Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News February 14 ,2006 Thanks!!! auto;)

[autorank]

Thank you for the Hearts!!! A little surprise above;)

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News February 14 ,2006

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.

Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.

1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.
2. Post stories using the "Election Fraud and Reform News Sources" listed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x371233
3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.
4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.

If you want to know how post "News Banners" or other images, go here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=371233#371391



Previous daily threads are available here:
http://www.independentmediasource.com/DU_archives/du_2004erd_el_ref_fr_thr_calenders.htm
Please

"Recommend"

for the Greatest

[autorank]

1. FL: Volusia County, Scene of the Crime—Can’t Upgrade Machines Says Jeb &

FL: Volusia County, Scene of the Crime—Can’t Upgrade Machines Says Jeb & Co.
Florida state officials “never certified a handicapped accessible machine” with a paper trail. But they did certify Diebold. Guess what, it’s the only alternative. Wonderful. They shove a hack-ready machine down everybody’s throat and then use the handicapped voters to take the blame. It’s the Bush-Florida way.




EDITORIAL Print This Page | E-Mail This Article | Subscribe
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/opnOPN35021306.htm

February 13, 2006

County Council's against wall in paper-ballot fight

Volusia County leaders find themselves backed into a corner. They want to provide handicapped-accessible voting machines that produce a voter-verifiable paper record of each vote. But they can't, because Florida officials never certified a handicapped accessible machine capable of creating a paper trail.

The state's failure to find a suitable machine is baffling. Twenty-five other states require paper ballots or a valid paper record of votes cast on electronic machines -- for all voters, including those with handicaps. Florida could have made the same commitment to election integrity.

Instead, the Legislature outlawed hand recounts even in counties like Volusia, where officials insisted on retaining paper ballots. And it wrote standards for handicapped-accessible machines that stymie local officials who want paper ballots.

Why?

[Kurovski]

10. Buncha big jerks.

[autorank]

2. Haiti: US Run election: Controversial outcome, questioned results, hidde

Does any of this sound familiar. Election results are delayed when the White House preferred candidate is losing? Election results are questioned when the opposition candidate falls a percentage point or two below the required victory margin. Congratulations to the Bush administration for outsourcing our election process and model.

Demonstrations break out in Haiti as vote counting questioned

12:1430 EST Feb 13, 2006
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060213/w021342.html
STEVENSON JACOBS

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (AP) - Supporters of presidential front-runner Rene Preval erected roadblocks Monday to demand he be declared the winner of Haiti's elections as results showed his lead slipping further below the 50 per cent needed to avoid a runoff.
With about 90 per cent of the vote counted, Preval, who enjoys wide support from Haiti's poor, was leading with 48.7 per cent of the vote, Haiti's electoral council said on its website. His nearest opponent was Leslie Manigat - like Preval a former president - who had 11.8 per cent.
Two members of Haiti's electoral council on Sunday questioned vote counting procedures, while throngs of Preval supporters poured into the streets, chanting allegations of fraud.
Electoral council member Pierre Richard Duchemin said he was being denied his rightful access to information about the tabulation process and called for an investigation.

[autorank]

3. NC: Are we reduced to thiNC: Are we reduced to this.s.

Talk about passive aggressive. The machine manufacturers, forced to generate a paper ballot, are generating a lousy one. Now we’re having a debate over the durability of the paper ballots produced by the lousy machine. We are entering into the “silly season” of our political and social history. We can’t even figure out how to generate a free and fair election. We are letting the least of us generate catastrophe for the most.

County commissioners to discuss new voting machines

02/13/06
By: News 14 Carolina Staff
http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlines/?ArID=80414&SecID=2

(RALEIGH) -- Voting machines are back on the table Monday in Wake County.

Commissioners delayed approving federal funding for new voting equipment last week because a small portion of the money would be used to buy two touch-screen machines.

The delay gave commissioners time to talk about alternatives to buying the machines.

Critics say they don't think the paper receipt the machines print will stand up to a hand recount.

