Election Reform News & Related Events for Friday Feb. 3rd, 2006

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.

Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.

PLEASE, please

will you please:

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=203x397093

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

for MAC users-- IIRC its hold down control- and click on the image to view its source.

Freedom is on the March in Ohio

Taft signs election reform measure

Changes begin to show at polls in May primary
By Laura A. Bischoff

Dayton Daily News

COLUMBUS | Ohioans will be required to show identification to vote under a new law Gov. Bob Taft signed Tuesday, just hours after it cleared the General Assembly along partisan lines.

>snip<


What they're saying:

• Republican lawmakers heralded the bill as a way to prevent fraud and fake registrations.

"The intent is to restore trust and confidence in our elections. The elections in 2000 and 2004 exposed serious flaws with our elections system that shook the confidence of the average voters," said state Rep. Kevin DeWine, R-Fairborn, the bill's sponsor.

• Democrats criticized the 400-page bill, saying any legislation sold as election reform but passed solely on partisan lines is suspect.

"It's smoke and mirrors," said state Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Cincinnati.

More-

http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/0201vote.html

Election law opponents may try to get voters to repeal measure
Some provisions take effect with Ohio's May 2 primary

By JIM PROVANCE
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

February 2, 2006

COLUMBUS - The ink from Gov. Bob Taft's pen barely dry, opponents to Ohio's controversial new elections law are pondering whether to launch an effort to ask voters to repeal it.

"There's been a lot of discussion within all activist groups about what the next step should be," said Peg Rosenfield, spokesman for the League of Women Voters of Ohio. "Should there be a referendum or a court challenge or what?"

The Ohio House and Senate voted 57-40 and 21-12 respectively Tuesday to send Mr. Taft the final version of the bill, which, among numerous other things, requires voters to show some form of identification. The bills passed solely on the backs of Republicans.

Mr. Taft quickly signed the bill so that the 90-day clock for when it would take effect could run before the May 2 primary election.

snip

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060202/NEWS09/602020378/-1/NEWS


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2435956

As Alito takes Supreme Court seat, Ohio GOP guts election protection

by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
February 1, 2006

Ohio's GOP-controlled legislature has passed a repressive new law that will gut free elections here and is already surfacing elsewhere around the US. The bill will continue the process of installing the GOP as America's permanent ruling party.

Coming with the swearing in of right-wing extremist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, it marks another dark day for what remains of American democracy.

Called HB3, the law now demands discriminatory voter ID, severely cripples the possibility of statewide recounts and actually ends the process of state-based challenges to federal elections---most importantly for president---held within the state.

In other words, the type of legal challenge mounted to the theft of Ohio's electoral votes in the 2004 election will now be all but impossible in the future.

snip

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/1754


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2435956

>snip<

House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.), who was to unveil a draft of the full lobbying reform package yesterday, instead announced it was not ready. Dreier did press forward with a change in House rules that bans former members who have become lobbyists from the House floor and the House gym. It also strips lobbyist spouses of current lawmakers of floor and gym privileges.

The rule change passed overwhelmingly, 379 to 50, but not before Democrats - and some Republicans - ridiculed it as meaningless. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) suggested that lawmakers compromise and change the rules so that lobbyists must yield to lawmakers who want to use the gym equipment they are on.

"I'm a gym guy; I've never seen anybody lobbied there," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). "I've never seen any nefarious plots hatched on the treadmill."


>snip<


More-

http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5753

California's initiative process allows for flawed laws

San Francisco Chronicle
02-FEB-06

California's initiative process allows you to bypass the Legislature completely and come up with your own law. Of course, it's not easy. But you could write your own initiative, pay someone to collect a few hundred thousand signatures, persuade the electorate to go along with you, and you get your way.

With some variations, that is basically how many initiatives have made it into law. Well-intentioned people or groups with good ideas write their own initiatives, which become law without having to go through rigorous public scrutiny.

The result is that too often imperfect laws end up in our statutes. California's three strikes law _ and current efforts to reform it _ exemplifies this glaring flaw in the initiative process.

The law _ an initiative approved by voters in 1994 _ was intended to impose life sentences on the likes of Polly Klaas' killer Richard Allen Davis. But it also has imposed life sentences on offenders whose third strike might be as minor as shoplifting or passing a bad check.

