Meet-up to communicate with Dem leaders in California

[Helga Scow Stern]

This looks promising. I will try to go to the meeting in SB and see what Nunez says. He is one of those who has been more supportive of Shelley.

************************************

Here's an opportunity for you to ask questions of our State's Democratic leaders:



Jon mentioned a statewide conference call at this Wednesday's Progressive Coalition Meetup. California for Democracy has arranged for the new Speaker of the CA State Assembly, Fabian Nunez, to address all DFA meet-ups statewide on a conference call March 2nd. The Speaker will talk about the Governor and ways the grassroots can fight the Bush/Schwarzenegger agenda in their own backyards. Fabian has been coordinating specific anti-Arnold legislation and actions for the grassroots to take with folks like documentarian Robert Greenwald and Arianna Huffington. In Santa Barbara, we'll also be hearing live from Hannah-Beth Jackson about her new statewide organization, and we'll connect these ideas for activism with our local progressive groups.



So far there are 23 Meetups in California participating in the conference call, including:



Santa Barbara Progressive Coalition
San Luis Obispo
DFA-LA
Fresno
Oakland DFA
Palm Springs / Coachella
San Francisco 4 Democracy
Santa Cruz
San Mateo County
LA / South Bay
DFA Temecula
Walnut Creek
Silicon Valley
Valley for Democracy
Sacramento
Thousand Oaks
San Jose



The Speaker will answer 3 or 4 pre-selected questions from Meetups across the State. If you have a question, please submit it to me ([email protected] ) by Tuesday at 9pm, and I'll submit all the questions from our Meetup to the hosts of the conference call.



Thank you,

Susan

[Wilms]

1. Nice.

;)

[Helga Scow Stern]

2. Perhaps there is some hope after all....

B-) even in California.

[Peace Patriot]

3. So I gather that the deadline is tonight 9 pm to submit a question...

...will YOU be able to submit a question? Can anyone? (--to that email above) --or just members? (what is DFA?)

Worth trying, I guess. (I'm at a very remote location, and don't see anywhere near me listed.)

Want to try to formulate a question here?

I want to scream WHAT THE HELL DO WE DO ABOUT CALIFORNIA???!!!

But I know that wouldn't be helpful.

I think our question will need a little preamble:

Those of us submitting this question, 1) are convinced on the basis of a mountain of evidence, and the reports of numerous, top ranking Ph.D's in statistics, that the 2004 election was stolen, with the largest part of the theft occurring by means of the secret programming code in electronic voting machines, owned and controlled by BushCon Republicans; 2) are extremely concerned about what appears to be a very unfair removal of our DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED, DEMOCRATIC Secretary of State, who decertified and sued one of these criminal voting machine companies, and provided us with a paper ballot option for the 2004 election; and 3) are extremely concerned about the Bushification of California via fraudulent elections or Scharz/Bush controlled redistricting.

What are the best things that we can do...

--to protect the reforms that Kevin Shelley began?

--to expand on those reforms, and in particular to, a) ban all electronic vote tabulation using secret, proprietary source code; b) require Voter Verified Paper Ballots that take precedence over electronic results in any recount; and c) institute more stringent certification of election machinery and auditing of elections, or, more radically, banish all electronic voting until it can be PROVEN to be reliable and secure, and return to paper ballots and hand counts at least as a temporary measure?

What are the best things we can do

--to publicize Schwarz's connections to Enron and the Bush Cartel, and to tag him with failure to protect California's interest in recovering the $9 billion that Enron stole from us?

--prevent any redistricting with Schwarz as Gov., and a Schwarz. appointee as Sec of State?

What the hell is the matter with Connie McCormack (L.A. elections chief) who supports paperless voting, and Don Perata and Gloria Romero, who joined the witchhunt of Shelley?

----

Kind of a complicated question--but it reallys says just about everything that's on my mind about Calif.

What do you think?

