Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Election Reform, Fraud,& News Sunday 01/07/07- Well done Juanita Millender-McDonald!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 09:42 AM
Original message
Election Reform, Fraud,& News Sunday 01/07/07- Well done Juanita Millender-McDonald!
Election Reform, Fraud,& News Sunday 01/07/07
Well done Juanita Millender-McDonald


Millender-McDonald, Chairwoman of Committee on House Administration to Florida First Court of Appeal about FL-13:
"It is therefore of concern that the parties have been unable to agree upon, and that, on December 29th, the lower court declined to order the requested access to the hardware and software (including the source code) needed to test the contestant's central claim: voting machine malfunction. Now on appeal to your Court is the question of access to this evidence, which bears decisively on the prospect of conclusively establishing who was duly elected on November 7th from this Congressional district."
Letter posted by EFF:
http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/florida/houseadminletter.pdf
:patriot:


All members welcome and encouraged to participate.
Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.
If you can:
:argh:

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.
Please "Recommend" for the Greatest Page.
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. FL: House seeks evidence in election
House seeks evidence in election

Larry Lipman
Palm Beach Post
January 06, 2007
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/nation/epaper/2007/01/06/m2a_jennings_0106.html

WASHINGTON — The head of a congressional panel Friday urged a Florida appeals court to ensure that "critical evidence" is made available so the U.S. House can decide who won the disputed 13th Congressional District election.

The letter from Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, D-Calif., chairwoman of the House Administration Committee, appears to support the appeal by Democrat Christine Jennings, who is challenging the outcome of the Sarasota-area congressional race.
...
Under the U.S. Constitution, the House of Representatives makes the final determination of who will serve. Buchanan was sworn in to office Thursday, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated he could be removed depending on the outcome of Jennings' challenge.

In her letter, Millender-McDonald said she was not taking a position about the "technical merits of the competing legal arguments" before the appellate court, but said Florida could help the House decide who won by providing "access to relevant and critical evidence."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/nation/epaper/2007/01/06/m2a_jennings_0106.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. FL: House Democrats continue challenge of Fla. congressman's legitimacy
House Democrats continue challenge of Fla. congressman's legitimacy
Democrats again signaled they plan to investigate the disputed congressional race to replace Rep. Katherine Harris.


Lesley Clark
The Miami Herald
January 6, 2007
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/elections/16395712.htm

WASHINGTON - In the second move in as many days to challenge Rep. Vern Buchanan's standing as a congressman, a top House Democrat Friday sent a letter to a Florida appeals court saying she is ''concerned'' that a lower court judge declined to give Democrats access to the software used in the contested voting machines.

''This election contest, is, of course, a case of national importance,'' Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, D-Calif., chairwoman of the House Administration Committee, said in the letter addressed to the First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee.

IMPROPER INFLUENCE?

A spokesman for Buchanan's camp accused congressional Democrats of improperly looking to influence the court.

Circuit Court Judge William Gary ruled last week that Democrats had no right to inspect the secret software used in electronic voting machines in Sarasota County.

Buchanan's Democratic opponent, Christine Jennings, is challenging the election, contending in a lawsuit that the ATM-styled machines used in Sarasota malfunctioned and cost her the votes that would have propelled her to victory in November.

Jennings is contesting the court ruling at the state level and has asked for an investigation by Congress, which seated Buchanan Thursday, but not without formally noting the challenge.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/elections/16395712.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. FL: Palm Beach Editorial: Bush vs. Gore it isn't, but it still matters
Bush vs. Gore it isn't, but it still matters

Randy Schultz
Palm Beach Post Editorial Page Editor
January 07, 2007
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2007/01/07/a1e_schultzcol_0107.html

Neither Vern Buchanan nor Christine Jennings wants to acknowledge what almost certainly happened in their congressional race, because it would not be in either's interest to do so.

Combined, the two raised more than $10 million in their battle for Katherine Harris' District 13 seat. Mr. Buchanan, a car dealer, spent at least $5.5 million of his own money. Counting what all nine original candidates raised, it was the nation's most expensive House race.

