Does anyone know anything about a "Jim Dickson" -- any info. would be

appreciated

People with Disabilities (AAPD)

There's his official bio: http://www.aapd-dc.org/dvpmain/JimDicksonbio.html

...before the Carter-Baker Commission and sang the praises of touchscreens. Oh, and nevermind the fact that his org, the National Federation of the Blind, took a million dollars in donations from Diebold and sued Volusia County, Florida, because it was so important to them that Volusia NOT have voter-verified paper ballots.

P.S. They lost that lawsuit.

payment of $$ from Diebold to NFB, also I believe there was an article in the NYT 2004 discussing payment of vendors directly to Mr. Dickson.

Any info. would be appreciated.

Also a citation of the Volusia lawsuit if poss.

AAPD is an umbrella organization to many disabilities organizations...is there any documentation of vendors having influence on these organizations individually?

So Diebold and the AAPD hooked-up PRIOR to Diebold getting into the voting biz. And this $1MM, I kept hearing abou,t is for ATM's, not e-voting. Had no idea.

"Over the next five years, Diebold will contribute $1 million toward the construction of NFB's National Research & Training Institute for the Blind. Diebold also will install and operate a voice-guided ATM at the organization's National Headquarters."

http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/

scroll down a bit to see NFB v. Volusia.

You can easily google this up for yourself...

conflict of interest?

How can he advocate for accessibility and privacy, and toss security concerns and verifiability out the window? :shrug:

That's most obvious to me. Name yours.

Land of conflict of interest.... no questions asked.

I read somewhere that they got $26,000 out of it. I couldn't reconcile that figure with the "Diebold gave AAPD $1MM" rap.

Thanks to your post, above, I now realize that Diebold gave AAPD $1MM for ATM's, prior to getting into voting (I think Diebold bought the GEMS stuff in 2002 or 3).

At the time, I was trying to come up with a voting schema that would satisfy accessibility, privacy, and security (in this case meaning verified paper).

I've posted it to the EAC, not that they care. Wouldn't surprise me if others had similar thoughts and posted among the 5,000 comments on their site.

But I thought to test the idea with Dickson, given his reputation as a Diebold VVPAT-Less Touchscreen poster child. I called and left a message on his machine. He called me back.

He agreed that, IF such a set-up were available, it would satisfy the demands of the disabled his organization represents. That's right. Jim Dickson agreed to a hypothetical paper inclusive schema.

Perhaps he was being gracious. No sweat, cause such a product would be unlikely to be produced. Indeed he was a gentlemen while we agreed to disagree about the security concerns of VVPAT-less DRE's.

I've since learned that touch screens are not universally endorsed by people with disabilities, and that there is no one voting machine that would satisfy all disabilities that might be encountered.

Perhaps "LightHouse" or something.

Also in CA, a group said they wanted VVPAT.

Dickson is a paid gun as far as I can tell. Races around the country testifying, singing the praises of DREs.

But, Dickson is NOT with NFB (which Diebold calls its "strategic partner" and which Diebold did give $1 million to).

Diebold and the Disabled
by Kim Zetter
Wired News
Oct. 12, 2004
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65292,00.html

...The NFB isn't the only disability group to receive money from voting companies. The government lobbyist for the American Association of People with Disabilities, who has traveled around the country testifying on behalf of touch-screen voting, acknowledged this year that his organization received at least $26,000 from voting companies, but only after first denying it.
When asked in April, Jim Dickson, vice president of government affairs for the AAPD, told Wired News his organization had never received money from voting companies. But in June, he told The New York Times the organization had gotten money.

Dickson didn't disclose the gifts at hearings in California this year, where he tried to convince officials not to decertify touch-screen voting machines made by Diebold and other companies. Nor did he disclose the information in Washington in May when he participated in hearings with the federal Election Assistance Commission.

