Election Reform and Related News: Thursday, May 17, 2007

[livvy]

Election Reform and Related News
Thursday, May 17, 2007



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

3. If you have information from an election reform activist organization outside of DU feel free to post (local or national)

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

5. Election related sources
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Recommendations are always welcome!

[livvy]

1. For ’08 Résumés, Don’t Ask Them to Fill in Blanks

May 17, 2007
For ’08 Résumés, Don’t Ask Them to Fill in Blanks
By MARK LEIBOVICH

WASHINGTON, May 16 — Stealing a page from the Soviet playbook, the current crop of presidential candidates has taken to eliminating whole chapters of their histories.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s turbulent final years as first lady? While Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, frequently invokes husband Bill on the stump, she has managed to avoid any mention of his impeachment and the unpleasantness leading to it.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, almost never brings up campaign finance overhaul, perhaps his signature achievement in the Senate. The McCain-Feingold finance law is loathed by many of the conservatives Mr. McCain is courting, and he typically only discusses the measure when opponents hurl it at him — as Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, did in a debate on Tuesday.

For his part, Mr. Romney likes to promote his experience as a governor, but is often coy about the state he governed. (Hint: It is viewed by many Republicans as an outpost of run-amok liberalism.) In campaign advertisements in early primary states, Mr. Romney boasts that he was “the Republican governor who turned around a Democratic state” and “vetoed hundreds of spending appropriations.” But you would never know where.

Didn’t John Edwards once run for vice president? Mr. Edwards, a Democrat and former senator from North Carolina, tends to erase his stint as What’s His Name’s running mate in 2004.

>more

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/us/politics/17elephant.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[livvy]

2. Democratic Party Debate Calendar

May 16, 2007, 3:55 pm
Democratic Party Debate Calendar

By Kate Phillips

Mark these dates. The Democratic National Committee today released the days, sponsors and locales of the six debates it is sanctioning this year, one a month beginning in July.

July 23: YouTube/Google and CNN; Charleston, S.C.

Aug. 19: ABC News; Des Moines

Sept. 26: NBC News/MSNBC; Hanover, N.H.

Oct. 30: NBC News/MSNBC; Philadelphia

Nov. 15: CNN; Las Vegas

Dec. 10; CBS News; Los Angeles



http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/democratic-party-debate-calendar/

[livvy]

3. Judge Orders Police Department Files on Preconvention Surveillance Opened

May 17, 2007
Judge Orders Police Department Files on Preconvention Surveillance Opened
By COLIN MOYNIHAN

A federal magistrate judge yesterday released about 600 pages of secret documents relating to police preparations for the 2004 Republican National Convention, held in New York.

On May 4, the magistrate judge, James C. Francis IV, granted a request by the New York Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times to make the documents public, but also granted a 10-day stay to give the city time to file an appeal.

But in a letter to the judge dated Tuesday, a lawyer for the city, Peter G. Farrell, wrote that the city would not appeal, “in light of the documents’ prior disclosure and corresponding press coverage.”

The city had originally opposed the release of the documents because, it insisted, news organizations and legal groups would “fixate upon and sensationalize them,” and thus taint the potential pool of jurors who might later be asked to decide cases brought in connection with some of the nearly 2,000 arrests during the convention.

>more

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/nyregion/17convention.html?ref=politics

[livvy]

4. Making Voting Easier

Posted on Wed, May. 16, 2007


Make voting easier
If the Richmond experiment succeeds, state should allow all counties to adopt it

In Indianapolis last week, there was a primary-election crisis of epic proportions. Thousands of voters were inconvenienced as dozens of polls opened late because of missing inspectors, incorrect ballots or the wrong keys for counting machines. Five precincts never even opened, which meant that more than 3,200 voters were disenfranchised. Some candidates are thinking about requesting a makeup election and, of course, there have been inquiries about federal action.

The debacle is one more piece of evidence, if we even need it, that something has to change about the way we conduct elections.

The answer may be found, at least in part, in the experiment that took place in Richmond. Traditional precinct-based voting sites – 31 of them – were replaced with four voting centers in high-traffic areas. Two of them were opened a week before the election for early voting. Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, who initiated the experiment, was so pleased with the results that he uses it as an example to talk about the Indianapolis mess: “It’s really a tale of two cities … With the vote centers, voters in the five precincts where the polls never opened could just go on to the next vote center.”

The “vote anywhere” concept was touted as a way to improve turnout by making the act of casting a ballot more convenient. Most people have to fit voting around their work schedules, and their places of employment and voting precincts are often in different parts of town. The results are in, and 16 percent of Richmond voters went to the polls, up from 11 percent in the last comparable primary. Since the turnout percentage usually goes down from primary to primary in other Indiana cities, this must be seen as at least a modest success.

