Election Reform, Fruad & Related News for Friday Feb., 17th, 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.

New voting machines a crazy idea
Wednesday, February 01, 2006

By Sally Kalson

Say the toilet in your home has worked fine for 40 years with a few tweaks here and there. But now the U.S. Congress, mindful of serious plumbing problems in other parts of the country, passes the Help America Flush Act, requiring everyone to install modern toilets.

The feds set a deadline of May 2006. Meet it and they'll help foot the bill. Don't meet it and they just might fine you.

Shockingly enough, problems ensue. The state says you must choose toilets from its approved list, but that list only has a few models, none of which you'd want in your house. Meanwhile, a lot of the modernized toilets turn out to be backing up and springing leaks all over the place.

What do you do? Face penalties by holding out for a model that actually works the way it should? Or follow orders and pick from the approved choices, even though they may flood you out of house and home?

more--

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06032/647541.stm

thanks to stevietheman---Discussion-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x413192

By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Washington County commissioners yesterday unanimously approved the purchase of 700 touch-screen voting machines from Diebold Inc., while dozens of other Pennsylvania counties face legal problems in their own attempts to buy new machines.

Local election officials across the country must update their equipment this year to meet requirements of the Help America Vote Act, a law passed after the controversial 2000 presidential election in Florida.

But last week, a Commonwealth Court judge ruled that counties using aging lever machines -- including Allegheny County -- must give voters a chance to decide if they want new technology. State attorneys have asked the court to review the decision.

That's not the situation in Washington County.

(continued at link below)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06048/656862.stm

Legislators reviving redistricting proposals

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

Voters overwhelmingly rejected a recipe for redistricting reform during last year's special election, but they may get another bite at the way California draws its political boundaries this year.

A Senate bill that would take political mapmaking out of the hands of legislators and place it under the control of an independent commission is headed for debate in Sacramento next month.

In addition, Assembly leaders say they are writing a bipartisan election reform package on campaign finance, term limits and redistricting.
And if lawmakers fail to act, Ted Costa, author of last year's failed initiative, Proposition 77, expects to start gathering signatures next month on a modified measure. He swapped a controversial retired judges' panel for a citizen commission and nixed a middecade shift.

Any change in the redistricting process requires a constitutional amendment and a vote of the people.

more--


http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/13895395.htm

Préval declared winner

Haitians celebrate after electoral council move helps new leader avoid runoff - but rival blasts maneuver


BY LETTA TAYLER
STAFF CORRESPONDENT

February 17, 2006


PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti -- Banging pots, blowing tin horns and chanting, "The people won!" Haitians took to the streets yesterday to celebrate the victory of René Préval, a champion of the poor who was named president in an unusual, pre-dawn move to avert chaos in this volatile island nation.

Préval was declared the winner after a tumultuous week in which he slammed returns from the Feb. 7 vote as "fraudulent," thousands of his supporters paralyzed Haiti with protests and mounds of half-burned ballots were discovered in a dump.

Using a legal loophole, Haiti's electoral council changed its tallying methods to push Préval's lead in the 33-way race to 51.1 percent. He needed at least 50 percent to avert a runoff with his closest rival, intellectual Leslie Manigat, who got about 12 percent of the vote.

more-


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wohait174630074feb17,0,3358530.story?coll=ny-worldnews-print

Hey FogerRox -- check your spelling! :-)

Maryland Voting System Defended as Best in the Country

:rofl:

Thu, Feb. 16, 2006

TOM STUCKEY
Associated Press

ANNAPOLIS, Md. - The state election administrator and the maker of Maryland's electronic voting machines defended the state's system Thursday as the best in the nation, a day after Gov. Robert Ehrlich said he has lost confidence in the state's ability to conduct fair and accurate elections this year. (Wilms notes GuvWurld note. :applause: )

"Our system has been very accurate," said Mark Radke, :crazy: director of North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold Election Systems.

Radke met in a closed session with members of a House of Delegates subcommittee to discuss questions raised about whether the Diebold machines are susceptible to fraud.
"It's disturbing to see some of the false information that's been distributed," he said. :cry: :nopity: :cry:

State election officials all over the country "are very envious of what Maryland and Diebold have done," Radke said. :puke: :puke: :puke:

At a hearing before a Senate committee later in the day, Linda Lamone, state elections administrator, said Diebold touch-screen machines have been used in state and local elections in Maryland since 2002.

"During that time, there has been no occurrence, or even a credible claim, of fraud," she said.
:spank: (Wilms notes that using uncertified software might classify as fraud.) :spank:

snip

John Willis, a former secretary of state and an acknowledged expert on Maryland elections, defended the Diebold machines.

"Maryland stands at the top of the county in voter accuracy. Maryland is the best in the country," he said. :eyes:

snip

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/13891337.htm


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x413158

Ha ha! "QUESTION"? So it ain't settled, is it? What else is going on here? Anyone?

Great video at the link.

