California: Last Friday as Millions of Californians were preparing

[babsbunny]

for their Holiday weekend, Sectretary of State Bruce McPherson quietly re-certified Diebold electronic voting machines for the 2006 elections. Please Email him and tell him NO! http://ga3.org/campaign/diebold

[Skink]

1. well we might get a new Sec. of State..

[fooj]

2. She's has been great.

KandR!

[Wilms]

3. Well, he may have been trying to be quiet, but that didn't work.

What did work, though, is most news reports and commentary (not all) fail to consider the significance of the other two words tied to certification, namely: "Conditional" and "Temporary".

I sure hope people look at that, and other ways, as a means to fight this.

My fear, however, is the inaccurate "McPherson certified Diebold" notion will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[GuvWurld]

4. I take your point, but...

come primary day, if the machines are used, what good are the words "conditional" and "temporary"?

Put a dozen "non-lethal" rounds in my brain and you're going to kill me.

Forget "conditional" and "temporary" for just a moment. The bottom line here, from my view, isn't even "certification." It really all boils down to what is going to happen on election day. Technically illegal machines may be used under the guise of being certified and where will that leave us?

There are many things that we can't possibly know for sure. And then there are certain things of which we can be certain. And the most guaranteed scenario of all is that we will have inconclusive outcomes that result in the lack of unanimous agreement about the results. We've seen it before. It is guaranteed as a result of the conditions under which elections are held.

So the questions that seem most relevant to me are:

How do we change the conditions under which the elections will be held so as to ensure conclusive outcomes? (Of course I've weighed in heavily on this with the Voter Confidence Resolution but I mean more immediately to affect what is happening at the BOE in each of our counties today and over the next three and a half months until the primary).

How do we respond after another bogus "election" in order to refuse to accept the reported results?


"Election reform is not a goal unto itself, it is a tactic toward peaceful revolution."
--Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution

[Wilms]

5. You respond by making use of the hand you're dealt.

As such, I think it an enormous mistake to ignore the legal potential behind the fact that there was no certification, but a "conditional" and "temporary" one.

I'm not an attorney, but the SoS documents seem to indicate that some conditions are to be met before the equipment is used at all.

The SoS also indicates, that if the machines ultimately fail to be certified, HAVA funds used to purchase them will potentially become a liability.

County BoE's ought to look at that.

And so should we.

[GuvWurld]

6. I like the liability angle

Just in terms of thinking about the most effective ways to move local elected officials to action, laying out for them the cause for concern about potential lawsuits, potential electoral gridlock where no equipment is appropriately available to conduct an election, and their complicity in knowingly going forward and allowing an "election" to be held using equipment with such flaws and legal deficits. I think these are all points that County Supes and City Councilmembers should find compelling. Are these arguments heightened or enhanced by "conditional" or "temporary"? I don't know. You are making a very nuanced reading of the certification when you say that the equipment can't be used at all until the certification conditions have been met. That may be accurate, and I would certainly choose your side in a debate, but in practical terms I don't know that others are stopping in their tracks over it or would even be slowed down by it should I start making that argument.

Regardless, this is one of the most valuable aspects of my experience on DU: hashing out the strongest talking points.

[Wilms]

8. "practical terms" is a correct concern, too.

Even if this idea has legal grounding, what, in practical terms, is it's value?

And while the SoS says the equipment should be in compliance, the SoS spokesperson said this.

snip

Nonetheless, Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state's office, said county officials can still hold an election, even if they do not meet the standards set by law.

''The fact is, the elections still go forward,'' she said. ''The worst case is they get penalized for their non-compliance.''

snip

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/13905208.htm


So they also think they have an out...which they might.


The two things that stand out most in my mind are:

1. Bowen said the VVPAT's don't jive with CA Election Code

2. The Warren Stewart article with Jody Holder citations at VoteTrustUSA.
http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=949&Itemid=113


Please see my posted snips here. Kick the thread if you want.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x413850

It was posted before but the discussion was disrupted, so I tried to restart it.

[kster]

7. K-n-R...nt