BIG PROBLEM with CA's Diebold Hearing

First, I hope everyone checked out what's up CA's certification hearing for an array of Diebold wares set for Monday 11/21. See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x401598

Does anyone know the legal definition of "public hearing"? As I ruminate over the new format of the Diebold hearings some more, I wonder just what is the logical extension of it?

Is this the new trend? Will ALL public hearings required by the government now be heard before tape recorders and stenographers? Is it okay that no decision-maker or advisory body will be listening. What is the public assurance that their words are heard and not just filed away in the "complied with law, so we did that" file.

A "public hearing" is a condition of state certification in California.

This is an outrage and SoS Bruce McPherson needs to have someone point out to him that his pants are pulled down. This is an outrage!

If nothing else to "hear" the proceedings. Unless something has changed very recently!

Likewise, public comment can be submitted by mail to the certifying commission - and IMO would be good task for all Californians NOT able to travel to Sacramento.

I live here...can plan on being present on Nov 21. Have worked for State gov/ in past so kind of know the drill.

who will hear it? Just a room with a tape recorder. How do we know anyone will ever listen to it?

... virtually everywhere. The important thing is to have well-prepared people there to ask questions and get information on the record. The proceedings are official--that's why it's recorded and a court recorder is present to create a transcript.

Another important thing is that they are conducted by the state agency responsible, and those officials can manipulate the hearings to a desired end, so it's important that whatever group that attends have someone along with legal background to interpret any rules of order, restrictions on testimony, etc., because such challenges are part of the record, as well.

If there's hard evidence of faults with the equipment proposed for certification, a public hearing is the place to get that evidence on the record.

It's not an outrage--it's the only opportunity the public has in the process to state its concerns, objections or agreements, for that matter. It's a formal proceeding, so any evidence provided at that time can be used in later court challenges. Public opinion is recorded, but not usually sworn. If anti-BBV advocates wish to testify under oath to present evidence, they need to let the SoS office know post-haste--otherwise, it doesn't get into the record as such.

As I've said, it's not an outrage--it's an opportunity.

Cheers.

No one is hearing the hearing.

It's just the lackey with the tape recorder and the stenographer.

The activists will not be talking to any advisory board or decision-maker.

Yes, the testimony will be recorded, but how do we know it'll ever be listened to or read. For all we know it'll be dumped in the circular file.

... that evidence is to be placed into the record? If not, arrange for someone to be there to do so. :)

the SoS office--Bruce McDannold--who has not decision-making or advisory power and a stenographer and a "recorder"--not sure if it'll be audio or video.

Does that sound like a hearing to you?

... just make sure there's someone there who can administer an oath and have people there to provide evidence.

It's very obvious that the SoS office isn't taking this too seriously, but I guarantee you it would be much worse if they controlled the hearing in such a way as to dismiss evidence and testimony (I've seen it done--I've seen agencies hostile to the public just plain flat ignore evidence of perjury on the part of their favored witnesses, things like that).

Tell everyone to go in and make a strong showing and to keep it up all day and into the evening if possible. Then get a copy of the transcript and make sure that every single rep in the Statehouse gets one with a cover letter saying that the SoS office couldn't be bothered to send experts to respond to questions from the public on technical details.

But, above all, don't get pissed and blow it off--it's an opportunity to be heard.

Don't forget to call the press and tell them what's going on. :)

Cheers.

California Election Protection Network Protests Secretary of
State Bruce McPherson’s Decision To Hold A “No Hearing Hearing”

On November 21, 2005, citizens may voice their concerns about what voting system will record their votes, but thanks to a decision by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, there’s absolutely no guarantee that anyone with the authority to certify voting systems in California will hear those voices.

California law requires the Secretary of State to conduct a public hearing as a condition of certifying any voting systems in the state. The Secretary of State has scheduled a hearing for November 21, 2005 on the question of whether certain Diebold voting systems will should be certified before the end of the year.

“The Secretary of State has disbanded the Voting Systems Panel that’s supposed to conduct these hearings and has replaced it with one person, a stenographer, and a tape recorder,” said Sherry Healy, a steering committee member of the California Election Protection Network (CEPN), a non-partisan organization of over 25 groups across California who have come together to try and ensure the integrity of California’s election systems. “How the Secretary of State can classify this as true ‘public input’ is beyond me. If he had any interest in what the public had to say about these Diebold systems, he would have joined the VSP panel at this public hearing instead of disbanding it and sending a tape recorder and a stenographer in its place.”