[autorank]

4. MD: Maryland About to Get Real Election Transparency

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/021306Schade.shtml

STATE NEWS:
<3>Maryland Moving Toward Reliable Voting System
Legislature and Civic Groups United for Voter Verified Paper Ballot Legislation SB713 filed, with 23 co-sponsors Coalition for paper ballot increases to 23 statewide organizations

SOURCE: Linda Schade, Executive Director http://TrueVoteMD.org

02/13/06

Maryland is on the verge of enacting legislation that will ensure transparent elections that voters can trust. When HB 244/SB713 becomes law Maryland will move from a state with the least secure and least transparent election system to a state with one of the most secure and transparent systems

Today, the Senate version of the ‘paper trail’ bill (SB713) was filed with 23 co-sponsors of both parties, with 24 needed for a majority vote. All members of the Senate Committee responsible for election issues support the bill. On the House side, Delegates are expressing confidence that HB244 will pass in a near unanimous vote. Civic organizations covering a wide range of interests support voter verified paper ballot legislation.

“Maryland is on the verge of enacting legislation that will ensure transparent elections that voters can trust. When HB 244/SB713 becomes law Maryland will move from a state with the least secure and least transparent election system to a state with one of the most secure and transparent systems,” said Bob Ferraro of TrueVoteMD.org.

Linda Schade of TrueVoteMD.org added “The widespread support for this bill in Maryland – inside the legislature and out – shows the state has come together in support of the basic proposition that voters should be able to trust that their votes are counted as case. We applaud Delegate Hixson and Senator Hollinger for showing leadership on this issue.”

<snip>

(Here’s a list ofi organizations supporting the Maryland initiative. Pretty impressive coalition! Congratulations! TrueVote.Org, you rock.}

American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland
American Council of the Blind of Maryland (ACBM)
Anne Arundel Peace Action
Baltimore Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance
Common Cause Maryland
Democracy for Maryland
League of Women Voters of Maryland
Maryland Area Guide Dog Users, Inc.
Maryland Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities
Maryland Christians for Justice and Peace
Maryland Green Party
Maryland National Organization of Women (NOW)
Maryland Public Interest Research Group (MaryPIRG)
Maryland Populist Party
Montgomery County Progressive Alliance
NAACP – all Maryland branches and chapters
Prince George’s County Civic Federation
Progressive Democrats of America – Maryland chapter
Progressive Maryland
Republican Women of Anne Arundel County
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1199
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Maryland and DC State Council
Sierra Club – Maryland chapter
Southern Maryland Council of the Blind, and
TrueVoteMD.org

[autorank]

5. MD: MD’s TrueVoteMD.org Fights back against disinformation—a great resour

This is a great resource for any voting rights activists regardless of your location.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/021306Schade.shtml

Corrections to Testimony of Opponents of HB244

To augment information provided for the February 1, 2006 Ways and Means hearing on HB244, TrueVoteMD offers the following documented corrections to a number of inaccuracies in opponent testimony.
www.TrueVoteMD.org.

# Significant Understatement of Costs of Current Diebold Voting System: The State Board of Elections (SBE) testified that the operating budget for the current Diebold system is ‘under one million dollars a year’. TrueVoteMD has attached correspondence from the Department of Budget & Management, which clearly states that annual operations and maintenance costs for the Diebold system $5 million in 2005 and $9 million in 2006. It also shows lease payments for the Diebold system at $9 million in 2005 and nearly $6 million in 2006.<1> Recommendation: The State and legislators should consider a full audit of the SBE’s budget and expenditures so an independent evaluation of the system costs can be made.

