Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News Saturday 9/17/05

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. Post stories using the "Election Fraud and Reform News Sources" listed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x371233

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

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


If you want to know how post "News Banners" or other images, go here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=371233#371391

Link to previous Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x393727


Please "Recommend" for the Greatest Page (it's the link just below).

-snip-

"it is the position of the EAC that those machines that produce a limited paper record (documenting only vote totals) also do not meet the requirements."

-snip/more-

http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20Advisory%2005-005.pdf

Thanks to BillBored for posting the discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x393822

The United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has received a number of inquiries from several states as to whether one or more particular voting systems comply with Section 301(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). In addition, in one of its recent public meetings, EAC was asked to conduct an analysis to identify the gaps between the 2002 Voting System Standards adopted by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the requirements for voting systems under Section 301(a) of HAVA. EAC is not required by HAVA to preclear or approve voting systems purchased by states and local election jurisdictions. Furthermore, EAC does not believe that it was the intention of Congress or HAVA for EAC to assume this role. However, it is evident that states and local election jurisdictions as well as testing laboratories are in need of information that will help in determining whether a voting system meets the threshold requirements of Section 301(a). Thus, EAC offers the follwing analysis of Section 301(a) in light of the 2002 Voting System Standards.

-snip/more-

html: http://www.eac.gov/section_301.html

pdf: http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20Advisory%2005-004%20(%204%20page%20fit%20).pdf

U.S. Election Assistance Commission Technical Guidelines Development Committee Resolution adopted by the TGDC at their plenary meeting, July 9, 2004

http://vote.nist.gov/adopted_resolutions%202004-05.pdf

possible, that it was an obscure announcement to all who had "intentions" to prepare for the fraud? It may have had nothing to do with doing something about it.

But then again, I may already have become so distrustful, that these suspicions come to mind....

Autorank, I think this article should be cross-posted everywhere.

09/16/2005 11:18:13 PM

Paper trail vital in voting
Chico Enterprise-Record

California is one of many states requiring a verified paper trail for the use of electronic voting machines. However, 10 states do not have such requirements, so several bills have been introduced in both houses to make this requirement universal. The best of these, and the one most likely to be approved in time for the 2006 election because of its bipartisan support, is HR 550.

This bill requires that all voting systems produce a voter-verified record paper record of each vote cast, and also requires the disclosure of vote-counting software code, bans the use of wireless devices and mandates a percentage of random audits in each state.

Recently, California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson banned Diebold electronic voting machines because of a 10 percent error rate in tests. This provides an example of what may have happened in the 2004 election, an election that extensively used Diebold machines, and which eroded confidence in our electoral system.

On Aug. 16, six citizens from the 2nd Congressional District met with Congressman Wally Herger's staff to enlist the congressman's support and co-sponsorship of HR 550. Currently with more than 140 bipartisan co-sponsors, the bill needs at least 218 supporters to pass. Herger co-authored a similar bill during the last Congress. I urge his support and that of members from all parties. Let him know how you feel on this issue. We must restore confidence in our voting system, which is the cornerstone of our democracy.

— Robert Bowman, Chico

http://www.chicoer.com/letters/ci_3036908

Thanks to eomer for posting the discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x393884

The NVRI website, http://www.nvri.org , has two new posts about developments in the Ohio lawsuit.

It seems like depositions will begin almost immediately and that Blackwell, as a defendant, will be deposed by December 15. Am I reading that right? If so, Blackwell testifying under penalty of perjury sometime in the next three months - this should get interesting.

Here is the first NVRI post: http://www.nvri.org/about/ohio_recount.shtml

(September 14, 2005): Federal Court in Toledo, Ohio Sets Trial Date for Ohio Recount Case
In a major development, Federal Judge James G. Carr held a status hearing on August 30 in the Ohio recount cases and in the League of Women Voters case challenging Ohio's election system. Judge Carr agreed to consolidate the two recount cases (NVRI is co-lead counsel in both of these cases) and set a trial date for these cases for the week of August 22, 2006. Counsel for Kerry/Edwards 2004 made an appearance at the hearing and indicated its continued participation as an intervenor in this matter.

