NM: Court Says That State Should Have Allowed (2004) Recount

[Wilms]

New Mexico: Court Says That State Should Have Allowed Recount

Belated Victory for Greens and Libertarians Leaves Flawed Election Results Unexamined

By Warren Stewart, VoteTrustUSA

May 28, 2006

Election integrity activists in New Mexcio were justifiably heartened by a state court decision this month that invalidated a clause in a 2005 omnibus election reform bill that allowed the state canvassing board to require candidates to pay the estimated full cost of a recount up front as a deposit. The decision was a victory for all those involved in the effort to recount the 2004 New Mexico presidential election results. Analysis of the certified results revealed troubling anomalies including 2,087 phantom votes and an alarmingly high undervote rate (2.78% statewide, 21,084 in all), particularly from polling places using Sequoia Advantage and Shouptronic 1242 direct record electronic (DRE) voting machines.

Shortly after the state certified the results of the November 2004 election, presidential candidates from the Green Party (David Cobb) and Libertarian Party (Michael Badnarik) requested a recount. The candidates had submitted a deposit of $114,400 and argued that was the proper amount for a recount based on a formula in state election law. Help America Recount coordinated the recruitment and training of hundreds of citizen observers. But the state canvassing board, which consisted of Governor Bill Richardson, Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron, and Supreme Court Chief Justice Petra Maes decided in mid-December 2004 that the candidates could have a recount only if they paid a security deposit of $1.4 million, which was an estimate of the full cost of a statewide recount.

Attorneys for the candidates argued at the time that the convassing board’s demands were in violation of state law but their complaint was dismissed by state courts and the recount never took place. Subsequently the Governor had a provision inserted in an omnibus election bill passed in the 2005 legislative session that allowed the canvassing board to require a deposit of either part or the full estimated cost of a recount. While an agreement to strike the provision was reached with the legislative sponsors of the bill, in the hectic final days of the legislative session, it remained in the bill that was passed and signed into law in May of 2005.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1315&Itemid=113

[pnwmom]

1. It is sickening to know that the Court didn't care if the vote count was

flawed, unless it affected the Presidential election. Wouldn't any state voter want to know that their election system was working? Or not?

"The court said the board was wrong in 2004 and had no authority to condition a recount on the estimated full cost of rechecking votes. Once Cobb and Badnarik paid the deposit based on the statutory formula, a recount should have moved forward, according to the court.

However, the paper went on to explain that:
…the justices declined to order a recount of presidential ballots, saying a new vote tabulation wouldn't change the national outcome of the election because President Bush had enough electoral votes to win even if he hadn't carried New Mexico.
As a result, the canvass report of the New Mexico general election, with its thousands of “impossible” phantom votes and uncounted votes, will remain unexamined. "

Thanks for the post, Wilms.

[Kip Humphrey]

2. And round and round it goes... I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round!

The courts continue to bury the past only to ensure its continuation in the future.

:nuke: Demo:nuke:cracy :nuke: Lib:nuke:erty :nuke:I:nuke:R:nuke:A:nuke:N:nuke:

[Peace Patriot]

3. The VoteTrustUSA site continues...

"As reported in the Albuquerque Journal:

'In Tuesday's ruling, the court said the 2005 change in law was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power because there were no standards to guide the board in deciding how large a deposit to require.

'The court said the board was wrong in 2004 and had no authority to condition a recount on the estimated full cost of rechecking votes. Once Cobb and Badnarik paid the deposit based on the statutory formula, a recount should have moved forward, according to the court.

"However, the paper went on to explain that:

'…the justices declined to order a recount of presidential ballots, saying a new vote tabulation wouldn't change the national outcome of the election because President Bush had enough electoral votes to win even if he hadn't carried New Mexico.

"As a result, the canvass report of the New Mexico general election, with its thousands of “impossible” phantom votes and uncounted votes, will remain unexamined."

------------------------------------

Same thing they said in Ohio. So this is the bushwhacking: miscount in enough states--or even just two--and they'll use the miscount, or failure to recount, or failure to recount legally and properly in one state, to stop the recount in another.

Remember? They said it in Ohio. It won't change the outcome!

And by what logic is it that a miscount is not important if it doesn't unseat Bush? What about the rights of voters in New Mexico? What about the infamy of being a state that "went for Bush"?

Well, I hope this adds to the case for NM to oust Richardson's dirty little political machine. I'm afraid we have to face the fact that it is not just Bush and Bushites who are beholden, not the people, but to the "trade secret," proprietary programming code in the new election theft machines.

I don't know about ShoupTronic, but Sequoia is the third big Republican player in the election theft business. After purchasing these crapass, secretly programmed machines for California, Repub Sec of State Bill Jones and his chief aide Alfie Charles jumped right into employment by Sequoia to help them peddle their machines--in an egregious example of corrupt "revolving door" employment.

The other two players, of course, are Diebold (Bush-Cheney campaign chair for CEO) and its brethren corporation ES&S (initially funded by billionaire rightwing 'christian' nut Howard Ahmanson).

You wonder why our party leaders can be silent in the face of Bushite-controlled secret vote tabulation and NON-TRANSPARENT elections, and then bend over for Bush ripping the U.S. Constitution to shreds?

It's going to be a long, hard fight, my friends, to get our country back. I'm sure we will win it, but do be aware of the difficulties we face, and have courage, and do not yield to discouragement and disempowerment. And never give up on your right to vote. NEVER!

Applause and thanks to the Greens and Libertarians for carrything this fight through and exposing the sham of the 2004 election. And congratulations on winning the lawsuit! I know it must be painful to win and not win (I know--I've been there). But your win will at least make it difficult for the bad guys the next time they try to stop a recount, and it adds to the pile of inferential evidence of a wrong outcome. It's all adding up!

:applause: :patriot: :applause: :applause: :patriot: :applause: :applause: :patriot: :applause:

[texpatriot2004]

4. Duh! It took the court 2 years to figure out what I knew the day

after the election!