michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 11, 2008 15:27:57 GMT 4
As always, thank you for your contributions here, Evelyn! Dennis Kucinich is calling for a recount in New Hampshire. Dennis has a history of taking on Diebold. Also, in reference to ABC excluding Dennis from televised debates, it is interesting to note that ABC “is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Walt Disney, Co., whose executives have contributed heavily to other Democratic presidential primary candidates, including Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, former Senator John Edwards, and Governor Bill Richardson.”....MichelleBLOGGED BY Brad Friedman ON 1/10/2008 6:10PM KUCINICH CALLS FOR 'RECOUNT' OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BALLOTS Cites Concerns About 'Unexplained Disparities' in Hand and Diebold Machine Counted BallotsSays 'It’s about establishing whether 100% of the voters had 100% of their votes counted exactly the way they cast them'From a Kucinich for President press release just out...Kucinich asks for New Hampshire recount in the interest of election integrityDETROIT, MI – Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the most outspoken advocate in the Presidential field and in Congress for election integrity, paper-ballot elections, and campaign finance reform, has sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesday’s election because of “unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots.” ... He added, “Ever since the 2000 election – and even before – the American people have been losing faith in the belief that their votes were actually counted. This recount isn’t about who won 39% of 36% or even 1%. It’s about establishing whether 100% of the voters had 100% of their votes counted exactly the way they cast them.”
Kucinich, who drew about 1.4% of the New Hampshire Democratic primary vote, wrote, “This is not about my candidacy or any other individual candidacy. It is about the integrity of the election process.” No other Democratic candidate, he noted, has stepped forward to question or pursue the claims being made.
“New Hampshire is in the unique position to address – and, if so determined, rectify – these issues before they escalate into a massive, nationwide suspicion of the process by which Americans elect their President. Based on the controversies surrounding the Presidential elections in 2004 and 2000, New Hampshire is in a prime position to investigate possible irregularities and to issue findings for the benefit of the entire nation,” Kucinich wrote in his letter.
“Without an official recount, the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation will never know whether there are flaws in our electoral system that need to be identified and addressed at this relatively early point in the Presidential nominating process,” said KucinichThe BRAD BLOG has just spoken with a Kucinich press spokesperson who was not yet aware of the full scope of the hand count being called for. As more information becomes available, of course, we will share it. Until then, a few thoughts on the announcement, a concern about recounts in New Hampshire from an Election Integrity advocate on the ground in the state, and one set of eyebrow-raising new numbers... In the statement above, Kucinich says that he's calling for a "recount". While it may seem a quibble, the fact is that until now, 80% of New Hampshire's ballots have been "counted" only by a hackable, prone-to-error, Diebold optical-scan machine. The systems were entirely programmed, serviced and controlled by one somewhat less-than-reputable company (LHS Associates). The machines are the very same model shown being hacked in the Emmy-nominated HBO documentary Hacking Democracy, in which the results of a live mock election were flipped via the gaming of the machine's memory card. Unedited footage of that live landmark hack from December of 2005, as well as rare footage of LHS Associate's President John Silvestro, can be seen here. And more deep background on LHS and their troubling, and exclusive control over New Hampshire's ballots is posted here. We've put the words "count" and "recount" in quotes, given what we know about these machines, and given the fact that approximately 80% of the New Hampshire ballots have not actually been counted or examined by anyone. To our knowledge, only Diebold optical-scanners were used for tabulating those ballots, without any secondary cross-check or audit, to ensure accuracy. In other words, until now, 80% of New Hampshire results have been "faith-based". The other 20% or so of the ballots were counted by hand at the polling place on Election Night. We would also caution Kucinich and his team to closely inspect the chain of custody for the ballots in question, and what has happened to them, and the vulnerable op-scan memory cards, since the election two days ago, during the period that concern has been widely expressed about the seemingly anomalous results of Tuesday's election. It's important that the chain of custody be both secure, fully logged, and transparent. Nancy Tobi of New Hampshire for Democracy, a Granite State election integrity watchdog group, previously noted her concerns in earlier discussions about the possibility of hand counting the state's op-scan primary ballots. "We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up," she wrote recently. "Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines. A candidate asking for a recount may well be a tool used to 'prove" everything was okay and then that candidate will be further discredited," she warned. Finally, Kucinich mentions one of the reasons for the count is the "unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots." Indeed, there are disparities between the hand-counted and Diebold counted ballots, as we reported last night. Hillary Clinton seems to have received a full 7 point advantage in Diebold precincts, versus hand-counted ones. However, as mentioned last night, that disparity doesn't necessarily indicate anything in and of itself. There could be any number of reasons to explain it. For example, it's the smaller and more rural precincts who count by hand, where the larger towns use Diebold/LHS Associates to count. It could well be that Obama is more popular in smaller towns, and Clinton in larger. We do note, however, the following rather remarkably anomalous result which was reported late this afternoon by analysts from the Election Defense Alliance (EDA). As noted by one of the researchers, IT Consultant Bruce O'Dell: Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand:Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95% Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05% Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05% Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95% The percentages appear to be swapped. That seems highly unusual, to say the least. O'Dell notes the group is "proceeding with intra and inter-county results and demographic analysis to better understand what this extremely unusual 'coincidence' may indicate." You can find earlier BRAD BLOG coverage of concerns regarding the New Hampshire Primary election results --- and the speculation of the pundit and MSM world on why the pre-election polls must have been wrong, while entirely avoiding the question of whether the reported election results were actually validated --- indexed on this Special Coverage item here. Source: www.bradblog.com/?p=5544#more-5544------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org has the following things to say and although intriqued by a recount, feels caution is necessary when calling for a recount at this stage:1-10-08: Kucinich stepping into trap with recount? The election integrity community is abuzz with news that candidate Dennis Kucinich will ask for a recount in New Hampshire, and Ron Paul fans have been pushing him to recount as well. Careful. NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTION INTEGRITY ADVOCATE NANCY TOBI IS CORRECT: "We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up. Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines." As Tobi says, "A candidate asking for a recount may well be a tool used to 'prove' everything was okay and then that candidate will be further discredited." I'll go further than that. The only way a recount makes any sense at all in New Hampshire is AFTER an assessment is made of the chain of custody issues. If the chain of custody isn't intact the recount won't be worth a cup of warm spit. TOBI: "This is high stakes. "You do not walk into a battle ground not knowing where the snipers are, just because you were invited. Strategically, going into something like this where you have NO CONTROL is foolishness. "And I say this as one of the strongest recount proponents of former times. Things I have come to learn and understand have changed my mind. The recount is someone else's game, not ours. "In the recount, we have no control, and we have already lost 48 long hours of ballot chain of custody oversight. "We need citizen control and oversight. This is not going to come from the recount. If the election was rigged...don't you think the riggers would have a backup Plan B for a rigged recount, knowing how easy it is to get a recount in NH? No. It is time to take control. "BLACK BOX VOTING: The following is excerpted from our New Hampshire election protection information published in November 2007: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: Knowing that the greatest opportunities for election fraud are with insiders, this tells us something about what to examine first. If you are a person with inside access in New Hampshire, because any candidate can ask to recount any location, if you plan to manipulate the election you'll want to make sure you can achieve ballot substitution, ballot removal, or ballot stuffing. You need a strategy just in case someone asks for a hand count. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT'S THE POINT OF A RECOUNT IF THE CANDIDATE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW... 1) The name of all companies that print ballots for New Hampshire elections. 2) The ballot ordering history for each location, especially those using computerized voting systems and the inventory records for the current contest. 3) The ballot chain of custody plan for each location and for the state of New Hampshire. IMMEDIATE CONCERNS - We don't have information on ballot inventory records. - With ballots and recounts, it's all about blocking ballot substitution. To achieve substitution, you need extra ballots. If you get more ballots, someone might follow the money trail and ask you why you're sitting on 10,000 or so blank ballots. So you need some workarounds. BALLOT CHAIN OF CUSTODY WAR STORIES Patriot Richard Hayes Phillips, while writing his brilliant upcoming book "Witness to a Crime," uncovered evidence that an Ohio County took delivery on 10,000 off-the-books ballots in 2004. Employees for the Diebold ballot printing plant slipped us financials showing that Diebold was printing 25% more ballots than ordered. This could be handy: If a governmental entity doesn't take official delivery on ballots, Plan B can sit at a print house somewhere, on private property and absent from either government bookkeeping or public records. CONVICTED FELONS The Diebold ballot printing plant at the time we got records on the overages, was being run by a convicted felon who had spent four years in prison on a narcotics trafficking charge. No, not New Hampshire's voting machine programming exec Ken Hajjar, who cut a plea deal in 1990 for his role in cocaine distribution. This was another convicted felon, John Elder, who ran the Diebold ballot printing plant; he's now an elections consultant. We have so far been unable to learn whether New Hampshire has convicted felons printing their ballots; we've got a records request in on this. New Hampshire officials like to say "The state prints the ballots" but they sure aren't printed in Secretary of State Bill Gardner's office. Frank S., one of the new breed of citizens jumping in to take back control of our elections, took the initiative on his own to help today by spending several hours trying to find the ballot printer in NH. It may be that convicted felons print the ballots: Frank turned up evidence that one state-paid printing vendor is NHCI - New Hampshire Correctional Industries, a prison-based printing outfit. New Hampshire Correctional Industries is a job training program for inmates. After they get out of prison they have a skill! I'm not sure we want a bunch of ex-convicts running around in New Hampshire with ballot printing expertise, so I hope a different ballot printing vendor will show up. Any candidate seeking a recount needs to know this stuff. IDENTIFY NARROW SPOTS IN THE PIPELINE What is the smallest number of people with access, and at what points does centralization of access occur? WHERE HAVE THE BALLOTS BEEN DURING THE LAST 48 HOURS If there's going to be a recount of this magnitude, we need to know whether checks and balances have been followed. Let me give you an example of what I mean: In San Mateo County, California, citizen Brent Turner asked for ballot chain of custody records for 2007; a six-week gap in the access logs was revealed in the documents. SHOULD CANDIDATES RECOUNT NEW HAMPSHIRE? In concept I love the idea, but as it currently stands, it makes me queasy. They're walking into this blind about the details that make or break the integrity of the process. WHAT TO DO INSTEAD Tobi calls for doing a real investigation in order to take corrective action by November. I'm not sure about that. New Hampshire had hearings on the hackable Diebold optical scan machines, and didn't take any action to mitigate the risks. New Hampshire knew it was running elections on machines that can't be trusted. And today, thanks to the efforts of two more citizen volunteers, I learned that the New Hampshire Secretary of State knew about the narcotics trafficking conviction of Ken Hajjar, yet still authorized LHS to code every memory card in New Hampshire.Harri Hursti himself testified in New Hampshire in Sept. 2007, urging them to disconnect the wiring allowing reprogramming of the memory card through the modem port. New Hampshire took no action. New Hampshire didn't take even the half-step actions other states used to beef up voting machine security.[/color] Maybe there are better ways to skin this cat. THE IDEA OF A RECOUNT STILL INTRIGUES ME BUT... At this moment I can't think of a way to offset the chain of custody unknowns. The last thing we want is a recount that doesn't answer our questions, or raises new suspicions that aren't answered. There must be a way. It's been a long day. Let me think on that. Source: www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/71260.htmlurl for this post: tinyurl.com/3xk7u7
|
|
|
Post by evelyn on Jan 11, 2008 20:26:54 GMT 4
|
|
|
Post by evelyn on Jan 13, 2008 19:26:20 GMT 4
|
|
|
Post by evelyn on Jan 25, 2008 19:40:19 GMT 4
New Hampshire Sec. of State Appears to Lie to Media About Kucinich Hand Countwww.bradblog.com/?p=5602Six Questions for Mark Crispin Miller, Author of ‘Fooled Again’harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002227(Entire article recommended)5. What’s the fix for the nation’s broken elections system? Give me the first steps you’d take.(1) Repeal the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). (2) Replace all electronic voting with hand-counted paper ballots (HCPB). (3) Get rid of computerized voter rolls. (4) Keep all private vendors out of the election process. (5) Make it illegal for the TV networks to declare who won before the vote-count is complete. (6) Set up an exit polling system, publicly supported, to keep the vote-counts honest. (7) Get rid of voter registration rules, by having every citizen be duly registered on his/her 18th birthday. (8) Ban all state requirements for state-issued ID’s at the polls. (9) Put all polling places under video surveillance, to spot voter fraud, monitor election personnel, and track the turnout. (10) Have Election Day declared a federal holiday, requiring all employers to allow their workers time to vote. (11) Make it illegal for Secretaries of State to co-chair political campaigns (or otherwise assist or favor them). (12) Make election fraud a major felony, with life imprisonment–and disenfranchisement–for all repeat offenders.