Judge Carr also set a schedule for discovery in the recount cases, with all discovery to be completed by May 1, 2006. While Judge Carr must still rule on the state's motion to dismiss, he allowed the plaintiffs to file discovery requests while that motion is pending.

We are now preparing for the potential of a critical and intense discovery phase in this litigation to demonstrate further what went wrong during the Ohio recount in December 2004, in support of our claims that the recount was not conducted in accordance with basic constitutional principles. We will keep you updated as this case moves forward, including a further update when Judge Carr issues his ruling on the state's motion to dismiss.


And here is the second: http://www.nvri.org/troubled_elections.shtml


Federal Judge Sets Expedited Schedule for Lawsuit Challenging Disenfranchisement in Ohio (September 15, 2005)
At a scheduling conference held August 30, 2005, Chief U.S. District Judge David Carr granted the plaintiffs' request for an expedited discovery process and trial date in League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Blackwell, a lawsuit in which we are seeking fundamental reform of Ohio's dysfunctional election process. Under the schedule established by Judge Carr, pre-trial discovery will proceed immediately, and will not be stayed to await a decision on the state defendants' pending motion to dismiss the complaint. Judge Carr set a trial date of June 13, 2006, with the aim of having a decision in advance of the 2006 elections. Depositions of the plaintiffs are to be completed by October 31, 2005, depositions of defendant and third party witnesses by December 15, 2005, and expert discovery is to be completed by February 15, 2006.

Filed in federal court in Toledo, the complaint chronicles deficiencies in Ohio elections going back more than three decades, including widespread problems with the voter registration system, the absentee and provisional ballot processes, the training of poll workers, the organization of polling places and precincts, and the allocation of voting machines. The lawsuit seeks to compel the state to uphold its constitutional obligation to provide for its citizens' right to register and vote. It also alleges Ohio has failed to meet its obligations under the Help America Vote Act. NVRI is partnering with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Proskauer Rose LLP, Arnold & Porter LLP, People for the American Way Foundation, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and Connelly, Jackson & Collier LLP, to provide representation to the plaintiffs in this case. For more information, see http://www.nvri.org/about/ohio_recount.shtml

State moves on voting upgrades

By JOAN BARRON
Star-Tribune capital bureau




CHEYENNE -- During the 2000 general election in Hanna, an unusually large number of voters turned out for the lively and contentious mayoral election.
snip
Hanna Mayor I.W. "Bill" Coffman, a five-term incumbent, lost the election to Ken Worman by 11 votes in a recount -- 234 to 223.

snip
She referred the complaint to the Carbon County attorney's office. Two years later, seven people were charged with voter fraud.

"I've never found any case where people intended to commit voting fraud," including the people charged in the 2000 Hanna election, Smith said Tuesday.

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/09/15/news/wyoming/3279e6dca34d84f88725707c007ed815.txt

Williams: Rove did not request lawyer's dismissal


AUSTIN -- Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams said he spoke with presidential adviser Karl Rove before deciding to fire a lawyer quoted in a newspaper story about Rove's eligibility to vote in Texas _ but Rove did not ask him to do so.

"Karl called me. He had read the article and wanted to know if it was our stance" that his voter registration status in Texas might be in jeopardy, Williams said.


"I told him it wasn't and that the person who gave that opinion was not authorized to do so," said Williams, a longtime supporter of President Bush and a major GOP fundraiser.

Elizabeth Reyes, 30, was fired Sept. 6 from her position in Williams' office after being quoted in The Washington Post three days earlier. She said in the Post's story that it was possible vote fraud to register in a place where one does not actually live.

DU Discussion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x393910

http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3862680&nav=Bsmh