Vote Fraud Story from New Orleans Times Picayune

House panel plans hearings on Nov. 2 voting problems
Allegations of fraud will be examined
Sunday, November 21, 2004
By Miles Benson

Newhouse News Service
WASHINGTON -- Problems at the polls and allegations of other irregularities in the Nov. 2 election are gaining serious attention in the nation's capital.

The House Administration Committee, which produced the Help Americans Vote Act, or HAVA, after the disputed 2000 result, will hold hearings in the new year on how well the $3.9 billion reforms worked. The panel will examine a wide range of new allegations about fraud and mismanagement, according to Chairman Robert Ney, R-Ohio, and John Larson, D-Conn., the ranking minority member.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1101025737132400.xml

how their system worked. Hold me back.....

Ney: Held HR2239 (Holt's paper trail bill) stuck in committee so it could never see the light of day

Maxwell: Positioned the LWV against a paper trail until there was such a revolt (way too late, at the June 2004 national convention) that she had little choice but to take a neutral position.

Leonard: LWV lobbyist (totally pro-paperless voting) who insiders do not trust, and who (when appearing at a public meeting many months ago was the target of comments such as "who the hell is that idiot and where does he get his information?"


Nice to see that the Picayune picked up this story, but they really need to interview someone from the other side of this arguement. Ney, Maxwell and Leonard are clearly enemies of democracy.

the six congressmen asked for?

investigation.

This article is about House hearings.

I almost skipped it.

But this line definitely got my attention: House panel plans hearings on Nov. 2 voting problems

If so, then we should be able to get the protest movement started by then. bbv.org and others looking at fraud have said it was going to take time to sort this out. January is a ways off, but we may have more ammunition by then too.

We need to use these names in our efforts.

Lloyd Leonard, the league's advocacy director, said, "Something was wrong at the polling places. It is unconscionable to wait two hours to vote, let alone six hours, which is what happened in some places in Ohio. They should determine if those lines were only in some areas but not others and where there was any partisan pattern of unequal treatment."

Okay, Lloyd, we'll take you at your word.
There was something wrong at the polling places.
It is unconscionable
We are looking for any partisan pattern of unequal treatment.


The only thing in this article that I object to is the author's "In some cases, the purported abuses could have helped re-elect President Bush. In others, they might have benefited his challenger, Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts."

That needs to be challenged. What reports does this reporter have of abuses benefiting Kerry? If there are none, why is he saying there are?

We need to write to him and challenge this.

miles.benson@newhouse.com

I also have seen indication that in some cases the misconduct favoured Democrats (heck, in Indiana, it favoured Libertarians!). Don't sweat it. The point is to get past red-team v. blue-team and put it on the basis of voters v. crooks. The majority of people in both parties would rather have a clean win (or even a loss) than to cheat. More to the point, the whole "moral values" issue comes down rather strongly on the side of honesty.

So everyone ought to push to find out the truth, unless they were one of the people committing fraud, or they think their team cheated and winning means more to them than their integrity. If someone objects to investigating the vote, I always ask them which of the two it is.

-- MarkusQ