mandatory handcounted audits of 2% of election results in the state. Twelve states have similar audit provisions and several others will be considering similar legislation this year. Last summer Governor Richard Codey signed a bill into law requiring that voting systems used in the state produce or require the use of a voter verified paper record of every vote. Like that bill, the provisions of S. 507 would not take effect until 2008.

The bill calls for the creation of an audit team selected by the Attorney General, the chief state election administrator under New Jersey law. The number and composition of that team is undefined except that one of the members should have "verifiable expertise in the field of statistics". The team will conduct random hand counts ofvoter verified paper records in at least 2% of the election districts in federal and state elections. Hand counts would also be made of the results of at least one voting machine in each election district. Votes cast in electronic voting machines, provisional ballots, absentee ballots, and the ballots of military and overseas federal election voters would all be included in the audit.

The bill does not provide a specific trigger mechanism for additional hand counts, should the initial audit reveal inconsistencies. Rather it leaves it to the Attorney General to determine if such discrepancies "show cause for concern". The action to be taken in that event, including the possibility of further handcounts, is similarly left to the determination of the Attorney General.

The randomness of the selection process is prescribed in the bill by requiring that the "selection of the election districts and county and municipal elections to be audited shall be made…on a random basis using a uniform distribution in which all districts…have an equal chance of being selected…except that at least one voting machine in one district shall be selected for an audit in each county in the State". Similar language appears in legislation currently before the Pennsylvania Assembly.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=720&Itemid=113


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408847

[Wilms]

27. KS Opinion: Paper trail protects our votes

Opinion

As I See It
Paper trail protects our votes

By DANE ZELLER
Special to The Star

“The argument for a verifiable paper audit trail, no matter the additional cost, is this: We verify every transaction we make in our day-to-day lives.”

In Finn Bullers’ “Casting Vote on Voting Systems” (12/25), a former Johnson County election commissioner, Connie Schmidt, defends the use of touch-screen voting machines that do not produce a verifiable paper audit trail.

Her argument cites the adding machine that once had paper, but now has none, and her faith in Microsoft Excel to “do our budgets … I doubt that anyone hand-adds it all up.”

Upon closer inspection, these analogies fail her cause. Imagine the IRS investigation of your tax return being thwarted by your not using a paper tape in your adding machine or being satisfied by that electronic spreadsheet that no one has hand-added up. Not likely.

snip

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/opinion/13603962.htm


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408845

[Wilms]

28. Sue Diebold

January 11, 2006

Sue Diebold

by Rob Kall

http://www.opednews.com

Sue Diebold

No, that's not the name of the female owner of Diebold. It's a suggestion. I believe that Diebold has engaged in practices that have disenfranchised my rights as an American citizen and I may be able to SUE Diebold, to file litigation against the company. If you voted on a Diebold machine that miscounted, or that used an operating system that was unauthorized, then maybe YOU have an actionable cause for litigation. Maybe you have reason to sue Diebold's corporate asses.

The goal is not to get money from them, not to change them, but to win a settlement large enough to OWN them. This is not without precedent. In the past, organizations have lost lawsuits with settlements so large it either put them out of business or the businesses or organizations were taken over by the litigant. This happened in the case of a neo-nazi, aryan nation-type group, where the litigant ended up owning the property-- the land used by the the defendants was given to the victim.

I'd like to see a plethora of class action suits filed against Diebold, suits that will cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to defend, so that Diebold is gasping for air. The suits must include injunctions against Diebold being acquired by another company, like ES&S, another company also worthy of a similar litigative assault.

There are some risks involved here. The right wing has been whittling away at the individual's right to sue. This has been a major goal of megacorporate support of Republican candidates. They often take away chunks of rights, often by making it illegal to sue regarding certain issues. A recent effort to protect vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits is a good example. The lack of the right to sue health insurers under many circumstances is another, older example of ways corporate groups have pushed through legislation that takes away citizen rights.

snip

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_060111_sue_diebold.htm


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x408844

[autorank]

30. Nominated: Best Election Fraud Daily News EVER!!!!!

I'm exhausted just looking at the number of excellent articles.

[FogerRox]

31. SHUT IT DOWN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2365675