More-

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=ED-INITIATIVES-02-02-06

Smith bows out of governor's race

Bob Ingram, Alabama Scene

MONTGOMERY-State Sen. Harri Anne Smith, R-Slocomb, was not going to be a major factor in the Republican gubernatorial primary, but her announcement a few days ago that she would not run could have a critical impact on that election.

The significance of her withdrawal is it all but guarantees that there will be no runoff in the GOP primary. If the Riley-Moore contest is as close as some think it may be, even a handful of votes attracted by Smith could have forced a runoff election in that contest.

For the record, after withdrawing from the race, she endorsed Gov. Riley.

More-

http://www.madisoncountyrecord.com/articles/2006/02/02/opinion/oped2.txt

February 01, 2006
The Senate FEC Filings: A Complete Chart
The Hotline's Quinn McCord dug through the Senate campaign FEC reports and put them all into a handy chart for your perusal.

The highlights:

-- It's slow-going in HI, where Case actually lost CoH this Q. Akaka raised just $4K.
-- Steele did better than Cardin in MD, but he started way behind. Can he keep it up without more Bush fundraisers?
-- GOPer Kennedy outraised Klobuchar 2-1 in MN. (Will she face self-funding Ciresi?).
-- Morrison's pulling away from fellow Dem Tester in MT. But he trailed Burns 2-1 for the Q and 4-1 in CoH.
-- In NE, Ricketts had a big self-funding quarter, but are his ads having an effect?
-- No one in OH had a great Q. Hackett got more contributions than Brown, but he took no PAC money. So Brown got more total receipts. DeWine had almost twice as much CoH as Brown.
-- Santorum had an edge over Casey in PA; both spent $1M+.
-- Harris had a better Q in FL. But even with $250K of her own funds, she still trailed Nelson nearly 2-1.
-- In TN, Bryant and Hilleary are still close, presumably to Corker's benefit.

Chart-

http://video.nationaljournal.com/Monday/fecsen2.html

Duckworth, Roskam lead in campaign fund raising

BY KAREN SHOFFNER
STAFF WRITER

An Iraqi war vet and a veteran state senator are off to a fast start collecting campaign funds for the 6th District congressional race to succeed Republican Henry Hyde, according to their staffs.

Tammy Duckworth, the Iraqi war veteran and neophyte political candidate, is running as a Democrat. Her campaign people say she raised more than $120,000 in the two weeks between Dec. 18, when she declared her candidacy, and Dec. 31, calling that an "incredible accomplishment."

"(The contributions) were generated by people who have seen or heard Tammy and agree with her stance on health, education, retirement security and the environment. It's an incredible accomplishment and puts us on track to be competitive against the presumptive Republican nominee, Peter Roskam," said Billy Weinberg, the Duckworth campaign's spokesman.

Duckworth, who faces a March 21 primary fight, has raised far fewer dollars than the Republican, Roskam, who is unopposed.

more-

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/ppo-story/localnews/current/he/02-02-06-817991.html



Discussion--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2436257

The first part of this substantial article provides a bit more background on the Hursti Test.

The balance of it is quite interesting, as well. The author discusses current testing administration, questions it's constitutionality, debunks "trade secrecy" claims for test results, provides a means for verifible testing (if you will).

He even comes up with a market-based means with which to implement it. :wow:

The guy must have stayed up all month writing it. :7

Hopefully some of you will tease out these other ideas put forth and post a thread so we can discuss them.

Testing Election Software Effectively
A Proposal for Effective Testing of Election Software

By John Washburn, VoteTrustUSA Voting Technology Task Force

February 02, 2006

Last month a mock election in Leon County was run exactly as it should be - where all proper policies and procedures are followed. Contrary to the claims of the vendor, the election results provided by the software administering the election were both incorrect and the manipulation was undetectable except through the most extraordinary of means.