|
|
|
Post by evelyn on Jan 29, 2008 2:27:06 GMT 4
|
|
|
Post by evelyn on Jan 29, 2008 4:47:30 GMT 4
|
|
|
Post by evelyn on Jan 31, 2008 23:48:10 GMT 4
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Apr 22, 2008 11:08:45 GMT 4
Paper ballot bill goes down in House after White House intervenes Congressman to press on with paper-ballot emergency voting billTodd R. Weiss April 18, 2008 (Computerworld) A bill that would have helped states pay to switch to paper-election balloting systems and for random audits after elections died out of a House committee this week, but its prime sponsor said he is not giving up the fight. U.S. Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) said the bill he sponsored, House Bill 5036, the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act, would help make the nation's elections more accurate and secure by helping states move to paper ballots over touch-screen electronic machines. "I'm still hopeful that it's possible to get some of this done before this year's November elections," Holt said. "Anything we can do to reduce the unresolved questions and disputes this November we should do," he said, referring to past problems in U.S. elections, including the troubled 2000 presidential election. "Can we still do things before November? Yes, but time is running out," he said.Under the bill, states and municipalities would have the option of getting federal money to move to paper-balloting systems instead of touch-screen, or direct recording electronic machines. Electronic voting critics argue that touch-screen voting machines that don't use a paper ballot can't be later checked to be sure that a voter's intent was followed because it offers no way to recount the votes one by one. E-voting supporters maintain that the machines themselves are accurate, but that problems may arise because of inadequate training for election workers and mistakes by voters. Several states and counties have moved on their own from touch-screen machines to optically scanned paper ballots that can be recounted if needed. "This bill this week, it was all optional," Holt said. "All it was, was reimbursing districts for doing the right thing. ... And by doing the right thing, I mean offering paper-based voting and more, requiring audits."Two weeks ago, the bill came out of the House Administration Committee, where it was unanimously approved by Democratic and Republican members after several Republican amendments were added, and was sent on to the full House for consideration, Holt said. On Tuesday, the bill, which needed a two-thirds majority to pass, went down to defeat in the House 239-178, with 223 Democrats in favor and 176 Republican opposed, after the White House sent out a statement opposing the measure. The statement said the administration "strongly opposes" the bill because it would "create a new program that is largely redundant with existing law, and therefore unnecessary, to reimburse States for the costs of making last-minute changes to their voting systems by Election Day 2008."Holt said some Republicans on the committee must have had a "change of heart." At least one told him it was about how much the bill could cost to implement, but Holt said the committee members were all well aware of those costs when they voted to approve it the first time."The White House sending out a statement of opposition on the day of the vote certainly hurt and helped turn this into a partisan matter," he said. "They had nothing to say about it the whole time it was being prepared. Then all of a sudden they think it should be voted down. Well, where were [they] when we were drafting it? The night before we had some indication that the White House was going to oppose it, and that the Republicans were starting to back off in their support."The White House did not return a call seeking comment. "I wouldn't say it's dead for this year, but unfortunately, the window is open only a crack," Holt said. "It takes time to implement election procedures. And secretaries of state don't like to make last-minute changes just because it can cause problems for voters." There is still some support for such a measure in the Senate, Holt said. "If the Senate does something, the House can always revisit it. [The House] could revisit it anyway, on its own. But if the Senate showed a willingness to do something about it, then there would be even more incentive for the House to revisit it." Source: www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9078878
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 11, 2008 17:58:56 GMT 4
Lose your house, lose your voteBy Eartha Jane Melzer 9/10/08 6:42 AM Michigan Republicans plan to foreclose African American votersThe chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP’s effort to challenge some voters on Election Day. “We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger in a telephone interview earlier this week. He said the local party wanted to make sure that proper electoral procedures were followed. State election rules allow parties to assign “election challengers” to polls to monitor the election. In addition to observing the poll workers, these volunteers can challenge the eligibility of any voter provided they “have a good reason to believe” that the person is not eligible to vote. One allowable reason is that the person is not a “true resident of the city or township.” The Michigan Republicans’ planned use of foreclosure lists is apparently an attempt to challenge ineligible voters as not being “true residents.” One expert questioned the legality of the tactic.“You can’t challenge people without a factual basis for doing so,” said J. Gerald Hebert, a former voting rights litigator for the U.S. Justice Department who now runs the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington D.C.-based public-interest law firm. “I don’t think a foreclosure notice is sufficient basis for a challenge, because people often remain in their homes after foreclosure begins and sometimes are able to negotiate and refinance.”As for the practice of challenging the right to vote of foreclosed property owners, Hebert called it, “mean-spirited.” GOP ties to state’s largest foreclosure law firmThe Macomb GOP’s plans are another indication of how John McCain’s campaign stands to benefit from the burgeoning number of foreclosures in the state. McCain’s regional headquarters are housed in the office building of foreclosure specialists Trott & Trott. The firm’s founder, David A. Trott, has raised between $100,000 and $250,000 for the Republican nominee.The Macomb County party’s plans to challenge voters who have defaulted on their house payments is likely to disproportionately affect African-Americans who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters. More than 60 percent of all sub-prime loans — the most likely kind of loan to go into default — were made to African-Americans in Michigan, according to a report issued last year by the state’s Department of Labor and Economic Growth.Challenges to would-be votersStatewide, the Republican Party is gearing up for a comprehensive voter challenge campaign, according to Denise Graves, party chair for Republicans in Genessee