Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News TUESDAY, 9/20/05

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
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-05 01:49 AM
Original message
Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News TUESDAY, 9/20/05

What is finished is the idea that this great country is dedicated to the freedom and flourishing of every individual in it.
It's the individual that's finished.
It's the single, solitary human being that's finished.
It's every single one of you out there that's finished.
Because this is no longer a nation of independent individuals. It's a nation of some two-hundred-odd million transistorized, deodorized, whiter-than-white, steel-belted bodies, totally unnecessary as human beings and as replaceable as piston rods.
Well, the time has come to say, "Is 'de-humanization' such a bad word?" Because good or bad, that's what is so.
The whole world is becoming humanoid -- creatures that look human, but aren't. The whole world, not just us. We're just the most advanced country, so we're getting there first.
The whole world's people are becoming mass-produced, programmed, numbered, insensate things....

Never forget the pursuit of Truth.
Only the deluded & complicit accept election results on blind faith.

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News TUESDAY, 9/20/05

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.

Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.

If you can:

1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.

2. Post stories using the "Election Fraud and Reform News Sources" listed here:

3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.

4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.

If you want to know how post "News Banners" or other images, go here:

All previous daily threads are available here:



for the Greatest Page (it's the link just below).

CLICK HERE to get quick access to Election Results and Discussion Forum on your Latest page.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-05 01:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. THE FINAL REPORT of the Carter Baker Comm. On Federal Election Reform.
Edited on Tue Sep-20-05 01:59 AM by autorank
Here you go, the much anticipated Carter Baker Final Commission Report. Its presented here so you can download any or all of it. This is an unfolding story. Of course, how surprised can be be with of the commission name represents the stolen Florida election and the other Democratic silence about the stolen Florida election.

Final Commission Report: Building Confidence in U.S. Elections
September 19, 2005
The full text of the Final Report of the Federal Commission on Election Reform can be downloaded below in PDF format. ( If you are not able to open the files, you can download the most recent version of the free Acrobat Reader software, which will allow you to view and print Adobe PDF files. )
Full Report (7.6MB)
(Download will take approximately 20 minutes on a dial-up connection, 4 minutes on a cable or dsl connection, and under 30 seconds on a LAN.)
The individual sections of the report can be downloaded below:
Introduction (130KB)
(Table of Contents, Letter from the Co-Chairs, Preface by Executive Director, Executive Summary)
Section 1 -- Goals and Challenges of Election Reform (1.1MB)
Section 2 -- Voter Registration and Identification (950KB)
Section 3 -- Voting Technology (690KB)
Section 4 -- Expanding Access to Elections (1.1 MB)
Section 5 -- Improving Ballot Integrity (660KB)
Section 6 -- Election Administration (1.0MB)
Section 7 -- Responsible Media Coverage (490KB)
Section 8 -- Election Observation (520KB)
Section 9 -- Presidential Primary and Post-Election Schedules (430KB)
Conclusion (135KB)
(Conclusion, Appendix, Endnotes)
Summary of Recommendations (83KB)
Additional Statements (60KB)
About the Commission (980KB)

CLICK HERE to get quick access to Election Results and Discussion Forum on your Latest page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-05 01:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. USA Today: Panel recommends paper trail for electronic voting
Edited on Tue Sep-20-05 02:15 AM by autorank
USA Today presents a plain vanilla presentation of the report. No questions, etc. Just the facts,

Panel recommends paper trail for electronic voting

WASHINGTON (AP) Declaring that Americans are losing confidence in elections, a commission formed to improve balloting is recommending electronic voting machines that leave a paper trail.
Among the commission's recommendations:

Congress should pass a law requiring voter-verifiable paper audit trails on all electronic voting machines.

States should require voters to present photo IDs and offer free photo IDs to those who don't have drivers' licenses.

The presidential primary system should be reorganized into four regional primaries, held after the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. A regional primary would take place each month from March to June.

