BBV: please support litigation to reduce electronic voting in Ohio

Ohio is an important swing state which will be using at least some Diebold electronic voting machines in 2004.

With litigation, we can at least reduce the number of counties which use them.
----------------
FROM:
http://www.caseohio.org/CaseOhio/contribute.htm

FUND THE LITIGATION - Please contribute whatever you can; even $10 would help.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has agreed to accept donations to fund an Ohio lawsuit. There are two ways to donate:

https://secure.eff.org/step2.asp?action=Donate&otherAmount=

1. By credit card - visit the EFF secure web site, complete the form and select the "Submit Information" button at the bottom. On the page where you enter your credit card or Pay Pal account number there is a comment box at the bottom (right above the "Submit Donation" button) with the heading "Your most important reason for joining EFF...". You are not joining EFF with this donation so IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO COMPLETE THIS TEXT BOX WITH THE PHRASE: "OHIO E-VOTING LITIGATION." If this field is not completed with this phrase the funds will not be allocated to Ohio E-voting Litigation.

2. By check - make the check payable to Electronic Frontier Foundation and in the memo field write "OHIO E-VOTING LITIGATION." Mail the check to Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110.

kick

kick

done!

You bet I'll contribute! Every black box that is shut down between now and November counts!

On edit: In fact, it's like spreading a political donation across the board for the Dems! Every State that we can get to shut down the black boxes is a state that will go Dem....you can take that to the bank!

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

CASE Ohio is ok EFF...I have trouble with. They declined to help us here in Washington.

EFF has done a lot of good things, and if they didn't help you in Washington state, we should still be glad they're helping in Ohio.

but why do they need money? Aren't the Qui Tams going very well?

Or has the PR firm raised their prices?

Is Dill charging more these days?

Some of the things they're doing for verified voting are listed
on the center of this page:

http://www.eff.org/e-vote/

And more of the issues they're involved with are listed on the right of that webpage.

They are really working to protect our ballot. :eyes:

EFF sent all their members an email asking them to contact Congress for "The Voter Confidence Act."

"The Voter Confidence Act" says the paper record is the official record.

I am not willing to give politicians wiggle room. Are you? If so...go ahead and wander down the papertrail. When the rules change and you don't get what you want...don't come crying to me. Ballot already has legal standing...Papertrails do not (in-so-far as voting is concerned). Why pass legislation when all we need do is say "The ballot is the official record of the election". Eric we have had this conversation a long time. You really should look at blacks law dictionary. Find papertrail in there...how does it define paper-trail exactly?

.

When I get their e-mails, they seem to be talking up the ballots and the audits.

Is this not correct? You've got a LOT more info on this than I do. If they AREN'T talking up ballots and audits, I don't mind raising hell about it!

Whassup???

BTW, how's your campaign doing??? Have there been any polls?

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

Anyone pushing trails over ballots trouble me. The ballot must ALWAYS be the legal record of the election. Not a computer count.

We get a paper trail then what? With not audit provisions the trail means nothing.

"Paper trails"

Some trails are happy ones
Others not so fun,
It’s the way you use the trail that counts.
Rigging vote machines is fun.

Paper trails to you so we can steal your vote.
Paper trails to you you’re gonna vote for Bush*.
JFK can't win cause we’ve got Diebold?
There is no proof without a paper ballot?
Paper trails to you…now the jokes on you.

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/happytr.htm


Lyrics by me...Music...ummmm I dunno.

EFF supports The Voter Confidence Act, which makes the paper record the official record.

And I support EFF.

then it isn't a ballot.

other states. I told them I would contribute to any other state litigations they choose to bring, as well.

I wish they would get on board with Wexler's (sp?) suit in Florida, as well. The EFF rocks!

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

The only one is the copyright suit against Diebold last fall.

Florida - Wexler: He brought that on his own.

California - A group of California citizens and I brought that suit, on our own.

