Help stop Santa Cruz County, CA from choosing DREs this week!

[emlev]

Yes, it's true--even in Santa Cruz. How is that possible? Because it looks to counties like they have no choice. They're required to follow HAVA guidelines, and in California they're required to buy machines that are certified by the state (as well as federally qualified), and there are no clear good choices.

Our county clerk has done what she can to create safeguards, but has recommended a blended system of op-scans and DREs. Her proposal can be viewed at:

http://www.votescount.com/newsystem.pdf

The County Board of Supervisors will take up this proposal Tuesday, October 18. Meeting begins at 9 a.m., but this matter probably won't come up before 9:30 and perhaps not until much later. It's at the County Building, 701 Ocean Street in Santa Cruz.

We need people to come and show the Board of Supes how important it is that they take a stand against election corporatization interests. If you can't be there, please email the supervisors:

Supervisor Jan Beautz:
[email protected]

Supervisor Ellen Pirie:
[email protected]

Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt
[email protected]

Supervisor Tony Campos
[email protected]

Supervisor Mark Stone
[email protected]

Remember, they won't have time to read long emails before this meeting. Make your subject line count, and make a few quick points in the body of your email. Ask them to take a stand to protect fair elections in Santa Cruz. Please do not trash the county clerk; she's just doing her job. Now it's time for us to do ours!

Thanks for your help.

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. thanks for posting- I'm in Santa Cruz too! n/t

[emlev]

2. Are you available to help get people to the meeting?

Or to help organize around this in any other way?
If so, please PM me! There's much to be done, very little time, and very few people doing it.

[DemInDistress]

3. is this restricted to Californians only?

or can I vote/email?

[emlev]

4. Why this applies to more than Californians

It seems to me that if a county as progressive as Santa Cruz corporatizes its elections, progressives in other communities may say, "Well, if Santa Cruz has these machines, they must be okay."

The email addresses of the Board of Supervisors are on their website; that's where I got them to post them here. While I imagine the supervisors are most interested in hearing from their constituents, it seems to me it's important that we all speak out against the corporatization of the vote as often and in as many places as we can.

[DemInDistress]

5. Next year electronic voting comes to NYS

we must in order to secure HAVA funds and our politicans want that money.I'll check out the site...thanks

[emlev]

6. We must help our counties understand they are being used

by the feds. It's time for our local governments to stand up and resist. We must speak out about this now while we still have a civil right or two left. Let's look at how we can support local governments to take bold stands against the repression of the federal government.

[emlev]

7. Actually, what you said about HAVA funds isn't true

Electronic voting is NOT required in order to recieve HAVA funds. This is misinformation being promulgated by the electronic voting machine companies. Many in state and county governments believe it. Here are some things you can do about that:

go to www.votersunite.org. Download (or mail order) Mythbreakers, their great document written for election officials about e-voting, HAVA requirements, etc. You can sign up at votersunite.org to deliver Mythbreakers to your county election officials. You can get others throughout your state to do the same, or you can take on delivering to as many counties as you can.

Meanwhile, find out what certification process NY has for election equipment. Find out what is certified already, what is in the process of being certified, and how the process works. There are systems in development that are non-electronic and can meet HAVA requirements. In California our certification process is in the way of those systems being chosen because they aren't yet certified, but NY may not be in the same situation. See what you can do to find out.

[DemInDistress]

8. Thanks emlev...

I will check this out.I was under the impression we NY-ers must comply with HAVA by 2006 in order to receive as much funds as possible
For decades we have used the lever/paper ballots when nessessary and
b/c of HAVA we must adopt electronic voting.Thanks for the link..

[AtLiberty]

9. Ask these election officials in a big way --

ARE THESE MACHINES COMPLIANT WITH FEDERAL CERTIFICATION?

(The answer is NO!!! But they probably don't realize it.)

UNLESS THE MACHINES ARE COMPLIANT WITH FEDERAL STANDARDS, THEN THE ELECTIONS IN 2006 COULD BE FRAUDULENT AND THE COUNTY COULD BE SUED! IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE NONCOMPLIANT EQUIPMENT.

DOES THE COMMISSION WANT TO GO THERE?

ASK THEM THIS POINT BLANK IN PUBLIC COMMENT AND ASK AN ELECTION ATTORNEY IN THE STATE TO DRAFT A LETTER STATING SUCH TO ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS.

[garybeck]

10. Emlev, what's the latest in CA? Is Diebold still banned?

this article from 7/29 says they were kicked out. I can't keep up!

http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=5774

[emlev]

11. They were decertified and they're trying to come back

Last I heard they hadn't managed to get recertified yet, but I may not have the latest info. I know there's no Diebold system that's both federally qualified and state certified in California. But the state kicked out its SOS, Kevin Shelley, and many believe that was largely because he decertified Diebold. Now we have an appointed Republican SOS in place of our elected democratic one. Hundreds of people showed up to speak against Diebold last time they were up for recertification. We're doing our best here to keep on top of things, but the counties are put in a very hard position. (See the thread I'm about to start on what happened in Santa Cruz today.)