[Helga Scow Stern]

4. That sounds like the whole enchilada

let me think on it a bit more and I hope others will too. If it was submitted by us as a group, it might get more attention! The DU election fraud group?

Edit to add:

I don't think it is necessary to be a Californian to weigh in on matters here. What is going on here now with the coup attempt is crucial to the nation, if not the world.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Yup, let's see if we can get some concensus over the course of the day...

...and submit it as "Members of the Democratic Underground 2004 Election Results and Discussion Forum."

I'll keep it kicked, so we get some more opinions here, wording suggestions, whatever.

[EFerrari]

8. Checking in

PP, sorry, we've had a health deal here. Reading now.
Beth

[Peace Patriot]

9. You okay, sfexpat2000? n/t

[EFerrari]

11. Doug's issues went ballistic but much better today. See my edit?

[Peace Patriot]

6. Kick! Hey, DU election activists! Help out with this!

Do you agree with the above? (--that is, with the question for the Assembly Speaker that I formulated above).

Anything to add? (--subtract?)

Editing suggestions?

Any chance you're going to one of the meetups?

[Wilms]

16. Sound like the questions being pondered around here.

May I suggest not using labels such as, BushCon Republicans, Bushification, etc. That's really divise terminology that adds zero to understanding the issues, and probably would alienate many Bush opponents as well as Republicans. It just isn't worth expressing our passion with our anger. A "non-partisan" approach will go over a lot better.

Also, I haven't followed closely, but I read reports suggesting the WH DOES NOT want Arnold to push redistricting. If that's true, suggesting it is a Bush thing will hurt the argument.

I don't know all of Connie's ambitions, but I'll tell you this...

The LA County elections are administered in over 30 languages. That has to make Touch Screens attractive to Connie. But does she know that a "Touch Screen Ballot Printer" offers her many of the advantages she wants, without sticking the People with a DRE they don't want. The distinction does not seem to be clear to DU Members, BoE's, and the many of the legislative authors.

Why hasn't Blackwell been hung if Shelley is questioned. Well, we're all upset about that. But are we convinced of Shelly's innocence. I'm not asking about whose crimes are worse. I just don't want to put a lot of effort into advocating for lawbreakers, and with the job he offered to the campaign supporter family member, it seems Shelley did indeed screw-up.

Shelley had opportunity to provide testimony, and he declined. Plus, he resigned. Sorry, but I think it's best for us to move on. There's much to be done without exhausting ourselves fighting over a resigned official who may have broken the law.

[Peace Patriot]

18. This is a progressive Dem meetup, so I don't think the anti-Bush...

...language is such an issue (and if it is, we're really in trouble!). But I'll think about it in terms of maybe these questions will be released to the press? (Dunno. It might be good to be more cautious.) Anyway, we're not speaking to or among Republicans at this meetup.

Interesting point about redistricting. Any source on that (Bush not wanting S. to redistrict)?

It lends itself to a working hypothesis that I have, that maybe Schwarz & Co. are hoping to bolster more progressive Repugs, via redistricting, to challenge Geo. & Jeb. (I've thought, CA would be the place to do it.) And maybe the deal was (made with some faction within the Cartel) not getting our money back from Enron. (Plots within plots, in this Byzantine Empire.)

Yes, I think Shelley is innocent, and the attack on him was solely motivated by his decertification and suit against Diebold. (When are we going to get smart about crap like this?) I will never trust Perata, Romero and certainly not McCormack ever again. And the SF Chronicle, which started it all, is the worst piece of crap newspaper in the country.

Why did Shelley not defend himself? I don't know. I figure they had some personal dirt on him. Blackmail.

Try to put some perspective on this, Wilms. Just look at HAVA and Congress, and the last election. The corruption is profound and huge, within our own party. And that's just one tiny piece of the corruption in DC (bleeding out across the land).

Why was Shelley picked on? Doesn't add up--except for his actions against Diebold.