All "legitimate domestic and international election observers" should be granted unrestricted access to the election process, within the rules of the election.

News organizations should voluntarily refrain from projecting any presidential election results in any state until all polls have closed in all states but Alaska and Hawaii.

States should prohibit senior election officials from serving or assisting political campaigns in a partisan way.

States should establish uniform procedures for the counting of provisional ballots, which voters can use when there are questions about their registration

CLICK HERE to get quick access to Election Results and Discussion Forum on your Latest page.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-05 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. Newark, NJ: Concern About Voter ID

President Carter responds to charges voter ID cards are discriminatory: . It will be uniformly applied throughout the country, and it will be nondiscriminatory. OK, help me here. If we make a rule that says you have to pass a literacy test and apply it uniformly throughout the country does that mean its nondiscriminatory. How about a loyalty oath. Poor people, those with out means cant travel to places to get voter ID cards. This standard will encourage many areas to implement it and there just may be discriminatory intent.

Election-reform panel stirs debate over photo IDs

Tuesday, September 20, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Electronic voting machines should have paper trails to keep track of votes cast, and all voters should present photo IDs, a panel recommending ways to restore confidence in the U.S. election system said yesterday.


"At a time when there is growing skepticism with our electoral system, the commission believes that a bold new approach is essential," the report said. Many of the recommendations would require approval by Congress.

The call for paper verification of votes on electronic machines drew praise from election reform advocates, but the call for photo identification was criticized as an invasion of privacy and something that would discourage some voters.

That recommendation would require all prospective voters by the year 2010 to produce a photo ID card at the polling place -- either a driver license or, for those without driver's licenses, an identification card issued by the state.

The commission called on states to make distribution of the card simple and widespread.
Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington legislative office, said the photo ID provision "will disproportionately impact the poor and the elderly, who may not have drivers' licenses or access to a location where they can obtain IDs."

Carter said the 21-member commission intensely debated that provision, but he believed a national uniform requirement was better than piecemeal state voter identification laws.
"I personally had, at the beginning, some very serious reservations about this issue," Carter said. "This will be, I think, a move forward in getting more people to vote. It would not restrict people from voting. It will be uniformly applied throughout the country, and it will be nondiscriminatory."


The 2004 election was also plagued by questions, involving voter fraud and intimidation, long lines at polling places in poor neighborhoods, the integrity of voter registration lists and security against fraud for electronic voting machines.

Carter said the panel hoped most of its recommendations would be passed by the 2008 presidential election.

CLICK HERE to get quick access to Election Results and Discussion Forum on your Latest page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-05 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
4. C-B Commission Funders are a Mixed Bag
Edited on Tue Sep-20-05 02:17 AM by autorank
Its important to go through the bio pages of the report and see who is on the Commission. In terms of funding, a major supporter, the John S and James L Knight Foundation helps support the Media Research Center the folks who pound liberal media bias. The Commission also received some support from eBay founder and Omidvar Network founder Pierre Omidvar, who until election day did some good blogging on voting rights in the US.


Funded in part by Commission financial supporter, The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation

"I'd bet that if you hooked Dan and Tom and Peter up to a lie detector and asked them if there's a liberal bias on their newscasts, they'd all say no and they'd all pass the test....That leaves one other possibility. Messrs. Rather, Brokaw and Jennings don't even know what liberal bias is. I concede this is hard to believe, but I'm convinced it's why we keep getting these ridiculous denials....The problem is that Mr. Rather and the other evening stars think that liberal bias means just one thing: going hard on Republicans and easy on Democrats. But real media bias comes not so much from what party they attack. Liberal bias is the result of how they see the world....

The American Journalist in the 21st Century


The decennial survey, The American Journalist in the 21st Century by David Weaver, Randal Beam, Bonnie Brownlee, G. Cleveland Wilhoit and Paul Voakes in collaboration with the Indiana University School of Journalism and sponsored by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, surveyed 1,149 print, radio and television journalists in the fall of 2002. The book, The American Journalist in the 21st Century, is not expected to be available until the summer of 2004, but some key findings have already been reported.