# Inflated Fiscal Note Costs and the claim that TrueVoteMD did not account for devices for the disabled in our cost estimates: Ms. Lamone testified that an op-scan system would cost $55 million. Our estimate - $24 million - is based on what other states have paid for optical scanners and accessible ballot-marking devices—approximately $5,000 per machine.<2> TrueVote’s cost charts do, in fact, include ballot-marking devices for the disabled in the same quantity the state currently provides: one per polling place. While we have no objection to providing two accessible machines per polling place, as the fiscal note stipulates, legislators should be aware that this doubles our current accessibility standard for no apparent reason except to inflate the fiscal note. Please see our cost comparison charts and a more detailed commentary on this year’s fiscal note.<3>

Recommendation: Revise fiscal note with improved data to more accurately reflect costs.

[autorank]

6. IA: Absurdity in HAVA requirements for new machines.

They’re pissed off. The essential point is missed, namely that all voting machines are unacceptable when they are not fully transparent. But it’s a fun read anyway, hilarious actually.



Published: February 13, 2006 11:39 am

Placing blame where it belongs
Clinton Herald Editorial

http://www.clintonherald.com/opinion/local_story_044113919.html?keyword=topstory


Thanks to the federal Help America Vote Act, a response to the Florida mess of 2000, state election officials were charged with defining and enforcing election equipment standards. In Iowa, Secretary of State Chet Culver — now a candidate for governor — decided each county would need to own and operate optical scan equipment.

Not only did that render useless Clinton County’s voting machines — only a few years old and in perfect condition — it also forced the county into spending more than $380,000 on new equipment, with only a $278,500 federal government allocation to do so.

<snip>

It all starts to add up, and we’re still stuck with a bunch of perfectly good voting machines that haven’t come close to being used long enough to offset their purchase price.

Perhaps the county can donate them to local high schools for ultra-secure homecoming queen and student council elections, then write off the cost as a charitable contribution.

[autorank]

7. GA: Famed Civil Rights Lawyer Reminds us the Movement isn’t Over

Read the last paragraph of this article. The 75 year old Gray has been fighting for civil and voting rights for years. There are huge obstacles and they are intertwined with race, something we need to remember.




Posted on Fri, Feb. 10, 2006

Man of civil action
Famed civil rights lawyer Fred Gray gives keynote address at CSU

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/local/13834272.htm
BY MARK RICE
Staff Writer

During his laudatory introduction Thursday of renowned civil rights lawyer Fred Gray, Columbus State University's minority affairs coordinator Bernard McCrary called Gray's visit a "monumental" day for the university.

After all, in 50 years of trying to destroy discrimination, the Alabama attorney has represented legendary clients, including Rosa Parks, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and the plaintiffs in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.

<snip>

"We've been able to do away with the overt laws that provided for segregation," he said. "We now have thousands of persons of color who hold elected office across the nation, and even more thousands who hold appointed positions because of these elected positions.

"But in recent days, in the last week (in Alabama), we've had nine churches burn. Even the decisions coming forth from the Supreme Court now are more restrictive in terms of protecting the rights of individuals, including women, than they used to be. We have developed a whole federal system of judges who are primarily white, young, rich and male. And if we're not careful, many of the rights that we have obtained in this country over the last 50 years, we will lose them."

[autorank]

8. Hackett Screwed...Again. Wildly popular victim of election fraud nixed

Hey ERD, Elections, whatever we're called lately;) (call us anything, just call us!)

The Hackett election was a real time exercise of research applied to a controversial election.

Remember that, you worked very hard. Hackett received information from DU electronically and in person.

Look at these threads. They're great.

Just got this email from Hackett, I hope this means he is back... (Rosebud)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=388159

Hackett won 38 of 191 Clermont precincts but lost ALL of the 54 largest (TIA)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=387600

Spot the trend: Clermont Precinct Turnout vs. Vote (TIA)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=387772

question - do you think the Hackett election was stolen? (garybeck)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=390587

"Scoop" Independent Media article (autorank)
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00186.htm

And there were any more.

There were people from all over sending Hackett information, making suggestions, delivering things to him...a huge effort was made by DUers to help him understand the nastiness that is Ohio politics before, during and after the election.