And turnout isn’t the only reason to applaud the vote centers, as the Indianapolis experience shows.

>more

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/17234454.htm

[livvy]

5. Voters Deserve Verifiable Electronic Votes

From The Morning Call
May 16, 2007
Voters deserve verifiable electronic votes
''Most computer experts conclude that touch screen voting machines, without paper audit capability, have no future, due to security vulnerabilities.''

The campaigning and voting are over and we're poring over the primary election results. But, let's admit it: When it comes right down to it, voting is a science. A voter votes. The vote is counted. The success or failure of an election is based on whether the voter's vote is counted accurately. The statistical gold standard is that 100 percent of the votes cast are tallied correctly.

But, how can we know that all of the votes are recorded accurately? Good question. We must have some way to go back and re-examine the ballots to make sure. For example: Candidate A may have received 2,300 votes and candidate B 2,700 votes, but if the tally reflects that A received 2,501 and B received 2,549, A wins, B loses and goes home. So, if we suspect a discrepancy, how can we confirm that the candidate recorded having the most votes is the winner?

Unfortunately, with our current touchscreen DRE (direct recording electronic) voting machines, we cannot confirm the accuracy of the vote. The computers, or rather the computer programmers, not the voters, have the ultimate control. Votes are captured in a complex matrix of silicon and electrons. If you want a re-count, you can ask the computer for a re-count, but it will simply regurgitate the same, possibly faulty, information. In the example above, A wins and B loses.

A ridiculous, hypothetical situation, you say? In fact, this problem is not hypothetical. Discrepancies have occurred on a regular basis with DREs. In Sarasota, Fla., an 18,000 vote ''undercount'' caused the front-runner in Florida's 13th Congressional District to lose the election in 2006. In other words, 18,000 voters voted for other offices, but didn't vote for the most important race on the ballot. Which is more likely, that 18,000 people went to the polls to vote but did not cast a vote for congressman, or that the machines made a huge error? I think it was the machines.

>more

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/all-right_col-a.5849915may16,0,2719339.story?coll=all-newsopinionanotherview-hed

[livvy]

6. TX: Chaos Breaks Out In Senate Over Voter ID Bill

May 15, 2007, 5:12PM
Chaos breaks out in Senate over Voter ID bill

By LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press

AUSTIN — Democrats barely blocked consideration of a voter identification bill Tuesday, scraping up enough votes only after a shouting match over whether a key senator's vote was counted and the just-in-time appearance of a senator with the stomach flu.

Under Senate rules, two-thirds of the chamber, or 21 senators, must agree to bring a bill up for debate. Democrats hold 11 seats, just enough to block legislation from being considered if they vote together.

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, said in March that all 11 Democrats had committed to blocking the bill requiring voters to produce photo identification or two other forms of non-photo identification at a polling place.

Their solidarity meant Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst had to wait weeks to even try to bring up the measure the House passed in mid-April.

He got his chance on Tuesday, when Democratic Sen. Carlos Uresti stayed home with the flu.

>more

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/4806873.html

[livvy]

7. More U.S. Attorneys Were On Cut Lists Than First Acknowledged

More U.S. Attorneys Were On Cut Lists Than First Acknowledged

By Dan Eggen , Amy Goldstein , The Washington Post
Published on 5/17/2007 in Home »Nation, World »National News

Washington — The Justice Department considered dismissing many more U.S. attorneys than officials have previously acknowledged, with at least 26 prosecutors suggested for termination between February 2005 and December 2006, according to sources familiar with documents withheld from the public.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified last week that the effort was limited to eight U.S. attorneys fired since June, and other administration officials have said that only a few others were suggested for removal.

In fact, Gonzales' former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, recommended more than two dozen U.S. attorneys for termination, according to lists compiled by him and his colleagues, the sources said.

They amounted to more than a quarter of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys, including prosecutors from Colorado to Mississippi and from Oklahoma to Florida. At least 13 of those known to have been targeted are still in their posts.

>more

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=47aab67c-1775-49c5-aa81-36049c5ca359

[livvy]

8. New Indications Attorney Firings May Be Linked To Voter-Fraud Probes

Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 12:00 AM

New indications attorney firings may be linked to voter-fraud probes

By Marisa Taylor and Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department last year considered firing two U.S. attorneys in Florida and Colorado, states where allegations of voter fraud and countercharges of voter intimidation have flown in recent years, according to sources familiar with documents not released to the public.