Feds question use of mechanical voting machines

by Chief Capitol Correspondent Mark Davis
Hartford-WTNH

Feb. 16, 2006

The U.S. Justice Department is taking aim at Connecticut's voting machines. The state is planning to use the decades-old mechanical machines again this fall because the plan to replace them fell apart last month.

Whether or not Connecticut can still use its 3,300 mechanical lever voting machines this fall is still in doubt after the U.S. Department of Justice sent a warning letter to state officials saying in part, "it remains doubtful ... that the lever machines, such as those that malfunctioned in Middletown, can ever satisfy the requirements of the (Help America Vote Act) statute....

"We propose an agreement ... to achieve replacement of the remaining lever machines in the state by the time of the general election in November."

snip

"There's no question that the Department of Justice wants to maintain pressure on Connecticut," says Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

snip

The feds are sending two lawyers from the Department of Justice to Hartford Friday for a face-to-face negotiation over Connecticut's voting machines with Attorney General Blumenthal and Secretary Bysiewicz.

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=4514612&nav=3YeX


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x413129

Americans Rate Trust in Computerized Systems Highest Among Current Voting Technologies

04 February 2006

Americans have higher trust in the confidentiality and accuracy of computerized voting systems, commonly known as Direct Record Electronic (DRE) and “touchscreen” systems, than in other voting technologies being widely considered as states and counties rush to comply with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. National opinion survey results released today by InfoSENTRY Services, Inc. during a meeting of state election officials in Washington, DC indicated that since the passage of HAVA, computerized voting systems have recaptured a slight trust lead over scanned paper ballots being considered for use in many polling places across the USA.

Glenn Newkirk, InfoSENTRY’s President and director of InfoSENTRY’s national polling project, commented, “The trust scores for the four types of voting technology have remained generally constant over the three years in which we have conducted the surveys. While the Positive Trust Scores of DREs and polling place optical scan systems were tied statistically in our 2005 survey, DREs regained a statistically significant lead in 2005. This is a fascinating trend, given the full, head-on assault by voting critics and the media on computerized voting in many states and counties since the passage of HAVA. Trust in the so-called “touchscreen” systems’ confidentiality and accuracy is far higher than the critics of this technology would have us believe, and this level of trust is without any added features like paper records being printed by the computers. Most election officials certainly would prefer to see higher trust scores in all forms of voting. It will be up to them to see that the systems they implement, regardless of the technology, are worthy of the trust given to the systems. It will also be up to voting system vendors to improve the security and reliability of their hardware and software to meet the highest information system industry standards.”

snip

Approximately one-half the states have required that newly purchased computerized voting systems must be equipped with controversial printer technology to produce paper copies of ballots that voters can choose to inspect when they vote. Voting system critics insist that voters will have confidence in computerized voting systems only if they produce paper copies of ballots. However, the costly ballot printer add-ons have been used only in a very few elections since their introduction.

Newkirk continued his analysis by stating, “When you subtract the negative trust scores from the positive trust scores to calculate a “Net Trust Score” for the top two voting methods, Americans’ trend toward trusting the fully computerized DRE voting systems becomes clearer.”

snip

http://www.infosentry.com/InfoSENTRY_NewsRelease_Voting-Tech-Trends-Attitudes_20060204.htm


Election Updates Blog has some comments about it.

http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2006/02/infosentry-survey-responses-on-voting.html


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x413142#top

Documents show Maryland held election, primary on uncertified, illegal Diebold voting machines

Carlos Miller
Published: February 16, 2006

The Maryland State Board of Elections allowed Diebold Election Systems to operate its touch-screen voting machines during the state's 2002 gubernatorial election and the 2004 presidential primaries before the state agency actually certified the controversial machines, according to recently disclosed documents.

That is a violation of state law, according to Linda Schade, executive director of TrueVoteMD.org, an election integrity group.

Schade discovered the document among thousands of others she recently acquired through a lawsuit filed against the Maryland State Board of Elections in 2004. After almost two years of public records requests and attorney wrangling, she received four boxes filled with e-mail conversations, faxes and contracts between the elections office and Diebold.

-snip-

"I no longer have confidence in the State Board of Elections' ability to conduct fair and accurate elections in 2006," the Republican governor stated in the four-page letter.

-snip-

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Documents_show_Maryland_held_election_primary_0216.html


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x413104

I just received this brief email from CA State Senator Debra Bowen's office:



When is our rethug POS SoS going to comply with the 19202 request for a hack test? That request was formally filed in June 2005.
He's breaking the law by not allowing that test. What other CA election code violations is he guilty of? BASTARD!!!

On edit: Discussion at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x413258

<http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=941&Itemid=113>

California: Secretary of State Bruce McPherson Grants Certification to Diebold with Conditions

By California Secretary of State Press Release

February 17, 2006

McPherson requires additional use procedures and security measures

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson (pictured at right) today announced his decision to certify with conditions the Diebold TSX and Optical Scan (OS) voting systems for use in California’s 2006 elections. The decision comes after months of thorough review of both voting systems, their compliance with both state and federal laws and the completion of an additional security analysis by independent testers from computer labs at the University of California, Berkeley.

-snip-