Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bo Lipari's Deceit on Voice of the Voters

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
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 04:56 AM
Original message
Bo Lipari's Deceit on Voice of the Voters


Bo Lipari's Deceit on Voice of the Voters

by Rady Ananda

July 2, 2008

Last night, Bo Lipari hosted Voice of the Voters covering the story I broke about New York's failed certification process of "modern" voting systems. He used his platform to deceive listeners, deliberately providing disinformation that would otherwise bolster his untenable support of software driven voting systems. His misrepresentations also serve to undermine potential litigation being pursued in New York.

New York has been court-ordered to employ software-driven disabled-accessible voting devices in the September 2008 election. The New York State Board of Elections (SBOE) has accepted systems that fail to perform in local tests.

Lipari made two serious misstatements, misrepresentations, or outright lies, one at the top of the hour when he introduced the program. Attorney Andi Novick immediately called the station requesting his first misstatement be corrected. Although Lipari had a full minute at the end of the show, after John Gideon's Daily Voting News report, instead of correcting himself, he unexpectedly threw the final minute back at John, who stumbled briefly to fill the remaining time.

snip

When Andi Novick wrote Mary Ann Gould who heads Voice of the Voters, she stated:

Bo's insisting that the highest court in the land ruled that levers are not HAVA compliant ... is a common misrepresentation that's been made to county election commissioners who don't want to switch to computerized voting systems to keep them quiet. They've been told the federal court ruled that levers aren't compliant.

Bo referred to the court's ruling that "we're stuck with" several times during the hour... Bo made it sound like not only did the court rule but an appeal wasn't even possible. He misrepresented that the so called ruling came from the highest court in the land, from which therefore there is no appeal. All of that is shameful.

The litigation I'm planning on bringing asks the court to declare that voting on concealed software is unconstitutional- which would be great to have such a ruling in this country. And it asks the court to declare that, now that NY is installing BMDs, levers are HAVA compliant.

snip

This is exactly the sort of deception tactics we are fighting in NY; this is exactly the sort of deception that computerized voting vendors employ, as detailed in these three well researched collections of deceptive practices:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bo-Lipari-s-Deceit-on-...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-04-08 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. but that isn't what he said
I found the audio here: http://www.voiceofthevotersarchive.org/VV061808.mp3

What he said was that anyone who thinks NY can keep its levers is "gonna have to tell it to the judge. Because at the moment the highest court in the land which has ruled on HAVA and lever machines has said that HAVA requires lever machines be replaced." As far as I can tell, that's true.

Can that be appealed? Sure. Hope springs eternal. Is there any excuse for these folks misquoting Lipari? None that I can see. Maybe they just weren't listening very closely.

I have no idea what to make of this: "They've been told the federal court ruled that levers aren't compliant." Well, yeah. Sharpe has said very explicitly that New York has to move forward with replacing lever machines by the fall 2009 primary and general elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-04-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It seems Rady and Andi heard what Bo wanted everyone to hear.
I heard...barely through the terrible audio quality...Bo make the reference twice, "the highest court in the land which..." and "the highest court in the land that..."

Tell me, Mark, what do you think when you hear, "the highest court in the land"? Also, please tell me if you know, why he may have chosen that phrase. Was there a lower court ruling??? That, I suppose, could be used as an excuse.

Listen to his tone as he says "gonna have to tell it to the judge". Actually, telling it to a judge is exactly what is planned. And Bo probably knows that. Would Bo tell the voters that? And if not, why not? He advocates challenging the judge's timetable...so why dis others who are troubled by and challenging the decision.

Bo also expresses surprise that the ImageCast software can't accommodate NYC ballot styles. Reminding the listener that he's a software engineer he can't believe the vendor wouldn't have taken greater care. Wow! The industry is built-on revision after revision of product and he's surprised!

And while Bo is satisfied with the judges decision to retire levers, he goes on to be critical of the judge not caring that Optical Scans are melting-down nation-wide. I know you can OTOH that to death (I could, too) but you'll appreciate the conflict represented.

Sure sounds like Bo mis-leading the voters. Were it not his intent, he might consider being more careful.

Why, oh why, would anyone assume Bo Lipari being disingenuous or manipulative? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-05-08 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Correction: It was ES&S AutoMark failing to provide for NYC ballot styling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-05-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. that interpretation doesn't make a lot of sense to me
I think most people know that a U.S. district court isn't the Supreme Court. They may not be sure how many levels there are in between, but I don't know who would confuse it for the highest court in the land. So if Bo had been trying to fool listeners, he could have done a better job.

My impression was that he was trying to underscore that the need to get rid of lever machines isn't a matter of his personal interpretation of HAVA, it has been laid down by a federal judge. Clearly he expects that position to stand. Frankly, I do too. Maybe Novick has a more compelling legal theory than I've seen so far.

Maybe I can comment on the rest of this later -- I have to drive some munchkins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. If you want to listen to the show the link you posted above changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-04-08 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. NYVV has a problem with levers. No one knows why exactly.
Edited on Fri Jul-04-08 11:52 PM by Bill Bored
Apparently they consider the risk of insecure (but recountable) paper ballots (counted mostly by computers), to be lower than that of the generally more trustworthy and transparent (but non-recountable) mechanical election-night counts provided by the levers.

Rather than have to think too much about the ramifications of this and the history of NY elections and election law, where recounts have historically been virtually impossible to obtain for ballot security reasons, they cite what they perceive as the Federal court's orders to get rid of the levers.

I think this is because it removes any cognitive dissonance about the issue. It's a lot easier than having to actually weigh the risks of levers vs. e-vote counting rationally. (This also assumes there is nothing more sinister going on, which I have no reason to think there is -- except for the fact that elections are involved.)

Barring any collusion with the dark forces intent on causing electoral chaos in our republic, or worse, NYVV's thinking appears to be:
    Even if we didn't want to get rid of the levers (because of the other more serious inherent problems with any software-based vote counting system that might replace them), we HAVE to get rid of the levers because someone who works for the Federal Government said we have to, and because NY accepted a lot of money to pay for it. If we think about this too much, we might decide that this is a bad idea, so it's a lot easier to just choose between DREs and Optical Scan systems. We can worry about whether the State will actually allow recounts of paper ballots, how anyone will know that a recount should be done, how the paper ballots will be kept secure, and whether any of this is legal or constitutional in NY -- later. Right now, the important thing is to make sure we get rid of the levers because they're not "auditable" and the US Government is paying us to do so.

I may have oversimplified this a little and I certainly can't speak for NYVV or Bo Lipari. But this seems to me to be the only quasi-rational way of explaining their behavior with respect to lever machines.

Levers may also represent an existential threat to NYVV, since there would be no need for advocacy in favor of recountable systems if the levers were retained for the forseeable future. This may be one reason why Lipair is starting to focus on other aspects of election integrity such as the statewide voter registration database. That's all well and good, but it's no reason to do away with levers if there is nothing comparable to replace them with.

Does this make sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-05-08 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I think the suggestion you made last week made as much sense.

"Sometimes I think those who want to get rid of lever machines must have had one dropped on their foot or something!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-05-08 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Yeah well, they are kind of heavy. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-05-08 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I think a good explanation is that Bo & Co are heavily invested in their mantra.
I've complained about trademarks before. Here, we have NYVV that started out before anyone read HAVA and realized that there is no place in that document where levers are banned. But by the time word got out, a lot of groups and individuals had their business cards printed. Plus, it's easier to push for scanners than to advocate for lever retention in such an ignorant (congress, press, election officials) environment. Add to that what little fun there is in saying you were wrong. So to defend his stance, Bo now has to hide behind an agreement...not a ruling...made against the state by a judge in a case brought by the Bush DoJ. Nice.

Talk about lying with dogs, or just lying, period.

Trademarks are bad. They are like being really drunk and getting a tattoo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bolipari Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-05-08 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
8. Bo'd Response To Defamatory Article
The article posted by Rady Ananda is false, defamatory, and misrepresents what I said on the Voice of the Voter radio show on July 2, 2008. Im angry and surprised that a fellow advocate would post such a defamatory post, and that a website which is supposed to celebrate activism would publish it.

What I said on the radio show is accurate and I stand by it- that currently, the highest Court in the land that has ruled on lever machines and HAVA, the US District Court of the Northern District, has stated unequivocally that lever machines must be replaced by 2009. There is a Court order that is clear, and statements made by the judge are clear, and the NYS Board of Elections is complying with the order. As currently no other court in the nation has issued an opinion about lever machines and HAVA, I stand by the statements I made on the radio program - that the highest court in the land that has issued an opinion says lever machines must go. We can nit pick the meaning of Court Order vs. Court Ruling, but the outcome is the same the Court says no more lever machines.

The other issue Rady notes about a question from Dennis Karius is also false. The question has been posed to me by Mr. Karius in many forms over the last two weeks, and he has been answered repeatedly on the phone and by email, and on NYVVs private email list, of which Mr. Karius is a member. In response to his question to the VOV radio, I sent a Mr. Karius an email (which was copied to the radio producers as well) answering, yet again his question. So the question was, as they say in Court, asked and answered. I note also that Mr. Karius question, about a potential hand count in Ulster County, had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the show are NYs machines ready for prime time.

I have been attacked constantly since January by activists, almost all of whom are from outside New York State, who believe that NYVVs decision to work for paper ballots and optical scanners in NY was flawed. They are welcome to their opinion, but the attacks on me, which have culminated in this insulting piece on OpEd news, is beyond the pale. How sad that you would waste time and energy attacking someone who has done nothing but work for election integrity for over five years.

-Bo Lipari

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bernesebernese Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-05-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Some Context is Required Here
As a member of NYVV and a strong believer in voting integrity, I find the unsupported malicious attack on Bo Lipari and on NYVV and, by analogy, on a large group of voting integrity activists in New York State (including the League of Women Voters) to be appalling and disgusting.

There are valid arguments pro and con the choice of paper ballots counted by hand versus the choice of paper ballots counted by precinct based optical scanners versus the use of lever machines. There are safeguards and procedures that can make each of these systems more secure. There are ways to use these systems that makes that system insecure and inaccurate. There are also reality issues that come into play in making a decision. Favoring or not favoring one system over the other does not make the advocate a bad person or a saint.

