Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Update from Jim March

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
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:58 AM
Original message
Update from Jim March
Hello Everyone--

Jim just called and asked that I post this update ,
because he knows we're all very curious about what happened. He said
that he is having trouble with his ISP and can read mail, but cannot
send any out. So, here's an update to hold us over until he can send
out again.

--Sherry H.
From Jim March - Wednesday, July 27, 2005, 9:30 p.m.:

Arright. There's been a LOT of discussion of this and it's time I
spoke up for myself.

First point: NO FUNDRAISING IS INVOLVED HERE. I don't need a "legal
defense fund". I'm not asking for money. Jim Hamilton helped out
BIGTIME by loaning me $10k to make bail with (no bail bondsman, that's
the total amount) and then I'm paying him back tomorrow out of the $76k
of Diebold money. After that you can bet I'll make all court
appearances and fight this tooth and nail.

Second point: felony charges are an interesting twist. Unexpected but
not something I'm sweating. The extreme short form here is that they
violated my basic civil right to observe the election (California
Election Code 2300(a)(9)(A)) and in response I stopped "begging" to be
allowed to observe the election and did so directly, by going through a
"security door" to get closer. At which point I was (expectedly)
grabbed, stuffed and cuffed.

We'll get into details there later. For now I'll be clear that I was
unarmed (not even my usual pocketknife) and there was no violence
planned or happened.

Third: this has been portrayed by some as a "publicity stunt". Its
damned well is NOT. Granted, media were present so yeah, once it
became clear that MLKJr-style civil disobedience was going to be
necessary, I made two reporters aware of what was going to happen. But
the CORE reason for doing this is to establish our civil right to
observe elections. Right now a lot of county election officials in
California and across America don't believe in that right; they are
dead set on taking it away from us piece by piece as elections become
electronic and increasingly "automated" - and you can take that last
term as meaning "in the control of the vendors".

I would have done the same thing with no reports present and this
action can and will be a success even with no media coverage whatsoever
(which isn't what's happening and PR *is* a nice side benefit).

OK, let's go over the details.

First, last year I observed elections in San Joaquin County ('04
primaries) in which the right to observe the election was completely
violated. There is a whole chapter on what happened there in this
report to the California SecState's office:

As of two weeks ago, this is what I expected to see happen in San
Diego. In preparation for a visit and possible protest against that
sort of crime, I had the following two documents hand-delivered to the
San Diego registrar's office:

Then last week, the registrar (Haas) and his assistant (McNamara) tried
to make it clear to local activists like Jim and Sher Hamilton that the
process in San Diego would be much more open - that the monitors
showing the central tabulator and it's backup (both Diebold GEMS) would
be visible "behind glass" to the viewing public doing observation.

Thus, I was pretty well convinced coming down from Sacramento that no
"arrest protest" was going to be necessary. In fact, Tuesday AM I paid
for my Amtrak tickets ROUND TRIP, return date Wednesday the 27th.not
something I'd do if I planned to go down there to get jailed. (God, I
hope I can get the date on those reset, otherwise I'm out $60, sigh.)

On the day of the election at 3:00pm, Jim Hamilton and I met with
McNamara to discuss logistics of the night's activities starting around
7:00pm and running pretty late into the night. First stop was to the
"public viewing areas" and the "GEMS behind glass" observation post.

Houston, we have a problem.

The monitor was 8ft behind the glass.

Now we didn't absolutely know for sure we had a problem - the screens
weren't showing active working displays and to the county's credit they
were 19" monitors. Much would depend first on the resolution they were
set to (800x600 makes for a perfectly usable GEMS screen and probably
could be read at that distance) and where the console operator's head
was gonna be (and for that matter how tall the guy was, how often he'd
be there, where he stuck his head, etc.)

Jim Hamilton, McNamara and I then went to a cubicle.

We discussed the demand to have the GEMS screen viewable, and I
explained that I didn't care how it was made viewable - moving the
screen closer to the window would do and at least establish the
principle that they were trying. Using a projector to send the signal
through the window to the wall behind would be better if they had a
projector lying around; I also offered to make a run to Fry's
Electronics a couple miles away and purchase a video signal splitter to
allow use of a second monitor up closer to the window.

All of these proposals to improve compliance with Election Code
2300(a)(9)(A) were flatly rejected. McNamara tried to characterize
these requests as "coming on the day of the election" when in truth his
boss Haas had had them for almost two weeks.

I then made a second request: an official (if hand-written at the
scene) California Public Records Act Request for "snapshots" of the
GEMS database taken shortly after poll close and another near midnight.