County, which encompasses Flint. The party is creating a spreadsheet of election challenger volunteers and expects to coordinate a training with the regional McCain campaign, Graves said in an interview with Michigan Messenger. Whether the Republicans will challenge voters with foreclosed homes elsewhere in the state is not known. Kelly Harrigan, deputy director of the GOP’s voter programs, confirmed that she is coordinating the group’s “election integrity” program. Harrigan said the effort includes putting in place a legal team, as well as training election challengers. She said the challenges to voters were procedural rather than personal. She referred inquiries about the vote challenge program to communications director Bill Knowles who promised information but did not return calls. Party chairman Carabelli said that the Republican Party is training election challengers to “make sure that [voters] are who they say who they are.” When asked for further details on how Republicans are compiling challenge lists, he said, “I would rather not tell you all the things we are doing.” Vote suppression: Not an isolated effortCarabelli is not the only Republican Party official to suggest the targeting of foreclosed voters. In Ohio, Doug Preisse, director of elections in Franklin County (around the city of Columbus) and the chair of the local GOP, told The Columbus Dispatch that he has not ruled out challenging voters before the election due to foreclosure-related address issues.Hebert, the voting-rights lawyer, sees a connection between Priesse’s remarks and Carabelli’s plans. “At a minimum what you are seeing is a fairly comprehensive effort by the Republican Party, a systematic broad-based effort to put up obstacles for people to vote,” he said. “Nobody is contending that these people are not legally registered to vote.“When you are comprehensively challenging people to vote,” Hebert went on, “your goals are two-fold: One is you are trying to knock people out from casting ballots; the other is to create a slowdown that will discourage others,” who see a long line and realize they can’t afford to stay and wait.Challenging all voters registered to foreclosed homes could disrupt some polling places, especially in the Detroit metropolitan area. According to the real estate Web site RealtyTrac, one in every 176 households in Wayne County, metropolitan Detroit, received a foreclosure filing during the month of July. In Macomb County, the figure was one household in every 285, meaning that 1,834 homeowners received the bad news in just one month. The Macomb County foreclosure rate puts it in the top three percent of all U.S. counties in the number of distressed homeowners.Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Kent and Genessee counties were — in that order — the counties with the most homeowners facing foreclosure, according to RealtyTrac. As of July, there were more than 62,000 foreclosure filings in the entire state. Joe Rozell, director of elections for Oakland County in suburban Detroit, acknowledged that challenges such as those described by Carabelli are allowed by law but said they have the potential to create long lines and disrupt the voting process. With 890,000 potential voters closely divided between Democratic and Republican, Oakland County is a key swing county of this swing state.According to voter challenge directives handed down by Republican Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, voter challenges need only be “based on information obtained through a reliable source or means.”“But poll workers are not allowed to ask the reason” for the challenges, Rozell said. In other words, Republican vote challengers are free to use foreclosure lists as a basis for disqualifying otherwise eligible voters.David Lagstein, head organizer with the Michigan Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), described the plans of the Macomb GOP as “crazy.” “You would think they would think, ‘This is going to look too heartless,’” said Lagstein, whose group has registered 200,000 new voters statewide this year and also runs a foreclosure avoidance program. “The Republican-led state Senate has not moved on the anti-predatory lending bill for over a year and yet [Republicans] have time to prey on those who have fallen victim to foreclosure to suppress the vote.”Source:www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 22, 2008 6:44:40 GMT 4
High Turnout, New Procedures May Mean an Election Day MessBy Mary Pat Flaherty Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 18, 2008 Faced with a surge in voter registrations leading up to Nov. 4, election officials across the country are bracing for long lines, equipment failures and confusion over polling procedures that could cost thousands the chance to cast a ballot. The crush of voters will strain a system already in the midst of transformation, with jurisdictions introducing new machines and rules to avoid the catastrophe of the deadlocked 2000 election and the lingering controversy over the 2004 outcome. Even within the past few months, cities and counties have revamped their processes: Nine million voters, including many in the battleground states of Ohio, Florida and Colorado, will use equipment that has changed since March. But the widespread changes meant to reassure the public have also increased the potential for trouble. "You change systems and throw in lots of new voters, and you can plan to be up the proverbial creek," said Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services, a consulting firm that has tracked the voting changes. Since Congress passed the Help America Vote Act six years ago, $3 billion in federal funds has been spent to overhaul voting operations, much of it for new equipment. With touchscreen machines falling out of favor, an increasing number of the nation's voters -- just over half -- will use paper ballots, which will be read by optical scanners. That will produce a paper trail that can serve as a backup if questions arise over tallies. For more than half of the states, this will be the first presidential election using statewide databases required by the 2002 law to improve the accuracy of voter rolls. When voters arrive at the polls, their information must match the list in order for them to receive a regular ballot. That could trigger contentious questions in places with particularly rigid rules on what constitutes a match. Both campaigns have lined up teams of lawyers to challenge any irregularities, from registrations to polling place problems to vote counts. And experts say the problems ahead will be formidable, even if they don't rise to the level of the Supreme Court challenge over the 2000 results. "The voting process is going to be tested in a way it has not been in recent history," said Tova Wang, vice president for research at Common Cause, a government watchdog group. Recent local primaries have offered warning signs. In the District last week, initial tallies were inflated by thousands of votes, causing chaos that night, and officials have yet to explain the problem. In Palm Beach County, Fla., more than 3,500 ballots went missing in an August primary, forcing workers to hunt through