HOPE? Slew of lawsuits hit the voting machine companies

[garybeck]

Citizens file lawsuit against CA Secretary of State for illegally certifying Diebold machines

Oregon Secretary of State sues ES&S

Lawsuit against Pennsylvania Secretary of State

Indiana Sec. of State Announces Hearings, Subpeonas, Possible Fines against ES&S Voting Machine Company

Alaska: Democrats File Lawsuit To Get 2004 Election Records

Fraud Class Action Against Diebold Inc

Florida subpoenas voting machine companies

E-Voting Lawsuit Filed against a PA County and U.S. Dept. of Justice

Washtington: lawsuit against Sequoia

New Mexico Law Suit Delves Inside Voting Machines



(links to more info at http://election.solarbus.org)

I know there's more. What am i missing?

[napi21]

1. That's GREAAT news, but my damn State, that had the FIRST

State Wide electronic voting machines isn't on the list! GEORGIA!!!!

I don't have the $$ to file suit, and there's not enough Dems who seem to care.

[crickets]

10. I hear you

Fellow Georgian here, just as frustrated and disgusted. The day I walked in and saw those machines, my heart sank. Asking polite questions of the polling workers was a lost cause. They had no idea what monsters sat on the counters waiting to screw us all. It pains me to wonder how long it will take to get rid of them. I was so proud to register to vote when I turned eighteen those *mumble* years ago, and I've voted regularly ever since. Being disenfranchised cuts deep, and the worst part is, I don't understand why we the voters had no say in the matter. (Well, I understand, but you know what I mean.) It just happened. That alone is so wrong, much less what the machines themselves are doing.

[kster]

2. KR.nt

[Land Shark]

3. Missing Washington state

www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp

[garybeck]

5. oops I did have it there on

the website but it disappeared when I transferred the headlines to the DU post. I just added it to the top post. no intention to marginalize one of the first groundbreaking cases on the list!!

I still remember you saying when you were getting read to file your suit, that you envisioned people in every state following your template. I'm waiting in line to do so! Know any good lawyers in Vermont?

[Land Shark]

7. as a matter of fact.... maybe.

someone trying to transfer into VT but rules a bit restrictive. A lot of the homework would already be done for this suit, makes it easier for another lawyer.

as to the lawsuit list, i know you know garybeck, but i figured you just cut and pasted bradblog's quick list sent out today.

[Land Shark]

4. Missing Tennessee

David G Mills, attorney at law

[garybeck]

6. I have been searching for links to Tenessee lawsuit and can't find any

anyone have a status report?

[dipsydoodle]

11. Long distance information

give me Memphis Tennessee.
Help me find the people that I know voted for me.............

[Land Shark]

8. there are also others, don't know that all of them feature vendors

Arizona voteraction.org
New Jersey (constitutional law center, Professor VEnetis)
New York (Fed DOJ v State of New york with citizen groups intervening on HAVA compliance issues)

[don954]

9. perfect

even with the suits that don't win, it costs these undemocratic companies lots of money. Hopefully they will die the death of a thousand cuts...

[demodonkey]

12. Westmoreland County, PA

TIMELINE OF WESTMORELAND LAWSUIT:
http://www.votepa.us/newsarchive/westmoreland-suit-timeline.html

DARK DAY FOR DEMOCRACY:
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1003&Itemid=113

[mod mom]

13. k + r

[FogerRox]

14. Penny Venetis's suit in NJ

[Kurovski]

15. K&R!

It's a good start.

[Febble]

16. From David Mills in Tennessee:

I'm about to dance a jig given the 6th circuit's decision

What it says in essence is what I have been saying all along. Two voting systems within a given state which are unequal, violate the constitution -- and this is the best argument of all.

In the 6th circuit case the Court said that voting systems which are demonstrably inferior to other voting systems within the state are unconstitutional. Punch cards and central optiscans are inferior (on an accuracy basis) to DRE's and precinct based optiscans. The citizens who have to vote on the former have reduced voting rights as compared with the citizens who must vote on the latter. Basically the Court's decision means that it is unconstitutional for state election commissioners to certify systems which are demonstrably inferior to other certified systems.

