BBV - Today! Will Washington decertify Diebold optical scans?

Friday May 14, 2004 - Hearing this morning at 10:00 a.m.
Washington State Lawsuit Seeks to Decertify Diebold Optical Scan System

In the first pre-emptive lawsuit against voting machines filed by a candidate, Andy Stephenson -- a candidate for Washington Secretary of State -- has filed for an injunction to decertify Diebold GEMS central count software used in four Washington counties. The suit alleges that current Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed improperly certified the voting system. Stephenson is also suing King County over the use of uncertified optical scan software.

Today's hearing will decide a motion to dismiss, filed by Sam Reed's office. Of interest: Reed has asked the judge to deem the formal report by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley to be irrelevant hearsay, and in a more bizarre response, seeks to have Diebold's own "release notes" -- the document which lists changes made in the software -- to be deemed inadmissable hearsay. Washington's laws regarding admissability of evidence are more liberal than many other states, allowing the use of reports, and even news articles, to be submitted as evidence.

Reed's objection to the Diebold release notes is interesting because these release notes are required to be submitted to the defendant -- the Secretary of State -- in order to certify the GEMS software.

The release notes submitted by Stephenson demonstrate that the software had over 600 changes, including many new features, requiring it to undergo certification according to Washington state law. The state has not provided its own copy of the Diebold GEMS 1.18.18 release notes, so Stephenson obtained release notes via the state of California. The release notes are a critical document, and it will be interesting to see whether Reed's office refuses to provide their own copy, or attempts to claim that the Diebold GEMS release notes for Washington differ from the same document submitted by Diebold to the state of California.

Today's hearing should be a simple one; upcoming actions may become more contentious. One material witness, Washington State Elections Director David Elliott, took an indefinite personal leave of absence at about the time the lawsuit went its into discovery phase; at the same time, the King County Elections Office issued a directive to its employees to destroy records over 90 days old, a directive that appears to invite employees to destroy evidence.

The GEMS central count software used in Washington State was certified on August 12, 2003 by Steve Excel, the assistant secretary of state in Washington. Washington state law requires use of the software in another state election before it can be certified, but this software had never been used elsewhere. In March 2004, GEMS software miscounted 3,000 absentee ballots in San Diego, which Diebold admits was caused by a program error. In the state of Washington, as many as 60 percent of all ballots are absentee, so this flaw is a genuine concern for a candidate who must depend on the accuracy of the vote count for his election.

Also at issue is the firmware inside the Diebold optical scan machines in Washington State. Documents provided by state elections director David Elliott earlier this year indicate that this firmware has never been certified at all in Washington state.

Bev Harris

Seeks to overturn the purchase of ES&S touch screens.

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1864197

"In March 2004, GEMS software miscounted 3,000 absentee ballots in San Diego, which Diebold admits was caused by a program error".

Let's see just what went "wrong". In fact, any program "bugs" (if you want to call them that - I don't) should be documented with the offending code.

That will make them squirm.

Bugs? I doubt it. Why do they always seem to work in favor of the Repukes?

The time is passed to "hint" or "question" Diebold's criminal collaboration with the Bush regime. This is obvious and it's time we all said it in public.

Our duty as citizens is to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

I'm sitting here just bouncing waiting to hear what happened at the hearing today and I know it hasn't even started yet. :)

"Today's hearing will decide a motion to dismiss, filed by Sam Reed's office. Of interest: Reed has asked the judge to deem the formal report by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley to be irrelevant hearsay, and in a more bizarre response, seeks to have Diebold's own "release notes" -- the document which lists changes made in the software -- to be deemed inadmissable hearsay."



Don't ya just love these guys? Evidence = hearsay

By the way, if the Diebold release notes are hearsay, isn't the idea the whole program counts votes correctly, "hearsay?"

program counts correctly = HEARSAY!!!!

:bounce:

JEEZ LOUISE

why are these criminals in office?

King County is the largest block of voters in the state. Carry King, Pierce, Snohomish (Sequoia) and Spokane in the east, you've about got it all tied up.

Besides, most people are still in a mindset that does not question the honesty of most officials and the Secretary of State flies under the radar.

When The Election Center targeted the voting systems in this country they knew right where to go. Secretaries of State have almost no oversight- thanks to Dan Spillane for pointing that out.

Here's where the legislature has to take tight control. Every state needs laws that will make it impossible for voting systems to be purchased on the whim of one individual or a small group of easily influenced people. Laws do some of that in some states, but too many loopholes exist.