This comes as a surprise only to those who have not been paying attention. For more than a decade and a half, citizen activists, investigative reporters, and computer scientists have been reporting on the inherent risks presented by electronic voting through either malice or mistake. (See "Decades of Concern" below)

Every revelation of a security defect, demonstrated or speculated, has been met with one of four responses from vendors:

1) If there were such a problem it would have been discovered during the federal testing.
2) Well, that is the other vendor’s equipment. It does not apply to our equipment.
3) Well, that was a bug, but is fixed in our latest product offering.
4) Well, that is a problem, but it could not occur under circumstances found in a real election where proper policies and procedures are followed.

What set the demonstration in Leon County apart was the fact that the test was specifically designed to meet and counter each of these responses. This attention to detail is described in this first hand account as the third iteration of this test was performed. Another distinctive feature of the Leon County test is the persistence of a lone election official. The much publicized testing done on December 13, 2205 was actually the third time this test was done. The prior two times were in May and June of 2005. The full report was distributed on July 4, 2005 to election officials across the country. In response to the July 4 report, Diebold repeated stock responses 1, 3, and 4 as late as a October 17th meeting of Cuyahoga County Board of Elections (see pages 135 line 4 to page 136 line 20 of the transcript). Diebold later admitted on January 3, 2006 to the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that the response given during the October 17th meeting were indeed unfounded.

It is time to recognize the vendor-funded testing efforts performed under the auspices of the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) have produced software testing results which are as reliable as the research performed by the Tobacco Institute on the effects of smoking. It is time to consider a proper framework for certification. Ten years which could have been spent testing election systems effectively have been wasted because of the current frame work.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=870&Itemid=26


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411755

HAVA DEADLINES MUST BE EXTENDED TO ALLOW STATES TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS

A number of states are under alot of pressure to buy insecure and expensive electonic voting systems because of deadlines in the HAVA (Help America Vote Act).

A bill has been introduced in the House (HR 4666) to give the states more time to make wise decisions on systems which have not even been adequately tested and qualified yet. Otherwise they will lose federal funding due them under HAVA.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.nocrony.com/hava.php

No board of elections should be forced to make decisions before certification of all available voting systems is completed. Manufacturers should not risk quality defects by rushing machines out the door. We the people should not be rushed into bad decisions. Our vote and its integrity are more important than an arbitrary deadline. To stop the impending HAVA train wreck, we urge you to support HR 4666, introduced by Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08) on January 31 to extend the deadline for HAVA compliance past the 2006 primary season without penalty. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. This bill and its eventual companion in the Senate must be fast-tracked so that as many counties as possible can benefit from the extended deadline. The only way that will happen is if members of Congress hear from their constituents that passage of HR 4666 must be a priority.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411773

Volusia County touch-screen voting in limbo

February 03, 2006

By JAMES MILLER
Staff Writer

DELAND

snip

A plan to put a disabled-accessible, all-paper ballot voting system in place for this year's elections appeared to be in deep trouble Thursday following a state announcement that it cannot yet certify some of the necessary equipment.

Voters still would be able to use paper-ballot equipment, but it would be deployed along with touch screens for voters with disabilities -- a development a dedicated pro-paper lobby has fought to avoid.

On Wednesday, the chief of the state's Bureau of Voting Systems Certification forwarded a memo to elections officials telling them that the disabled-accessible, ballot-marking device known as the AutoMARK could not be certified because of problems with multiple-page ballots.

Since state officials anticipate the use of lengthier ballots in the future, County Chairman Frank Bruno said he would recommend the county stick with its current vendor -- and save almost $2 million -- if it turns out AutoMARK can't handle the longer ballots.

snip

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/EastVolusia/evlEAST02POLL020306.htm

Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411752

PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CERTIFICATION OF VOTING SYSTEMS

AGENDA

LOCATION
Office of the Secretary of State
1500 11th Street
1st Floor – Auditorium
Sacramento, California 95814

MEETING DATE AND TIME
March 1, 2006 10:00 a.m. Pursuant to Elections Code section 19204, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held to give interested persons an opportunity to express their views regarding the proposed certification of the voting systems identified below.