It's not often I say good things about Diebold products. One of the
few features I like is the ability to do "instant backups" of the
database to the included CD-ROM burner without interfering with the
election processing in any other way. It's standard procedure for
counties to do this throughout election night just for backup purposes
in case something dies. Cutting extra backups (each of which fits
easily on a CD-ROM would cost a few keystrokes time and about 20 cents
a disk (and we brought a few blanks).

More "snapshots" would have been nicer but the two requested would at
least have been a good start. And we don't consider these just "public
request is therefore an integrated component of the right to observe

By 7:00pm, that request too had been flatly refused.

Make NO mistake folks, if any ONE of these requests had been honored in
the slightest, I would have accepted that as precedent and dealt with
the rest later.

As it was, with even a shifting of the table being refused as
"inconvenient", the stage was set for a confrontation not of my making,
but theirs.

Once the election started up, it was clear that our concerns re: table
location were valid and then some. The screen resolution was set to a
miniscule 1280x1024 pixels, for ridiculously small text unreadable by
any normal human at 8 feet.

Much else happened by the time it became clear that "refusing to go to
the back of the bus" was going to be necessary. A set of unidentified
"mystery terminals" were systematically plugged in one at a time to the
GEMS box - optical scan units that were in unusual luggage were used to
upload memory cards separate from the four units otherwise dedicated to
that - combined with a lot of frantic typing and manipulation of GEMS.
These "mystery terminals" were used one at a time as if to test them,
and we have no idea what that was about.

We learned one REALLY interesting thing:

The GEMS box was connected to the Internet.

Oh, not directly! They had a set of "one way firewalls" allowing data
to come out of GEMS onto the county LAN where it was served up on web
pages. But get this. They didn't set up these firewalls themselves.
Rather, they paid SAIC to do it for them. For those not following
along in extreme detail, SAIC is a software development and computer
consulting house that does almost exclusively government contracts;
their ties to military contracting are very well known.I'll let others
discuss that connection.

But in any case, San Diego has in my opinion turned it's entire
election security over to TWO different "black box vendors" - Diebold
and SAIC. A security failure (accidental or deliberate) by either
could leave their election integrity under threat.


Now let's talk legalities.

California Elections Code 15204 requires county election officials to
make "all proceedings" "open to the view of the public".

15204. All proceedings at the central counting place, or counting
places, if applicable, shall be open to the view of the public but no
person, except one employed and designated for the purpose by the
elections official or his or her authorized deputy, shall touch any
ballot container.

Nowhere are the terms "view" or "observe" defined in this or any other
law connected to the subject. But do note that this law is originally
much older than electronic voting in general. It was later updated

Access to the area where electronic data processing equipment is being
operated may be restricted to those persons authorized by the elections

San Diego and other counties appear to believe that the latter section
SUPERCEDES and eliminates the former. Not hardly! It just means that
if they go all-electronic, they have to use electronics to maintain
viewing accessability! And this won't cost much - a video signal
splitter/booster is about $200, plus the use of an extra monitor for
the night. Video projectors are another possibility; they're expensive
but the county probably has them laying around anyways and can press
them into service for the night.

Now, this sort of thing where a government body is required to do
something and doesn't is common. You can take them to court of course,
and depending on the IQ of the judge you may or may not get anywhere.
Since it isn't civil rights in question, a lawyer who tries to help out
on the cheap will have to fight to get his fees back at a minimum and
it's not guaranteed. It's a long, bitter mess.

BUT EC15204 has a companion piece: California Election Code
2300(a)(9)(A) gives us a basic civil right to observe elections:

2300(9)(A) You have the right to ask questions about election
procedures and observe the elections process.
Now we're no longer talking about "ho hum government requirements that
often get ignored". Now we're talking about civil rights. And we're
in a whole 'nuther realm of law. Violations of civil rights are
punishable against bad government actors. Penalties can apply; in many
cases lawyers can get triple attorney fees back on a win.

More: when this cross-connects with criminal law, one of the times when
arresting you becomes a real problem is when it happens IN CONJUNCTION
with a violation of your civil rights. Not only that: when you're
fighting a criminal charge, one of the arguments that a court cannot
block is that you did a particular action in support of your civil

And this, folks, is why their "felony charges" don't scare me! The
felony thing was decided upon by Haas and McNamara by the way, the cops
initially thought this would be a "no big deal" infraction or
misdemeanor bust until McNamara told 'em to "go long". I don't know if
they factored this in or not but the WORST thing they're threatening me
with is the lifetime loss of my firearms ownership rights.I'm a "gun
nut", remember?

Their probable plan is to try and plea me down to some nuisance charge
to avoid the felony, but once I do that I can't argue in any court
(criminal or civil!) that they violated my civil rights. I go home
with my tail between my legs, they get to keep running secret elections.

Well they picked the wrooooong guy to try and scare.

They've charged me with Elections Code 18502:

18502. Any person who in any manner interferes with the officers
holding an election or conducting a canvass, or with the voters
lawfully exercising their rights of voting at an election, as to
prevent the election or canvass from being fairly held and lawfully
conducted, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16
months or two or three years.

Let's get real: anybody here think that charge will stick? Remember
that the GEMS server screen was 8 feet in past the doors or a hair over
(the door was offset 3ft from the observation window), I made no
attempt to touch any piece of gear whatsoever, I stopped on my own 4ft
in, and I ended up "pausing the action in there" *maybe* a total of 2
or 3 seconds.

"Oh, but he distracted the officials!" Oooohhh, bad gun nut!"
Except that in other circumstances, I'm specifically ALLOWED to and did
for up to five or ten minutes at a time asking questions pursuant to:

Elections Code 2300(B) You have the right to ask questions of the
precinct board and
election officials regarding election procedures and to receive an
answer or be directed to the appropriate official for an answer.
However, if persistent questioning disrupts the execution of their
duties, the board or election officials may discontinue responding to

So.distract 'em for 3 seconds tops in one room, it's a felony.minutes
at a time on the other side of the door, it's a civil right?

Ah. Yeah. Let's see what a SAN DIEGO jury makes of this, when they're
dealing with a guy who wants to monitor elections as per his civil
right in a city where the last mayor was in office ONE DAY before being
convicted of crimes, where the 2004 primaries were a total disaster,
where the pension fund is basically a toxic superfund sight, where two
city councilmen have been convicted and a third wasn't only because he
died first.need I go on?

I've said it to Diebold, I'll say it to these clowns: bring it on. You
picked this fight, not me. You don't trample my civil rights without

The real trick will be to try and make those consequences happen before
November, establishing the principle of open access to this stuff
statewide. And that's one area where criminal law helps: by not
"waiving time" I can make "step one" (the criminal jury trial) happen
in 45 days or less. An aquittal there will sting 'em pretty good and
at least help; after that comes the civil court fight and I'll save a
discussion of that for later.

But yeah, I got 'em right where I want 'em .

Jim March

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks for the post, rumpel! Wow, Jim! Wow! --to your passion!
Wow! --to your brilliance and your tenacity! Wow! --to this excellent, informative account of what happened! Wow! --to your taking this action for all of us! Wow! --to your courage! Wow! - to you and those helping you! Wow, wow and WOW!!!!


Please recommend this post! This is THE most important work that any of us could be doing right now! This is IT! Facing the destruction of our right to vote, right where it happens, and facing those doing it, and saying: "NO-O-O!!!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Recommending and kicking.
I posted the same letter earlier, but we need to keep this up where everyone can see it.

I interviewed our local registrar a few days before the election and he assured me that the tabulator could be observed by any citizen. Apparently that only applies if you bring binoculars, which is outrageous, plus it sounds as if numerous election laws may have been violated.

Jim's been interviewed on two San Diego TV stations and was slated to be on Stacy Taylor's radio show this morning, plus the East County Californian ran a sidebar on Jim's arrest to accompany my aptly-timed article today on security problems with San Diego's voting equipment. Please help us spread the word of this nationwide!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. He's got 'em... right where he wants 'em!!
Wow! What a read. Thankfully, in my little burg, I won't have to go so far....I think. But, you know what, after I read this if I do have to go that far, it'll be fun and I'll know which way to ride it out.

Bring it on!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. Thanks for posting this. We'll help you in anyway possible. I'm
so opposed to ballots being counted by machines, I can't see straight. Jim March is a man of principle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. Folks - he knew what he was getting himself into and now he
is publically admitting, in writing, that he violated the law and that his motives are monetary.

Reposting this admission is not doing Mr. March a favor, imho.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Motives are monetary? How did you conclude that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Because if he and his group really wanted to help election reform
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 04:43 PM by merh
efforts, then he would have had one of those 6 lawyers that are his friends on scene with him as the votes were being counted. Since he anticipated the problem, his lawyer could have had documents ready to file, complete with photos for the court, showing that the counting could not be viewed as required by law. The pleadings could have requested a TRO or injuction, stopping the count until such time as the viewing was allowed in compliance with the law.