Likewise, and this is why I am high as a kite right now, it would appear that those citizens who have a paper ballot or at least a paper receipt have much greater rights than those who don't (within any given state). That is my case. I would think it is just as unconstitutional for election commissioners to certify both paper and paperless systems because of the inequality produced by these systems.
My brief would have been due in the Court of Appeals on Thursday but I got an extension. What a break! This case is both great on the issue of standing and on the issue of equality in voting rights.

Think of it this way. This case says itis unconstitutional to have demonstrable inequality in machinery and if I can follow up by having a court add that it is unconstituional to have inequality in paper verification versus failing to have auditable paper, we will just about have the waterfront covered. These two cases, (if I can be successful in mine) put together, will just about nail all the important major issues of voting equipment.

One more thing. Although I am in state court and not federal court, Tennessee happens to be in the 6th circuit, so this is now the federal law for the state of Tennessee and this case will be given more significant attention by our state courts.

The case:

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0143p-06.pdf

[Land Shark]

17. the effect will be to move all states toward uniformity so we had best

all act fast in all 50 states. Good for tennessee. Bad for democracy that HAVA is skewing the debate $3.8 billion toward electronic voting and then we get these equal protection arguments thrown to the fore.

As Stewart v Blackwell acknowledges in its first page or so, many think it's a brave new world. Hopefully many more than David G Mills will be poised to sieze it AND have the facts on their side. Good luck!

[autorank]

18. Every citizen, EACH ONE, can file a notification & help greatly.

The suits are great. The citizens can file a notification that their rights are abridged by secret ballots with this approach.

Send it your BoE:

Secret Vote Counting Crammed Down the Throat of Democracy
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00233.htm
Special Report for “Scoop” Independent Media
First in a Series on HAVA and the EAC
by Michael Collins
Washington, DC

CONTENTS:

CITIZEN ACTION NOW

The EAC may have opened up the opportunity for civil rights litigation against government officials, forcing this dark age for democracy and leaving no basis for public confidence in elections. Concerning the civil rights of citizens, the United States Code says:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…

- United States Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Civil Rights, Subchapter I-
Generally. Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.

When deprived of their rights by statute, regulation, or other means, individuals or groups of citizens can take their case to court. Citizens can defend democracy by reminding their elected officials and their bureaucratic employees of two important points. First, governments are instituted solely to secure and protect the rights and well-being of citizens. Second, it is the role of elected officials to be the guardians of democracy at all times. The necessary effects of EAC- and HAVA-driven purchase contracts for DREs should be noted clearly. If you complain about losing your rights through DRE secrecy and your government officials persist in instituting technology with secret vote counting, their behavior constitutes a violation of public rights that is then intentional, not simply negligent, because you have put them on notice. A certified letter (DEMAND Letter) pointing out some of the facts and legal realities here or those located in the complaint in the following link should suffice for starters and can be adapted to your jurisdiction by a lawyer if a lawsuit becomes necessary. Check and inquire about your state law as part of the process. See www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp (complaint link).[br />
The author asked Lehto to share his advice to citizens as they approach politicians and bureaucrats to demand their rights. This first article in a series on affronts to freedom through the evisceration of the voting traditions and practices ends with his comments:

If you are asked by elections officials what gives you the right to watch over the elections that grant all the legitimate power and money the government ever gets, and why a government official shouldn’t be trusted to count secretly the processes that determine the government’s own money and power, since you’ve got lots of things to do, just tell them “Thomas Jefferson sent me”. Remind them that our system of government is not based on trust; it’s based on checks and balances.

You will have plenty of energy and time to do these tasks to protect freedom and democracy, if you just remind yourself of what others have sacrificed so that you could enjoy democracy, and consider whether we have the right to allow democracy to literally disappear on our watch by our inaction. Then you’ll be a sentinel of democracy, one of democracy’s real defenders.
- Paul Lehto April 18, 2006

[flyingobject]

19. yay

[garybeck]

20. more on tennessee

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=1130