Now, look what it gets you when you're one of the REALLY HOT candidates who can deliver the message we all love and the country needs: you get stabbed in the back (calls made by Senate leaders to your funding sources saying, don't give...is this what they mean by "a grateful nation."




HACKETT FORCED OUT
http://www.ohiohonestelections.org/
<snip>

“For me, this is a second betrayal,” Mr. Hackett said. “First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me.” Mr. Hackett was the first Iraq war veteran to seek national office, and the decision to steer him away from the Senate race has surprised those who see him as a symbol for Democrats who oppose the war but want to appear strong on national security.”

“Alienating Hackett is not just a bad idea for the party, but it also sends a chill through the rest of the 56 or so veterans that we’ve worked to run for Congress,” said Mike Lyon, executive director for the Band of Brothers, a group dedicated to electing Democratic veterans to national office. “Now is a time for Democrats to be courting, not blocking, veterans who want to run.”

“It boils down to who we think can pull the most votes in November against DeWine,” said Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. “And in Ohio, Brown’s name is golden. It’s just that simple.” Mr. Fern added that Mr. Brown’s fund-raising abilities made him the better Senate candidate. By the end of last year, Mr. Brown had already amassed $2.37 million, 10 times what Mr. Hackett had raised.”

“Mr. Hackett said he was unwilling to run for the Congressional seat because he had given his word to three Democratic candidates that he would not enter that race. “The party keeps saying for me not to worry about those promises because in politics they are broken all the time,” said Mr. Hackett, who plans to return to his practice as a lawyer in the Cincinnati area. “I don’t work that way. My word is my bond.”

===============================================

Paul made them nervous...bold, strong, tells THE truth, AND THE PEOPLE LOVED HIM.

He won three rural counties in SW Ohio, bordering Kentucky by 60%-40%.

Those were carried by Republicans for decades by 70%

This guy was the real dea. Hope he hooks up with Fitrakis!;)

[Kurovski]

9. Recommended with love.

[Wilms]

11. PA: e-Vote purchase blocked - Judge: Westmoreland must hold referendum

Voting machine purchase blocked

Judge: Westmoreland must hold referendum

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

By Tracie Mauriello and Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

HARRISBURG -- Westmoreland County cannot buy electronic voting machines unless voters say they want them, Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini ruled yesterday in a case with statewide implications.

That means that in the May primary, the county likely will use paper ballots for U.S. Senate candidates and lever machines for local and state races, unless the state Supreme Court overturns the ruling.

Appeals are expected.

snip

Westmoreland will have to use paper ballots for federal elections until voters choose another HAVA-compliant system, Judge Pellegrini wrote. The old lever machines can still be used for state and municipal elections, which are not subject to the federal law.

County officials expect to meet today to discuss their options, which include asking Pennsylvania congressmen to extend the federal deadline for new voting machines. There isn't time to hold a referendum before the primary, Westmoreland County Commissioner Phil Light said yesterday.

Witnesses for the county and state testified in court last week that they didn't think a referendum was necessary because they believed the federal requirement for new voting machines would pre-empt the state constitution.

Not so, Judge Pellegrini wrote.

"It has never been an impossibility to comply with HAVA and still follow state laws at the same time," he wrote. "It just requires that two different types of voting mechanisms or systems be used."

snip

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06045/654962.stm


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412826

[Wilms]

12. Illinois Certification - a Recipe for Disaster?

Illinois Certification - a Recipe for Disaster?

February 13, 2006

by Robert A. Wilson, Illinois Ballot Integrity Project

Huge rebuttal to an article.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_robert_a_060213_illinois_certificati.htm

[Wilms]

16. Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412881

[Wilms]

13. Testimony Regarding NASED FVSS ITA FEC VSSB NIST EAC TGDC

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS R. WILKEY
FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
CHAIR, NASED VOTING SYSTEMS BOARD

BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
UNITED STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE

JUNE 24,2004

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee;

I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the work that has been done by the National Association of State Election Directors ( NASED) with regards to the selection of Independent Test Authorities (ITA) and it's program to encourage states to adopt Federal Voting System Standards and utilize test reports which have been issued by these ITA's.