Gregory Miller, the U.S. attorney for the northern district of Florida in Tallahassee, and Bill Leone, the former acting U.S. attorney for Colorado, were among at least 26 of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys suggested for termination between February 2005 and December 2006, according to the sources. At least 13 of those are still in their posts.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified last week that the effort was limited to eight U.S. attorneys fired since June, and other administration officials have said only a few others were suggested for removal.

Florida and Colorado bring to nine the number of closely contested election states where the Bush administration set out to replace prosecutors. In Washington and at least six other states, it now appears, U.S. attorneys were fired or considered for firing as Republicans in those states urged investigations or prosecutions of alleged Democratic voter fraud.

Miller, of Tallahassee, appeared on multiple target lists for possible firing from early 2005 through November 2006, according to a senior congressional aide familiar with Justice Department documents. Miller kept his job.

>more

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003710427_attorneys17.html

[livvy]

9. Watergate Without the Break-In

Watergate Without the Break-In

Posted on May 16, 2007

By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON—It is time to stop referring to the “fired U.S attorneys scandal” by that misnomer, and call it what it is: a White House-coordinated effort to use the vast powers of the Justice Department to swing elections to Republicans.

This is no botched personnel switch. It is not even a political spat between the fired U.S. attorneys and Bush administration officials who deemed some of them insufficiently zealous in promoting the department’s law enforcement priorities. Connect the dots and you see an insidious effort to corrupt the American electoral system. It’s Watergate without the break-in or the bagmen.

The emerging picture is one in which widespread Republican claims of “voter fraud”—unsubstantiated in virtually every case examined closely by law enforcement officials, local journalists, state elections officials and academics—were used to stymie Democratic-leaning voter registration groups and create a taint around Democrats. The Justice Department’s own statistics show that only a handful of people were convicted of voting illegally since it began a “voter integrity” initiative in 2002. Its top election crimes official, a career prosecutor, has told the U.S Election Assistance Commission that the proportion of “legitimate to illegitimate claims of fraud” hasn’t changed.

The “voter fraud” claims that White House political adviser Karl Rove promoted before last year’s congressional elections were in battleground states such as New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin with closely contested races. He also has complained about alleged fraud in hotly competitive states such as Washington, Florida and Missouri. Curiously, states where elections often are decided by wide margins—New York, for instance—don’t turn up on his lists.

>more

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070516_watergate_without_the_break_in/

[livvy]

10. Blog: Caging Voters, Killing Democracy

Caging Voters, Killing Democracy
Scott Thill

The U.S. Attorney Scandals suck onward. Alberto VO5 can't seem to remember anything, except that he can't remember anything. Well, that and everyone else, including his Deputy Attorney General has more power, more accountability and a better memory than he does. Even when he can't be bothered to stop his bedside pestering of John Ashcroft for another FISA transgression, all while the former Attorney General is high on painkillers, post-surgery.
Shades of Teri Schiavo, shades of Richard Nixon, shades of tampering, votejacking and all other manner of moral and political trespasses we will be busy paying for later.

Because that's when the hammer should come down, according to smartass muckraker and investigative reporter Greg Palast, who chatted up attorney David Iglesias, one of Gonzales' victims as well as the dude Tom Cruise played in A Few Good Men. As Palast reports, what really pissed Rove and his cronies off the most was the fact that Iglesias started out playing ball but ended up bailing on the Bush bandwagon after he refused to push through bogus cases of voter fraud.

"They wanted a political operative who happened to be a US attorney," Iglesias told Palast, "and when they got somebody who actually took his oath to the Constitution seriously, they were appalled and they wanted me out of there. The two strikes against me was, I was not political, I didn't help them out on their bogus voter fraud prosecutions."

See, this whole scandal is not about improper firings, departmental ineptitude or simple partisanship invested in the, ahem, pleasure of the president. (Does anyone else feel creeped out in a sexual way when they hear or read that phrase? Man, I totally do.) No, the brouhaha over Gonzales and his cadre of Pat Robertson grads is about votejacking, plain and simple. It is the messy residue of a botched attempt to swing the national vote towards the president, by any means necessary. Even if that means firing a Hollywood success story. Actually, especially if it means firing a Hollywood success story.

>more

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-thill/caging-voters-killing-de_b_48683.html

[kpete]

11. k&r

and good morning to you livvy!

[texpatriot2004]

12. K & R nm

[Kurovski]

13. Kick.

Thank you, livvy!

[Kurovski]

14. Kick to the top. (nt)