After a recount, Mr. Buchanan was declared the winner by 369 votes. But there were a whopping 18,000 under-votes - no stated choice - in Sarasota County, the largest of five counties in the district. Ms. Jennings carried Sarasota by 7,000 votes, and is contesting the result. She argued in court that failures of the county's touch-screen machines, made by ES&S, cost her the election. Mr. Buchanan, who was sworn in Thursday, argues that whatever caused the under-votes, it wasn't a machine problem.

This hasn't been Bush vs. Gore, but it might have come close. Suppose that the District 13 result had been the one to determine control of the House? All the lawyers would have been back in Florida. How familiar that all sounds.
...
So it's a good bet that most of the 18,000 under-voters missed District 13 because the governor's race caught their eye first. Then they failed to check their choices before recording their vote.

Of course, if Mr. Buchanan agreed with that scenario, he would be admitting that he might have reached Congress on a fluke. If the under-votes were proportional with the votes that counted, Ms. Jennings would have won. And if Ms. Jennings agreed, she would undercut her case, since her lawsuit alleges machine error, not ballot error.

No more 'stupid voter' comments

Still, voter error from a bad ballot is just a theory. That's why Ms. Jennings deserves to win her suit that demands a review of the source code, the touch-screen machine's electronic brain.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2007/01/07/a1e_schultzcol_0107.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. Why Congress should declare Jennings winner in Florida Dist13 race and investigate malfeasance
Analysis/Audit/Affidavits of Voters showed likely machine manipulation or malfunction, as well as obvious faulty screen layout/ballot design that was biased to result in making the race harder to find/see in Jennings home area. Large numbers of voters, backed up by poll workers, described "disappearing votes" or that they could not find the race on their ballot. www.flcv.com/sarasot6.html

48 precincts had undervotes of over 20% during early voting, and 20 precincts had over 20% undervotes on election day. An additional 54 precincts had undervotes over 15% in early voting and 36 more on election day. 65% of precincts in early voting had undervotes over 15%.

Knowledgeable experts virtually all agree that it is extremely unlikely that the majority of these voters whose votes were not recorded intentionally failed to vote in this race. They also virtually all agree that these high undervotes were not likely caused by the faulty layout alone, but rather that there was likely machine error or manipulation.

An analysis using conservative assumptions shows Jennings was almost surely the preferred candidate by majority of voters and would have won the race except for machine error/manipulation

The analysis assumes 2.5% intentional undervotes in each precinct,

with surplus undervotes in each precinct beyond 2.5% spread the same as the Jennings and Buchanan vote percent in that precinct.

Under these assumptions, this results in a net additional 1103 Jennings votes and Jennings winning by over 665 votes.

The assumptions appear conservative based on undervotes on absentee ballots in Sarasota and in general for Dist 13 in neighboring Manatee County.

Also based on the fact that all reported disappearing votes were by Democratic voters, and the audit confirmed that a substantial majority of the voters with undervotes were predominantly Democratic voting voters.

spread sheet with analysis: www.flcv.com/d13panal.html

It appears that there was malfeasance and/or misfeasance by the Supervisor of Elections and poll workers regarding the clearly faulty ballot design and failure to warn voters adequately of the problems that voters were having in voting on this race. Large numbers of voters have indicated there was little if any warning regarding the problems that were being encountered and were known about from early voting experience. On some screens the District 13 race was on the same page as the Governors race which had more candidates and was highlighted, while the District 13 race was smaller and not highlighted- easy to overlook. Some voters described an even more problematic screen layout- some saying after looking for it they could not find the race at all and some saying their screen had a butterfly ballot design with the race listed on one page with Buchanan only and Jennings name listed alone on a 2nd page with no race indicated. People involved with the audit say there was more than one screen layout used, but authorities never allowed obvious and simple task of looking at each screen layout to see what the design/layout on the various machines was.

Authorities also never made a serious effort to determine what was causing the disappearing Jennings votes on the most problematic machines. It is highly likely that the machines that had undervotes over 20% had ballot definition file errors/manipulation or programming errors/manipulation that was causing the disappearing votes. The same problem has been described by voters and poll workers in many other races where touch screen machines were used in 2004 and 2006. Experts/programmers that looked at the results are in general agreement that the type of problem described by voters and poll workers was likely caused by problems with the ballot definition files or related programming of the particular machines that had disappearing votes and high undervotes. Authorities never allowed those machines to have their ballot definition files or the related programming that compiled votes checked, even though most knowledgeable experts thought that checking these would determine the reason for the disappearing votes.