[Wilms]

20. I think language is an issue.

I wrote:

"That's really divisive terminology that adds zero to understanding the issues, and probably would alienate many Bush opponents as well as Republicans."

Am I wrong?? Is "BushCon" irreplacably informative?? In fact, in what way does it inform?? What do you or the movement derive from that??

I urge your consideration. It's not an Anarchist Meet-Up.

[Peace Patriot]

27. Actually, I believe that "BushCon" is NOT divisive, in this sense:

I generally use it to distinguish between real Republicans and..well...BushCons.

BushCons are

--the people around Bush, who routinely "con" the public that they are in favor of freedom and democracy, when the opposite is true of them, and are further directly and massively "conning" the public out of billions and billions of dollars in military contracts going into the pockets of their friends

--the "Neocons"--a particular group of Armageddonists and nutcases in the Bush White House who are re-living 1000 A.D.

--the Bush Cartel, the oil men, sheiks and sharks who are running their own war in the Middle East at our expense--the Bush puppetmasters

--the Pod People in Congress allied with Bush, who all use the same phrases and "talking points," don't seem able to think for themselves, and automatically speak and vote for whatever the Bush Cartel wants.

I don't really think of these people as Republicans. They are radicals and fascists. They are bankrupting the country, and pursuing insane foreign policy, and now want to bankrupt Social Security as well. Not conservatives.

-----

I have great sympathy for the real Republicans who have been shoved aside, and especially for Republican voters for Kerry who were disenfranchised, and for anyone who despises the Bush Cartel for the traitors and criminals they are--which I think is the case with a lot of ordinary Republicans.

----

I really wonder why this word--BushCon--bothers you so much, Wilms. I can't see that it could be "divisive" if I'm talking to progressive Democrats! I did take it out, on the off chance that these questions might become public, because I don't want to offend anyone unnecessarily, but if it were me in person, I would have no problem using the word, and explaining what I meant.

If it's BushCons I'm talking to, I really don't care if they are offended--and they will never, ever support clean elections anyway.

If it's real Republicans, then I think they might well feel relieved that someone else said it, not them. They are a cowed bunch. They need bucking up.

[Wilms]

44. $%^&* % I use even worse language!

On snarky posts and in discussions with pals.

Maybe divisive isn't the best word. How 'bout alienating, like hearing a bunch of labels you may not understand.

Now of that list you gave, how many people would have gotten, say Pod People, right? I knew most, but not all.

All the points and discriminations are valid and have a place, even the name-calling. But you can describe all that w/o name calling, and with a lot more clarity, diplomacy, etc.

Look. It's fine that your among friends. So let it rip. But as I see you considered, just in case...

More than once, I've diplomatically shared information with those of generally opposite view. As you are keen to point out, mod repubs aren't Fascists, they wouldn't like the kinda stuff this Admin is pulling.

So I just tell them what the Admin is doing. Straight. No opinion, no editorial, no name calling. When I'm done, more than one has started doing some name calling. And it wasn't about me being a commie or some such.

[Peace Patriot]

7. KICK! n/t

[EFerrari]

10. This is the whole enchilada but

I feel worried that trying to get in the stolen election AND coup will be too much for the answerer of the question.

I mean, I KNOW it's true, and MY head feels like exploding when I think of both at the same time.

Feedback on that?

On edit: What about running down the CA coup, and frosting it with, "when we have every reason to believe the last federal election as stolen because (our best evidence)?

[Peace Patriot]

12. Good suggestion, sfexpat2000! I had a feeling it was too big an...

...enchilada. I'll work on some editing/focusing to the end you suggest.

