Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

(Lynn Landes) Voting Systems Lawsuit Reaches U.S. Supreme Court

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 Tue Jan-31-06 03:14 PM
Original message
(Lynn Landes) Voting Systems Lawsuit Reaches U.S. Supreme Court


Press Release Source: Lynn Landes

Voting Systems Lawsuit Reaches U.S. Supreme Court

Monday January 30, 11:01 am ET

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- A little-noticed voting rights lawsuit has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court (Docket No. 05-930). It constitutes the first legal challenge to the widespread use of nontransparent voting systems. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges the use of voting machines and absentee voting in elections for public office.

The lawsuit was originally filed by freelance journalist Lynn Landes in July of 2004 in Philadelphia federal court (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Landes on November 2, 2005.

In her lawsuit Landes claims that, as a voter and a journalist, she has the right to direct access to a physical ballot and to observe the voting process unimpeded. Voting by machine or absentee, Landes claims, introduces obstacles and concealment to a process that must be accessible and transparent in a meaningful and effective manner.

snip

"I tried to get civil rights organizations interested in this case, but had no luck. Their disregard for this issue is incredible. It's clear to me that without direct access to a physical ballot and meaningful transparency in the process, our elections have no integrity whatsoever," says Landes.

The defendants in the Landes lawsuit are Margaret Tartaglione, Chair of the City Commissioners of Philadelphia; Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States.

snip

Early American history seems to favor the Landes position. Prior to the Civil War, voting was a public and transparent process. It was only after the war, as the elective franchise expanded to minorities and women, three changes to state and federal election laws were adopted that eventually made the voting process a private and nontransparent enterprise: absentee voting was allowed (1870's), the Australian secret ballot method was adopted (1880's), and voting machines were permitted by Congress (1899).

snip

The defendants' response is due at the Supreme Court no later than February 24, 2006. The Landes lawsuit can be found at the following url: http://www.EcoTalk.org/lawsuit.doc .

snip

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060130/phm029.html?.v=38&pr...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. Here We Go! (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. Just in time
No wonder the Repugs were so desperate to get Alito on the bench.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-01-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. my thought exactly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainegreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. Quit frankly lets hope she does not overturn absentee voting...
Most liberals I know vote absentee (myself included) due to work restrictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. I think absentee tends to lean right.

But I'd be open to a national holiday for voting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. Bush v Gore 2000
It is settled law.

might as well try to teach a poodle to speak russian

Thomas no
Alito no
Roberts no
Scalia no
Kennedy no

Welcome to nazi america
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. That vision flashed before my eyes when I first learned about e-voting
in summer 2004 and the full implications hit me. Hopefully we can get far enough along on election reform before more justices are appointed that we can still save the day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is why the nominees are so important.
Right here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
6. Too bad she;'s thrown in absentee. People in the mililtary or out of the
country are supposed to just not vote? And it would do away with vote by mail, which works so well in OR, although we do have a physical ballot which we can drop off at BOE and can observe everything that happens except what the proprietary software does in the scanners once it's inserted into the scanner...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galloglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-01-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. The primary objective
is to get an honest, accountable vote. That accomplished, we can go in and back-fill to perfect things.

Which is more important?

1) To insure that one or more voters won't temporarily lose their franchise (because they are TDY, on vacation, or whatever) in an election that may be rigged, anyway, or

2) To make the system honest and transparent, so that we have a valid vote, and valid, reviewable count of those ballots which are cast.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
7. K&Recommended..nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-01-06 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
11. Kick*
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MelissaB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-01-06 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
13. This didn't make it to the "greatest"?
:wtf: I'm sorry I didn't see this until now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-01-06 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I just found it too-- please repost to maybe GD-- send us PMs
Repost & Send me/us all the link-- so we can recommend it-- this post needs to be jacked to the top of the page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-02-06 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Same here.
Edited on Thu Feb-02-06 03:39 AM by Kurovski
I actually said "dammit" out loud when I saw that I missed it by minutes.

I agree that you should repost it, and if it doesn't make it to greatest, contact a few of us.

FogerRox has a good idea in putting it into General discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-01-06 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
15. kick
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-02-06 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
17. She was on Ed Schultz today
but I missed most of it so I went and looked at her web page. I agree with the way she presents information so much because what she says is so uncomplicated and straightforward.(but yeah, absentee is a problem) She was talking about how this was just totally ignored by corporate media. Afterward a caller came on and said that BushCo told the msm after the election that if they said anything about the election being rigged or unquestionable they wouldn't get any info from WH. Does anyone remember that? The show ended and the lady couldn't finish. (Hmmm).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
18. kick
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 Apr 23rd 2019, 07:19 AM
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