"He comes to states where he's not even registered to vote and he gives this very heartfelt testimony about how meaningful it is to vote independently," said Natalie Wormeli, an attorney in California who is blind. "But in his testimony he never says he's a professional spokesperson, he never says he's not a registered voter in the state, and he never discloses how he's getting paid."

ACCESSIBILITY FOR VOTERS -- HAS IT ARRIVED?
An Interview with Dottie Neely, Advocate for the Blind
by Pokey Anderson
January 11, 2006
http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=714&Itemid=26

Vote-PAD Rocks the Disabled Vote
by Kim Zetter
Wired.com
January 19, 2006
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70036-0.html?tw=wn_tophead_4

Vote-PAD: The Simple Voting Device that May Save American Democracy!
Yolo County, CA Spurns ES&S, Signs up to Use Vote-PAD for Voters with Disabilities, Other Jurisdictions may be Right Behind!
by Brad Friedman
January 25, 2006
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002329.htm

...filed an amicus brief in the NFB v. Volusia case and said, basically, we are local to Volusia, we are handicapped, and we don't want touchscreens because they are unreliable and don't meet our needs as well as other equipment that is available. (fyi, none of the touchscreens in Florida are HAVA-compliant and most can only meet the 1990 standards.)

The final outcome was that Volusia agreed that they would upgrade their system. They tried desperately to work out a deal with ES&S for the AutoMARK even though it wasn't certified in Fla yet, and alas, just 3 weeks ago we were told that the State of Florida will not certify the AutoMARK (even though it has passed certification already in 29 other states). Volusia was forced, after fighting tooth and nail for months against touchscreens, to go with Diebold. Very sad indeed.

p.s. I'm sure I'm leaving out some detail-- I'm not from Volusia-- but this is, generally, where they stand right now.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2000/Oct-12-Thu-2000/news/14590935.html
REVIEW-JOURNAL


Voting system for blind tested in Carson City

CARSON CITY -- This election will be the first time Lin Gallagher, blind for more than half a century, votes in a booth without anyone helping him.

Until now, Gallagher, 62, blind since he was 3 years old, has voted with an absentee ballot and always with the help of a friend.

But this year, Carson City is instituting a new program that will provide blind residents with an audiocassette and a special ballot that will allow them to vote without assistance.

Carson City will be the first place in Nevada and one of only a handful of cities nationwide that use similar audio and tactile programs.

<snip>

Jim Dickson of the Washington-based National Organization on Disability hopes Carson City's action has a far-reaching impact.

"If Carson City can do it, why can't every city in the country?" said Dickson, who has been blind most of his life.

You found a blind person who likes the touch-screen. So what?

he's referring to a paper system based on the RI Tactile ballot...in the year 2000

My knee-jerk reaction was of Dickson advocating touch-screens.

I'm surprised to see Dickson in favor of this paper-based schema, but as you point out, the article is from 2000, prior to the settlement of the ATM suit and receiving a Diebold donation, I presume. I wonder what Dickson would say about it today.

Do you know if that method is still available in NV?

out if there are other prominent leaders in the special needs community who are outspoken in favor of a paper ballot, transparent voting systems, etc. and if there are any umbrella organizations for said person.

;-)

There was a good article on Bev's Blackbox voting site before the 2004 elections. Unfortunately the site was hacked and all the archives were lost.

This is from memory, so some of the facts may be slightly off, but the overall picture remains unchanged.

Diebold had signed contracts with several Ohio counties (I believe around 44) to install Diebold machines for the 2004 elections. When Diebold was decertified in California, Blackwell allowed the counties to back out of the contracts. Around 26 accepted.

That's when the association for the blind threatened to sue the counties if they didn't install machines favorable to blind voters.

Then the New York Times article came out, revealing that Diebold and the Blind Association had pulled the same scam several times in regards to Diebold ATM machines, each time threatening to sue if the company didn't install blind friendly machines.

This forced the association to drop it's lawsuit.

I wonder if a lawyer like John Edwards could win a case concerning illegal business practices?