Eureka Times-Standard: Voting Machines Certified, But With Conditions

[GuvWurld]

http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_3546656

Article Launched: 02/25/2006 4:51 AM PST

Voting machines certified, but with conditions

James Faulk The Times-Standard

EUREKA -- The new touch-screen voting systems on order by the county to offer more accessibility to area voters have been certified by the state, with a few conditions.

<snip>

”There are still some security issues to be addressed,” said County Clerk Carolyn Crnich.

<snip>

Some advocates maintain that the certification of the voting system is a mistake that could prove costly. Dave Berman, co-founder of the Voter Confidence Committee of Humboldt County, said the secretary of state doesn't have the authority to unilaterally change California's election law.

”Despite granting conditional certification to Humboldt's election machines, the equipment is in violation of state and federal law, even according to the secretary's own security analysis,” he said. “I anticipate a court injunction will prevent Humboldt's continued use of these illegal and unsecure Diebold machines and urge the county supervisors and the Elections Department to begin making preparations to conduct the June 6 primary using hand-counted paper ballots.

“We must have a transparent, secure and verifiably accurate voting system or there is no basis for confidence in the results reported,” Berman said.

[Wilms]

1. Boy! That Berman guy really knows how to talk to reporters.

It makes a Wurld of difference.

[GuvWurld]

2. Thanks Wilms

;-)

[JimDandy]

7. Guvwurld, I see now why you're unconcerned about your privacy.

:-) How's your HCPB implementation plan coming? A plan like that could do double-duty for you. In addition to being a useful tool for convincing your county officials to change voting systems, it might also help you in court.

Wilms posted a link to an article in Harvard Law Review, Vol. 119, No. 4. that points out how judges, when faced with election administration cases, will frequently base their decision on whether a suitable remedy is available as an alternative to the current system.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=414352&mesg_id=414409

Section VII, Election Administration: Judicial Review and Remedial Deterrence, states:

"Judges reviewing these administrative practices frequently face a situation in which no remedy seems available. It may appear impossible to change a contested procedure because an election
is nearly underway, because a judge is not aware of suitable administrative alternatives, or because a judge feels uncomfortable mandating a specific election procedure from the bench. Judges may be less willing or less likely to find rights violations in these circumstances merely because no viable remedy seems apparent. Professor Daryl Levinson has termed this general judicial response to remedial concerns “remedial deterrence."

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/119/feb06/DEVO/DEVO_election_administration06.pdf

If you filed your injunction soon, and had your HCPB voting system implementation plan ready at filing, I'd say that would constitute a "suitable remedy." The judge might think so, too. What say you?

JD

[GuvWurld]

8. Not totally unconcerned, just certain contexts

I have made some progress with the hcpb proposal, but nothing like what I expected. I have been meaning to update the other thread, and will do so later today.

As for having a plan ready on going to court, it had certainly crossed my mind that it would be useful to be coming out with both barrels, so to speak, but I had no idea about this legal doctrine you mentioned. I will have to check those links you provided. Thanks.

And I hope when I get the other thread updated you'll be able to jump back in with more guidance. And why do you still have so few posts? Nothing else worth commenting on here?

[JimDandy]

11. Sorry, I've been remiss about posting.

"And why do you still have so few posts?"

A couple of reasons: Several times I've had important info I wanted to post, but have been stymied from doing so due to the posting rules here. Also, it's the legislative season here in my state. I've been tracking bills on many other issues besides elections, so I haven't had much time to post at any forum.


"Nothing else worth commenting on here?"

To the contrary! DU posters do a great job of disseminating info. There are some threads that really interest me, but they are all taking time to research. I should have at least left a brief comment to the original posters, though, indicating my interest in their threads. I won't be so remiss from now on. Sorry folks!


"As for having a plan ready on going to court, it had certainly crossed my mind that it would be useful to be coming out with both barrels, so to speak,..."

It would definitely take a lot of work to come up with both at the same time. Do you have enough volunteers in Humboldt Co. to make that a reality? If you can't do both, which one do you think is most important to accomplish? Either project would serve as a great model for the rest of us to follow.


"And I hope when I get the other thread updated you'll be able to jump back in with more guidance."

I look forward to your update and will be there when needed!

JD

[mike_c]

3. totally OT, but what do you think about the article about Arcata Greens...

...in this weeks NCJ? Sounds like a pretty screwy situation!

[GuvWurld]

4. I think in small communities...

the standards for newsworthiness are lower.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Thanks for the news, GuvWorld, and all your work! K&R!

Got to go to work. I'll come back later and comment more.

[EFerrari]

6. Wow! Good going!

:hi:

[Twist_U_Up]

9. hand-counted paper ballots NOW

hand-counted paper ballots NOW

[nicknameless]

10. "Unilaterally change California's election law"?

More like: unilaterally violate California's election law.

Good job!

R'ed