My involvement in the development of the Federal Voting System Standards began several years before NASED became an official organization. Several of my collegues worked with me on an Advisory panel in assisting the FEC in the development of the first set of voluntary Standards in 1990.

These standards were developed over a 5 year period( 1985-1990) and the initial drafts were contracted to the late Robert Naegele of Granite Creek Technology who had for many years, worked in the area of voting system testing for the State of California.

snip

At the outset, a handbook was developed by Bob Naegele which was utilized as a check list for prospective laboratories, outlining the necessary personnel and equipment to do the work. The handbook was revised several years ago and a copy has been provided to the committee. Mr. Steve Freeman, who joins me on the panel today is here to briefly outline the steps taken to qualify a test laboratory as he has been involved in this task for NASED and has received training under the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to do so in future evaluations.

snip

NASED's involvement in the development of the 2002 standards was twofold:
In the late 1990's NASED requested that the FEC provide funding for the revisions that NASED thought were needed, based on the testing and evaluation that had been done over the past several years and the fact that the standards were now nearly ten years old. New technology and issues, not considered in the original standards needed to be addressed.

The FEC acted on our request and authorized a contract with Mantec Inc to conduct a needs assessment and evaluation to determine if the project indeed needed to be done and if so, the scope of the work to be done.

As a result of the needs assessment, the FEC awarded a contract to AMS Consulting to draft the revised standards and prepare them for a series of public comment periods required by federal law. NASED's contribution to the project included the involvement of NASED's Voting System Standards Board as members of an ad hoc advisory group to review the document and make suggestions for improvement. The 2002 Standards were released in the fall of that year.

snip

First, there is a misconception that NASED "certifies" voting systems. NASED's role is solely to review and qualify prospective ITA"s and provide for the review of reports by it's technical sub-committee, before they are sent to the vendors and ultimately to state ITA's and others designated by the states to receive and review same.

NASED, through it's secretariat, who for many years has been the Election Center, has placed on its websites, information regarding systems which had been qualified under the standards, so that states and local jurisdictions, particularly those who had no formal certification process, can know that a system has met the voluntary federal voting system requirements. This secretariat role was turned over to the Election Assistance Commission in November 2003.

snip

NASED has worked closely since January of 2003 with NIST on the transition of this program to the Technical Guidelines Development Committee under the Election Assistance Commission. Regular meetings will hopefully provided for a smooth transition, and the eventual reevaluation of ITA's by the EAC and NIST, and the consideration of other issues which we have dealt with as part of our program.

snip

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/ets04/jun24/wilkey.htm


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412829

[Wilms]

14. AEI-Brookings discussion video and transcripts are now available

A Brookings-AEI Election Reform Project Briefing
Brookings and the American Enterprise Institute Launch Joint Election Reform Project

Wednesday, February 08, 2006


# Senator Obama's address, video.
http://media.brookings.edu/MediaArchive/20060208_ElectionReform_Keynote.mwv

# Senator Obama's address, transcript.
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20060208obama.pdf

# Panels, transcript.
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20060208panels.pdf


http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20060208.htm


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412872

[Wilms]

15. AZ: Lawmakers reject hand count of votes

Lawmakers reject hand count of votes

Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.14.2006

PHOENIX — State lawmakers won't mandate a manual check of election results despite questions about the accuracy of voting machines.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee refused Monday to adopt legislation requiring a hand count of ballots cast in at least 5 percent of all precincts in the state, to be compared to the count of those same ballots by optical scanners.

If there were a significant disparity between the tallies, a full hand recount would have been required.

snip

State law requires a recount when the results are within certain margins. But that law spells out that the recount, like the original vote, is done with scanners.

In this case, the machine recount turned up nearly 500 additional votes, changing the outcome of the race.

Most Judiciary Committee members were swayed by arguments about the proposal's practicality.

snip

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/115771


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412875