Programmer/Engineer
Nonpartisan Election Protection Volunteer for several years monitoring election irregularities
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
3. FL: Contested FL-13 Result Could Lead to House Investigation
Buchanan seated amid dissent
Contested result of District 13 race could result in House investigation


Lesley Clark
Bradenton Herald
January 5, 2007
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/16387341.htm

Sarasota Rep. Vern Buchanan on Thursday secured the pin that identifies him as a member of Congress, flashed the computerized card that permits him to cast votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and was sworn into office.

But not without a serious note of dissent - and a reminder from the Democratic-run House that it may investigate the Republican's 369-vote margin of victory and 18,000 votes that weren't cast in the congressional race in Sarasota County.

As newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi prepared to swear into office the other 434 members of the House, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., an advocate for paper ballots, stood amid a chorus of boos and hisses from Republicans to formally note that Buchanan's Democratic opponent, Christine Jennings, is contesting the election and has asked Congress to intervene.

"The House remains the judge of the elections of its members," Pelosi replied from the rostrum, her tenure as speaker just minutes old. "The seating of this member-elect is entirely without prejudice to the contest over the final right to that seat . . ."
...
Democrats referred to Buchanan's seating Thursday as provisional.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/16387341.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
5. Nat: CBS: Disputed Race In Florida Shows Voting Systems Still Flawed
Ballot Battle Obscures Real Crisis
National Review: Disputed Race In Florida Shows Voting Systems Still Flawed


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/05/opinion/main2333639.shtml

Do you remember the Election Crisis of 2006? In the weeks before November 7, Democrats laid the groundwork for widespread legal challenges to voting results, readying themselves to find irregularities, voter suppression, and outright fraud in precincts across America. Activists on the left established hotlines — call 866-OUR-VOTE! — and assembled platoons of volunteer lawyers. This time, they vowed, Republicans would not get away with stealing an election.

And then Democrats won. The hotlines went quiet. The lawyers went back to work. The crisis went away.

Which left some Capitol Hill Republicans who have worked with Democrats on so-called “election reform” issues feeling a little, well, cynical. “If they lose, they assume something is wrong with the system,” says one top Senate aide. “We lose, we say we lost. We’re not going to court. Had the shoe been on the other foot, they would have been suing until the end of time.”

As it turns out, however, there is one case in which Democrats are suing, at least for now. And even though it appears they are flat wrong about the facts of the case, their objections raise serious questions that need to be resolved before 2008.

That conclusion is gaining increasing support among nearly all experts outside the Democratic party. But there is still no proof of the results that you can hold in your hands. And because of that, the controversy has put candidates, activists, election officials, and lawmakers nationwide into a quandary: After the Help America Vote Act of 2002, the government spent millions of dollars to help states install new, paperless, electronic voting machines, and those new systems have earned perhaps even less public confidence than the old paper-ballot systems. Even though Jennings’s claims were unfounded (and they were positively scientific compared with the paranoid ravings in some quarters of the Left about Diebold machines), :nopity: people in both parties are still uncomfortable about votes cast with no paper record.
...
Increasingly, it appears, the lawmakers are moving toward paper ballots. In 2007, the House will take up a bill by Democratic representative Rush Holt that would require voting machines to make a paper record. That could mean attaching a receipt printer to electronic machines, or it could mean a switch back to optical-scan paper ballots. Observers in both parties believe the Holt bill will likely pass the Democrat-controlled House, and probably emerge successfully in some form from the Democrat-controlled Senate. The question then will be whether Congress will give states money to replace the still-new electronic machines, just six years after handing out cash to buy them.