Any new way of voting, especially the "electronic, no paper" versions, should require legislation to change the law before they could be allowed. That way, there is at least legislative review and the opportunity for citizens to have some input.

In Washington State, Sam Reed talked about electronic verification in his news conference in December. Outrage made him withdraw it, publically, but it showed up again in his legislation. Specific language about electronic verification was finally eliminated from the Senate version of the bill, (but not totally safe from it, that bill still didn't ask for voter verified paper ballots from ALL voting systems) until Representative Laura Ruderman (candidate now for Secretary of State) put it back in her House version of the bill and subbed that bill for all the language in the Senate bill at the last minute.

Ruderman wants a committee (just like Sam Reed did, in fact, her "bill" is just a tweaked version of Reed's) to approve voting systems and the only check and balance would be that such approval would have to have one session of the legislature before it could be implemented. That means the only way to stop it is for:

A legislator to introduce a bill (which would be late in the game)

Get the bill sponsored

Get the committee to even consider that bill that session

Get the bill out of committee

Get the bill passed by both branches in one session


It would still have to be signed by the Governor and we all know how much you can rely on that sometimes.


The position of Secretary of State has been used for quite a while to change state laws and influence the voting systems purchased.

All under the radar.

What a fucking joke!

No damn wonder the repukes want all their right wing judges to sit on benches across America.

They've been trying to get this crap sewn up for a long damn time. HOWEVER!!!!!...they didn't count on the BBV Patriots bringing it all out into the open. Any blind and deaf person can tell you that this whole thing stinks to high heaven.

O8) Prayers for your continued success and safety! O8)

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

I have my boots on cause I feel it is gonna get deep in the courtroom this am and so.......I am off to the races. Wish me luck!

Andy

I never wear good boots when I have to deal with, uh, wet, corrosive, waste material.

Need something really waterproof for that stuff!

anybody hear from GBNC yet?

Just wondering...

may not be over yet...

i'm sure andy or bev will report in

which is going to be soon. :boring:

:bounce:

Still no news?

:kick:

Kickin' it for Bev.

no news yet?

:kick: because our Kerry activities have been called due to rain.

I am kicking this from yesterday to find out.

The judge would not even look at the evidence and threw out the case. However we are preparing an appeal at this time and will file it on Monday. We may be down...but we are not out. In fact two good things came from the hearing. The Secretary of States office admitted that they did not have the release notes and if they don't have the release notes how can they say for sure there were no changes to the software? I was bumming after the trial on firday...but Bev...made the ppoints to me and that cheered me up. This was just round one the war is far from over. We just lost a minor skirmish on the outskirts of town...did not lose much and no precedent was set....But I definately need a more agressive lawyer than the one I had. He is a good lawyer and does great research but he is not a trial lawyer for sure.

Andy


P.S. Sorry this is so late. I had to come to eastern Washington right after the hearing to campaign...and it was well worth the trip.

personal injury types if you have trouble locating one. I would have myself, but then met a guy who impressed the hell outta me. He knew exacty what a judge needed to see going in to court so it woudln't get thrown out, and what the jury needed to know by the time the trial was over (assuming there's a jury) -- something about being able to list the points on a white board so a 3rd grader would understand. And from the very FIRST discussion was into framing the issues in exactly those directions.

Research is one thing.

The ability to stand up, articulate, and fight is another.

You have to have both.

Sorry you lost round one.

"The judge would not even look at the evidence and threw out the case."

Wow, deja vu. I hope you guys at least didn't try the same "print out stuff from Bev's web site and call it evidence" approach that got laughed out of court last time.

It seems to me that maybe free lawyers aren't the way to go. Maybe there's a reason they work for free. Try a really expensive one next time. Maybe from a firm that has a lot of courtroom experience. Word to the wise though: stay away from Jones Day. :)

Also it strikes me as a little disingenuous to claim "we just lost a minor skirmish on the outskirts of town." Were we, or were we not all led to believe that this was some huge, major deal? "Dominoes falling" and what not. Way to keep a stiff upper lip and all, but in all seriousness there's no way to characterize this except as a major blow to your personal crusade. I mean you didn't just go into court and lose... a judge listened to your opening complaint and summarily ruled that it was without any merit whatsoever. "Would not even look at the evidence" is what I believe you said. "Threw out the case." As far as appeals go, you technically have to have grounds for one -- you don't just get to appeal because you disagree with the judge. (Of course I'm just a computer programmer, not a lawyer, but I watch a lot of Law & Order). I hope you do manage to file one though, if only because I like the validation I feel every time the judicial system vindicates what I've been saying all along. Just watch out in case Sam Reed tries to make you guys pay his court costs if he wins, or files his own suit about all the frivolous/nuisance lawsuits (he's sure to have lots of free time after November). ;)