* In American newsrooms, Democrats outnumber Republicans by two-to-one (37.1 percent to18.6 percent).

* One third claim to be Independents.

Some funding is also provided by the Omidvar Network, creation of eBay founder Pierre Omidvay who has some good things to say about election fraud and voting rights.
October 25, 2004
Challenging Voters: Why is this Legal?
I posted a blog entry over on about something I just read about in the New York Times: plans by the Ohio Republican Party to employ paid challengers to question the eligibility to vote of thousands of Ohio voters when they reach the polls.
Read the entry here: Challenging Voters: Why is this Legal?
March 14, 2004
Clinton, Graham introduce joint voting bill
Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) and Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) jointly introduced on March 10 legislation that updates Rush Holt's (D-NJ) H.R. 2239, and coordinates Senate efforts to move this legislation forward.
Senator Graham had previously introduced S. 1980, a companion bill to Holt's H.R. 2239. Senator Clinton had proposed S. 1986, legislation which did not explicitly require voter-verified paper records.
David Dill of had claimed that progress on Holt's legislation had been held up pending a clearer view of which Senate version would gain the most support. Clinton and Graham's joint introduction of a new version should help move things forward.
(Their legislation is tentatively titled "The Restore Elector Confidence in Our Representative Democracy Act (RECORD Act). The only reason it took so long for Senators Clinton and Graham to get together on this issue is the time it took to come up with a clever acronym. :-))
The bill is not on Thomas yet, but Senator Clinton's office provided me with a summary. Here are the key provisions:

CLICK HERE to get quick access to Election Results and Discussion Forum on your Latest page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-05 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
5. Carter Baker Commissioners Dissenting Statement & Web Site

The GWU voting rights expert is worth listening to. His arguments are well stated and demand a response. He was denied a dissenting voice in the report of more than 167 wordsodd, isnt it. This is a commission on democracy.


Commissioner Spencer Overton, GWU Professor, Voting Rights Expert

September 20,2005
I am a professor who specializes in election law, and I am writing separately to express my dissenting views on the Carter-Baker Commission's photo ID proposal.

The Commission's "Real ID" recommendation is more restrictive than the photo ID proposal rejected by the Carter-Ford Commission in 2001, and more extreme than any ID requirement adopted in any state to date. The Commission's proposal is so excessive that it would prevent eligible voters from proving their identity with even a valid U.S. passport or a U.S. military photo ID card.

In addition, the Commission's Report fails to undertake a serious cost-benefit analysis. The existing evidence suggests that the type of fraud addressed by photo ID requirements is extraordinarily small and that the number of eligible citizens who would be denied their right to vote as a result of the Commission's ID proposal is exceedingly large. According to the 2001 Carter-Ford Commission, an estimated 6% to 10% of voting-age Americans (approximately 11 million to 19 million potential voters) do not possess a driver's license or a state-issued non-driver's photo ID, and these numbers are likely to rise as the "Real ID Act" increases the documentary requirements for citizens to obtain acceptable identification. The 2005 Carter-Baker Commission does not and cannot establish that its "Real ID" requirement would exclude even one fraudulent vote for every 1000 eligible voters excluded.

The Commission's ID proposal would exclude Americans of all backgrounds, but the poor, the disabled, the elderly, students, and people of color would bear the greatest burden. According to the Georgia chapter of AARP, 36% of Georgians over age 75 do not have a drivers' license. In the United States, more than 3 million people with disabilities do not have identification issued by the government. A June 2005 study in Wisconsin found that the rate of driver's license possession among African Americans was half that for whites, and that only 22% of black males age 18 to 24 had a driver's license. The lack of government-issued photo ID is particularly acute among Native Americans, some of whom have religious objections to photo ID.