Having said that, some context needs to be provided here because the authors of these attacks (and probably many of the readers of this forum) were not there when this all started. At the time NYVV was formed, New York State was, in the words of a voting machine vendor, "a DRE state" (in other words, the change to 100% touch-screen electronic voting machines in NYS was seen to be inevitable). Those who have memories will recall that at this time in our recent history, the United States was fast becoming a touch screen electronic voting country and there was virtually no support in the media or in politics for anything other than touch screen DRE's. Advocates for the use of voter-marked paper ballots were laughed at and derided. Electronic touch screen voting was "the future", "the cutting edge" and anyone who advocated for paper was a Luddite at best or an advocate for voter fraud at worst. In NYS (and likely elsewhere) the Democratic Party, its elected officials, and many other "progressive" organizations in great part either advocated touch screen electronic voting or were silent. Advocates for people with disabilities railed against any use of paper ballots as discriminatory and a barrier to their right to vote.

Initially, in, I believe, late 2004, the NY State Assembly had overwhelmingly passed legislation that permitted only touch screen DRE's in NYS. Through much effort by NYVV, the League of Women Voters, and others, the State legislature was convinced to at least provide for the possibility of a paper ballot solution in NYS. In 2005, a bill was ultimately enacted in NYS that limited the voting choices in NYS to two - either touch screen DRE's (with a "paper trail) or paper ballots/precinct based optical scanners. The New York State legislation only allowed these two choices and the decision was left to the county election commissioners, on a county-by-county basis, to make the choice for their location.

NYVV did not advocate this specific legislation, we advocated for a solution that included paper ballots, marked by the voter. This was the legislation that was handed to us by the legislature (and for those who think this statement is too passive, I refer you to Brian Keeler's wonderful explanation of the cesspool that is the NYS legislature in this video - The True Sad Story of the New York State Senate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kmKjTqs4pE and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hgHOSR8KcM&feature=rela ... )

However, compared to the legislation existing in other states at that time, it was a step forward -again, I ask you to view this in context. Then NYVV, along with League of Women Voters and the NY Democratic Lawyers Council, and others, worked long and hard to get regulations adopted that would provide what were the most stringent requirements for certification of the voting systems, regardless of which system was chosen. It was, in fact, due in great part these regulations that it has been so difficult - and continues to be difficult - for the shoddy merchandise that the voting machine companies are foisting on us to be approved in NYS.

All of this - as well as tons of advocacy by hundreds of concerned citizens within and without NYVV - had at least one result - the process for choosing the voting system for each county was delayed - until NYS was the only state remaining to have not "adopted" HAVA. The Department of Justice sued the state because of this - and the litigation mentioned in Bo's comments ensued. The Judge in that case has in no uncertain terms, set a time line for his version of adoption of HAVA by NYS. His zeal to accomplish this is to the point that even the minimum protections we were able to get through NYS regulations are being challenged.

So the county commissioners had to choose - as of today, not a single county has selected touch screen voting machines as their final choice, a complete about face from only a few years ago. The lever machines will be used once more in the 2008 elections because, at minimum, the judge was convinced that starting a new system in a Presidential year was a bad idea. Only ballot markers for those with disabilities are required by the court (and problems with those ballot markers are surfacing right now - an issue NYVV and other advocacy groups are actively addressing.) Only in 2009 is the new voting system scheduled to be in place.

NYVV is fighting to prevent the tossing aside of strict regulations on voting machine certification. It is fighting for integrity of the process in using the voting systems. It is fighting for the goal that every vote in NYS is counted and counted accurately.

I hope this clarifies and gives context to what is going on. They say that no good deed goes unpunished. If it hadn't been for Bo Lipari, Teresa Hommel and other hard working advocates - if we had depended on the people who now vilify Bo and NYVV - NYS would be, in the words of that voting machine vendor, "a DRE state".

I personally am proud of Bo and grateful for his hard work and dedication. And Im proud of all the people in New York who stood up to the inevitable DRE (unlike almost every other state in the union) and said NO.

Margaret Yonco-Haines


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Thanks for your comments.

While I can't take responsibility for the factual error in the article in the opening post, I find the circumstance easy to understand as previously stated on this thread. I could use the label "appalling and disgusting" to describe Bo's misleading use of the phrase "highest court in the land", but I won't. I just find it misleading.

Your characterizing Bo being called out as a malicious attack against a wide group of organizations and individuals is unwarranted and disingenuous.

Isn't it reasonable enough to question court proceedings involving the Bush Administration's Department of Justice given the allegations of partisan manipulation with election and voting issues?

Of course, "favoring or not favoring one system over the other does not make the advocate a bad person or a saint". Neither does criticism leveled about opinions and tactics. I think everyone needs to bear that in mind in the midst of the discussions on how best to preserve New York States election system as, arguably, the only secure one left in the nation. In this case, it does call for the acknowledgment of all ideas, regardless of quarter.

I think you are correct in saying that many people on this forum "were not there when this all started". Perhaps that's a good thing as they might offer another perspective, even while--or because of--not having lived some of the history and battles that shaped the views early veterans developed. I have previously argued that some of the more seasoned activists are still fighting yesterday's war. As you pointed out, back then it was a struggle to get a paper ballots discussion on the table.

Chances are, much of that trouble came from a misperception of HAVA and how to implement it, a continuing source of debate. Just following the press and election official's quotes therein it's readily apparent that there's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation on the subject. Among the ones concerning me is the obscuring of the fact that optical scanning is electronic vote counting while not technically, electronic voting and of course, the erroneous idea that HAVA requires the replacement of lever machines, on which a court has never ruled.

But the landscape nevertheless is improving considerably with DREs, without and even with VVPAT, waning despite some painful exceptions. Furthermore, people are realizing that risked-based audits are essential when using optical scanners, most recently Bo Lipari.

But the same ridicule early veterans received for their advocacy of paper ballots is now being served by some of them to those who consider lever machines consistent with a lower-risk HAVA compliant voting system.

This points up another challenge for activists who became involved earlier in the movement. It's what I've referred to as "trademarks" that various minded individuals and groups adopt as they experience the election management debacle. For some it is exit polls, for others HCPB or just plain anti-DRE. There are advocates calling for "voter marked paper ballots" (ie: electronic vote counting). And there's the ones who'll never speak to you again because you supported or didn't support Rush Holt's legislation. These trademarks becomes yokes that make it difficult to assimilate new information and respond to unexpected challenge or opportunity.

And whether the New York State Legislature is a "cesspool" on HAVA implementation, or if in conjunction with the subsequent implementation by the State Board of Elections was a deft river running free and clear of the prospect of downgrading the state's voting system through the misapplication of federal law remains to be seen. Without questioning the importance of the activist, how much and in what ways they had influence is conjecture. What is clear is that the State acted with great caution, and that was considered good by a lot of people, including eventually the media and election integrity activists.

I agree there are pros and cons to any voting system, but in the current context, it is not what's theoretically feasible but what is realistically achievable, as you have stated. Given the lever machine's inherent resistance to wide scale attack, without legal requirement for high confidence, risk-based statistical audits, and election regulations written and implemented in a way that consistently achieves that goal, lever machines are superior to optically scanned ballots (assuming the scanner even works).

Further, it's not mutually exclusive to advocate for ballot markers and optical scanners instead of DREs, in the event that levers do have to be replaced, while simultaneously arguing that HAVA doesn't require that they be replaced at all.

Finally, it's in the interest of "NYVV and, by analogy,a large group of voting integrity activists in New York State (including the League of Women Voters)" and New York voters at large, to be made aware of and to consider the alternate view that lever machines can be part of a HAVA compliant voting system, as Douglass Kellner of the State Board of Elections has said. This is especially so since this view is not supported or even adequately reported by the person you suggest speaks for all of them. Let the people decide. They can walk and chew gum at the same time even if some activists can't.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #9
22. Welcome to DU! Has someone here been advocating for DREs? (I must have missed that.)
If not, then here's the deal:

A voter-marked paper ballot does not a counted vote make.
"Certification" is not transparency.
Software is not hardware.
And yes, DREs are not Scanners.

But computers are still computers and some scanner advocates continue to underestimate the problems of securing, auditing and otherwise making this stuff safe for democracy.

The notion that "as long as there's a paper ballot", the truth about the intent of the voters will somehow eventually be realized is nice, but how is that really going to happen? Surely not just by shoving these ballots into computers to be "counted."

And why undermine the efforts of others who prefer lower risk alternatives, including some well-meaning New York election officials?

New York has a real opportunity to make a difference in what is a national debate, yet some seem to be willing to roll over, stand by, and conduct business as usual and allow the privatization of our elections, as in the rest of the country. Why is that? What do you think is to be gained?

I realize this is difficult for you after several long years of pro-Scanner, anti-DRE advocacy, but I think these questions deserve some answers. A lot of folks are against DREs. That's the easy part. The hard part is what to do next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-05-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Welcome to DU, Bo.
Edited on Sat Jul-05-08 08:11 PM by Wilms
Let me be the first to acknowledge your tireless service as part of the effort helping to put DRE's firmly on the road to the museum of voting. Despite my other feelings, be assured those efforts are not unappreciated. But please also be assured that DRE's, in the opinion of many, are on the way out, and have been for quite some time, thanks largely to their own disastrous performance and tests pointing out the security vulnerabilitiesmany of which are also shared by the optical scan systems you promote.

I feel obliged to respond as one who also has been very critical of, and disappointed in, aspects of your leadership with regard to the future of NY elections.

Currently, I find it notable that you show up here to post for the first time announcing that you "stand by" your use of the term "highest court in the land" on Voice of the Voter's this past week. I think it would have been reasonable for you to just state that the District Court rendered an opinion, not a ruling. There are significant differences between the two that are more than just "nit-picking" as you state. Some of us are ok with wondering why the judge chose to opine rather than rule, particularly when there will soon be a change in administrations and the Department of Justice. Your own expressed concerns with elements of Judge Sharpe's opinion could help you leave room for other advocates concerns.

I'm not familiar with the controversy between you and Mr. Karius. From what you wrote, it sounds like he wanted you to address something on air, where you feel more comfortable with private communication. That is your prerogative. Understand, however, that rulings of that sort lead to questions being raised about your leadership and charges that you are acting in a controlling and manipulative manner. Is it not correct that Douglas Kellner, of the State Board of Elections, suggested that Ulster could use the uncertified scanners as long as it was done in conjunction with a full 100% hand count? Karius' interest in discussing hand counting in Ulster County had plenty to do with the topic of the show. Your insisting otherwise underscores my concern that your interpretations run the risk of misinforming the voters of NY State. I'm not even sure that hand counting in Ulster, on such short notice, is in the interest of the voters or even the HCPB movement. But I think a discussion about it is at least as relevant as hearing from the former MidHudson Verified Voting member and current Dutchess County Voting Machine Coordinator, Vicky Perry, telling listeners that "the ImageCast is a pretty good machine" despite NYVV reporting "massive failures" of the devices.