bins and leaving a judicial election still undecided. That same day, equipment problems in two other Florida jurisdictions delayed results for hours. Premier Election Solutions, the company that makes many of the nation's voting machines, last month acknowledged that software used in 34 states, including Virginia and Maryland, could cause votes to be dropped. The company, formerly called Diebold, said it has no fix for the problem now, but election officials can catch the errors and recover the votes through a routine process of double-checking electronic memory cards. Any weak spots in the process in November, whether poorly trained poll workers, a confusing ballot design or faulty equipment, will be further stressed by turnout, including many first-time voters. During this year's presidential primaries, the number of voters hit an eight-year high in 36 states, according to Electionline.org, which monitors electoral reforms as part of the Pew Center on the States. Maryland election officials said Tuesday that they expect 250,000 new voters to register by next month's deadline. More than 280,000 Virginians have registered to vote since the beginning of the year. In the battleground state of Nevada, there are 400,000 more voters registered than four years ago. More than 500,000 have registered in Indiana since the beginning of the year, prompting Secretary of State Todd Rokita to say this could be "the biggest Election Day in our nation's history in terms of turnout." Federal officials estimate that 2 million poll workers will be needed to handle the turnout, twice 2004's number and a goal states are scrambling to meet. New York City had hoped to muster more than its usual 30,000 poll workers, particularly to help voters with disabilities, but extra funds were not available, said Marcus Cederqvist, executive director of the city's Board of Elections. "We will have waits -- I'd guess an hour or maybe two -- but we like to see high turnouts," he said. "It's what we are here for, and let's hope voters keep it in perspective. It won't be like waiting for an iPhone overnight." Because elections are managed at the local level -- more than 10,000 jurisdictions run voting operations -- there is plenty of opportunity for foul-ups, which can resound nationally. "Nobody wants to be that county," said Rosemary Rodriguez, chairwoman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, created in 2002 to oversee and enforce nationwide election reform. But, she added, "the biggest fear I have is that elections officials don't heed what they saw in the primary and plan." After a spate of Election Day problems in Ohio in 2004, when some voters waited in line more than five hours, Franklin County, which includes Columbus, has added poll workers, increased the number of voting machines by 50 percent and commissioned a study on where the machines should go. Other jurisdictions, including elsewhere in Ohio and several counties in Virginia, are requiring more training of poll workers, from greeters who will walk lines to make sure voters are at the right site to supervisors who must be able to set up and test voting machines. In Worcester, Mass., local election officials are trying to prepare for the bigger turnout by locating some polling places in four supermarkets, which have plenty of parking and are accessible to disabled voters. But David Moon, program director for FairVote, a voting advocacy group that is surveying local operations, said that "very few county officials" in swing states "are creating rational plans" to put machines where they are most needed. As a result, he said, frustrated voters stuck in long lines could give up and go home without casting ballots -- the same thing that happened four years ago in many states. The process could be complicated by the statewide registration databases, which have been coming online one by one since 2004. For 31 states, Nov. 4 will be the first test of the systems with the bigger turnout of a presidential election. States have taken a variety of positions on what should be considered a match when it comes to nicknames, hyphenated names and married names. If the information doesn't match, voters can cast provisional ballots, but whether those will count in final tallies depends on local rules, which vary widely. "If you have small glitches multiplied by thousands of voters, that means big problems that cost eligible voters their voice," said Daniel P. Tokaji, an election law specialist at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law. The problems could be more acute with hyphenated Hispanic names or transposed Asian surnames, he said, "leaving certain groups disproportionately affected." Registration rules have prompted bitter complaints and lawsuits in Missouri, New Mexico and other states, and could lead to challenges after the votes are counted. Voting rights advocates have protested an Arizona requirement that residents show proof of citizenship to register, which has been upheld by a federal judge. Advocates also worry that the back-and-forth of legislative debates and court rulings on voter identification in numerous states could further confound poll workers, disenfranchising some voters. As they approach November, some local officials say they have addressed problems that surfaced in this year's presidential primaries. Touchscreen machines still will be in place in Horry County, S.C., which includes Myrtle Beach, but elections director Sandy Martin said she will avoid the programming error that forced the county to use backup paper ballots -- some votes were cast on yellow legal pads -- and delayed results for a day. "Oh, my gosh, it was awful," Martin said. In Contra Costa County, east of San Francisco, registrar Stephen Weir said he too learned from the primary. A fold in the absentee ballots forced him to spend nearly two weeks ironing, by hand, about 16,000 ballots to make them flat enough to feed into vote-counting machines. "There were two lessons learned," he said. "Dump the fold. And the silk setting worked great." Source: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/17/AR2008091703663_pf.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 20, 2008 11:00:38 GMT 4