Whatever Congress decides, local election officials are already moving on their own to get rid of the electronic machines. Maryland, New Mexico, New Jersey, Connecticut, and several other states are in the process of changing their systems. Florida is looking at changes, too — and Sarasota County has already announced that it is switching to optical-scan/paper ballots for 2008. “What happened there will probably have an impact in legislatures far beyond Florida,” says Seligson.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/05/opinion/main2333639.shtml

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
6. CA: State Officials Say E-Machines "Accurate"
Calif. Electronic Voting Machines Deemed Accurate

Associated Press
January 6, 2007
http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_006170849.html

(AP) SACRAMENTO State officials say that Election Day testing showed that electronic voting machines used in California on November 7th accurately recorded votes.
:smoke:
The secretary of state's office tested machines at random in eight counties, covering all four of the types of machines currently approved for use in California.

The tests involved people who cast fake votes on the tested machines using a script.

The tests were videotaped and monitored by teams that included members of the secretary of state's staff and independent experts.

Results were checked against the script to determine the accuracy of the machines.
http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_006170849.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. CA: Voting machines can't be trusted
Voting machines can't be trusted

Editorial
Wilmington Star, CA
January 7, 2007
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070107/EDITORIAL/701070336

The electronic voting machines used in some recent American elections may not have worked right. Nobody knows for sure.

That hair-raising information has leaked out of a federal agency that's supposed to oversee the accuracy and fairness of election procedures. The Election Assistance Commission had kept it secret.

The commission concluded last summer that the company that's tested most of the country's electronic voting machines hadn't followed quality-control procedures and hadn't documented what it had done.


The feds said Ciber Inc. would be barred - but only temporarily - from approving new equipment. And equipment it already approved is out there, waiting for the next election.

This latest episode has done nothing to reassure computer scientists and others who don't trust the technology on which honest and accurate elections depend.

Skeptics say computerized vote counters can go haywire or be invaded by hackers. They cite elections in which machines wouldn't start, gave votes to the wrong candidates, or had trouble totaling votes.

Just a handful of companies is entrusted with testing the machines and the software they use. These companies operated without federal scrutiny until recently. And when the feds found a significant problem at a major testing company, they didn't tell the public.

That's hardly the way to assure the electorate that its democratic decisions are being safeguarded.
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070107/EDITORIAL/701070336
:patriot:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Rather silly given their huge problems in the past election
www.flcv.com/califor6.html
www.flcv.com/eirstss6.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
7. Nat: CoWorld: Experts say changes in e-voting likely to come
Experts say changes in e-voting likely to come
It's been a long time coming, say watchdogs, but ...


Grant Gross
Computer World
January 5, 2007
http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=standards_legal_issues&articleId=9007418&taxonomyId=146

January 05, 2007 (IDG News Service) -- Rules requiring independent audit mechanisms for electronic voting machines are likely coming, but the changes won't happen overnight, a group of advocates said Friday.
...
"We're at this point ... where I believe there's a consensus that we need to do something," said Trey Grayson, secretary of state in Kentucky. "However, the consensus is ahead of the solution."

All but one of Kentucky's counties use e-voting machines without paper trails, and many local elections officials are opposed to making big changes, Grayson said. Kentucky has used e-voting machines since the 1980s, and only recently have some state residents questioned their security and reliability, he added.

While many e-voting security critics have called for printouts to back up e-voting results, printers currently in use have encountered problems in recent elections, said Courtenay Strickland-Bhatia, president and chief executive of the Verified Voting Foundation. Some printers have jammed, and with some e-voting machines printouts weren't easily accessible for voters who wanted to double-check their votes, she said.

But e-voting machines need audit mechanisms and a "transparent" design that allows voters to understand how votes are counted, she added. Without an audit mechanism, "it simply is not possible to know if a problem has happened" in an e-voting machine, she said.

Beyond audit mechanisms, states need to require random audits of machines, added Lawrence Norden, an e-voting security researcher and associate counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. While 27 states currently require paper-trail mechanisms along with e-voting machines, only 11 states require voting officials to conduct audits matching the electronic results with the paper ones.