You remarked that you feel as though you "have been attacked constantly since January by activists, almost all of whom are from outside New York State, who believe that NYVVs decision to work for paper ballots and optical scanners in NY was flawed." For those unfamiliar (including myself), perhaps you can point to those "constant" attacks. I, for one, have both praised and criticized, as the facts of each discussion seemed to merit.

The critiques are about your actions, not about you personally. Further, all American citizens have a stake in HAVA implementation regardless of the states in which they live.

Your characterization of criticism as personal attacks is itself a personal attack on those expressing reasonable concern about misleading statements, continued advocacy for computerized vote counting, the disparaging of lever voting, and NYVV's apparent siding with the Bush Administration's DoJ and the EAC with regard to an issue that is not explicitly mandated by HAVA, and one that has not been adjudicated in ANY court, high or low.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. the court issued a remedial order
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documen...

Which "ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED" that New York has to replace its lever machines by fall 2009, and should make "all possible efforts" to make Plan A systems available for use even in Fall 2008. (I had to pinch myself on this -- it's very close to the proposed order submitted by DoJ.)

The remedial order was issued on January 16. On March 15, Andi Novick posted this on opednews.com:

Many of you have been told that the DoJ does not approve of our lever machines and that it is the DoJ's opinion that they do not comply with HAVA. That's nice, but it's not the law. We still have a functioning judicial system in this country and until a higher court rules on the lever machine's compliance with HAVA there is no ruling and nothing requiring New York to abandon its levers.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/opedne_andi_nov_0803...

That might actually go a long way toward explaining Bo's turn of phrase. Did Novick write this piece before the order? Was she unaware of the order? Was she trying to argue that although the judge specifically ordered that lever machines must be replaced, he didn't say directly that they were incompatible with HAVA? (You can read the order and see if you think that will fly.) Was she saying that some "higher court" than the district court needs to rule? (Unlike Bo, she never mentioned the district court.)

Sharpe's order could be overturned. But as things stand today, as far as I can tell, the state of New York is under court order to replace its lever machines not just by fall 2009, but "where possible" by fall 2008. No?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. I recognize a lot of what you posted.

As I read it, the judge "ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED" NY State to carry out what NY agreed to do in order to get the Bush Administration DoJ off it's back. That doesn't sound like the judge ruled on levers per se. And certainly the judge didn't rule on lever's HAVA compliancy at all. I think that is what Andi Novick was and is saying.

"Bo's turn of phrase", "the highest court in the land", is for Bo to explain or at least clarify if he cares to. The likeliness of it's use leading to misunderstanding, however, doesn't require "a long way toward explaining".

Everyone agrees that Bo was "factually correct". And if they follow the NY related stories referenced on DU recently, many of his supporters, and others who depend on him to represent them, guide them, and interpret for them--as many do--will have been introduced to facts and reasonable opinions not otherwise afforded them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. I'm puzzled
Are you and I reading the same supplemental remedial order? I think that it expresses a very clear view as to whether levers are HAVA-compliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. This one?
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documen...

I see the judge agreeing with the DoJ that the remedial order wasn't followed. He says NY must be HAVA compliant. He says ballot markers are HAVA compliant. He says he likes NY's plan to install a HAVA compliant system, even including replacing levers.

But I don't see a statement saying "a lever machine" isn't HAVA compliant. :shrug:


For extra credit :D let's look at the HAVA section cited. It states, in part,

(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
voting system (including any lever voting system, :woohoo:
optical scanning voting system, or direct recording
electronic system :puke: ) shall-- ...

Nice.

And to go off topic, just a bit, subparagraph (B) has nothing to do with the levers, but does explain that PUNCH CARDS MAY BE USED in a HAVA Compliant Voting System! :freak:


BTW, NY State agreeing to dump levers (ERMA 2005) is why Andi Novick is suing them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. a few points
The order says that full compliance with HAVA is impossible by Fall 2008, but Plan B is possible (findings 3 and 4). Ergo, Plan B isn't fully HAVA-compliant.

Finding 5 enigmatically requires full compliance "and" the replacement of all lever machines. Order 3 requires the implementation of "Plan A for the deployment of fully HAVA-compliant voting systems... specifically including the replacement of all lever voting machines...." Why does the judge specifically include the replacement of all lever voting machines, and link this criterion to "the deployment of fully HAVA-compliant voting systems"? Just because the state offered to do it anyway? That makes no sense to me.

Finding 1 also states that the court "agrees fully with the United States"; it's the position of "the United States" in this case that lever machines violate the requirements for accessibility, auditability, and multiple language support. (I think the DoJ may have dropped its argument that they also violate the error rate requirement.)

Could the judge be convinced that a system with lever machines can be fully HAVA-compliant? Maybe so. Or another judge might overrule him. But in the meantime, it seems to me that Bo is reacting to the plain meaning of the text, and doesn't deserve the crap he has gotten for it.

The reference to lever machines in (a)(1) doesn't tell us whether lever machines can meet the other criteria, but it at least indicates that HAVA wasn't intended to ban lever machines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. "requires full compliance "and" the replacement of all lever machines"
Exactly. "And". Get into compliance with HAVA, AND get rid of the levers as you have agreed to with the Bush Administrations DoJ.

Does this mean you now realize HAVA doesn't call for the end of levers and the judge didn't try to argue that it does?

Do you think a hypothetical state still using levers would be bound by this? I doubt it.

We're not attorneys. And I'm glad it is Novick, and neither of us who'll argue. But it isn't at all clear the judge gutted a section of HAVA. Do you want to tell me what circumstance would allow it's use, considering HAVA allows levers???


But please don't even try to tell me Bo got a lot of "crap" because he "is reacting to the plain meaning of the text". He was called out for repeatedly stating "the highest court in the land", which included the likelihood of creating confusion. That ought to be clear.

But it's good of you to point out that you see an indication "HAVA wasn't intended to ban lever machines". That's unlike Bo who wrote that Congress' passed HAVA "effectively banning punch card and lever voting "machines, as he did here, http://nyvv.org/blog/2007/12/doj-and-new-york-state-par... .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. read the other points
I noted that one point was enigmatic because I think it is. Some people think that Plan B is HAVA-compliant, but the SRO doesn't. If you have an interpretation in which that doesn't mean that levers are non-compliant, I would be glad to hear it.

The question isn't whether HAVA calls for the end of levers; it is whether levers (or, more specifically, New York's levers) are HAVA-compliant. Nor is the question whether the judge tried to "argue" that the levers aren't HAVA-compliant. He doesn't have to "argue."

I don't think that a district court finding ever establishes precedent for other districts, whether in a remedial order or otherwise.

Who says that the judge "gutted a section of HAVA"? HAVA doesn't say that levers in general, or New York's in particular, are or can be (or aren't or can't be) compliant with its requirements.

I think you're quoting "highest court in the land" out of context. I don't know why. We just plain disagree about that. Let me just say I think Ananda was right to withdraw her original article.

At least by December 2007, I think Bo was entitled to conclude that HAVA effectively banned lever machines. Time may prove him wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. I think we now agree in large measure
This is why the first step is the suit against the state for having agreed with the DoJ.

If I'm quoting Bo's "highest court in the land" out of context, feel free to add the context. It'll prove my point that the phrase is likely to leave many with the wrong impression. Ananda withdrawing her article is a separate discussion.

And of course Bo is entitled to be wrong, as others are entitled to point that out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. A Remedial Order does not a ruling make.
The order was based on the State's OFFER to replace the levers in 2009. The State (the defendant in the case) never argued to the court that levers are HAVA-compliant. Therefore, the court has never actually ruled on this.

This is the root of the controversy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. that seems pretty thin to me
The SRO says that lever machines must be replaced with fully HAVA-compliant equipment. It may be possible to change the judge's mind as to whether Plan B is fully HAVA-compliant, but clearly the judge isn't merely accepting the state's offer to replace the levers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. If the state never argued against DoJ, there was not a ruling.
ERMA 2005 is proof that NY intended to replace levers. It's referenced in the first (2006) remedial order. The feds said NY should obey both HAVA and its own State law. The 2007 amendment to ERMA is proof that NY still intends to replace levers. NY never argued that levers were HAVA-compliant, so there was never a Ruling one way or the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. well, good luck with that n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
16. The article linked to the bottom of your article has been removed.
Ms. Ananda has other stories promoting the retention of the lever machines on that site, but they don't mention Lipari.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
17. Yes, NY drank the Kool-aid and has a problem with the money
Edited on Mon Jul-07-08 02:23 PM by clear eye
they accepted from the feds. HAVA was written very cagily (probably by Rove and some lawyers) to include a "carrot and a stick". The only thing it MANDATED was to remove the problem punch cards, use voting methods that pass some fairly obvious criteria of functionality, have handicapped-accessible machines at every polling place, and to have state voter databases, but it OFFERED a gob of money to states to buy e-machines. (Wonder why Rove would want to do that? Hmmm.) Since the NY legislature had to authorize the purchase of some kind of electronics for the handicapped, they had a rationale to take ALL that lovely money and make the total switch.

Most people don't know that lever voting machines were invented to solve the problem of tampering with paper ballots (ballot box "stuffing", etc.). It is impossible to tamper with these machines in a way that isn't immediately detectable. According to Dr. Bryan Pfaffenberger, professor of technology at the University of Virginia and author of a soon-to-be-published book, "Machining the Vote", they have an error-free rate that no other form of balloting has been able even to approach. On the other hand, the electronic machines that NYS counties have been forced to purchase through the SBOE are extremely expensive---$12K/machine including testing---and even after their tests have been delivered to the counties with an over 80% failure rate upon arrival! The devices included for the handicapped have a systemic flaw the manufacturer warned the NYSBOE about, but the NYSBOE accepted them anyway w/o alerting the counties. Even if they can be used, such use would re-introduce the problem of the vulnerability of paper ballots to tampering (ballot box stuffing, etc.) since the check on accuracy is supposed to be auditing the paper trail. NY citizens must insist that our state legislators amend the law to allow us to keep our lever machines. Any maintenance expense for the levers is dwarfed by the costs of trying to get the e-machines to work and deliver a reliable count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. HAVA did not even ban punch cards! NY did!
Edited on Mon Jul-07-08 10:08 PM by Bill Bored
Punch cards are legal under HAVA as long as there is a voter education program about the effect of casting an overvote.