Shouldn't we all be asking our Congress: WHY are these 'voting' machines still standing?Thousands Erroneously Tagged Ineligible to Vote --In New Databases, Many Are Wrongly Flagged as Ineligible 18 Oct 2008 Thousands of voters across the country must reestablish their eligibility in the next three weeks in order for their votes to count on Nov. 4, a result of new state registration systems that are incorrectly rejecting them. In Alabama, scores of voters are being labeled as convicted felons on the basis of incorrect lists. Michigan must restore thousands of names it illegally removed from voter rolls over residency questions, a judge ruled this week. Tens of thousands of voters could be affected in Wisconsin. Officials there admit that their database is wrong one out of five times when it flags voters, sometimes for data discrepancies as small as a middle initial or a typo in a birth date. CLIP www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/17/AR2008101703360.html "When I touched the screen for Barack Obama, the check mark moved from his box to the box indicating a vote for John McCain." Early W.Va. voters angry machines kept switching their votes to GOP candidates --Jackson County touch-screens switched votes, 3 residents say 18 Oct 2008 At least three early voters in Jackson County had a hard time voting for candidates they want to win. Virginia Matheney and Calvin Thomas said touch-screen machines in the county clerk's office in Ripley kept switching their votes from Democratic to Republican candidates. "When I touched the screen for Barack Obama, the check mark moved from his box to the box indicating a vote for John McCain," said Matheney, who lives in Kenna. When she reported the problem, she said, the poll worker in charge "responded that everything was all right." CLIP www.wvgazette.com/News/200810170676"I pushed buttons and they all came up Republican," she said. "I hit Obama and it switched to McCain. I am really concerned about that. If McCain wins, there was something wrong with the machines." More W.Va. voters say machines are switching votes --In six cases, Democratic votes flipped to GOP 18 Oct 2008 Three Putnam County voters say electronic voting machines changed their votes from Democrats to Republicans when they cast early ballots last week. This is the second West Virginia county where voters have reported this problem. Last week, three voters in Jackson County told The Charleston Gazette their electronic vote for "Barack Obama" kept flipping to "John McCain". In both counties, Republicans are responsible for overseeing elections. CLIP www.wvgazette.com/News/200810180251Voters say they were duped into registering as Republicans --YPM, a group hired by the GOP, allegedly deceived Californians who thought they were signing a petition. Similar accusations have been leveled against the company elsewhere. 18 Oct 2008 Dozens of newly minted Republican voters say they were duped into joining the party by a GOP contractor with a trail of fraud complaints stretching across the country. Voters contacted by The Times said they were tricked into switching parties while signing what they believed were petitions for tougher penalties against child molesters. Some said they were told that they had to become Republicans to sign the petition, contrary to California initiative law. Others had no idea their registration was being changed. CLIP www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fraud18-2008oct18,0,1216330.story ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The ACLU is working tirelessly to ensure that the upcoming Presidential election is a fair process with no unconstitutional restrictions on voting rights or access. Below are some examples of our voting rights efforts around the country as the election approaches:U.S. Supreme Court Protects Newly Registered Ohioans’ Voting Rights In a major victory for voting rights, the U.S. Supreme Court today issued an order protecting voters in Ohio from attempts to challenge their registrations based on small inaccuracies in government databases. The order reverses an appeals court decision that required Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to provide all 88 county Boards of Elections with lists of mismatched voters that had discrepancies between the information on their registration forms and other government databases. The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief early this morning in support of Brunner’s position. “We are grateful that the Supreme Court reversed the flawed appeals court decision. Today’s decision protects the voting rights of hundreds of thousands of Ohioans who could have been illegally disenfranchised,” said Meredith Bell-Platts, staff counsel with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “Had this program gone forward, Ohio voters would have been subjected to added confusion and chaos at the polls. While there are plenty of other voter suppression strategies being deployed in Ohio and across the country, at least this one has been put to rest.” If the program went into effect, failed matches could have resulted in hundreds of thousands of lawful voters being purged from the rolls, challenged at the polls or required to cast provisional ballots. >> Read the ACLU’s friend-of-the-court brief:Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, et al. - Amicus Brief (10/17/2008) www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/37196lgl20081017.htmlVictory in Michigan Voting Rights CaseIn a major victory for voting rights, a judge ruled this week that Michigan's voter removal program violates federal law and ordered the state to stop illegally purging voters from the rolls. The decision comes in a lawsuit filed last month by Advancement Project, the ACLU, the ACLU of Michigan and the law firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP. In question was a Michigan state law requiring local clerks to nullify the registrations of newly-registered voters whenever their voter identification cards are returned by the post office as undeliverable. Detroit elections officials report that nearly 30,000 voters per year in that city alone are removed from the rolls as a result of this state election law -- particularly affecting minority, low-income and student communities. The judge ruled that one of Michigan's voter removal programs violates the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and ordered that state to "immediately discontinue their practice of cancelling or rejecting a voter's registration based upon the return of the voter's original voter identification card as undeliverable." "This is a major victory for Michigan voters and the integrity of our democratic process," said Meredith Bell-Platts, staff counsel with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "Today's decision brings us one step closer to restoring confidence in an electoral system that has been poisoned by illegal disfranchisement policies. As a result of the judge's decision, fewer Michigan voters will be illegally purged and wrongly disfranchised -- and that's good for everyone." >> Learn about the voting rights in your state:Know Your Voting Rights - State by State The Voting Rights Project of the ACLU is dedicated to providing citizens with information and assistance in exercising their right to vote! We are urging citizens to ACT this election year. For more information or to voice a voting rights complaint, call 1-877-523-2792, email us at vrp@aclu.org, or click below. Know your voting rights. Act! Go To: www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/36695res20080909.html>> Learn more about voting rights cases in which the ACLU is involved. ACLU Voting Rights Project Litigation Below is an overview of the ACLU Voting Rights Project's recent litigation designed to protect the rights of voters in this election cycle and beyond. Established in 1965, the Voting Rights Project has worked to protect the gains in political participation since passage of the historic Voting Rights Act (VRA) that same year. Since its inception, the Voting Rights Project has aggressively and successfully challenged efforts that dilute minority voting strength or obstruct the ability of minority communities to elect candidates of their choice. The Project has filed more than 300 lawsuits to enforce the provisions of the VRA and the U.S. Constitution. FELONY DISFRANCHISEMENT