The exclusionary effects of the Commission's ID proposal are best illustrated by some of the people it is most likely to disenfranchise-the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Many who were left behind in hurricane-torn New Orleans were poor, did not own a car, and were less likely to have a driver's license. These forgotten Americans-and many like them across our nation-are the ones the Commission's ID proposal will most likely leave out of our democracy.

To combat fraud by absentee voters, the Commission recommends verifying the signature on the ballot against the signature used to register. The Commission fails to explain why Americans who travel to the polls to vote should be denied the same opportunity to establish their identity through signature verification. The Commission's double standard is particularly disturbing considering that whites are about twice as likely as African Americans to vote via absentee ballot, and that absentee ballots are widely acknowledged to be more susceptible to fraud than ballots cast at the polls.

The Commission's zeal for an identification requirement at any cost reflects a general misconception of election integrity. An election with integrity is one that allows every eligible voter-and only eligible voters-the opportunity to cast a ballot and to have that ballot counted accurately. The Commission's ID recommendation fails this standard.

CLICK HERE to get quick access to Election Results and Discussion Forum on your Latest page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-05 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Spencer Overton: Establishing Procedures for Credible Advisory Commissions

and more dissent

Commissioner Spencer Overton

Establishing Procedures for Credible Advisory Commissions

There were shortcomings in the process through which the Carter-Baker Commission adopted its Report. The Commission would have benefited from greater emphasis on expert testimony and empirical data, more transparency, clear rules established from the outset, and an adequate opportunity for dissent. Future advisory commissions should consciously develop fair procedures to enhance the quality of their deliberations and the credibility of their recommendations.

Especially with election law-where the judgment of incumbent politicians is sometimes clouded by self-interest-credible advisory commissions have the potential to play an important role in the development of law.<1> Advisory commissions can focus public attention on the most pressing issues and provide a forum for expert analysis and independent factfinding.

An advisory commission cannot pass a law, allocate government funds, or invalidate an existing election practice-its primary power rests in its credibility. In addition to recruiting a panel of well-respected commission members, a fair process - one that is designed to draw on the best available research and to develop conclusions based on neutral analysis and deliberation-is critical to earning the public's trust. Absent such a process, a commission's decisions are likely to be dismissed by skeptics as predetermined, politically motivated, or uninformed.

A well-functioning independent commission should hear testimony from as many of the top experts as possible, including contrary opinions on all matters under review. The Carter-Ford National Commission on Federal Election Reform of 2001, for example, held four all-day public hearings in various parts of the country (Georgia, Michigan, Texas, and Los Angeles), and heard from 52 witnesses. In contrast, the Carter-Baker Commission held only two half-day public hearings (in Washington, D.C. and Texas), and heard from 21 witnesses. While a keystone of the Carter-Baker Commission's report is its voter ID proposal, it did not call as witnesses many of the most established experts on the issue. A commission's reliance on anecdotes and political sound bites-rather than empirical data, testimony by top experts, and rigorous analysis-undermines its credibility.

A lack of transparency can also compromise the credibility of a commission. Without significant public input and scrutiny of the commission's deliberations, a commission is more likely to overlook important facts and perspectives. Rather than furthering objective deliberation, confidentiality and closed meetings can become tools to embed a particular agenda without having to respond to opposing voices.

Commission rules should be developed, agreed upon, and articulated clearly in written form at the outset. The imposition of the 250-word limit on dissent at its last meeting is one example of the Carter-Baker Commission's failure in this regard. Imposing new rules in the middle (or at the end) of the game gives the appearance that commissioners are using procedural devices to promote their own policy preferences.