Washington - Andy Stephenson brought that suit, on his own

Maryland - TruVoteMD brought that suit, and are in communication with EFF, but not financed by EFF, I don't believe, and as far as I know they found their own attorney

Ohio - EFF said they'd help find attorneys, but then called and said there was a problem with fighting touch screens in favor of counties with punch cards. Their suggested attorneys bowed out. CASE Ohio found their own attorney and has been told to come up with their own funding, but EFF is allowing its infrastructure to be used for donations.

I met with my California attorney and TruVoteMD's folks in March and April to hammer out budgets and infrastructure for a litigation umbrella group. EFF then announced through its newsletter that it was raising $250,000 for a litigation clearinghouse, and this sounds delightful, as I'd rather be concentrating on something else.

What I am watching now is whether that clearinghouse actually bears fruit. Start-up can be a bitch, and I would guess that the money hasn't all been raised yet.

We're running out of time -- by late August, no court anywhere will be willing to put a halt to whatever election system is in use. That's why we were calling for attorneys last December.

I hope EFF can make this work. We'll need a powerhouse of a consumer elections litigation clearinghouse for the September and November elections.

http://www.eff.org/e-vote/

"EFF is coordinating the national litigation strategy addressing e-voting issues and is serving as a clearinghouse for litigation challenges;"

What I do know: They are not coordinating or helping with their clearinghouse for the California suit or the Washington suit and so far, nothing substantial on the Ohio suit. I would doubt that they are coordinating on the Wexler suit.

Again, we are running out of time. Coordinating sounds good, but the lawsuits I mentioned above are on their own and not recieving "coordination" and "clearinghouse" help, and no others have been filed that I'm aware of.

So what, exactly, is the $250,000 buying donors? (You asked me to ask my members to donate, remember.) What specifically is meant, in real, measurable, visible terms, by "coordinating" and "acting as a clearinghouse?" How do I benefit from that, as a plaintiff in a California lawsuit that we've spent our organization's money for? How does Andy Stephenson take advantage of this coordination and clearinghouse info?

The term "clearinghouse" can mean as little as collecting news articles about other people's lawsuits, or it can mean as much as collecting together all the discovery materials from all the lawsuits and sharing it (a very valuable resource). However, no such discovery material has been forthcoming for either the California or the Washington lawsuit, and not, as far as I know, for Ohio either.

"Coordinating" can mean as little as giving people names of attorneys to call, or as much as setting up regular meetings or teleconferencing for those involved in litigation. Again, I have seen no evidence of the latter.

I would absolutely love to see this work. I'd rather see EFF do it than Black Box Voting. But I'm not seeing tangible results, yet. Real action, meaningful action, should be visible to those of us who have actually brought lawsuits.

And many people, like LoudSue, were given the impression by EFF literature that it is bringing lawsuits. Apparently, then, it is not bringing lawsuits? Fill me in on exactly what is being done to "coordinate" and "act as a clearinghouse."

Of course, there may be lawsuits under seal that EFF is coordinating and acting as a clearinghouse for. But that would be a horse of a whole different color, and it would be extremely inappropriate to raise funds from donors for private Qui Tam suits hoping for a bounty payment. If I was an organization coordinating Qui Tam suits, I'd find it very helpful to "coordinate and act as a clearinghouse" for other lawsuits paid for and organized by other groups. Lots of inside information could be obtained that way.

Look, I want it to succeed. But don't take credit for other people's work, money, fund raising efforts. Show what that coordinating and clearinghouse $250k is doing.

Bev

Ohio Citizens' Alliance for Secure Elections must expect EFF to help with contributions labelled "OHIO E-VOTING LITIGATION."

The Ohio CASE webpage, indicates they expect EFF to contribute with donations by people who put "OHIO E-VOTING LITIGATION" in the notes section.

http://www.caseohio.org/CaseOhio/contribute.htm

through EFF, because they don't have nonprofit status. But they are doing all the work and tapping into their own networks to send the money through EFF for this. The EFF has not, to my knowledge, provided any funds for them, nor did it provide attorneys or do any of the legal work.