ALABAMA – Lawsuit challenging Alabama's disfranchisement laws, including the denial of voting rights to individuals who have been convicted of felonies involving "moral turpitude," even though the state constitution does not define which felonies fall into this ambiguous and antiquated category. Thousands of Alabamians are disenfranchised under a much broader category of convictions than is permissible under the constitution, relying in part on an unlawful opinion issued by the state attorney general. Case is pending. MISSISSIPPI – Lawsuit challenging the state's denial of voting rights to citizens with felony convictions. Although the Mississippi Constitution permits people who have been convicted of a crime to vote for president and vice president, election administrators are denying that right in practice. A judge ruled against our injunction in September, we intend to appeal. TENNESSEE – Lawsuit challenging a law that made the restoration of voting rights for people convicted of crimes contingent on the payment of all outstanding legal financial obligations, namely restitution and child support fees. The effect of this law is nothing more than a modern-day poll tax that requires people to pay fees before they are eligible to vote. A judge rejected most of our claims in September – our due process claim has not been decided – we intend to appeal. ARIZONA – Lawsuit challenging two aspects of Arizona's felon disfranchisement law: (a) the denial of voting rights to ex-felons based on their inability to pay the court fines, fees, and restitution associated with their sentences; and (b) the disfranchisement of people convicted of certain offenses which never existed when Congress enacted Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which grants states the authority to disfranchise people "for participation in rebellion, or other crime." We are expecting a decision from the court in the near future. INDIAN COUNTRY
LITIGATION/REPORT – The ACLU has brought or participated in litigation on behalf of American Indians in five western states—Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming. The litigation challenged a variety of discriminatory election practices, including: at-large elections; redistricting plans that diluted Indian voting strength; the failure to comply with one person, one vote; unfounded allegations of election fraud on Indian reservations; discriminatory voter registration procedures; onerous identification requirements for voting; the lack of minority language assistance in voting; and the refusal to comply with the preclearance provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. A report highlighting these legal challenges is forthcoming. LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE
ALASKA – Lawsuit asking state and local elections officials to provide effective language assistance to citizens who speak Yup'ik, the primary language of a majority of voters in the Bethel region of Alaska. The legal challenge was brought on behalf of four Alaska Natives and four tribal governments. A federal judge granted our preliminary injunction in July and ordered election officials to provide language assistance in advance of the election. BALLOT ACCESS
SOUTH CAROLINA – First of its kind lawsuit challenging the South Carolina election rules that prevent a candidate seeking the nomination of more than one political party from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate wins one party's nomination but loses another's. South Carolina is one of only four states that permits fusion voting, which allows multiple political parties to nominate the same candidate, but also has a so-called "sore loser" statute disqualifying candidates who have been selected by one party but rejected by another. The ACLU brought this legal challenge on behalf of the state Green Party, a disqualified candidate for the state House of Representatives and a South Carolina voter. A judge rejected our request for an injunction, but the case is set to go to trial next year. MONTANA – Lawsuit challenging Montana's scheme for getting independent and minor-party candidates on the ballot. The lawsuit challenged the state's burdensome system for non-major party candidates seeking to run for office and asked the court to prohibit state officials from enforcing it in this year's elections. Disappointingly, a federal judge denied our request to have a minor party candidate placed on the November ballot. We are considering our legal options. ABSENTEE BALLOTS
OHIO – Lawsuit asking Ohio to issue a temporary restraining order that would prohibit a county board of elections from blocking same-day registration and voting. According to state law, a voter must be registered to vote 30 days before the date of the election, and absentee balloting begins 35 days before the election. The Board of Elections in Madison County stated it will only provide absentee ballots to voters who have been registered more than 30 days before the date they requested an absentee ballot, rather than 30 days before Election Day. In an overwhelming victory, two different Ohio courts ruled in September that counties cannot deny absentee ballots to newly registered voters. CAGING/VOTER PURGING
GEORGIA - Lawsuit challenging Georgia's system of verifying voters' identities and citizenship that illegally purges voters from the rolls. The lawsuit charges the state with violating the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act by purging thousands of voters less than 90 days before the election and relying on a flawed database to question the citizenship of registered voters. This case is currently pending. MICHIGAN - Lawsuit challenging two statewide voter purge programs that could potentially disfranchise hundreds of thousands of Michigan voters in advance of the November election. In October, a federal judge found both programs illegal. VOTING TECHNOLOGY
OHIO – Lawsuit against state and local election officials in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, over their change from voting technology that provides voters with notice of ballot errors that will prevent their ballot from being accurately tabulated to voting technology that does not provide such notice. The motion was granted by the court in April and in July, the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections and the Board of County Commissioners selected a system that will provide notice of ballot errors for the November presidential election. VOTING RIGHTS ACT
TEXAS – Fought challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by a small utility district in Austin, Texas that filed a lawsuit in 2006, just days after President Bush extended the VRA for 25 years. The Section 5 provision requires that any voting changes proposed by certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting be submitted to the Department of Justice or a federal court for approval, known as preclearance. The utility district sought to end its responsibility for having its voting changes reviewed but more significantly to have this important provision declared unconstitutional. This case is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. VOTER SUPPRESSION