[EFerrari]

14. 'Kay. I'll be in & out but will keep eyes peeled. nt

[EFerrari]

15. Btw, "Beth" is easier to type. lol nt

[EFerrari]

13. Keep kicked for CA!

[Peace Patriot]

17. Here's a simplified, cleaned up version of the question:

Those of us submitting this question are extremely concerned about what appears to have been the unfair removal of our Democratic Secretary of State--especially in view of his efforts to insure the integrity of electronic voting systems--and about the Bushification of California via fraudulent elections or by Schwarzenegger/Bush Cartel controlled redistricting. Our concerns are heightened by our belief, based on a mountain of evidence, and the reports of numerous, top ranking Ph.D's in statistics, that the 2004 election was stolen, by means of the secret programming code in electronic voting machines, owned and controlled by BushCon Republicans.

What are the best things that we can do...

--to protect and expand on Kevin Shelley's election reforms, and in particular to, a) ban secret, proprietary programming code in all election machinery; b) require Voter Verified Paper Ballots that take precedence in any recount; and c) institute more stringent certification of election machinery and auditing of elections, or, banish all electronic voting until it can be PROVEN to be reliable and secure, and transparent?

What are the best things we can do

--to publicize Schwarzenegger's connections to Enron and the Bush Cartel, and to tag him for his failure to protect California's interest in recovering the $9 billion that Enron stole from us?

--prevent any redistricting with Schwarzenegger as Governor and a Schwarzenegger appointee as Secretary of State?

-----
-----

I omitted the part about Connie McCormack, Don Perata and Gloria Romero, cuz Nunez is not likely to criticize them in public, especially so early in his career as Assembly Speaker. It's the kind of question that might get an answer in private, but won't likely get one in a meetup. (It's a legit question--maybe could be put more generally--why didn't Dem leadership defend Shelley, and/or why aren't the Dems screaming about paperless, BushCon controlled vote counting?)

[EFerrari]

21. Thanks so much. I'm going to take it and mess with it in

my word processor. Hope that's okay. Beth

[Peace Patriot]

23. sfexpat2000, yes, absolutely. And take a look at what JunkYardDogg...

...just did. (Ojai Person links to it.) I think it will be very helpful in focusing a re-write. I'm going to go back to it, and study it some more right now.

[EFerrari]

25. Will as well. n/t

[EFerrari]

24. another version

We are outraged about the misguided removal of our Democratic Secretary of State--especially in view of his efforts to insure the integrity of electronic voting systems--and Republican controlled redistricting. Our concerns are based upon on solid evidence that the 2004 election was stolen. Unlike Sec. Shelley, Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell obstructed a federal election and gained political ground, not reprisal.

What can we do...

--to protect and expand on Kevin Shelley's election reforms, and in particular to, a) ban proprietary programming code in all election machinery; b) require Voter Verified Paper Ballots that take precedence in any recount; and c) institute stringent certification of election machinery and auditing of elections, or, banish all electronic voting until it can be PROVEN to be secure, and transparent?

[Helga Scow Stern]

19. Check out this excellent work by JunkYardDogg

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x336599

[Peace Patriot]

22. Version #3: I've taken Wilms remarks into consideration...

Those of us submitting this question are extremely concerned about the removal of our Democratic Secretary of State--especially in view of his efforts to insure the integrity of electronic voting systems--and about the danger of fraudulent elections in California and the danger of Schwarzenegger controlled redistricting. Our concerns are heightened by our belief, based on a mountain of evidence, and on the reports of numerous, top ranking Ph.D's in statistics, that the 2004 election was stolen, by means of the secret programming code in electronic voting machines, owned and controlled by Bush partisans.

What are the best things that we can do...

--to protect and expand on Kevin Shelley's election reforms, and in particular to, a) ban secret, proprietary programming code in all election machinery; b) require Voter Verified Paper Ballots that take precedence in any recount; and c) institute more stringent certification and auditing, or, banish all electronic voting until it can be PROVEN to be reliable, secure, and transparent?

What are the best things we can do

--to publicize Schwarzenegger's connections to Enron and the Bush Cartel, and to tag him for his failure to protect California's interest in recovering the $9 billion that Enron stole from us?