No e-voting machine vendors were represented at the event. In November, Michael Kerr, director of the Election Technology Council at the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), said the election generally went smoothly. The ITAA, a trade group that represents e-voting machine vendors, expects voters to adjust to the new systems that many states adopted after paper ballot problems in the 2000 presidential election, he said.
http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=standards_legal_issues&articleId=9007418&taxonomyId=146

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
8. Nat: ArsTechnica: Report outlines midterm e-voting failures
Report outlines midterm e-voting failures

John Stokes
Ars Technica.com
January 6, 2007
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070106-8563.html

A report on the November midterms released this past week by three different e-voting activist groups describes problems with electronic voting machines in 36 states. The report (PDF), entitled "E-Voting Failures in the 2006 Mid-Term Elections: A Sampling of Problems Across the Nation," is based on reports made to a non-partisan hotline that operated the day of the November 7 midterm elections. Calls to the hotline yielded 1022 separate incident reports, the vast majority of which concerned problems with direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines like the Diebold Accuvote model described in my article on how to steal an election. Problems were also reported with scanners and electronic ballot markers, but DREs made up the bulk of the complaints.

The report outlines problems at every stage of the elections process, from initial precinct set-up, to voting, to post-election ballot counting. There were 103 reports in 57 different counties of polls opening late due to voting machine problems, with some machines refusing to start and others failing to properly print the initial "zero" tape. Problems related to closing the polls accounted for 43 more reports, with lost and corrupted memory cards listed among the incidents reported.

Of the problems encountered during the actual voting process, perhaps the most dramatic and puzzling category is the so-called "vote flipping," in which a voter attempts to select one candidate but finds that the opposing candidate's ballot is checked, either on the voting screen or on a summary screen.

The report puts to rest the commonly held belief that screen calibration problems could account for all of the reported instances of vote flipping. Some of the offending machines were not touchscreen models—voters used a selection wheel to make their choices. In other cases, the voters would make a touchscreen selection for one slate of candidates, only to have the summary screen (and in some cases the paper tape) report that half or more of the selections had been flipped.

Notably, there were reports of vote-flipping in the hotly contested FL-13 race in Sarasota County, FL. Most recently in the legal contest over that disputed race, a federal judge has declined the Jennings camp's demands to see the source code to the voting machines used. (In effect, the judge has declared that America's citizens are not allowed to see how the votes were counted in this very close race, because to reveal that information would violate the voting machine company's "trade secrets.")
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070106-8563.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Nat: Report: VotersUnite 01/07 Report on 2006 E-Voting Failures
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. Documentation on widespread switching, disappearing votes, compiler "glitches" in 2006 election
www.flcv.com/eirstss6.html

www.votersunite.org

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
11. IN: Republicans hail ruling upholding voter ID law
Republicans hail ruling upholding voter ID law

The Herald Argus, IN
January 6, 2006
http://heraldargus.com/archives/ha/display.php?id=368019

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- Republicans hailed a federal court ruling upholding Indiana’s voter ID law as a victory for voting reforms, while opponents of the law planned their next move.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled 2-1 Thursday that Indiana’s law, which requires voters to show a photo ID at the polls, has the potential to do more good than harm.

The Republican-controlled Legislature approved the law in 2005, saying it would help prevent voter fraud. But the Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union say the law unfairly affects people who may struggle to obtain a photo ID.

Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, said he was disappointed with the ruling by the three-judge panel.

“I have not spoken with my clients yet, but I’m going to recommend a rehearing before the entire 7th Circuit,” he said Thursday.

The three-judge panel questioned arguments that Indiana’s rule is unfair to poor, elderly, minority and disabled voters, and pointed out that opponents could not find anyone unable to cast a ballot under the new law.
...
Judge Terence T. Evans dissented with the majority opinion, which affirms an earlier decision of U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Evans said there was no evidence of voter fraud in Indiana that could be avoided with the photo ID law.

“Let’s not beat around the bush,” Evans wrote. “The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.”

http://heraldargus.com/archives/ha/display.php?id=368019
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. MS: NAACP Right on Voter IB
NAACP Right on Voter ID

Letter to the Editor
Laurel Leader-Call, MS
January 3, 2007
http://www.leadercall.com/cnhi/leadercall/opinion/local_story_003092438.html

The Dec. 31, “Letter to the Editor” concerning the NAACP’s stance on legislation requiring photo identification for federal elections made interesting observations. Although the author was right to spot (what he views as) contradictions, his analysis of the issue is incomplete. I propose that the NAACP is right on this issue for several reasons not mentioned in the letter.