There is also the question of whether the executive director and the co-chairs of the commission should set the agenda with minimal input from other commissioners and the public, select which witnesses will be called, establish all of the procedural rules, and control the staff and the commission's other resources. Delegating such responsibilities broadly among other members of the commission may be more democratic, but may lack the efficiencies of concentrating them in the hands of the executive director and the co-chairs. However responsibility is allocated, such facts should be clearly disclosed so that citizens can assess whether the leadership's personal policy preferences shaped the commission's agenda, procedures, and witness lists, and ultimately the commission's policy recommendations.

Finally, a commission should provide adequate room for dissent, which identifies for the public and policymakers the areas of substantial disagreement. The Carter-Baker Commission's 250-word limit on dissent is clearly insufficient to adequately discuss issues of national importance (a typical newspaper commentary is 650 words). The 2001 Carter-Ford Commission did not impose such extreme limits. For example, the additional statement by Commissioner John Seigenthaler (joined in part by Commissioner Griffin Bell) is 1227 words.

Several members of the 2005 Carter-Baker Commission have discouraged dissent based on their stated belief that the Carter-Baker Report will have greater political impact if its provisions appear to enjoy unanimous support. But if a commission chooses to address contested issues and fails to develop recommendations to build real consensus, it should not later impose rules that stifle opposing views to give the false impression of consensus or to mask the substantive flaws in the commission's proposals. An advisory commission-especially one that purports to promote democracy-undermines its legitimacy when it attempts to advance its proposals by severely curtailing speech. More generally, a commission that prioritizes maximizing its own political influence over rigorous analysis compromises its credibility with the American people.

<1> Christopher Elmendorf, Representation Reinforcement Through Advisory Commissions: The Case of Election Law, 80 New York University Law Review (forthcoming 2005).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-05 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
6. Batting Clean-up BradBlog Doing Its Job Covering the Entire Story
BradBlog Doing Its Job Covering the Entire Story
Thank God for BradBlog!

September 19, 2005


The report, so far, has faired no better on Capitol Hill. Congressmen John Conyers (D-MI) and John Lewis (D-GA), a long-time voting rights advocate who was beaten during the Bloody Sunday Marches -- which led to the landmark Voting Rights Act 40 years ago in Selma, Alabama -- where he marched alongside Dr. Martin Luther King have roundly condemned the Baker/Carter Commission's report. They describe the Voter ID recommendations as "discriminatory" and allege that these cynical recommendations would "make it harder for tens of millions of citizens to vote."

The Congressmen have written a letter to colleagues inviting them to join in introducing a resolution in the U.S. House stating opposition to new restrictive voting ID requirements and have announced that a Senate counterpart to the resolution will be forthcoming from Senator Barak Obama along with Minority Leader Reid, Senator Dodd, Clinton and Corzine.

A blog item this morning by Conyers expresses more details and outrage at Bush Family Crony James Baker's attempts to once again keep Americans from having their votes counted, as he so successfully accomplished on behalf of the Bush's during the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida. Conyers also announced he has set up the main page of his website as an action center to counter this latest assault on voters rights in America.

CLICK HERE to get quick access to Election Results and Discussion Forum on your Latest page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-05 03:30 AM
Response to Original message
8. Press Release: A Question Of Legitimacy: Who Really Won In 2004?
Edited on Tue Sep-20-05 03:30 AM by Wilms

A Question Of Legitimacy: Who Really Won In 2004?

Tuesday, 20 September 2005, 1:59 pm

Press Release: Concerned Americans
September 19, 2005

For Immediate Release

From: Concerned Americans


In 2005 Federal government gives Louisiana $27 million for Help America Vote Act to purchase machines for the entire state.

In 2004 the Bush administration cut Army Corps of Engineers budget for levee maintenance in the New Orleans area by $26 million dollars.

Why is the Bush administration so intent on spreading voting machines and software?

Could the reason be that Bush almost always does better in electronic voting precincts?

Could another reason be that almost all the electronic voting companies are owned by right wing Republicans?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-05 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. "Carter/Baker Report can't face how the GOP stole America's 2004 election"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-24-05 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
10. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jun 09th 2023, 07:09 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