--prevent any redistricting with Schwarzenegger as Governor and a Schwarzenegger appointee as Secretary of State?

-----

Submitted by members of the Democratic Underground Election Forum

----

We might want to include this little tidbit from Dr. Ron Baiman:

Dr. Baiman: "I conclude that, based on the best exit sample data currently available, neither the national popular vote, or many of the certified state election results, are credible and should not be regarded as a true reflection of the intent of national electorate, or of many state voters, until a complete and thorough investigation…."

--Dr. Ron Baiman: Economist/Statistician - senior research specialist, Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago; teaches at the University of Chicago.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/997

[EFerrari]

26. 'nother go at it. I don't care, I can do this all night :)

We are outraged that Sec. Shelley was forced to resign especially in view of his efforts to insure the integrity of electronic voting systems--and about the danger of fraudulent elections in California and the danger of Schwarzenegger controlled redistricting. Our concerns based on the reports of numerous, top ranking Ph.D's in statistics, that the 2004 election was stolen.

For example: "I conclude that, based on the best exit sample data currently available, neither the national popular vote, or many of the certified state election results, are credible and should not be regarded as a true reflection of the intent of national electorate, or of many state voters, until a complete and thorough investigation…." -- Dr. Baiman, Economist/Statistician - senior research specialist, Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago; teaches at the University of Chicago.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/99...

[Peace Patriot]

28. Suggestions (re sfexpat2000's version):

We are outraged to have lost yet another top Democratic official in California, Kevin Shelley, especially in view of Shelley's efforts to insure the integrity of electronic voting systems. We are extremely concerned about the danger of fraudulent elections in California and the danger of Schwarzenegger controlled redistricting. Our concerns are heightened by the reports of numerous, top ranking Ph.D's in statistics, that the 2004 election was stolen, with the probable culprit being insecure, unreliable electronic voting machines, that are run on secret, proprietary programming code.

(Did you mean to insert the questions in here?...)

For example: "I conclude that, based on the best exit sample data currently available, neither the national popular vote, or many of the certified state election results, are credible and should not be regarded as a true reflection of the intent of national electorate, or of many state voters, until a complete and thorough investigation…." -- Dr. Baiman, Economist/Statistician - senior research specialist, Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago; teaches at the University of Chicago.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/99 ...

-----

We might want to add, to Baiman:

Report by 9 Ph.D.'s on the stolen election--call for investigation:
http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf

[EFerrari]

31. PP, I'm just trying to keep the forum in mind.

It will be a phone call. And, I'm looking to condense and focus, lol, because most people just don't have a very long attention span.

[Peace Patriot]

29. Wait! We should work in something about this March 17 election system...

...SoS office hearing (at which C. McCormack is going to try to get paperless w uncertified machines "grandfathered in" canceling Shelley's reforms). We could just leave it general, but I think not.

Very important hearing--and we would want Nunez onto it. McCormack has said in newspaper articles she's going to try to get the Leg to overturn Shelley's rules.

Goddammit, this is what the whole thing is about--her witchhunt of Shelley, WHY she did it. I'm so goddamned mad at this.

I don't think we have a chance--with McCormack there, and Shelley not there!

She triumphed. She got rid of him. And now all the momentum's on her side.

We won't even HAVE a Secretary of State at that meeting. McPherson's not approved, is he? If not he has no power. And he's probably part of the deal anyway. They're going to rescind the reforms next week!

Maybe we coudl get them to PAUSE over it. It's happening so fast. Give us time to organize.

Okay, I've convinced myself. The March 17 meeting has to be the focus. Slow this down. Consider this more carefully. Bad, bad weakening of the Rules. Maybe Nunez will listen.

[Peace Patriot]

30. OK, I'm gonna work on it from this angle...the 3/17 hearing. Using...

...sfexpat2000's as the template.

[EFerrari]

32. I won't be in until later tonight. Sorry. Family stuff. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

33. March 17 included...

We are outraged at the loss of yet another top Democratic official in California, Kevin Shelley, especially in view of Shelley's efforts to insure the integrity of electronic voting systems, and in view of the upcoming hearing of the Voting Systems and Procedures Panel, March 17, at which there will be an attempt to undo Shelley's reforms. We are extremely concerned about the danger of fraudulent elections in California and also of Schwarzenegger controlled redistricting. Our concerns are heightened by the reports of numerous, top ranking Ph.D's in statistics, who have cried foul on the 2004 presidential election, and the expert testimony on the insecurity and unreliability of electronic voting.

What are you doing to stop the weakening of California's electronic voting rules, specifically the Voter Verified Paper Ballot for the 2006 election? Will you be attending the March 17 hearing?

What are the best things that we can do...

--to protect and expand on voter protection, and in particular to, a) ban all electronic vote tabulation using secret, proprietary source code; b) require Voter Verified Paper Ballots by 2006; and c) institute more stringent certification and auditing procedures, or, banish all electronic voting until it can be PROVEN to be reliable and secure?

and what are the best things we can do...

--to prevent any redistricting with Schwarzenegger as Governor and a Schwarzenegger appointee as Secretary of State?

------

Reference material:

Dr. Ron Baiman, Economist/Statistician - senior research specialist, Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago; teaches at the University of Chicago

Dr. Baiman: "I conclude that, based on the best exit sample data currently available, neither the national popular vote, or many of the certified state election results, are credible and should not be regarded as a true reflection of the intent of national electorate, or of many state voters, until a complete and thorough investigation…." --.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/997

Florida: 130,000 to 230,000 phantom votes for Bush--paper vs. electronic voting—calls for investigation:
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu
Report issued by Dr. Michael Haut, & UC Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team; Haut is a nationally-known expert on statistical methods and member of the National Academy of Sciences and the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center
Press release: http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1118-14.htm

Johns Hopkins report on insecurity of electronic voting: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00196.htm#5

Easy demo of how insecure voting machines are:
http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevote.htm

"Myth Breakers: Facts About Electronic Elections" (2nd edition): www.votersunite.org

[Peace Patriot]

34. Ojai Person, you there? How should we proceed? Sounds like sfexpat2000

...may be involved in this conference call meetup? Not sure.

Do you understand the mechanics? If you are able to go, will YOU be asking the question yourself (or, do you think Beth will be?).

Is that email address in your post, and the 9 pm deadline tonight for submitting questions, for people who CANNOT attend?

I'm realizing that some of what we have to say may be best said in a LETTER--and maybe our question should be briefer, with a promised followup letter.

The March 17 hearing is rather urgent. The deadline for public comment is March 10.

And if we want Nunez on it (if he will help), or others, we'd better figure out who, what, where and when.

I'm going to check the CalVoter site, and see what she's doing. (She's in Sacto, I believe.)

[Peace Patriot]

35. Kim Alexander is in Davis. Her web site, calvoter.org, doesn't...

...mention the March 17 hearing (or I can't find it there). I sent her an email.

I'm thinking we need to submit a good package of material, and figure out what-all to do about this.

[Helga Scow Stern]

36. Hi Peace Patriot.

I think that all questions should be submitted by email by 9pm tonight. I will be there, but I doubt if more questions will be taken.

Also, there is more info on how Nunez is dealing with redistricting. It came out today in the LA Times that Nunez and others say they will allow an impartial panel to redistrict AFTER the next census, so 2010.

Nunez is on that. I think it may be smartest of us to focus on the voting situation, and the meeting on March 17. We should study JunkYardDogg's work and see what we need to ask from that.

I remember what the citizen lobbyist at the teach-in said, not to focus on issues, but on immediate problems and solutions. It might be best not to say anything about the stealing of 2004, because then it is framed as an "issue". If Nunez has his mind made up about that, he--or the one presenting the questions--may skip it all together.

Most importantly, we don't want Shelley's reforms to be undone. We don't want Conny to con us out of our votes.

[Peace Patriot]

37. I've got a half hour right now, then I'll be out of here for about an hour

What do you think? Want to submit a simplified question about the March 17 hearing?

I'd go for that. We can do a followup letter to Nunez (and others--and reference some material).

What's the point of your being there if you can't ask questions? To hear answers and maybe ask for clarification, or do a followup question? Or just, discuss with others before and after?

How's this?

-----

We are extremely concerned at the loss of yet another top Democratic official in California, Kevin Shelley, especially in view of Shelley's efforts to insure the integrity of electronic voting systems. There is an upcoming hearing of the Voting Systems and Procedures Panel, March 17, at the Secretary of State's office, at which we expect an attempted weakening of some of Shelley's voter protections, specifically the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail requirement for the 2006 election.

What are you doing to stop the weakening of California's electronic voting rules at the March 17 hearing, and what are you doing to protect and strengthen those rules--for instance, what about a ban on all secret, proprietary programming code in electronic voting machines and central vote tabulators?

[Peace Patriot]

38. I'll come back on line at 8:30, and if I haven't heard from you, I'll go..

...ahead and send this to the email address, submitted in my name on behalf of members of the DU Election Forum. But I'll check back here first. If you want to do this now, it's fine with me. And if you're going to a meetup, it may be best to come from you.

[Helga Scow Stern]

39. This sounds great.

Please go ahead and submit it on behalf of us all! We can follow up with more in the days to come.

[Peace Patriot]

40. I'm about to submit the following questions on our behalf. Comment?

We are extremely concerned at the loss of yet another top Democratic official in California, Kevin Shelley, especially in view of Shelley's efforts to insure the integrity of electronic voting systems. There is an upcoming hearing of the Voting Systems and Procedures Panel, March 17, at the Secretary of State's office, at which we expect an attempted weakening of some of Shelley's voter protection rules, specifically the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail requirement for the 2006 election.

What are you doing to stop the weakening of California's electronic voting machine rules at the March 17 hearing, and what are you doing to protect and strengthen those rules--for instance, what about a ban on all secret, proprietary programming code in electronic voting machines and central vote tabulators?

[Helga Scow Stern]

41. Sounds good!

I'll report on what happens at the meeting.

[Peace Patriot]

42. I submitted it. This was a good process, of getting focused and...

...getting specific. Thanks to you and to JunkYardDogg for the great info. on the March 17 meeting!

I'm going to go finish dinner now. I'll come back later tonight. And I want to work on March 17 in-put now and over the next few days.

We could get a letter and packet together--meanwhile start some inquiries, check out VSPP, see what Kim A. has to say, and get the lay of the land.

See ya later.

[Helga Scow Stern]

43. I feel as if we have a real direction now.

Did you see what Kim said about this:

Friday, February 25, 2005
Riverside legislator introduces bill to watch
Assembly Member John J. Benoit (R-Riverside) has introduced a bill, AB 369, that would change the California code section requiring an accessible voter verified paper audit trail.

In its present form, the bill makes no substantive changes. It's what is referred to as a "spot" bill in the Capitol, essentially a placeholder should the author desire to amend his bill at a later point in the legislative session.

Several county registrars have been making public statements in recent weeks that they want to seek legislation this year that would suspend or delay the voter verified paper record requirement. California law was changed last year to require the paper record, after the Legislature unanimously passed SB 1438 and Governor Scwharzenegger signed the bill into law.

Anyone who is interested in monitoring AB 369 can subscribe to it through the Legislative Counsel's web site. Once subscribed, you should receive automatic updates any time the bill is amended or scheduled to be heard.

(# 10:59 AM)


I signed up to monitor that Bill.

[EFerrari]

45. Hey, this it great! Very clear and pointed! n/t

[Helga Scow Stern]

46. Is anyone else going to a meet-up tonight? n/t

[Helga Scow Stern]

47. Kick.

[Helga Scow Stern]

48. We didn't get to join in the conference call in SB.

Nunez was late, so the group voted to go ahead and hear Hannah-Beth Jackson instead.

[Peace Patriot]

49. Ojai Person, see my Post #23 at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=336599

(JunkYardDogg's post on the CA election panel meeting March 17)

I think the timing of this "grandfathering" item--so fast, before McPherson is in place--is very fishy, and may be effort to get it done, fait accompli, BEFORE he's in office and has to take responsibility for it.

Also, this may be a good tactic with some, to get it slowed down: MOMENTOUS ITEM like this shouldn't be on agenda with no Sec of State.

[Peace Patriot]

50. Ojai Person, sfexpat2000 and emlev, some stuff going on at...

...Junkyard's post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=336599#336626

March 17 not such a crisis as we thought. LA DRE's not on the agenda.

[Amaryllis]

51. Go, you guys! I'm rootin' for you from OR.

[Helga Scow Stern]

52. Thanks.

We need all the help we can get.

[WeHoldTheseTruths]

53. I'm rootin' for you from Southeast Asia!

Go!

I just read through Junkyard's related thread too -- you guys deserve a crew to provide you with meals, housecleaning, childcare, whatever... while you are working! (Well, more than that. I can't find words.)

I apologize in advance if this is perceived as a distraction from your excellent focussing. But it's about why what you are doing is so important.

A quote from the very end of the article:

"Arnie's smirk is the face of fascism in the United States, and California its testing ground. Will the citizens of this state become 'good Germans' of the 21st Century, or will they act to end his career, before he gets the chance to bring his version of 'leadership' to the Oval Office?"

Interesting fact from earlier in the article:

"While Arnie continues to get rave "celebrity" reviews from most of the state's still star-struck press, a recent poll indicates that his alleged luster is beginning to dim. The poll, released by the Public Policy Institute, shows that while 60% of those polled approve Schwarzenegger's overall performance, there is obvious fraying at the edges. In particular, Schwarzenegger's budget, which includes killer cuts in health care, human services, and education, is highly unpopular. When asked if there is more trust for Schwarzenegger or the legislature in managing the budget, only 29% supported Schwarzenegger, while 35% backed the legislature. Further, the approval rating for the former bodybuilder has dropped to 34% on education, with 51% oppose his efforts to stiff teachers and the children in the state."

and . . .

"First, Schwarzenegger is moving to turn the well-managed public employee retirement funds in California, CalPERS and CalSTRS, into risky, private 401(k) plans, by 2007. In its coverage of the current Schwarzenegger offensive, the L.A. Times reported that, by transforming the nearly $300 billion state pension funds into private accounts, the "windfall could be huge" for Wall Street investment houses.

"Secondly, in addition to budget cuts already announced in an address to the legislature--Arnie admitted they would be draconian--he would impose an automatic mechanism that would cut spending across the board when the budget is in deficit. With the state facing a deficit of more than $8 billion for 2005-06, and overall debt at record levels since the Governator floated $15 billion in new debt at very high interest rates, an automatic system of slashing expenditures poses an existential risk to health care and human service programs, and would sound a death knell for future, necessary infrastructure projects.

"Third, Schwarzenegger plans to shut down allegedly redundant regulatory agencies. While the agency set up to oversee this restructuring claims it would save the state $32 billion over the next four years, officials in the nonpartisan budgetary review office deny this, saying savings would be minimal, but damage could be massive.

"If the legislature does not accept these "reforms," the Governor has threatened to initiate petition drives, backed by $50 million, to put referenda on the ballot in November."

More at the link: http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/otherartic_files/2005/050216_schwarz.htm (From that, the undated article seems to have been posted Feb 16.)