In all sincerity I can't even figure out what the BBVers even want any more. Oh, right -- paper ballots, hand-counted by student volunteers with a hundred French onlookers and Jimmy Carter overseeing the whole thing, or something to that effect. Except optical scan systems are paper ballots. Hand-countable, even. From my perusal of the recent BBV discussion on DU these days, it seems that most people think this "Vogue Election Systems" device that marks optical scan ballots for the blind is the best thing since sliced bread, and the answer to everything. (Although I personally find it hilarious that "Vogue Election Systems" sells an "AccuScan" optical scanner unit that looks exactly like a "Global Election Systems" (er, Diebold) "AccuVote" unit, a ballot box that's actually advertised as fitting the Diebold "AccuVote" unit, and totally trustworthy, non-evil central vote-tallying software called "VEMS" instead of the decidedly-evil "GEMS" product offered by Diebold. I suspect I'm probably the only one who sees the humor in it when the BBV people tout this place as the thing that will save democracy in America. Of course I also suspect that the whole Vogue thing is an elaborate joke cooked up by a lone Diebold programmer with way too much free time on his hands. ;)) Anyway the point remains that optical scan systems do use paper ballots, so what's the problem?

Oh yeah, you claim (although fail to demonstrate) that it's not certified. Of course I read on Bev's site that certification is flawed to the point of worthlessness, and a joke in any event. So why is it that this worthless certification would somehow make you feel better?

It's a trick question, of course, because you really just want to complain and scare people, not fix anything. Personally I think you're just laying the groundwork for future claims that your upcoming electoral defeat was because the whole thing was rigged, not because people listened to everything you had to say and decided to vote for someone else. Then again maybe you'll win. I actually hope you do, if only to see Avante finally make a sale. Also because the secretary of state also probably gets a personal secretary, one who can run a spell-check.

Anyway, good luck with the appeal. I'm doing my part to help by posting my silly reply here... you know these threads tend to drop like a stone unless I show up to inspire a hundred and fifty angry replies. :grr:

:tinfoilhat: JC :tinfoilhat:

in fact I didn't even read your post.

I'm sure you didn't read my reply. There's some big words and stuff in there! Just relax and have another glass of Bev's Kool-Aid. :)

Also, thanks for the link to your lawyer's stuff on the case. That's some of the funniest stuff I've ever read, and I've read most of Bev's book (the online version -- still waiting for my real copy as you know). Did you really try to submit an article from Wired as "evidence"? Hilarious. I think my favorite part was when your lawyer used the argument that Washington should follow California's example... especially in light of the fact that California hasn't decertified GEMS or their optical scan machines (the same optical scan machines as used in Washington), and even more especially (if that's even possible) when California actually requires its counties to use the specific version of GEMS you're whining about. Oops. :D

Your free lawyer isn't actually your problem here. It's more an issue of your whole case making no sense whatsoever.

:tinfoilhat: JC :tinfoilhat:

to call you an asshole.

Spoken like a true future secretary of state. :eyes:

:tinfoilhat: JC :tinfoilhat:

I call em as I see em.

Sadly, why am I not surprised. What is this "judge's" party affiliation?

Don't forget to include the Attorney General... that's who's handling the defense. Clearly they're all corrupt. :eyes:

JC

Funny how you only slither outta your hidey hole to discredit any who question the almighty and paperless "voting" machines. How much is diebold or es&s paying ya anyway?

Aren't optical scan ballots better than paperless electronic voting?

if there is no provision for hand counting if need be.

If you were suspicious about optical scan results in Washinton state, could you sue for a recount?

same uncertified equipment. Basically...I wan the SOS to follow Washington State law. I do...he should.

That in a nutshell is what the case is about. You can read all the briefs at www.lippmannlaw.com click "Stephenson v Reed" for a more complete understanding of the case. I am off now...going back to Seattle. Should be in later this afternoon and we can continue the discussion.

OK. We agree a recount of optical scan ballots needs to be a hand count, or it's pointless.

and not a "paper trail"

Andy

Look at what is happening - BBV is a big part of it.

I thought you meant "Washington, D.C."!!!

But Washington state is pretty nice too! Go Bev!

:-)