GEORGIA – Lawsuit challenging Georgia's system of verifying voters' identities and citizenship that illegally purges voters from the rolls. The lawsuit charges the state with violating the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act by purging thousands of voters less than 90 days before the election and relying on a flawed database to question the citizenship of registered voters. This case is currently pending. Source:www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/36949res20080929.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 29, 2008 14:20:39 GMT 4
WOW! Bravo to U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus....No wonder the Bush administration and the DOJ wanted to clamp down on federal judges....too many rule with their conscience.....MichelleJudge rules Ohio homeless voters may list park benches as addressesTuesday, October 28, 2008 1:32 PM COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren't buildings as their addresses. U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors. Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return, Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional ballots across all Ohio counties. The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional ballots would disenfranchise some voters. Source: dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/28/ajudgerule.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 4, 2008 1:57:59 GMT 4
Your Almost-Last-Minute Guide To Your State's Voter Supression Efforts6:00 PM on Fri Oct 31 2008 By Megan With voter registration at an all-time high, turnout expected to be close to an all-time high and more than a few absent absentee ballots worrying their supposed owners, many people are concerned that that other one might yet be able to squeak out a win — due in no small part to widespread suppression efforts, voter purges and general fuck-uppery. After the jump, a guide to what's been going on in a number of swing states. (And, don't forget our advice on how not to get caught up in it.) ColoradoAfter reports surfaced that Republican Secretary of State Mike Coffman had purged tens of thousands of voters from the rolls in Colorado within the sacrosanct 90-day time period in which purges are illegal, he was sued to add the voters back in. This week, a federal court forced Coffman to not only add those voters back onto the rolls, but to grant their provisional ballots special status. When one of the purged voters files a ballot, the state has to actively prove that they don't qualify to vote or else count the ballot. FloridaThe grandmother of voter suppression efforts by the GOP, early voters are turning out in record numbers here, too, hoping to avoid a repeat of the 2000 election. Most of them say they're hoping that if their votes get screwed up, voting early will give them time to fix things. Of course, machine breakdowns and ID-verification ended up slowing the process down, which means that early voters have hurried up to stand in line anyway. Despite GOP concerns that early voting could cost them the election, Republican Governor Charlie Crist ordered early voting locations to stay open longer to accommodate the unexpected surge. GeorgiaIn a state seeing unprecedented voter turnout, particularly in African-American communities, and with scores of people voting early (as much as 40 percent of the total 2004 turnout), it's worth nothing that the Republican Secretary of State, Karen Handel, "flagged" as many as 55,000 Georgia voters for additional review prior to the election. While the courts told her to notify the 4,500 flagged for citizenship review that they were eligible to vote, there's no word on the other 50,000 people she's trying to kick off. MichiganMichigan has a system that sends newly registered voters cards to confirm their registration. Since 2006, about 5,000 of those cards were returned as undeliverable, and the state threw those voters off the rolls with no other evidence. This week, a federal appeals court ordered the state to re-enroll those voters, insisting that the state law does not require the receipt of the notification card, so the state can't declare them not registered. Those (and other voters) can still face a request for proof of residency at the polls. OhioOhio, the biggest, swingiest state of them all, has also been a hotbed of voter purges, new registration and Republican activity this year. As mentioned before, Ohio Republicans attempted to force Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to throw people off the rolls and stop allowing voters who registered after the early voting period had started to vote; Brunner declined and the Supreme Court sided with her. Bush even tried to get the Department of Justice to weigh in on it, but AG Michael Mukasey decided he didn't want to end up a Gonzales-style legal outcast and declined. Nonetheless,most observers expect that Ohio will be the biggest clusterfuck of this election season (possibly even surpassing Florida in 2000), full of legal challenges, fraud allegations, suppression allegations and general stupid political shit that has nothing to do with anything. Should be fun. PennsylvaniaThe state of Pennsylvania went to court to argue that it didn't need to provide voters with paper ballots — despite all this talk of record turn-out — unless all of the machines in a polling place fail. Judge Harvey Bartle ruled that if half of the machines in a polling place break, the state has to provide paper ballots to voters. The state decided against appealing the decision, apparently realizing that forcing voters to stand in long lines to all use one functioning machine is probably not the best plan. VirginiaThe Virginia NAACP filed a lawsuit against Democratic Governor Tim Kaine this week, alleging that the state was failing to provide enough voting machines at minority voting places and asking the judge to force them to try to keep wait times to 45 minutes. They withdrew their request for a temporary injunction yesterday after negotiations with Kaine's administration, but the lawsuit remains active. People trying to take advantage of in-person absentee voting in Northern Virginia locations like Arlington have had to wait as long as 90 minutes this week. Worse yet, an anonymous group has been distributing flyers in Democratic precincts intended to convince voters that the day for Democrats to vote in November 5th. West VirginiaAfter numerous complaints from voters that touch screens were flipping their votes for McCain, Jeff Waybright, the Jackson County clerk, attempted to explain away the errors and improperly calibrated machines. He demonstrated how it might look that way when a machine was improperly calibrated, and then calibrated the machine. It promptly failed to do what it was supposed to. So, if you live in West Virginia, review your votes carefully and take your paper record. Source:jezebel.com/5072679/your-almost+last+minute-guide-to-your-states-voter-supression-efforts
|
|