But NY banned punch cards outright in response to HAVA in 2005.

In 2007, the NY Legislature amended the State law to extend the date by which levers had to be replaced to...NEVER! But this is under-reported. (Wonder why?) The law still says levers "shall" be replaced, but it probably says that hell will freeze over at some point too. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rady-Columbus Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
18. Replacement Article: Let's Clear the Air
July 7, 2008

LET'S CLEAR THE AIR

By Andi Novick and Rady Ananda 

[http://www.opednews.com/articles/LET-S-CLEAR-THE-AIR-by-Rady-Ananda-080707-380.html]
 



--Optical Scanners and DREs Operate on Undetectably Mutable
Software, Depriving New York Voters of the Accuracy and
Transparency We Have Enjoyed for More that a Century. 

--No Court Has Ever Ruled that HAVA Requires Lever Machines
Be Replaced.   

Now Let's Go to Court and get a Ruling that Lever Voting
Machines are HAVA-compliant so We Can Continue to Enjoy the
Security and Transparency Offered by Our Lever Voting System.


Fact:  New York has a secure, reliable electoral system that
has served the State of New York for more than a century 
preventing dilution of the franchise from fraud and ensuring
that the will of the people is preserved. 

Fact:  The lever voting system in New York (and the
hand-count voting system as it existed since 1896) provide a
transparent process by which many eyes are involved in
securing the electoral process, particularly the count.  Both
systems are designed to detect, deter and expose fraud. 

Fact:  The State of New York decided that rather than fight
the federal government, which would like every state voting
on new, budget-breaking, shoddy, vulnerable-to-undetectable
fraud, software-driven optical scanners or DREs, it would
capitulate, passing laws in 2005 to have New York surrender
its secure lever voting system for these unreliable
computers. The Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005,
Chapter 181, 11. (See NY Election Law) 

Fact:  The computerized voting systems that the federal
government claims satisfy the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)  -
even in their "crappy," theft-inviting condition -
disenfranchise those who are forced to vote on them,
depriving citizens of the right to a transparent, open voting
system and the ability to know that their votes are being
counted as cast. (See Synopsis of the Litigation.) 

Fact:  These so called HAVA-compliant electronic voting
systems are not transparent, concealing from the people the
way in which the software is programmed to count our votes. 
Indeed optical scanners and DREs are nothing more than secret
vote counting machines, anathema to any notion of a
democratically run election. 

Fact:  Unlike New York's lever voting machine or a hand-count
voting system -- which require a completed, verified count on
election night (because exposing the count to the
watchfulness of ongoing public surveillance has been
considered the most secure way to count our votes for the
history of the State of New York), the new computerized
systems will abandon the security provided by ongoing public
scrutiny and no longer provide a completed, reliable, secure
count on election night.  NY Election Laws, McKinney's
Chapter 17 at New York State Board of Elections. 

Fact:  New York's lever voting system is far superior to the
computerized voting system planned - in terms of
transparency, security, expense, reliability,
trustworthiness, theft-deterring ability and the protection
it provides to New York Voters' constitutionally protected
franchise.  (See these July articles posted at Re-Media
Election Transparency Coalition: Merits of the Lever Machine:
A Scholar Speaks Up, and Eyes Wide Shut. 

Fact:  The federal government's position is that lever
machines are not HAVA-compliant, but no court has ever ruled
on this issue because the State of New York never argued this
position in any court. 

Fact:  In litigation commenced by the Department of Justice
(DoJ) in 2006 to force New York to become HAVA-compliant, the
DoJ claimed lever voting machines were not HAVA-compliant
because: a) they could not be made accessible to disabled
voters; and b) they don't produce a piece of paper that can
be manually audited. While many in New York believed the
DoJ's interpretation of HAVA to be an erroneous
interpretation, the State of New York declined to put this in
issue before the court, having already decided in 2005, before
the DoJ sued, that New York will replace our lever voting
machines with software-driven machines. 

Fact:  In 2004 Co-chair and State Board of Elections (SBOE)
Commissioner Douglas Kellner testified that our lever voting
system is HAVA-compliant but for one HAVA standard - the
accessibility requirement. 

Fact:  In 2008, the State Board of Elections agreed to
install ballot marking devices in every poll site and is in
the process of completing that, thus complying with the only
federal standard New York's lever machines did not meet. 
Hence, with ballot marking devices in every poll site, there
is no longer an impediment to the lever voting system's
compliance with HAVA. 

Fact:  The federal government's remaining objection to lever
machines, to wit they don't provide a manually auditable
piece of paper, is not true.  Our lever voting system does
create a piece of paper that can be audited.  In any event,
this is the DoJ's interpretation of HAVA, but since no court
has every ruled on this, it's just an interpretation.  It is
not what the law says and no court has ever interpreted HAVA
as requiring New York to replace its lever machines.  
Fact:  The State Board of Elections has found over a thousand
defects in the ballot marking devices that have been bought
for New York and has shipped the counties these computerized
machines, many in an unusable state.  (See Nassau County
Letter 1, Letter 2, Letter 3, and NY Loves Its Levers as New
Systems Fail.)

   
Common myth:  HAVA requires us to replace our levers.  It
does not. 

Common myth:  A court has ruled that levers are not
HAVA-compliant.  No court has ever made any such ruling. 

Common myth:  New York's electronic voting system will be
transparent. It will be anything but.

Common myth:  "Auditing" the unreliable
computerized results by counting a small percentage (or any
percentage) of ballots after the election is over, after the
press has announced the winner, after the ballots have been
exposed to heightened opportunities for post-election
tampering is good enough for a secure, democratic election. 
This is not true.  In fact, using post-election ballots to
verify secure election-night results is considered so
insecure that New York has never in 231 years permitted
post-election ballots to be used to verify secure
election-night results, until now. 

Common myth:  New York State's more stringent certification
testing requirements, if complied with, will make optical
scanners or DREs accurate and safe to vote on. This is not
true.  No matter how much testing is done, because software
is by its nature mutable, the pre-election testing cannot
tell you how the optical scanner or DRE will count the votes.




Since no court has even been asked to rule on the issue of
whether lever voting machines are HAVA compliant, and since
the computerized voting system New York has enacted is the
antithesis of a secure open electoral system, violating in
its enactment existing laws, two centuries of accumulated
experience and wisdom, and a myriad of safeguards that have
protected New Yorkers' "consent" from corruption by
fraud, we would hope that the "People's attorney,"
the Attorney General, would have fought for the People's
right to not be disenfranchised.  But because Mr. Cuomo's
office has decided to side with the State Legislature against
the People, the People have no choice but to pursue their own
litigation against the State of New York and the State Board
of Elections to stop them from forcing us to vote in this
highly unsecure and unconstitutional manner. 

Our federal constitution is in tatters, our once independent
Department of Justice has become a tool of a corrupt federal
government hoping to disenfranchise as many people as it can.
 But New York's state constitution is alive and well and the
State of New York's electoral system is vibrant and
constitutionally-compliant.  New York Voters need to take
action to stop the State from abandoning our lever voting
system for the theft-enabling computerized system, while we
still have a functioning electoral system.  

We are the only state not to have exposed our electoral
system to increased and unprotected opportunities to unseen
fraud.  We are the only state with an existing strong, secure
voting system.  We must stand up to the Department of Justice
and its disregard for our laws and our democratic,
transparent, reliable voting system.  We must stand up to our
State Legislature that have caved to a corrupt Department of
Justice and violated the rights of the Voters of New York. 
We must fight to retain what is constitutionally ours before
it is taken away. 

With your help we will commence this lawsuit against the
State of New York.  Please tell your neighbors.  Please give
them the facts.  The facts speak for themselves and loudly
beg the question        

  Why in the world would we abandon our lever voting system? 



Footnote:  A special request to New Yorkers for Verified
Voting to please stop perpetrating misinformation.  NYVV has
repeatedly misrepresented that a court has ruled that our
lever machines are not compliant with HAVA and that the court
has ruled therefore they must be replaced.  A court ruling, as
most people understand, occurs after a court has been
presented with competing legal arguments - in this case for
and against lever voting machines' compliance with HAVA-
after the court has deliberated and then renders a ruling
favoring one side's legal interpretation and rejecting the
other's.  This has never happened with our lever voting
system.  

What did happen was that New York State voluntarily decided
to replace its lever voting machines with software-drive
voting machines in 2005.  In 2006 the DoJ sued New York
because New York hadn't yet gotten around to replacing the
lever machines.  When in 2007 New York still hadn't made the
change to a computerized system, the DoJ made a motion within
the 2006 lawsuit pressuring a timetable onto New York State. 
New York voluntarily agreed, and a remedial order from the
court contained a schedule for New York's changing over to
computers.   

Contrary to what Bo Lipari claimed in the July 2nd Voice of
the Voters radio show, there was no lawsuit resulting in a
court issuing a ruling that HAVA requires New York's lever
machines must be replaced.  We would hope and expect a
retraction be printed correcting this misinformation that was
repeated throughout the show. Since this Voice of the Voters
program has been widely forwarded by NYVV, we would also ask
Mr. Lipari to retract his erroneous statements.  We are all
entitled to fight for our goals, but we must do that with
respect and honesty and not distort the facts so that people
believe myths as if they were truths.  

Later in the program, Mr. Lipari misrepresented that New York
will be using "electronic voting systems that operate in
a manner that is transparent to the public."  It seemed
he was attributing this misstatement to Commissioner Kellner,
but Commissioner Kellner actually said the opposite wherein he
freely acknowledged that the computerized voting systems New
York plans on installing are not transparent.  Whether Mr.
Lipari intended to misquote Commissioner Kellner or whether
the statement that New York's computerized voting system will
be transparent to the public is his own erroneous claim, it is
wrong.    

New York's optical scan voting system will count our votes in
secret, concealed from the public- the very people who have
need to know.  There is no transparency in this system and no
means by which the citizens of New York will be able to hold
their government accountable, evaluate how well or poorly the
software is counting our votes, or obtain evidence to prove
fraud.  Hence these electronic systems provide no rational
basis to rely on reported results, particularly since these
machines are known to be vulnerable to undetectable,
non-protectable fraud.   