First, the author stated “... the NAACP et al have not considered ‘fraud’ a weighty problem. ...” Correctly so! Many political analysts and reports from polling investigations themselves have stated that voter fraud is such a small problem in the United States that the legislation is not necessary. Several politicians have outright said that voter fraud is not a problem in the U.S.

Not many people are making the effort to steal their neighbor’s bills to vote, when so few people vote anyway. Nevertheless, this alone is not enough to oppose the legislation.

What is the cost of passing this legislation?

Political organizations across the nation have come out against this legislation because it disenfranchises certain groups of voters. People don’t have a problem with “identifying themselves.” People who don’t have photo ID can’t. It may be hard to believe, but numerous people in the U.S. don’t have photo ID and the majority of people are the elderly, black or poor — most often a combination of the three.

The number one form of photo ID in this country is a driver’s license, which people who cannot afford a car or don’t drive have no use for. The NAACP would be against such measures because overwhelmingly black voters would be disenfranchised, and the legislation would amount to a poll tax. Voters who want to vote but don’t have photo ID would be required to purchase one.
...
I do think that it is a problem that people in the United States don’t have photo ID, but it seems odd that our legislators would attempt to correct this problem by punishing those attempting to participate in the most important aspect of our democracy.
http://www.leadercall.com/cnhi/leadercall/opinion/local_story_003092438.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Election fraud and manipulation(by officials & manufacturers) is the problem, not voter fraud
widespread touch screen manipulation and glitches
www.flcv.com/eirstss6.html

widespread voter suppression and manipulation
www.flcv.com/eirsppp6.html

widespread systematic illegal dirty tricks by party operatives
www.flcv.com/eirsdt6.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
13. NY: Don't rush into new machines
Don't rush into new machines
State's voting changeover should be moved from '07 to'09.


Bo Lipari
Star-Gazette
January 7, 2007
http://www.star-gazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070107/OPINION03/701070308/1004

It is now all but official that New York state's current plan to replace lever voting machines by September is not going to happen. Certification testing of new voting systems has been delayed because of the vendors' inability to meet New York's rigorous standards and their irresponsible practice of submitting continuous bug fixes and changes, requiring that testing be continually restarted.

On Dec. 18, the New York State Board of Elections announced at a meeting of county commissioners of elections that the state will undoubtedly miss the September deadline but did not elaborate on what plan might replace the current one.

It is time for New York to discuss alternatives. But simply delaying it one more year until 2008 won't do. I propose that New York state must delay any introduction of new voting machines until at least 2009.
http://www.star-gazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070107/OPINION03/701070308/1004

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. "2009 a safer target."
How about moving it from '09 to never? That would make it safer still.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
14. OpEdNews: The Single Greatest Threat to the Media Reform Movement : Electronic Election Theft
The Single Greatest Threat to the Media Reform Movement : Electronic Election Theft

Andi Novick
Northeast Citizen for Responsible Media
OpEdNews.com
January 7, 2006

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_andi_nov_070106_the_single_greatest_.htm

Dear Friends,

This is longer than some of you like, but I believe the issue of electronic voting fraud is the most important issue for each and everyone of us. This, the singularly greatest crime of our history, is largely being blacked out by main stream media. Hence it is the responsibility of your friendly grass roots media reform organization to bring this to you and get this on everyone's priority radar screen and fast. We only have this small window <2007> to fight back before we lose what unfortunately is our best shot- the weak, dare I say, opposition party presently in the majority.

There's a lot in here and I would not have taken the time to compile this if I didn't believe how essential this fight is so take the length in stride and trust that some things are important enough that you can't get it all out in a paragraph or two.

You may think I'm suffering from my-issue-is-more-important-than-your-issue arrogance, but our system of government relies on our ability to elect representatives to govern us. No matter how important all our other issues are, they are subsumed by the massive theft which has occurred in the last few elections and the huge potential for 2008 to be rigged and returned to the uniparty. Clearly issues like media reform and clean elections are integral to the lack of good candidates because the forces of money in both instances keep out the best people for the job, but if the vote total is sufficiently manipulated, we can impact nothing.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_andi_nov_070106_the_single_greatest_.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC