Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

BradBlog: Plaintiffs Suddenly Blocked in New Mexico '04 Election Lawsuit

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
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 09:57 PM
Original message
BradBlog: Plaintiffs Suddenly Blocked in New Mexico '04 Election Lawsuit
Edited on Sat Nov-12-05 10:20 PM by Nothing Without Hope
After they ALREADY were confirming some "impossible" voting machine "glitches," they were suddenly blocked from examining the voting machines as promised:

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002008.htm
Blogged by Brad on 11/12/2005 @ 5:19pm PT...

Plaintiffs Blocked During Discovery Phase of New Mexico '04 Election Lawsuit


Kept From Inspecting Voting Machines as Promised
Process So Far Has Revealed Votes Changed from One Candidate to Another, Disappearing All Together...

We've failed to report too terribly much on it to date, but there is a very important law suit quietly proceeding in New Mexico which is challenging the results of the 2004 Presidential Election there. The final result of that election was very close, and Election Reform advocates -- and indeed a great deal of evidence -- suggests that something was amiss there. Michael Collins wrote a good article about the suit (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00067.htm ) a couple of weeks ago for New Zealand's SCOOP (http://www.scoop.co.nz ).

Yesterday, VoterAction.org (http://www.voteraction.org ) sent out an email about some roadblocks that the plaintiffs are suddenly facing in the discovery phase of the trial. They were supposed to have been allowed to have experts inspect -- for the first time -- the Electronic Voting Machines that were used in the '04 Election, along with the actual results that they gave.

All of a sudden, Voter Action says, the county clerks have flat-out refused to permit the inspections by the plaintiff's experts. That, after some interesting evidence has already been found by the experts during discovery, like tests where they were able to see votes for one candidate being registered for their opponent (as has been so widely reported as happening in so many elections of late!) and ballots being confirmed with NO choice for President at all, which wasn't supposed to have been possible on at least one of the machine types being looked at.

Voter Action didn't post the article from their email on their website, so we'll post it here in its entirety. Check it out...

(snip)


Brad included in this post the entire email from Voter action on this development. I recommend you read it all. Here is an excerpt:


NM Election Officials Try to Block Machine Inspections


Voter Action New Mexico Update 11/11/05

In the past week, two New Mexico election officials refused to allow the voter plaintiffs in the case of Patricia Rosas Lopategui v. Rebecca Vigil-Giron, et al. to conduct meaningful inspections of their electronic voting machines. This despite clear indications that there were serious problems in last years presidential election with these same machines, which do not produce a voter-verifiable and auditable paper record.

Bernalillo County Clerk Mary Herrera has given no explanation for her sudden, flat refusal to permit any inspection after weeks of discussions between plaintiffs attorneys and attorneys for the county. Plaintiffs have sworn statements from Bernalillo County voters who tried to vote on the countys paperless touchscreen voting machines, manufactured by Sequoia Voting Systems, and whose votes were switched before their eyes from the candidate they supported to a different candidate. Plaintiffs also have evidence that the Countys widespread use of another type of paperless machine, the Shoup 1242, resulted in the erasure of votes that citizens tried to cast for presidential candidates.

(snip - please read it all in Brad's post)

Neither unreasonably broad warranty restrictions nor the intellectual property claims of private corporations should trump the publics right to know exactly how their votes are recorded and counted. Elections officials should not be able to contract away this right when they buy voting machines. They should not be able to hide behind contracts with private companies to avoid having a bright light shown on the inner workings of the paperless electronic voting machines. Unless and until everything about how these machines work is open to public scrutiny, voters are being asked to take it on faith that electronic voting is accurate, reliable and secure. With everything that is known in other fields about the prevalence of programming errors, software bugs, and hacking where computers are concerned, that is asking too much.

What comes next? The attorneys for the plaintiffs will ask the court to order the defendants to permit full inspections of the voting machines. They will also proceed to amass more evidence by taking depositions of witnesses from public elections agencies and the private voting machine companies.

Let us know what YOU think info@voteraction.org

Voter Action is a project of the International Humanities Center. www.voteraction.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well, shucks...I can't imagine why they'd wanna block an investigation
that shows something was fishy with the voting machines...anyone else have any ideas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MelissaB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. No clue.
Fishy? I thought I smelled something funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Exactly
If they were so positive nothing was wrong and everything went swell they would allow people to freely look. This shows that they are hiding something for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boo Boo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. My beverage-addled brain can think of three reasons:
Edited on Sun Nov-13-05 12:40 AM by Boo Boo
1) Malfeasance.

2) The machines are bug-riddled pieces of shit, and both the companies that built the machines and the public officials that spent shit-loads of the tax payer's money on them want to cover up the embarrassing details.

3) All of the above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
31. I'd say that about covers it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Here are my favorites.
From the referenced Voter Action New Mexico Update 11/11/05

I adore electronic voting. It's so quirky.


"ballots being confirmed with NO choice for President at all, which wasn't supposed to have been possible on at least one of the machine types being looked at."

"experts were able to cast ballots that contained no votes whatsoever, something the County Clerk and her staff had told them the machines would not permit. They did this by first selecting the straight party option, which marked votes for every candidate of the selected party on the ballot. Next, they pressed the boxes for each of the partys individual candidates, which erased those votes. Finally, they pressed the Vote button, and the screen notified them that they had successfully voted."



LandShark is not gonna like this one...


"Ms. Hanhardt also refused to allow plaintiffs experts to examine or copy electronic files containing the results of the November 2004 presidential election that were stored in the machines redundant memories. The reason? The machines store the results of public elections in a secret, proprietary format that ES&S claims as its private property. According to Ms. Hanhardt, allowing plaintiffs experts to see those results in their original form would violate the countys contract with ES&S, which prohibits disclosure of proprietary information."





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yeah, he'll love those (and I love your Land Shark image!)
I think I'll PM him with a headsup to this thread in case he didn't see the BradBlog post yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. good stuff-- kickin --keep it kicked for the Am crowd
Edited on Sat Nov-12-05 10:54 PM by FogerRox
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. LandShark's waiting for OTOH to show and tell us it's not a problem

But, this is a good opportunity to teach Constitutional law and democracy and open records laws to these "officials"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #6
22. this is supposed to be humorous? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
29. What's OTOH?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
5. Related thread in the GD-P forum on this important development:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
thread title (in GD-P): NM '04 Election Lawsuit discovery blocked: voting machines show vote shift

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is great
Bernalillo County is the one county in NM where voters noticed vote switching right before their eyes, when they tried to vote for Kerry.

It sounds like they have something to hide -- they weren't able to destroy the evidence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Exactly. The broken promise to allow machine examination shows that
some pay dirt. Election fraud appears to have happened at multiple levels. Examining the machines wouldn't reveal pre-election secret, illegal voter disenfranchisement, and it wouldn't demonstrate hacking of the central tabulators. But it does look like those individual machines did have "questionable" programming.

I'm betting that if electronic election fraud is not prevented next time, the criminals will streamline the process and make it harder to detect. After all, what if the machine's display, visible to the voter, recorded a vote for Kerry at the same time that it electronically recorded a vote for Bush? Or what if it proves easier to just do it all by hacking the central tabulators?

The secret purging of Dem voters from the Florida rolls that tipped the 2000 "election" to Bush (though the stopped recount would have shown it didn't tip it enough) clearly was not an isolated incident either. I hope everyone reading this thread is aware of the work you have been doing in assembling information pointing to large secret Dem voter purges in Ohio before the 2004 election. For example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
thread title (11/9): The Role of Voter Registration Purging/Fraud in Kerry's loss of Ohio
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Yeah, I think that played a very big role in Ohio
We're still working on that one. Hope to have some more substantial news on that soon.

And I think you're exactly right that if something isn't done about this stuff this time around it's only going to get worse. It's real good to see so many people working on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kralizec Donating Member (982 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yup. Didn't we all call it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
10. Here's one example of a Bernalillo County voting machine complaint
Taken verbatim from an Election Incident Reporting System report:

Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico This caller used an electronic voting machine, and after selecting a democratic candidate, noticed that the republican light actually lit up. He had to select the democratic candidate again to cancel it out, and then select it again to make the correct selection. He had to do this for almost all of the people he voted for. Worried that others won't realize the problem. THIS WAS THE SECOND TIME THAT HE CALLED (but I forgot to get the first case #, so I'm not sure what the first issue was)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
12. DO NOT MISS the Michael Collins article on this NM suit cited in the OP:
Edited on Sat Nov-12-05 11:52 PM by Nothing Without Hope
This article gives essential background information on the New Mexico 2004 election voting machine "glitches" and brings the story up to just before the update given by Brad and excerpted in the opening post.

Here's an excerpt from this important article, which is said to be THE FIRST IN A SERIES:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00067.htm
New Mexico Law Suit Delves Inside Voting Machines
Thursday, 3 November 2005, 12:30 pm
Article: Michael Collins

Election Errors Threaten Future Voting Rights in New Mexico


Major Law Suit Under Way to Open Up Secret Workings of Voting Machines
Special Report for Scoop Independent Media
First in a Series

By Michael Collins
Nov. 2, 2005

(snip)

If you were a Hispanic American or Native American voting in New Mexico on November 4, 2004, you may have experienced some of the following:

The most likely problem was simply to find out that your vote for president or other offices was not counted. Ballots with missing votes are called under votes. In New Mexico there were around 23,000 under votes out of a total of about 750 thousand votes cast. That is a rate of 3.0% for the state, or six times the expected rate of under votes in a presidential election. In Hispanic and Native American precincts under votes range from 6% to as high as 49%. One poll worker described watching 141 voters come to the precinct, enter the polling booth where a voting machine awaited, stay for a short period, and leave. At the end of the day, there was only one vote counted for president. Thats a 99% plus rate of under votes for that precinct.

In another scenario, called election machine vote switching, one voter describes a scene that occurred throughout the state. The voter was choosing between Republican Heather Wilson and Democrat Richard Romero in the 1st Congressional District, near Albuquerque, NM. She recounts the frustrating story as follows:

I voted for Richard Romero. The check did not appear in the box. I tried three more times to vote for Richard Romero, making sure that I was not touching the screen in any other place. The vote never registered. The fourth time that I tried to vote for Richard Romero, a check appeared in the box by Heather Wilson's name.


For the next 45 minutes, the voter sought help from an election official. None one was available. When help finally arrived, The monitor came and cleared the machine and stood watching me as I voted again. It finally seemed to take her vote for Democrat Romero. Describing the one hour ordeal to cast just one vote in one race, the voter said, I have no idea if my vote was processed correctly.

(snip)


Here we see the familiar story acted out who knows how many thousands upon thousands of times in swing states in the 2004 Presidential elections. The fact that the experts have now suddenly been denied further access to the voting machines after they already were able to demonstrate that these "glitches" really were occurring, shows that THE PAYDIRT IS THERE. The GOPs and their operatives are throwing up what roadblocks they can. We cannot allow them to get away with it - THIS IS NOT A TIME FOR SILENCE.

Note that this Nov 2 story was published in a NEW ZEALAND media venue. Let's media blast and shame the US media into breaking the silence on electronic election fraud in the 2004 Presidential election. This fraud case and its most recent development should be NATIONAL NEWS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A-Possum Donating Member (172 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
14. Santa Fe
I have always thought it was downright weird that the downtown precinct of Santa Fe, which has the highest percentage of registered Dems in the county (maybe even the state, I forget the specifics) went for Bush.

Santa Fe HATES Bush. I could not believe that he really won that district. There was even an article about it in the paper. There was no suggestion of fraud at the time, but a chill went down my spine.

It just made no sense. None.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Santa Fe for Bush? Come on!
I couldn't and didn't believe it, either. If Santa Fe went for Bush, you're all invited to my party to see Kokopelli riding a white buffalo.

Well, why not? It's as good a story as the one that says Bush won Santa Fe.

I'm watching the evolution of this lawsuit with hope -- not a lot, but enough to get out of bed in the morning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
16. So they found problems with the machines and have now shut
down the investigation? Is that right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Guess they thought they'd covered their tracks enough. After all,
examination of the machines wouldn't reveal other fraud and voter suppression mechanisms like secret voter roll purges and central tabulator hacking (to name just two possibilities). But as soon as the examiners were able to demonstrate some of the same "glitches" reported in Nov 2004 by voters, suddenly they were forbidden to look any further.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Surely the attny's can get the courts to allow the inspections now
right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-05 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #24
35. Better tact is undo the issue with the hardware by having the contractor's
personnel present to assure that no physical tampering has occurred to void the warranties; and obtain from observers written assurances that trade secrets are not divulged.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
18. Helpful snipets from this thread on NM refusal to allow inspection
Bernalillo County Clerk Mary Herrera has given no explanation for her sudden, flat refusal to permit any inspection after weeks of discussions between plaintiffs attorneys and attorneys for the county.

<snip>

Neither unreasonably broad warranty restrictions nor the intellectual property claims of private corporations should trump the publics right to know exactly how their votes are recorded and counted. Elections officials should not be able to contract away this right when they buy voting machines. They should not be able to hide behind contracts with private companies to avoid having a bright light shown on the inner workings of the paperless electronic voting machines. Unless and until everything about how these machines work is open to public scrutiny, voters are being asked to take it on faith that electronic voting is accurate, reliable and secure. With everything that is known in other fields about the prevalence of programming errors, software bugs, and hacking where computers are concerned, that is asking too much.

info@voteraction.org http://www.voteraction.org/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. Bernilillo County = County where Albuquerque is. n.t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-05 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. EIRS info on Bernilillo County
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-15-05 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. Thanks for this link n.t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
21. To our Goverment, Please remain silent let them block us
Edited on Sun Nov-13-05 02:04 AM by kster
we can take it, we will get them,with or without your help.

Don't get up. We will get it done!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
23. kicked + nominated
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
25. What are they hiding?
Hmm?


NGU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. i dunno but
they've been trying really hard to hide it, and for a long time now.

i wonder what it could be? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-05 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Ya know, since they've been trying so hard to hide it, for so long,
I wonder what it is?

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
27. So what exactly are they hiding? Perchance the GEMS database?
interesting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. no point in hiding THAT...we already know what that looks like! Don't
they know we know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
28. K&R
Keep it on top.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
32. kick - off the Greatest Page now, will be harder to keep visible n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-05 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
36. It appears Kerry won New Mexico
http://www.flcv.com/newmex.html

So why have the Dem leaders tried to block the investigation and the evidence along with the Repubs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-17-05 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
39. They bought "Schroedinger's Service Contract" from Sequoia
that means they cant check the machines for errors or the contract is void. And the dead cat inside the machine is why it keeps messing up!

http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/051116.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-20-05 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
40. FYI you probably know this but DATA is ALWAYS the customer's property
even in trade secret programs.
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 Tue Sep 25th 2018, 06:00 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