This is why New York Voters must fight back while we still
have our functioning, secure lever voting machines.  I extend
a personal invitation to Bo Lipari and NYVV to join with us in
challenging the constitutionality of such an unsafe and
unknowable voting system that would count our votes on
unreliable, vulnerable-to-tampering software-driven optical
scanners or DREs, only to have that undependable computerized
election result "verified" after the election has
ended by a partial hand count of some small portion of the
ballots: ballots that are vulnerable to tampering after the
election, when no one is looking.  This is the least secure
way to run a democratic election and New York's legislative
history reflects this wisdom.

    
The more of us who fight to resist the State's intent to rob
the Voters of New York of safeguards and rights they have had
as long as we've been a state, the stronger we will be in
protecting our constitutional franchise. 


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnitedVoters Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Let's eat our own. Yum.
You say NYVV is "...perpetrating misinformation?" And that they "...repeatedly misrepresented...?"

Isn't that still just a softer way of saying that NYVV is deliberately lying ??

Why, oh why, do so many in this movement have to personally attack those with whom they do not agree on strategy and tactics?

You attack BoLipari and NYVV and say they are lying. Bo responds and drops off OpEd news. Earlier OpEd News wanted to dig up dirt on David Dill and Verified Voting, Common Cause, Vote Trust USA, and other organizations because of HR 811. Then Bo Lipari and NYVV pull out of Vote Trust USA because they don't like Vote Trust's position on HR 811 and they way they handle their organization. Then speaking of that bill along comes Nancy Tobi "Legislative Director" of Election Defense Alliance and calls out Rush Holt (one of the few Congresspeople who deeply does care about election integrity) using the word "traitorous" among many other things. just because they don't like the bill he introduced. Bev Harris kicks plenty of people she doesn't like or doesn't agree with in the teeth, going back to Andy in 2004 and before.

Instead of keeping it about the issues and what we can all do to get where we want to be with voting in this country, things get personal. People are called liars and traitors. People fight. People quit. People lash out at each other. People pick up their ball and go home. So many break-off and break-away groups and this person or group not talking to that one, you need a scorecard. There are in-movement wars over legislation. Wars over audits and how to do them. Wars over wars. I fear this post will start one, but I've lurked on here and other places a long time and I sincerely believe these things need to be said.

Does this never stop? If it does stop, where? With the voting machine companies winning?

This huge election is about 4 months away. Do we have time for this?

Can't we keep our Eyes On The Prize? I seem to recall that worked for at least one other rights movement a few decades ago. Can't we all just get along? If the answer to that is "no", can't we all at least be personally respectful of each other who are working for accurate and honest elections, even if we don't agree with each other's methods?

Again, does this never stop? If it does stop, where? With the voting machine companies winning????????????





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. How do you recommend addressing problems while avoiding being accused of making "personal attacks"?
An activist claims someone is "...perpetrating misinformation" and has "...repeatedly misrepresented..." facts, and you spin that saying, "Isn't that still just a softer way of saying that NYVV is deliberately lying ??"

How is that a personal attack?

So, "Instead of keeping it about the issues and what we can all do to get where we want to be with voting" people claim they're being personally attacked rather than openly discussing the issue.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnitedVoters Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. There you go, starting on me. I've "spun" nothing. You answer your own question...
Instead of, "...and you SPIN that..." (emphasis mine) you could have just as easily written , "...and you SAY that..."

But no, you clearly chose to use the word "spun." And your saying that I have "spun" something frames it as though I am using weasel-words, or that perhaps MY INTENT is somehow less than honest. Now you don't know me. You have no reason to question my intent or my personal honesty, but through your choice of words you ARE questioning both.

What you just did with that choice of word is an example of the problem.

Now lets move on to "...perpetrating misinformation" and "...repeatedly misrepresented..." and the title of this thread and of the original article "Bo Lipari's Deceit on Voice of the Voters." DECEIT?? Perpetrating? All calling Bo Lipari and NYVV liar because all these words strongly imply INTENT to give out false information. Someone who 'perpetrates' something is usually considered to be a pretty bad member of society. They have 'perp walks' for a reason.

Then we come to Tobi et al using words like "treasonous" against Rush Holt and his bill. Treason is a VERY serious crime -- yes CRIME -- and a very serious charge. Does Ms. Tobi or anyone else have any concrete information that Representative Holt intends to willfully and purposely betray his allegiance to the United States by introducing HR 811? I don't think so, but that is what she has chosen to imply.

The classic example is how Bev Harris treated Andy Stephenson, when on December 14, 2004 she posted to her home page that he was fired, using words like "lying" and "misrepresenting". Anyone who knew Andy knew he was ANYTHING but a liar, and that he cared passionately about protecting our right to vote. Harris' statement was eventually taken down from her homepage, but thankfully what Bev Harris chose to write about Andy is preserved HERE for all to see, and hopefully help us remember how NOT to treat fellow activists.

The key is that people can disagree about other activists' strategy and even their tactics without implying bad intent or flawed character to each other. But it seems to be easier and much more common for all of us to just eat our own, while ES&S and the others lick THEIR chops in glee.

Yum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. You avoided my question. But I'll repost it with your suggested edit and a few of my own.
Edited on Tue Jul-08-08 10:24 AM by Wilms
How do you recommend addressing problems while avoiding being accused of making "personal attacks"?

An activist claims someone is "...perpetrating misinformation" and has "...repeatedly misrepresented..." facts, and you SAY (emphasis mine), "Isn't that still just a softer way of saying that NYVV is deliberately lying ??"

How is that a personal attack?

So, "Instead of keeping it about the issues and what we can all do to get where we want to be with voting" (your words) people claim they have been "factually correct" (Bo's words) and are are being personally attacked. Rather than openly discussing the issue they "pick up their ball and go home" (your words).

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnitedVoters Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. It's a personal attack when so-called 'debate' impugns someone's honesty or motives.
If someone feels that Bo Lipari or anyone else is not being factually correct, they can discuss their belief without using words and phrases like "deceit", "perpertrating", or "repeatedly misrepresented."

If someone doesn't like the content of Rep. Holt's bill (or anyone else's bill) they can say so without calling it (and him) "traitorous".

And why should they avoid these words? Because the use of these words and frames all imply that the person or organization being discussed has a lack of integrity and malicious motive. Without hard factual evidence to back up these implcations (i.e. does anyone have actual proof that Bo Lipari intended to deceive people for some reason) it is a personal attack. And a baseless one at that.

Many dedicated people within this movement have "picked up their ball and gone home" after a few of these attacks. And many of those who remain are disgusted by the tactic as we know it plays into the vendors' hands. As I said it is eating our own, for the vendors' benefit. Yum.

If this is not adquate to answer your question, so be it. My time is valuable and I don't see how it could be any clearer. If you can't see how and why use of words like "deceit" and "traitorous" against fellow activists and supporters of election integrity are injurious to our movement, too bad for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Can you do me a favor?

Please, tell me how one might approach pointing out that someone has repeatedly uttered information that was incorrect or incomplete and ran the risk of leaving the reader or listener with the wrong idea.

And I'm serious, because YOU are, and I appreciate that. The Holt fist fight was uncalled for, I agree. But this isn't that discussion. (At least I don't think it is.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnitedVoters Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #27
79. How about saying something like "could you check your facts" or ...
... "I'm sorry but I have information that says otherwise" etc.

Anything but using words like "deceit", "lying", "spreading misinformation" etc. especially against another sincere worker in this movement. IMHO that's as bad as calling Rush Holt and/or his bills "traitorous". It's just plain wrong to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #79
80. I'm not here to defend descriptions in the article cited in the OP.
Edited on Fri Jul-25-08 10:07 AM by Wilms
I merely posted it. But I agree that not everything that's true is productive.

I said that the phrasing was likely to mislead. Not sure how much more I could soft-peddle that, especially when the author and his defenders are satisfied that a statement that is likely to mislead was "carefully spoken" and "factually correct".

Gotta admit, though, that sure seems like the "d" word to me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrenberry Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #21
39. NYVV and Vote Trust Leaders
NYVV did NOT leave Vote Trust Leaders because we disagreed with the list about HR 811. We left because the list manager banned any mention of HR811. This seemed to us to compromise democracy and free speech.

WWB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. That's principled and I applaud.
I think you'll find many expressing a similar sentiment when they advocate for candid discussion about what's best for New York.

I disagree with much of the article you wrote in the article you linked below. It's hard to imagine anyone advocating the retirement of levers unaware of some of the errors your piece contained. And like the Bo Lipari and Margaret Yonco-Haines posts on this thread it contained statements of the sort I thought they had condemned.

But there was an important distinction in your case. And so I appreciate your taking the necessary time to largely, if in my opinion incorrectly, reflect on the issues of lever machines, HAVA, and court proceedings you find relevant to the discussion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrenberry Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. I also found it hard to believe
I am not sure I understand your sentence beginning "It's hard to imagine..." Are you saying that it is hard to imagine that people advocating for reinstatement of levers would make these mistakes?
If that is what you are saying, I agree. I found it astounding that people would say what I quote them as saying: e.g., that there never having been rulings, etc.

If you are saying that I advocate the retirement of levers, that is not what I am about. I simply accept the reality that they have been ruled non-compliant and that "the ship has sailed." As I have searched for the best alternative, I have come to value systems that allow me to verify that my vote was recorded as I intended and that promise that my vote will be counted, either in the initial count or in a recount or audit. There is no transparency as to the fate of individual votes with a lever machine. There is no audit capacity. When I have worked as an election inspector I have seen how hard it is to perceive the faint imprints on the paper of the totals. When I have watched recounts, all that could be recounted were those imprints and the absentee ballots.

I have drafted a revision of my piece that takes out some of the more pointed analyses,since for some reason people have become very protective of the current leaders of the retain-levers movement. As an academic, I always thought that when people publish things, they have to expect criticism. To put things out in the public view is to take responsibility for it and to expect criticism. That is why we are so careful. That is the way we wrestle toward truth.

Perhaps you will do me the favor of pointing out the errors you think my piece contains.

Wanda Warren Berry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. Well no. It is statements you've made I obviously referred to as surprising.
Edited on Mon Jul-14-08 04:07 AM by Wilms
For instance, you quoted the Bush Administration's Department of Justice claiming, in part, that "...the clear failure of lever machines to meet HAVAs voting system requirementsat the least the machines are not accessible". Nobody is arguing the lever machines are accessible, just like nobody argues that a paper ballot marked by a pen is accessible. But both of those arrangements can be part of an accessible voting SYSTEM. A ballot MARKER accompanying either, would complete such a SYSTEM in a manner compliant with HAVA. There are election integrity activists, and even officials as I've pointed out, that are able to make that connection and not rely on the Bush Administration's Department of Justice and it's Election Assistance Commission opinions as you and Bo have.

You wanted to make clear that you don't oppose levers per se, writing, "If you are saying that I advocate the retirement of levers, that is not what I am about. I simply accept the reality that they have been ruled non-compliant and that "the ship has sailed."" First, the reality is that the Bush Administration's Department of Justice and it's Election Assistance Commission are claiming lever machines are non-compliant. I pointed out why I agree the machine itself is not accessible but a ballot marker added to each polling place would solve that.

As to the judge ruling that the state must become HAVA compliant AND replace levers, it's important to note that NY State failed to supply a ballot marker per polling place in clear non-compliance with HAVA. The State didn't get the voter registration data-base together in clear non-compliance with HAVA. The State didn't spend money it accepted to replace lever machine's in clear non-compliance with HAVA. None of that I see cited by you or Bo (though I could have missed it), and none of that says that lever machines can't be part of a HAVA compliant system. But you, Bo, NYVV Board member Bill Edelstein, and the Bush Administration's Department of Justice and it's EAC hold that opinion as you are all entitled. I can cite an attorney that says there is no ruling on lever machine HAVA compliance. You cite attorneys that opine that a lever machine is non-HAVA compliant. The attorney I cite is an election integrity advocate. The ones you cite are part of the Bush Administration's Department of Justice.

In your effort to assure me you are "not about" retiring levers you wrote of levers, " As I have searched for the best alternative, I have come to value systems that allow me to verify that my vote was recorded as I intended and that promise that my vote will be counted, either in the initial count or in a recount or audit. There is no transparency as to the fate of individual votes with a lever machine. There is no audit capacity. When I have worked as an election inspector I have seen how hard it is to perceive the faint imprints on the paper of the totals. When I have watched recounts, all that could be recounted were those imprints and the absentee ballots.".

I'm sure many vendors "promise" a lot of things. What transparency are you suggesting there is with software driven electronic vote counting? The auditing of levers works just fine. The counters don't change. New York election law was written to avoid the post-election ballot tampering prevented by levers. The State Law and the lever function preventing hackable "recounts" is a feature, not a bug. Those unaware of their history are bound to repeat it.

Without bothering to rebut your claims in more detail now, please understand that I will cite them, along with Bo's assertions and those of Edelstein as evidence of your support of the Bush Administration's Department of Justice's effort to deploy hackable computerized voting systems throughout the state.

Referring to Bo's utterance that helped bring these differences to a larger community to examine, you wrote that the "archive of the show verifies that he carefully spoke of the highest court of the land that has ruled on HAVA." It is my assertion that Bo indeed crafted and carefully stated, twice, a phrase with considerable potential for causing confusion and that he is smart enough to realize exactly what he was doing.

In reviewing your article, I see a number of additional arguments, many of which have been dealt with elsewhere or even on this thread. I might care to address them at some time, but the most important issues we've touched on here.

A court will decide if the State Legislature and Board of Elections violated the State Constitution. If it agrees, either the "plan" or the State Constitution will need to be modified. If it is the plan that needs modifying, it is my expectation that it will be worked out by the State and the Obama Administration's Department of Justice.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrenberry Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-08 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Your responses take my points out of the context in the article
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I think it is partly because my article is meant as a critique of other articles that have been published on this site and at OpEdNews.

I am glad that OpEdNews has seen fit to publish my article in its less acerbic form and hope you will do so as well.

NY: Eyes Wide Open: The Real Situation in New York http://www.opednews.com/articles/Eyes-Wide-Open--The-Re...

You seem to pull out issues (e.g., accessibility) from the context of my article's attempt to show the misleading character of the articles I am treating.

I became an activist on election integrity just after the November 2004 elections, when my former students and colleagues across the nation wrote of their experiences with DREs. When I learned the decision had not yet been made in New York, but that it was imminent, I became active, first through the County Democratic Committee. When ERMA gave the decision about equipment to the county commissioners, and living in a dominantly Republican county, I soon learned the importance of working with NYVV, a nonpartisan non-profit --as a way of working for election integrity. We would not have kept DREs our of our county and out of NY if NYVV and the League of Women Voters had presented the case as partisan.

No-- I do not accept the Bush Department of Justice and EAC as my authorities. But they have been in power during this battle. Indeed when I began this work, I had every reason to think the implementation of a new voting systems would be completed long before 2006, let alone 2008. So the work had to be done within the context of the present administration. That is political realism

Perhaps you would be less nasty to our Executive Director if you realized how conscientiously he has tried to protect NYVV's nonpartisan and nonprofit status. This has been essential if we are to work successfully for election integrity in NY. In the early years, I was mostly ignored by our almost solidly Republican legislature, because they could discount me as a Democrat, who would not vote for them anyway. But after 3 years of work, they passed a resolution for PBOS!!!

I cannot take time with many of your points, but let me try these two:
(1) on the claim to the lever machine's reliability. When the machines were opened at the end of one election day this year in Duchess Co., a very popular incumbent supervisor received zero votes on one machine, clearly an instance of the failure of the counters to roll over into the next one-hundred. Only the fact that there were enough other machines involved that showed her handily winning prevented a major problem, since there was no record that could be recounted. Last year I heard of several less dramatic cases where candidates and voters lost confidence in the lever machines.
(2) I contend that it is the relative transparency of the paper ballot-scanner system that means that the misprogramming of scanners is featured in such films as "Hacking Democracy." You can actually film people marking their paper ballots. You can film them submitting those ballots to the scanner. You can film the canvas of the scanner at the end. You could film any audits and recounts, which can be cone in the public view. With DREs, of course, you do not have any of that visibility. With lever machines, the voter cannot see the individual vote being counted on the rollers inside and there is no way it can be seen in a recount. No, scanners do not provide complete transparency, but the system as a whole-- together with carful controls and effective audits, etc., goes a long way toward transparency.

In conclusion, I have always maintain that the paper ballot-scanner system does NOT involve electronic voting. It involves electronic counting. Voting is on the paper ballots-- which are the official record

That is all the time I have for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-19-08 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. Paper Ballots are NOT the "official record."
"Voting is on the paper ballots-- which are the official record."

In NY, the way the law is written, there must be a full recount before paper ballots are "the official record." There is no assurance that a full recount will ever happen unless discrepancies are found the 3% audit, which YOU have been incorrectly telling election officials is the ONLY hand count that would have to be done, IF they decided to use scanners.

The "official record" is in fact, a software-based vote count by a machine (the scanner) that is programmed by another machine (the EMS computer) that is programmed secretly by vendors and re-programmed before EVERY election by as few as a single BoE insider (although NY law requires 2 insiders -- one from each major party, assuming one of them doesn't have to answer nature's call during the process or is not a Democrat in Name Only, or Repub. in Name Only).

By the way, you can't just film people voting, because we have secret ballots. I'm not sure what else you meant by this, but you appear to have an awful lot of TRUST in this voting system you have been promoting with no rational basis for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrenberry Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-22-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #49
72. Hacking the Vote films people voting
My point was that it is possible to see/film people voting on paper ballots with the paper ballot scanner system. They do that in the film "Hacking the Vote." Of course, I know that that is not part of the normal process of voting. Neither is it part of the process to have Harry Hursti in a separate space, re-programming the memory card-- but all of that can be filmed for experimental purposes.

I will check New York election law now, but believe the paper record is the official record. Of course, no count is official until the election commissioners certify it-- and that must include the absentee, emergency, and military ballots, which are paper. Now that the audit requirement will be activated with the new systems, I assume the commissioners do not certify an election until after the audits, but I need to check that.

I do not know why you accuse me of saying the 3% audit is the only recount/hand count required. I have never said that. I do not think it is said in any NYVV document. Again and again as I have talked with hundreds of people one-on-one in Farmer's Markets or in groups over the last few years I have said: "The paper ballot, after being scanned for the initial count, drops into a locked ballot box and is there for necessary audits and any needed recounts."

WWB

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrenberry Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #49
75. Definition of official ballot in NY
How, then, do you account for NYS Election Law (2008) as posted on the State Board of Elections website? See "General Provisions" Sec.1-104 (8): 8.

"8. The term official ballot refers to the paper ballot on which the
voter casts his vote, or the face of a voting machine as prepared for the voter to cast his vote at any election held in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnitedVoters Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #39
77. Whatever -- I stil consider you part of what killed VoteTrustUSA. Your leaving did not help.
You added fuel to the fire by quitting instead of staying around to help work through problems.

So now VoteTrust is gone, swallowed up by Verified Voting, our movement has one less organization working to improve elections, and a lot of good people have left election integrity entirely because of the mess. And sorry, but I hold NYVV partially responsible, for that. Nothing you can ever say will convince me otherwise.

Your free speech and democracy line is crap, IMHO, a big cop out. You remind me of these people who say they want to move to Canada because they don't like what Bush is doing to the Constitution. Pick up your ball and leave. Oh yeah, that helps a lot.

And just FYI, even though I can't forgive you for being part of the death of VoteTrust, I defend Bo from being called a liar in these articles. And I am glad it worked that NY was able to avoid DREs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #77
81. Re: "Pick up your ball and leave."
I've heard that has happened before. That, and people who disagreed being asked to leave NYVV.

So, I'm forced to reconsider what I thought of as a principled response to VTUSA shutting down commentary on HR811. I suspect Muldar is as responsible, however. Saying how hard one has worked as a defense for ones actions is an old and tired ploy.

And I'm not sure this recent matter is that dissimilar. That OTOH and I debated some of the specifics saved the discussion, even though he and I were in considerable disagreement. I think SFEXPAT was sensitive to the fact that were it not for conversations like OTOH and I had, there would have been little discussion at all.

When criticism is treated as an attack, when every awkward adjective is laboriously turned into a subject, and the subject becomes martyrdom you can pull out the yellow flag, if you don't already see a red one.

There are a few patterns playing out here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrenberry Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #77
83. Shared regret over Vote Trust
I regreted leaving Vote Trust and miss it still. The quality of discourse on other national lists does not compare. But it did seem intolerable when people were being chastised and removed from the list for even mentioning HR811. I know the list manager was trying to prevent the kind of controversy that has threatened the EI community. But how could we not even mention what was at the time the most portentous issue facing us? We tried appeals to the manager first and warned her of our possible withdrawal. To no avail.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #21
40. Shutting down discussion is not a way forward.
And to my knowledge, there are no cannibals in this forum.

If you have a big reaction to informed discussion, that's another matter and you may want to take care of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnitedVoters Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #40
78. Personally attacking someone who is trying do the right thing is not a way forward either.
You of all people should know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #78
82. "trying to do the right thing"???

That's been discussed.

Campaigning against DREs offers no license for repeatedly making and repeatedly defending statements, "carefully spoken", "factually correct", but "likely to mislead".

Sorry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrenberry Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-11-08 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
37. Eyes Wide Open: A New Yorker for Verified Voting Responds
You can find my article responding to the flurry of messages by Rady Ananda and andi novick at http://www.nyvv.org/newdoc/2008/EyesWideOpen.pdf .
My title is "Eyes Wide Open: A New Yorker for Verified Voting Responds to Recent Articles in Op/EdNews." OpEdNews thus far has chosen not to publish my piece.

My piece quotes the actual court rulings that Novick and Ananda deny exist; it also criticizes their proposal as being unresponsive to persons with special needs and for ignoring practical/managerial/legal problems. In addition, it points out limitations of lever machines additional to the inaccessibility, unverifiability, and inauditability that lead the Election Assistance Commission Advisory of 2005 to find them not in compliance with HAVA.

Of course, it also defends our Executive Director from the slanderous attack that has been posted here. And it points to the work we currently are doing.

Wanda Warren Berry


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-11-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. thanks for this interesting essay
It's clear that there are real differences about the relative merits of optical scanners, lever machines, and 100% hand counts. I don't think those differences warranted the polemic linked and quoted in the OP. And I, too, remain puzzled by Novick's parsing of the supplemental remedial order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 04:30 AM
Response to Original message
45. Just a small comment
On the issue of "highest court", or "highest court of the land".

I also immediately thought of it to mean the Supreme Court and was wondering to myself how much I have missed while I have not been in this forum ..

Only after several times of reading Bo's comment, did it occur to me, that perhaps Bo meant the highest court so far to have issued an opinion or ruling? and "of the land" in context of federal vs. state court systems?

But then again, as for the federal courts there is still the Federal Court of Appeals remaining before the Supreme Court.

Here is what is officially referred to as "The Highest Court In The Land".
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0405/ijde/ijde04...

I must say for any listener it would have helped to be more precise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. the article in the OP doesn't accurately quote Bo's statement
I transcribed it in post 1 -- you can check the audio file if you like.

I think it is very clear that "so far" is exactly what he meant. Or, verbatim, "at the moment."

Around the 2-minute mark, he begins to explain that the DoJ filed a lawsuit in "U.S. District Court, Northern District, Judge Gary Sharpe presiding." Around 2:40, he says that in December, "Judge Gary Sharpe ruled that New York must replace its lever machines...." Around 3:00, he says that this is important because people ask whether NY can keep the lever machines. Then he said, as I quoted above, that anyone who thinks NY can keep its levers is "gonna have to tell it to the judge. Because at the moment the highest court in the land which has ruled on HAVA and lever machines has said that HAVA requires lever machines be replaced." The "highest court in the land which has ruled" comes around 3:20. He repeats the phrase around 3:34, this time using "that" instead of "which."

So, when Bo refers to the "highest court in the land which has ruled," he has actually named the district court once and the presiding judge twice in the preceding 90 seconds or less. If he intended listeners to think that he was referring to the Supreme Court of the United States, he sure picked a strange way to go about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. I understand
Edited on Thu Jul-17-08 05:39 PM by rumpel
however, intentional or not was not my point -

People do misunderstand just from the way "highest court of the land" is commonly used and generally is perceived. And not everyone follows a case or cases elsewhere, which I think is a prerequisite for someone's perception. It is therefore not clear whether there was a subsequent appeal or not, either to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, or in NY or in any state of the land.

The problem I see, is that he discusses the NY case, which is clear as to the fact that he conveys a ruling was made back in December last year. So that reference is done and over with, at least, that is my impression.
He then moves on to say: "For those, who want to keep the lever machines, you have to tell it to the judge." Obviously he is talking about the lever machines in NY, so, NY district court.
But the reason for NY lever machine supporters to go to the NY judge is: "because" "at the moment" (which is many months after the NY ruling) "the highest court of the land ruled....".
This, in effect, is distancing the NY district court and the case previously referenced, and replaces it with some "unknown to me, case at the Supreme Court", which I might have not known about, in my mind.

So, to me regardless of intent or no intent, I understand people misunderstanding or having a problem with it.

I know activists worked so hard and understandably get emotional and feel attacked, scrutinized and judged all the time. Acknowledging, that perhaps, this just was not the best way to present it may have settled it. And we all do it all the time - perhaps it is something we can all learn from.

That's all...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. fair enough
He might want to avoid that phrase if he could take a mulligan!

At the risk of busting your chops, let's be clear: he didn't say, "the highest court of the land ruled...." Unless it's somewhere else on the tape and I missed it! When I listened to it, it never occurred to me that he might be talking about any case other than the one he had just explained. People do hear things differently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-19-08 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. I love it when non-lawyers try to speak Legalese.
Edited on Sat Jul-19-08 10:32 PM by Bill Bored
I mean, we don't tell YOU how to read EXIT POLLS! Do we? :toast:

Novick is absolutely right on this. There has been NO RULING on whether a voting system comprised of lever machines and at least one accessible ballot marker at each polling place is HAVA-compliant. The closest thing to that is Douglas Kellner's expert legal opinion that such a system DOES comply with HAVA.

No one has posted any contrary opinion based on anything other than their own self-appointed pseudo-expertise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-20-08 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. I see a lot of dancing around the obvious
The SRO says what it says. Ananda and Novick, for reasons best known to them, ignored it entirely. If you want to bicker about whether its position on levers counts as a "ruling," hey, go wild. Blow smoke all you like.

As far as I can see, the best one can say is that the judge hasn't explicitly rejected the logic of Novick's amicus brief. Maybe he hadn't read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-20-08 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. "ignored it entirely"?? Gee!
That's surprising, especially coming from you.

Perhaps Novick disagrees with the legal analysis of an ex-software engineer or a political scientist. More likely, they disagree with her...or aren't even listening as in the case of the one who seems to have fingers placed in ears while singing "la-la-la "the ship has sailed" la-la-la I can't/won't hear you".

I see no conflict between between what Novick is saying on the matter of lever HAVA compliance and anything I am aware of that the judge has written. Do you?

He has ordered NY to change out the levers as part of the agreement it made with the DoJ. Does that mean he ruled lever's HAVA non-compliant??? Of course not. And you are enough of a parser to understand that.

Has NY complied yet?? No. Has anyone been thrown in jail?? No. And that's despite the threat of it the judge DID make.

I know Bo and Co. claim that a "ship has sailed". But that was probably the garbage barge hauling off all the dis-info and misleading notions surrounding the matter.

Despite the choir warble, the rotund women has yet to croon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-20-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. I'm discussing the article in the OP
Novick may somewhere have said something very cogent about the SRO -- I don't know. Maybe she even said something cogent in her letter to Mary Ann Gould, and Ananda left it out. Regardless, the article in the OP, including the lengthy quotation from Novick, gives readers no idea why Lipari said what he said. That's apparently what it was designed to do. The fact that the SRO explicitly refers to BMDs as conferring only "partial compliance with HAVA's voting systems requirements" is omitted.

I concede that "ignored it entirely" was careless, since the OP does (probably) mention the SRO. What the OP ignores entirely is what the SRO says about levers or levers plus BMDs.

Wilms, go ahead, explain it to me: why did the judge find that adding BMDs or the equivalent constituted "partial compliance with HAVA's voting system requirements"? Was that "partial" as in "complete"? Was that "partial" as in "well, or maybe complete, but I haven't ruled on that"? I see a story being told that the judge only ordered Plan A because the SBOE offered Plan A, but I'm having a hard time squaring that with what the judge actually wrote.

Now, if someone wants to tell me that the judge didn't think it through very carefully and might change his mind, fine, good luck with that. I think this whole thread is bizarre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-20-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. A reference I made up thread speaks to the partial-ness. And to Bo & Berry's own ommisions.
As to the judge ruling that the state must become HAVA compliant AND replace levers, it's important to note that NY State failed to supply a ballot marker per polling place in clear non-compliance with HAVA. The State didn't get the voter registration data-base together in clear non-compliance with HAVA. The State didn't spend money it accepted to replace lever machine's in clear non-compliance with HAVA. None of that I see cited by you or Bo (though I could have missed it), and none of that says that lever machines can't be part of a HAVA compliant system.

So you see, there is more to HAVA compliance than a BMD at each polling place. And that shouldn't be confused with an errorneous idea that HAVA or the judge ruled levers incapable of being part of a HAVA compliant Voting System.

In other words, read the law first! :D


In my own way, I find "this whole thread is bizarre".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-20-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. huh?
Assuming everything you said there is true, I don't see how it has any bearing on my post. SBOE might've done 70 things non-compliant with HAVA, and how would it change the meaning of what I quoted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-20-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Pretty much what I quoted.
Now, if you think the judge is referring to the EAC's OPINION, that's certainly a possibility.

But that is an opinion, not a ruling, and if one wanted to make it law, they'd have to prevail in court, and have HAVA subsequently amended, or just have HAVA amennded.

In the meantime, "the highest court in the land" to hear a NY State HAVA related case has NOT ruled on lever HAVA compliancy.

I'll do this ALL summer long with you...and then some. Show me a line that said the judge ruled on levers as non-compliant, and get an lawyer to back you up. I just got word that another attorney looked at it and found NO RULING on lever HAVA compliance.

Meanwhile, tiptoe misses you sooo he now posts about securing the vote count by using a PC and ending secret voting. :rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-20-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. the judge needn't be referring to anything else
To review your list: (1) The state didn't supply BMDs? The SRO makes clear that adding BMDs constitutes only partial compliance with the voting system standards. (2) The voter reg database wasn't together? Not part of the voting system standards. (3) The state didn't spend the HAVA money? Not part of the voting system standards.

So, I'm still waiting for a response to my question in 54. Did your attorney help out with that one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-20-08 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Are we looking at different docs? I
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documen...

I'm going by the wording in 5.) starting at the bottom of page 2. Are you???

Why does he say, "...full compliance with HAVA's voting system requirements, and the replacement of all lever voting machines..."? Because he isn't arguing they are one and the same, is what I'm saying, and at least two attorneys agree. But not you and a few other people. So?

I do see in 4.) what you might be referring to. It says the Court "finds" in part "based" on what the defendant (NY) said. So where's the ruling if the defendant didn't argue? And what don't you get about the fact that it's exactly what Novick is suing the State for?

So, I'm still waiting for a response to my question. Where does the judge say levers are not HAVA compliant?

If you are going to point to the SRO 4.) or 5.), don't. You have already, repeatedly. And I'm bored by the intransigence.

We'll argue some more after the ruling comes down from "the highest court in the land" that will rule. :D

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-20-08 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. I'm going by 4, which I quoted
But if you want to go to 5, then then I take "and" there to have the same sense as "specifically including" in order #3. While order #3 does not in itself say that this specific inclusion is necessary for HAVA compliance, you still haven't proposed an alternative interpretation of finding 4.

I don't think the reference to the defendant in 4 has anything to do with the question of what is HAVA-compliant. I assume it has to do with what is possible in 2008. The key is that the court considers the deployment of BMDs to constitute "partial compliance" with the voting system requirements. But if you choose to cite the reference to the defendant, then I will note the multiple references to the amicus briefs. Did Novick submit her amicus brief? Was it accepted? Do we have reason to believe that the judge didn't read it?

All this would be moot if Bo Lipari weren't on trial. Whatever the judge said, he could unsay, or someone else could unsay for him. But I get the impression that Bo's problem isn't that he said anything ridiculous, but that he stepped on someone's talking points.

I simply don't buy the argument that what the SRO says in finding 4 is irrelevant unless the SBOE argued against it. And you apparently don't have an alternative interpretation of it. So it stands, as far as you have shown me, that the court has found that the combination of levers and BMDs constitutes only partial compliance with HAVA section 301. But if you want to say that it isn't a "ruling," fine. I happen to think that's a bad reason to say that what Bo said is "exactly the sort of deception that computerized voting vendors employ." You can't even convince me not to agree with him. Call it "intransigence" if you like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #62
64. You mean #3 the DEFENDANTS PLAN???
Where's there a ruling on HAVA compliance in a defendants plan? The SBOE might've promised 70 things having nothing to do with HAVA in that plan having zero effect on what HAVA says. That's what's argued. Perhaps Novick has no idea what she is talking about and should have consulted someone outside the field.

You could other hand it to death. So?

Actually, all this would be moot if Andi, Radi, and anyone else stepping on Bo Lipari's talking points had chosen to abandon NY's levers in favor of electronic vote counting.

Bo isn't on trial. They are. Bo's the victim. :sarcasm: Didn't you get memo? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. you still have no answer to finding #4
You seem to be hanging on the argument that although the judge said that Plan B constituted only partial compliance with 301, he didn't "rule" it. Even if that distinction passes technical muster, it doesn't warrant accusing Lopari of deceit, in my book. YMMV, and evidently does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #65
67. Who used the word deceit?
Not me. So get off my back about it. Your kindof stalking me with your merrygoroundishness.

This discussion meanders between what makes a ruling and what constitutes a rationalization for what someone else used for the title of an article they pulled. Talk about bizarre.

I've stated over and over what I've said and why. That you don't (want to?) get it is a matter of record as well. That a lawyer is making a case against the state you want to argue against is your problem. File your own amicus complaining about what the meaning of is is. As a NYS voter, you might even have standing. If you're still in the mood for dragging it out, take it to the highest court in the land. Bo might offer to drive.

What ever goes in your "book", or in your mind, isn't my responsibility. Whatever Bo brings on himself with disingenuous and misleading statements and his advocacy for computerized vote counting and his disparagement of levers is his.

Some of us consider the replacement of levers with computerized vote counting to be a dangerous. You don't? Then your in the wrong forum.

As for me, I stand by my assertion that Bo made a statement likely to mislead people.

Sue me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. actually, I was happy to agree to agree
You followed me over here, so to speak. You must have felt you weren't being clear enough. Maybe you aren't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrenberry Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-22-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #55
73. Partialness? Omissions?
I cannot understand your title to this entry or your accusations of "partialness" and "omissions" on the part of myself and Bo Lipari. Why should we have spoken to NY's delayed compliance with the HAVA requirements for a Voter Database? Why should we have spoken of the delayed spending of the HAVA money?

New York now has the NYSVOTER, the database, in place, for good or for ill. Everyone MUST check his/her registration, since there are many problems. If it had not had that in place, the Department of Justice probably would have cited that failure.

I believe the DoJ memorandum does speak of the money NY has received, but not spent, to replace the lever machines.

But I still do not understand why we are criticized for not specifically mentioning these matters. They are not the issue we were addressing.

WWB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-22-08 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Only to the degree they are or may have been at issue relative to NYS non-compliance.
I believe it's self-explanatory.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-20-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. Not only didn't the judge "think it through", he was never asked to think it through. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-20-08 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. you mean, Novick never filed the amicus brief?
Or do you mean that it doesn't count because she isn't a party to that case?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-20-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #57
63. No and Yes.
Edited on Sun Jul-20-08 11:16 PM by Bill Bored
No, the brief was filed.

IIRC, the brief did not ask for a ruling on levers being HAVA-compliant. It asked for HCPB for federal elections to comply with HAVA.

And yes, she was not a party to the case; the State of NY is a party to the case. That's why they are gong to be sued -- for giving up levers without any particularly good reason. But that's OK; they're used to being sued over e-voting! :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #63
66. not exactly
The brief argued that New York had two options: it could hand count the federal races, or it could "continue voting on HAVA-compliant lever machines for all races." Evidently Novick wasn't counting on winning the latter argument. As page 7 sums up, "Amici have argued that the existing lever voting systems are HAVA-compliant, but that in the event the Court disagrees with this interpretation of the statute, New York would still be able to be HAVA-compliant for the 2008 election by hand counting the two Federal races(5), thus rendering the United States' motion moot."

But I guess we're all supposed to pretend that levers weren't even mentioned in the brief, so, never mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #66
68. So?
It still doesn't make a ruling.

Next?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #66
70. No need to pretend. As I said, the amici were NOT parties to the case.
Edited on Mon Jul-21-08 09:09 PM by Bill Bored
And the fact that Novick may have considered the possibility of a negative ruling from a judge who said he got his information about this stuff from reading newspapers (as opposed to the law, I guess) is just good lawyering -- esp. when you also consider that the amici were mostly HCPB proponents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-21-08 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. and exit poll true believers, too
Not that there's anything wrong with that....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-19-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. See post #50. You can't appeal if there hasn't been a ruling! nt
Edited on Sat Jul-19-08 11:08 PM by Bill Bored
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrenberry Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
76. Let's read the timeline and get rid of this defamatory article
I finally had time to look through the postings here and determined that Bo's presentation of the timeline of the broadcast that he sent to OpEdNews on July 3 and that, apparently, led to its removal has not been posted. I will post it now, hoping that the managers of this forum reconsider their posting of Rady Ananda's article. It perpetuates by its very title slanderous treatment of someone who continues to work very hard for election integrity in New York. See, for example, the letter to the state Board of Elections about the NY voter database that he helped to develop this past week together with other good government groups. WWB

From Bo Lipari on July 3:

Heres what I said (from the recording) with time codes where you can find my statements:

12:44 filed a lawsuit with the US District Court, Northern District, Judge Gary Sharpe presiding...

12:54 what THEY CLAIMED were the requirements of HAVA...

13:18 Judge Gary Sharpe ruled that NY must replace its lever machines in compliance with HAVA

13:51 because at the moment, the highest court in the land WHICH HAS RULED ON HAVA and lever machines...

14:16 the highest court in the land that has ruled on this...

These were the statements that I made and they are accurate. The US District Court is the highest court in the land that has ruled on HAVA and lever machines. Your statements, and Radys articles, are misrepresentations of what I said, selectively removing the that has ruled modifier.

In light of the transcript of the radio show, it is clear that you have misrepresented my statements and again I call for OpEd news to remove this inaccurate and defamatory piece.

-Bo

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 03:52 AM
Response to Original message
84. All four or five of you deserve
a raise, you have succesfully diverted some Americans attention from the FACT that their ballots are being counted IN SECRET.

Where do we go from here?

:rofl:

Kster
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoccoR5955 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-01-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
85. Sorry, I don't trust ANY software driven ANYTHING.
I work with computers, and have been a network technician for about 20 years. I can tell you that there should be no trust in anything that is run on any computer. Especially if it is running under a Microsoft operating system, aka Windows (any flavor). Microsoft operating systems have at least 4 security patches that come out every month. Some months there are patches for merely functionality, because someone discovered a bug in the bloated operating system. The code is proprietary, and cannot be legitimately examined for flaws, or back doors that could let someone who wants to wreak havoc with any voting system that is running on top of this.

All the DREs use Microsoft's operating system to tally the votes. I am an election custodian in my town, and was promised that I would get to see these new machines, and examine how they worked. I have yet to see one. The local boards of elections have been quite hush hush about showing anyone these flawed systems.

So these new systems will be a cash cow for the corporations who make them, because every year, they are going to have to patch the software, or even scrap the whole system, because Microsoft will no longer support the operating system. More money from the pockets of WE THE PEOPLE, into the coffers of them, the corporations.

They have many talented programmers in Albany. Surely, the State could come up with a system for less money, using less resources than the corporations. After all, corporations have more overhead than any government agency. I would so much rather see this done by a civil servant than a corporation. Sorry, I just don't trust corporations any more.

Oh, and there are non-corporate operating systems that are very secure, but the corporations and their lackeys don't want you to know that, because then their cash cow goes away.

Personally, I would trust an old mechanical device much sooner than I would trust ANYTHING on a computer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-02-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. You seem to be saying that ALL voting computers run Miscrosoft OSs...
...but this isn't true.

However, your final statement makes a lot of sense!:

"I would trust an old mechanical device much sooner than I would trust ANYTHING on a computer." :toast:

See this site for details about a lawsuit you might be interested in supporting:
http://re-mediaetc.blogspot.com/
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 Nov 28th 2014, 12:01 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