about those "conditions" under which CA certified Deibold

I just read somewhere that one of the conditions is that Diebold has to ensure their systems in compliance with the 2002 Voting System Standards, and that means NO INTERPRETED CODE.

if so, doesn't that create a catch 22 for Diebold?

they used to say, the Standards are just guidelines, not laws. but if the SoS is requiring compliance, doesn't that create a Catch 22? Is this a chess game?

thanks

statements after the 2004 Election Fraud about undercutting our Democracy if vote counting is not sacred and I think he was going to investigate Diebold and blackbox voting but then never heard any more about it. For all our sakes, I hope that this honest and feisty SoS (or maybe he was the CA AG) is still there and gets involved in making sure we have honest elections.

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5021
and he not only investigated Diebold, he decertified them, and no, he is not still there. He was forced to resign a year ago.

here is more:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/03/cal_decertifies_diebold/
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr75.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190#survey

But not McPherson. His Catch-22 was resolved by handing it back to the people that gave it to him.

In a way I don't blame him. You can say McPherson folded and permitted the equipment to be used. But if the countys, in a rush to purchase this gear, get sued, you won't be able to say that McPherson didn't warn them. You won't even be able to say that McPherson didn't tell them he'd have their back if the DoJ came after them for not being HAVA compliant.

He did both. And then he might have gone and poured himself a scotch.


I'll say this, it seems the ITA thinks there are some "violations", though they failed to refer to the 2002 VVSG, or the fact that they've certified the machine to it. Like McPherson, they're signaling the BoE's to check with a lawyer, but they haven't de-certified.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=414950&mesg_id=414983


Here's a link to a pretty good article, I think, for getting an idea about the mess. "Diebold in California: Who's Responsible?"
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=949&Itemid=113


And perhaps in Lassen County, they figured that out they may be held "responsible" and said, "whoa!", or something responsible like that, because the "June election may be conducted totally by mail".
http://www.lassennews.com/News_Story.edi?sid=3157&mode=thread&order=0


Here's the link to the CA SoS site.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_vs.htm

Look for these titles under "News - Diebold Systems Certified"

# Letter to Diebold
# Certification Document
# State Independent Review Report
# Press Release
# Letter from Diebold
# Additional Diebold ITA Report

I can't keep track anymore.

if there's any pattern here, it will be decertified again.

I only recently learned that Shelley re-certified (!) some of Diebold's gear he had de-certified.

If the info is correct, he suggested the GEMS hack could be protected against through 'better security'.

the machines ARE certified. It's not like he's going to pull them for use if Diebold doesn't comply in time.
... Unless he is somehow made to.

The ITA report indicates problems but says that they can be fixed, so they apparently certified anyway.
WTF. The machines don't meet federal standards, yet they have been certified without complying.

If we don't manage to, somehow, get these machines decertified, they'll be used in the next election, and despite public outcry (and barring a miracle), the results will probably be allowed to stand.

The ones who had the authority to say "no", refused to, and passed the buck.
You could say that it's a chess game or Catch 22, except that there may not be any negative consequences for those committing the crimes. What negative consequences have there been for those stealing elections in the past?

We NEED some significant events to happen ... Like legal action being taken against McPherson etc.
That's what I'm hoping for.

Or against the ITA, or the EAC and NASED, or Diebold, or the counties. :shrug:

Or set aside interpreted code and focus on the fact that none of DRE's suggested for use in CA have a VVPAT the complies with state law. :grr:

he is saying the machines have to comply with the 2002 standards. is this the first time an SOS has required that the systems comply with the voluntary standards?

for one thing, this gives me an opportunity to ask my SOS, "if the CA SOS thinks the machines should comply with the standards, why do you seem to not give a crap?"

........i am also for legal action against him. attack from both sides. something has to cave in. maybe they'll just back out of the state.

McPherson talkin' up the VVSG doesn't say much because he doesn't follow it.

what the heck is meant by "conditions" anyway?

why does he even list them when he knows the machines don't satisfy them?


how can he conditionally certify something that doesn't satisfy the conditions?

You explained it fairly well.

One of the things I need to understand better is the possibility (more like impossibility) of meeting the conditions for temporary use through 2006.

I can hypothetically imagine Diebold redoing the machine in time for 2007, but not how it's supposed to rework some things now, or what re-certification and state testing it would be subject to.

Orwellian fascism is a mindfuck. You know this already, I'm just reminding you. Clearly McPherson's decision doesn't make sense. But here's the thing about sense, it is like energy and matter which can neither be created nor destroyed. See, you literally can't make sense. When we remember this more readily, it becomes easier to stop puzzling over the nonsense.

Hopefully Senator Bowen's subpoenas will be issued and the ball will start rolling in the right correct direction. ;)

I am seeking an attorney who will go to court with me here in Humboldt County to file an injunction against continued use of the Diebold OS machines we've been using for years. I am optimistic about getting someone on board within the next week. Not sure of the time frame after that but I'm eager to move as quickly as possible.

This approach can be tried in other places, perhaps even sooner than I'll be able to get it together. Regardless of who is first, it will set a strong precedent and pave the way for others to copycat.

I think this is much lower hanging fruit than going after McPherson. I do not oppose going after him but I don't yet see a good strategy for doing so, other than helping Bowen get the subpoenas, which ultimately won't be as empowering at the grassroots as one or more local legal actions.

Incidentally, I discussed this with a lawyer today. We were considering the arguments to make. I said of course it should be open and shut with the interpreter code making the machines illegal. He then brought up the point that allowing continued use represents a great risk of harm. We both agreed the first argument was stronger. Then I said that the line I'd really like to use is...(guess, go on, wait for it...)...there is no basis for confidence in the results reported. He said this is the top argument. I was somewhat stunned. This is what I've used since I first started developing the Voter Confidence Resolution nearly two years ago. It has been the subject of many discussions here, particularly with LandShark, wordsmith extraordinaire. My mind boggles when I think that this phrase, the near equivalent of clicking my heels to go home, could turn out to be so influential in such a potentially pivotal action.

It's consistent with the argument Land Shark put forth.

Does the lawyer see the case as a big deal to mount?

Does he have any buddies in other counties? :evilgrin:

And what if your suit is successful. Doesn't that then set precedent for the rest of the state?

Maybe it wasn't surprise as much as validation, but to a shocking extent. The heel clicking reference is from the Wizard of Oz, of course, and it reflects having had the answer all along.

I did not get the impression that this is a big deal to mount. In fact, one of the suggestions I received which could serve others trying this elsewhere is to contact the local legal aid society to inquire who locally deals with injunctions the most.

I informed this person of the CA Unity Campaign and encouraged him to keep in the back of his mind the possibility of encouraging someone elsewhere to take this action. He had no immediate leads.

I'm not qualified to speculate about the value of the precedent but it seems like it is at least going to be ammo for anyone else trying this. Really, this is the whole point of the CA Unity Campaign. We can all build on each other's momentum, especially when we're all fighting the same good fight.