EFF will give Ohio CASE the money from people who write "OHIO E-VOTING LITIGATION," right?

However, as I understand it, it is up to the people from CASE to fund their own suit since EFF-suggested lawyers didn't want to litigate against touch screens in punch card locations. CASE needs to come up with $10,000, and they need a few big checkbooks in this. They are making very good progress towards this goal.

The EFF-sponsored donation page gives access to tax deductibility for the lawsuit, but it will be important to hold EFF to its promise to make these funds available exclusively for CASE Ohio litigation, and since their suggested lawyers didn't want to fight touch-screens in punch card counties, they should certainly assist with the outstanding elections law attorney located by CASE Ohio.

Do donate. This is urgent.

Also, since EFF says it is raising $250,000 for litigation activities, yet Andy did not receive any assistence when he requested it on his lawsuit, and the CASE Ohio people were unable to get assistence and had to go find (and fund) their own lawyer, one very meaningful type of support EFF could provide would be to send out a solicitation for the critically important Ohio litigation to all its donors and membership.

I will be doing the same with Black Box Voting membership, because I have met the people in Ohio who are behind this. They will file suit against every county who went ahead and reaffirmed a contract for touch screens in Ohio, as many as 31 counties.

Bev

but I will never be ok with "papertrails"...I demand a ballot.

Last night's meeting, it was the people attending who were correcting the others: "It's a BALLOT we want, not a receipt or a trail."

Bev Harris - will you ask your members to donate to EFF or to donate in another way?

Sorry, EFF actively participated in shutting down my web site last fall, by calling the attorney for my ISP and recommending that he shut down not just the offending page, but all the pages; they then refused to represent Black Box Voting on the site shutdown and then they interefered with my obtaining other counsel. They then put out misleading press information which marginalized and misrepresented my research, and that of several other Black Box Voting researchers.

Turf protecting, perhaps.

I have offered to work together on various projects with EFF. They decline. They generally refuse to appear on the same podium, or at the same event if I am participating.

As recently as this morning, I offered to meet with Will Doherty, director of Verified Voting, and I think we'll get that set up. As recently as 10 days ago I offered to help Cindy Cohn obtain volunteer legal advocacy from a blind attorney. She never returned my call.

I am embarking on my own fund raising, as we are going non profit next week. I'd be glad to go shoulder to shoulder with EFF / Verified Voting. I'll meet with EFF any time. The key is to drop the turf-protecting and provide reciprocal benefit for an alliance.

Black Box Voting isn't going away, and our non profit charter doesn't compete with any other voting organization. We're working with CASE Ohio because they developed a good relationship from the beginning.

Rule #1 of sales (and fund raising is sales) -- you must put a benefit in it for the other guy. There is a benefit to Black Box Voting to help CASE Ohio fund raise its lawsuit. We are working cooperatively -- the Ohio activists are providing tips and documents for our investigations, and introducing me to all kinds of people. We, in turn, will help raise funds, and provide ammunition for their lawsuit.

Such mutually beneficial arrangements could be made with EFF / Verified Voting. Hopefully such a relationship can be carved out. I've been making overtures toward such an alliance since February.

Bev

Using plain paper ballots makes the most sense.

Not only is it more secure, if citizens are allowed to watch the ballot box until and during the counting, but it takes less time than:

buidling electronic voting machines
testing electronic voting machines
training poll workers on electronic voting machines

we are bound to machines...forever.

Citizens are called to election duty the way we are called to jury duty, and must sit at tables responsible for 300 voters each. All members of the table's team must agree as ballots are counted and only then can sign off on a sealed package of ballots, which is forwarded to a central location. There are checks every step of the way, and the entire count is done extremely quickly.

nt

kick

kick

kick

kick

kick