1. ES&S - Unisyn/InkaVote PBC
a. Unisyn Election Management System
b. InkaVote PBC

2. HART INTERCIVIC - System 6
a. Ballot Now
b. BOSS
c. eCM Manager
d. eScan
e. eSlate/DAU
f. VBO
g. JBC
h. Rally
i. Servo
j. Tally

3. SEQUOIA VOTING SYSTEMS - AVC Edge Voting System Version 5.0
a. WinEDS
b. AVC Edge Model 1 & 2 with Audio Box & VeriVote
c. Card Activator
d. HAAT
e. Optech 400-C
f. Optech Insight & Insight Plus
g. Optech Eagle
h. Memory Pack Reader (MPR)
i. Edge Cartridge Reader/Programmer
j. Sycard PCCestend 70A Cardbus Extender

4. POPULEX CORPORATION - Digital Paper Ballot Voting System
a. Populex Election Management System
b. Populex Slate

snip/Public Comment by mail Info

http://mailman.ss.ca.gov/pipermail/votingsystems/attachments/20060202/aaff60e3/VSysPublicHearing_2006-03-01_Agenda.doc_Final.doc

State election officials to review voting systems

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

02/03/2006

After months of anxiety for California elections officials, they learned Wednesday that as many as a half-dozen voting systems could be ready for purchase and use in the June primary elections.

The states chief elections officer, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, had wielded the power of the nations largest voting market in ordering U.S. voting-machine makers to finish private, national testing by Tuesday.

Manufacturers balked but the market pressure worked: By days end, all but one major U.S. maker had cleared national testing and now are lined up for California review.

Only Diebold Election Systems Inc., which has struggled more than two years for California approval, still was in national testing Wednesday for its new, flagship voting system. But state elections officials said Diebold still could clear that final hurdle and supply voting equipment to nearly a third of California counties, including Alameda, San Joaquin and Marin.

snip

http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_3471729

County selects voting machines

J.D. Prose, Times Staff

02/02/2006

- The Beaver County Commissioners have picked a Nebraska company's touch-screen voting machines to permanently replace the Patriot system that was banned by the state last spring.

Commissioners Chairman Dan Donatella said Wednesday that the county would likely sign a $1.4 million contract with Election Systems & Software of Omaha for the iVotronic system and training for county workers. The 457 full-color machines would be delivered by April, in time for the primary.

Five companies brought their touch-screen machines to the courthouse in October for two days of public review. More than 200 people submitted their choices to county officials, and ES&S received only eight votes, good for last place.

Elections Director Dorene Mandity said she wasn't concerned about that result, predicting that most voters would appreciate once again having touch-screen voting instead of paper ballots.

snip

http://www.timesonline.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16049971&BRD=2305&PAG=461&dept_id=478569&rfi=6

Editorial: Vote on the voting / The county needs to make a difficult choice

Friday, February 03, 2006

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

snip

When the elections board meets Tuesday, it may have to face the fact that it can't please some of the activists, at least as far as voter verification is concerned. None of the machines certified in Pennsylvania has an active voter verification component. Indeed, the system that Allegheny County is seriously considering -- Diebold Inc.'s Accu-Vote-TSX -- could come with a printer that records votes, but to be certified in Pennsylvania the printer has to be deactivated. (In order to prevent hacking, another condition is that the system can't be connected to a modem or network interface, including the Internet.)

snip

Allegheny County can't wait for the Legislature to pass a law requiring voter verification, even if it could be done in a constitutional way. At the same time, it shouldn't be rushed into picking the Diebold system if it has serious qualms about its efficiency (Diebold is the only vendor said to be able to deliver its machines in time for the May primary.)

The remedy may be to make a good-faith effort. Pick the best touch-screen system (Philadelphia has chosen the Damaher system) and trust that federal officials can mitigate the threat of losing federal funding if the machines are not installed in time. We can't suggest a specific preference for the county -- just the most reliable system available and one with a guarantee for fixing problems if they should arise.

Computers are routinely used in all walks of life, including critical matters involving health care and in recording infinitely complicated financial dealings. As important as voting is, as reassuring as a piece of paper might be, Allegheny County should not be deterred from pressing boldly ahead.

snip

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06034/649114.stm


Discussion and Background

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411786

Campaign Spending Limits in the U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of Vermont's limits on campaign spending, setting the stage for a possible sea change in the way American political campaigns are financed. The case will give the Court an opportunity to revisit its 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which struck down congressional spending limits on First Amendment grounds.

