CA: Seven Counties Dismissed From Voters Lawsuit (by Dumping the TSx!)

Seven Counties Dismissed From California Voters Lawsuit to Block Use or Purchase of Electronic Voting Machines

Humboldt, Marin, Placer, San Luis Obispo, Trinity, Tulare, and Santa Barbara Counties Opt for Paper Balloting Citing Cost, Accuracy and Security Concerns

SAN FRANCISCO, April 26 /PRNewswire/ -- California Voters marked their latest legal action today by lauding officials in seven California counties for their commitments to use or switch to all paper balloting rather than electronic voting systems. The Counties of Humboldt, Marin, Placer, San Luis Obispo, Trinity, Tulare, and Santa Barbara were dismissed today from the California Voters Lawsuit (Holder v. McPherson), supported by Voter Action, and filed in San Francisco Superior Court last month. The suit seeks to nullify Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's "conditional" certification authorizing purchase of the Diebold TSx electronic voting system -- which has a history of security, verifiability, and disability access problems -- for use in California elections.

"We applaud the counties leading California "back to the future," by selecting verifiable, all paper balloting over electronic voting systems with significant security problems, and the risk of fraud and vote manipulation," said Lowell Finley, Esq., co-director of Voter Action, and co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the California Voters Lawsuit. "These counties appreciate the importance of transparency and verifiability in clean elections. Diebold TSx electronic voting machines contain technology that is easily hacked and nearly impossible to audit or recount, and which is illegal under the California Elections Code."

"These California counties have made the right decision not to use touch-screen systems that put election integrity at risk and fail to accommodate voters with a range of disabilities as required by law," said John Eichhorst, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the California Voter's Lawsuit, and a partner in the San Francisco law firm, Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin, "No county benefits from risking election funds on expensive electronic voting systems that have acknowledged vulnerability and accessibility problems and fall short of satisfying legal requirements."

"Voters concerned with the integrity of our elections are gaining tremendous traction and we are pleased to be supporting them in California and in similar efforts in New York, Pennsylvania, Arizona and other states," said Holly Jacobson, Co-director of Voter Action.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-26-2006/0004348586&EDATE=

She thinks TSX are just dandy.

K&R

In case folks don't know who "Holder" is, his name is Joseph and he calls himself Jody. A tallish, heavy set guy that looks like a teddy bear, Jody has been involved in this struggle since the summer of 2003.

He's a self-employed dealer of used "heavy equipment" like tractors and lives in California's central valley. While fighting this battle for all of us, and trying to keep his business intact, he's been simultaneously helping his son conduct a really brutal custody battle for his son's children. The custody stuff has gone on for at least a couple years now.

You won't find anyone that is better at document analysis and researh, or who arrives at Secretary of State meetings better prepared for - or more eloquent during public comment.

Anyhow, I guess the point is this important struggle, there are a group of quiet yet immensely focused individuals who are leaders in that struggle - folks whose names are not associated with some big web site or publicly heralded organization, but whose efforts are unbelievably valuable. And that mantle is duly accredited to Jody. If this case goes to court and testimony is required, I can't think of anyone who is capable of "delivering the goods" like he can.

Hats off to a real hero folks.

:patriot:

Speaking truth to power, kickin' ass and taking names.

I want to go to Arcata, just to visit the Arcata Eye newspaper office and meet whoever writes the Police Log.

I want to go to Arcata, just to visit the Arcata Eye newspaper office and meet whoever writes the Police Log.

http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=10618

COUNTY dropped from statewide voting lawsuit

by Nathan Rushton, 4/28/2006

Humboldt County Elections officials said they are pleased with the announcement this week that Humboldt, along with six other California counties, were dropped from a lawsuit aimed at stopping touch-screen voting machines from ever getting under voters’ fingers.

The California Voters lawsuit, Holder v. McPherson, filed in San Francisco Superior Court last month seeks to nullify Secretary of State Bruce McPherson’s conditional certification authorizing the purchase by counties of Diebold electronic touch screen voting equipment.

(snip)

Voter Confidence Committee co-founder Dave Berman, who has been critical of the county’s optical scan equipment, said yesterday’s news may good for the county, but that he is still concerned about the county’s existing Diebold paper ballot scanning equipment.

Berman said most of the arguments in the lawsuit regarding touch-screen equipment can be applied to the optical scan equipment and a separate legal action is necessary to address those issues.

MORE...

:)

THAT should be the headline--because THAT is the heart of this news story.

HOORAH for PAPER BALLOTS!

:applause: :patriot: :applause: :patriot: :applause: :patriot: :applause: :patriot: :applause:

However: I don't know all the details of these counties' voting systems, and I'm wondering: Do they consider optiscans to be equivalent to paper ballot voting? Is THAT the substitute that is being made? (If so, it's not quite the victory that it appears to be? This fuzzing over of, and confusion about, real paper ballots vs. optiscan ballots, was also present in New Mexico news stories recently.) IF they are going to use real paper ballots--that have to be counted by hand (and are not initially counted by machines, as with optiscans), were optiscans in place in these counties, and why AREN'T they using optiscans as the fallback machine? Did Voter Action insist on real paper ballots, to drop them out of the suit? Did the recent failure of Diebold optiscans in FLA influence the county registrars--or Voter Action--not to trust them as a fallback?

The Voter Action press release states that the dismissed counties chose "verifiable, all paper balloting over electronic voting systems.' Does this mean all electronic systems? I'll go to their site and dig deeper into this matter. It is certainly a triumph to have rid these counties of Diebold's worst election theft machines, but I want to find out if this means hand-counted paper ballots.

The Voter Action site on the Calif lawsuit: http://www.voteraction.org/States/California/CA.html

handcounted paper ballots or optical scan paper ballots?

:)