“Doesn’t this sound like a Dick Cheney-style closed-door public hearing?” asked Carole Mills, Co-Chair of the Marin Democracy For America (DFA) group.

Dagmar Zakim, another steering committee member of the CEPN, asked “Is this legally sufficient for a public hearing? I mean is this the new government trend for public hearings – just give the people a room and a tape recorder?”

Jody Holder, a long time election reform activist, summed his concerns up by saying “What Bruce McPherson, the chief elections officer of our state, is trying to do is to prevent people from using their right to influence the process for approving the voting systems. It’s these people’s votes these machines are counting! Time and time again, this administration has arbitrarily disregarded all established precedents on how public’s voices can be heard.

“For two years, concerned voters of this state have been traveling to Sacramento to voice their concerns about ‘faith-based’ voting on electronic voting machines at public hearings,” continued Holder. “Their concerns have been increasingly recognized by the Legislature, resulting in new laws requiring paper verification of their votes, and requiring that the paper record be used in the required manual audit and in any recount (SB 370 ). Unfortunately, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson opposed using voter verified paper records for any audit and recount.

“Now, Secretary McPherson has made it virtually impossible for people to provide meaningful testimony, expert witnesses, and public comment on the proposal to certify the Diebold machines for use in California,” continued Holder. “In June, over 200 people traveled to Sacramento to voice their concerns at a public hearing before a panel of advisors to the Secretary of State on voting systems. Since then, every scheduled meeting of the VSP has been cancelled, and now the Secretary has simply disbanded the VSP without notice, without hearings, without any type of due process.”

The California Election Protection Network is calling on Secretary McPherson to reverse his arbitrary abandonment of established procedures and to allow people to provide meaningful input on the voting systems approved for use in this state. CEPN believes the voters of California are entitled to be able to choose their representatives with the confidence that their votes are recorded and counted accurately. It is the duty of the Secretary, as the chief elections officer of the state, to make sure voting systems are approved in the interests of Californians, not the voting system vendors or the local election officials. The most important duty of a Secretary of State is assuring the citizens that we can vote with confidence on the voting systems he approves.

Sarah Rath of CEPN and CitizensAct said, “Even if this turns out to be legal by some technicality, it illuminates for us all what Bruce McPherson stands for, and against.”

For more information: http://www.califelectprotect.net.

###

Put the word out that nobody should go to the fake hearing. Maybe have one or two people there to re-direct. Send everyone to McP's place. This will get media coverage and the case will be made that a pattern has formed with this SoS acting against the good of the public. Demand his resignation.

Interesting. I'll propose it. Need to think about it.

The same way you'll know that your votes will be counted as cast on a junk DRE!

Use that if you think it's worthwhile. I think it goes to the credibility of the SoS or whoever else is involved. You don't know if your testimony OR your votes will ever be heard or counted respectively.

Shows how much respect they have for the citizens and voters of the state who pay their frickin' salaries!

Now go git 'em!

Oh, and try to get some video of everyone talking to the WALL too!

There is no basis for confidence...

it'll backfire. BTW, where's the righteous indignation that the press had for Kevin Shelley, yet none of that smoke had fire.

Now we do have a fire and no interest whatsoever by the media.

There is state law detailing how public hearings are to be conducted. If this hearing doesn't follow the law the hearing is no good and certification is halted. That's really what you want, isn't it: No certification?

You must have the press there. Do everything you can to get the press involved. Short press releases, sent to all m$m organizations every two hours, by fax, seem to work the best.

Have someone - a lawyer type- who has knowledge about public hearing laws be the first speaker, and get placed in the record the illegality of the hearing.

If this public hearing is a scam make that ibnto an issue, so that no certification ever takes place without a full legal hearing.

Good Luck.

a two pronged attack is needed. the public hearings are good and they have an affect. but it would be nice to have a LandShark style lawsuit pending against Diebold to go along with it.

otherwise, yes, another lawsuit where we could impound equipment and look at it during the "discovery" phase would be nirvanna. But if you've noticed Diebold doesn't let things go to the discovery phase, they settle as fast as they can. Also, they want to keep their record clean of judgments against them.