The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments for Randall v. Sorrell, No. 04-1528, on February 28, 2006. This case raises issues that go to the heart of our democracy. Vermont's comprehensive campaign finance reform law was adopted in 1997 out of concern that the escalating arms race in campaign fundraising and spending has undermined public confidence in government and turned elected officials into full-time fundraisers. Among the many provisions of Vermont's law are limits on how much candidates for state offices may spend.

Following the passage of Vermont's electoral reforms, opponents of campaign spending limits were quick to challenge the law in federal court. Beginning in 1998, NVRI joined the state of Vermont to defend Vermont's spending limits (click here (pdf) for more information on parties to the case). In a groundbreaking decision in August 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit became the first federal appeals court to uphold campaign spending limits since the Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo. The Second Circuit ruled that Vermont established two compelling governmental interests that justify its campaign spending limits: preventing the reality and appearance of corruption and protecting the time of candidates and elected officials. On September 27, 2005, the Supreme Court agreed to review the constitutionality of Vermont's campaign spending limits.

This site includes information relevant to the Supreme Court's consideration of Randall v. Sorrell, including general materials on campaign spending, details on Vermont's electoral reform law, rulings and pleadings from the cases before Second Circuit, and information on other major campaign spending cases. NVRI will update this site as additional materials become available regarding Randall v. Sorrell.

snip

http://www.nvri.org/campaignspending/index.html


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411743

Ask Senator Feinstein to Introduce HR 550 in the Senate

There are indications that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is considering the introduction of Rep. Rush Holt's Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (HR 550) into the U.S. Senate.

She needs to hear from her constituents who are concerned about the integrity of our elections.

Please provide the requested information and the following email will automatically be sent to Senator Feinstein requesting her introduction of a companion bill in the Senate.

You have the option of editing the email or sending as written.

Please also call Senator Feinstein at (202) 224-3841 and voice your support of HR 550.

snip/petition

http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=VTUSA&hotissue=8

Determined to show vote was fair, Ohio kept up court fight; it's over

BY JOHN MCCARTHY | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

COLUMBUS - The state has dropped its appeal of a lawsuit originally filed by Democrats to alleviate long voting lines in the 2004 presidential election.

The state had tried to keep the lawsuit going to try to prove Ohio conducted a legal election.

The case, dismissed Monday at the state's request, was brought by the Ohio Democratic Party against Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican, and two county boards of election on Election Day. The party sought to alleviate long lines in two counties.

snip

Two lawsuits still are pending from the 2004 election in Ohio, whose 20 electoral votes gave President Bush the margin he needed to win.

At the Democrats' request, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley had ordered Blackwell's office and the Knox and Franklin county officials to provide alternative methods of voting the night of the election.

snip

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060202/NEWS09/602020378/-1/NEWS


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411724#411788

Senator Dayton and Representative Peterson Endorse Mark Ritchie for Secretary of State; News Comes Days Before Ritchie Officially Announces Candidacy Monday to Challenge Mary Kiffmeyer

2/3/2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Senator Mark Dayton and Congressman Collin Peterson today publicly endorsed Mark Ritchie to challenge Mary Kiffmeyer for Minnesota Secretary of State.

This announcement adds to Ritchie's growing momentum days before he officially announces his candidacy on Monday, February 6 inside the Capitol Rotunda in Saint Paul at 10:30 AM and at 2:30 PM at the Holiday Inn in Duluth.

"I proudly support Mark Ritchie as our next Secretary of State," says Senator Mark Dayton. "He is a proven leader who will restore voter trust in our elections and make sure that every vote is counted."

"Mark Ritchie will ensure free and fair elections with complete nonpartisanship," says Representative Collin Peterson. "I'm looking forward to working with him to protect greater Minnesota's election system."

snip

"I am running for office because all of us expect and deserve a Secretary of State we can trust -- trust to ensure fair and secure elections, excellent performance, and competence in the administration of the office," says Mark Ritchie. "We need 21st century leadership in the office that champions our democratic rights and responsibilities."

With the voting irregularities in Florida and Ohio still in voters' minds and recent proposals by the Secretary of State and Republican legislators that only citizens with government issued IDs be allowed to vote, this race is bound to be closely watched when Minnesotans head to the polls in November.

snip

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=60496