These folks are not new to this, they know what to expect, instead of acting with common sense, they react with dramatics and as admitted by this man, they violate the law. I don't believe that civil disobedience is a defense to willfully violating the law.

Because none of their actions have resulted in anything more than alienating the clerks that conduct the elections and in muddying the water, it is my opinion that they are simply disrupters. I have seen no results from their efforts. If you know of any, please let me know.

Also, this discussion is of interest.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Boredtodeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. You are 100% right, merh
And that's why this thread was ignored most of the day.

What's shameful is seeing this on DU's Greatest Page.

A blatant whoring by a right wing gun nut, admitting nothing but a grab at publicity, on the GREATEST page of DU. If this is the "greatest" DU has to offer, I'm ashamed to be a part of this community.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. Someone who refers to DUers as "commies" is on
the greatest page?! :puke:

Someone who admits wanting to make himself a millionaire by mixing activism and profit? :puke:

Someone aligned with that 'person' who posts with the freeps?!? :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Boredtodeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Yep, makes one sick, doesn't it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WHAT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. Good!...
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 04:02 PM by WHAT
I'm supporting anyone who is asserting their right to have their vote counted while at the same time advocating transparency in the process.

I would never limit this right to someone who thinks the same way I do, if I did, it would probably be detrimental to good dialog and satisfactory innovations and solutions.

Thx Jim

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. On what is civil disobedience
This letter is being discussed on the HERH yahoogroup. This post was submitted there and I was encouraged to post it here as well.

I am glad to see and find it proper for Jim's act to be considered civil disobedience, and for election reform to be equated with a new civil rights movement. This fits with a larger ongoing dialog about what constitutes civil disobedience these days, or at least what will be effective. It is my opinion that pressure must be applied to local government by citizens seeking protection from their federal government.

The argument is that local government does have a choice and it is to knowingly allow themselves to be used against their constituents OR to stand with them against those attempting to rule without Consent of the Governed. Civil disobedience is all about saying WE DO NOT CONSENT. It is imperative that we get our local governments saying this on our behalf, specifically to disavow themselves from complicity with acts having direct harm upon the communities they serve. Talk of activist judges should shift to talk of activist City Councils. I will repeat an analogy that has previously been well received and which is intended as an example of how communities may be led to find such action appropriate.
Imagine if a new Homeland Security bill required local jurisdictions to invest in new police communication technology. However, it was known that the system often affected messages from dispatch by making them garbled and full of static; or messages to one patrol unit were sometimes received by another unit; or messages were sent with one bit of content and received sounding differently. All people in any town would be justified in telling their community leaders to forego compliance with the bill, and could set up their resistance within the frame in the second paragraph above: WE DO NOT CONSENT TO IMPERILING THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY.
It really is a choice for our local leaders and we have to help them make it. The above example maps quite well onto the resistance to new election machine purchases. The overall notion of local refusal to Consent is the driving force, the macro frame, for the Voter Confidence Resolution adopted last week in Arcata, CA. See the press release here:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I think it is important to recognize the validity of civil disobedience
Thanks for posting this, GuvWurld.

There seem to be many criticisms of Mr. March around here, and many of these are likely valid, but to criticize his use of this basic, fundamental method of protest seems to be excessive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Fine points
Having read some of the criticisms, I'm finding myself realizing that Jim's actions weren't at all perfect. It is totally reasonable to discuss/debate what is and is not civil disobedience, and also how any act could have been more effective (regardless of whether it was or was not civil disobedience).

Where I'm coming from is hopefully going to encourage election reform advocates to consider tactics they might not have previously considered. The goal is not necessarily for us to perform civil disobedience but to get local officials to do it on our behalf. As another example, the Voter Confidence Committee has been working with the Humboldt County, CA Elections Department about the possibility of their petitioning for a delay in HAVA. I hope to be able to talk more about this in a few days with specific details of our efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. That's a great idea
And thanks for keeping us updated on the Arcata/Humboldt stuff. I love that little town! It's great to hear the progress you guys are making.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Einsteinia Donating Member (645 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Thank You--I couldn't agree more.
There are bloggers who are activists

and then

There are bloggers who are whiners

Few are both. . . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
13. help me kick the cross post at the General forum.

the majority of DU'ers are on general and general politics.

Welcome to repost under a more catchy title
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Done, and I added info on a grand jury investigation that may be launched.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
17. kick.nt
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 Wed Sep 26th 2018, 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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