Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News 06.27.06 - Edsel Awards (pic)

ERD News gives the Edsel Award to these States
For being the worst of the worst in election competence.

THE ‘COMMON CAUSE’ 17:
States with major risks for election problems in 2006.

Is your state here? “Come on down:”
Louisiana through Virginia

Arkansas
Deleware
DC
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky

Louisiana
Maryland
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia

Never forget the pursuit of Truth.
Only the deluded & complicit accept election results on blind faith.
Denying that 2004 was stolen is like denying global warming.

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News June 27, 2006

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.

Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.
1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.
2. Post stories using the "Election Fraud and Reform News Sources" listed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x371233
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.
Please

"Recommend"

for the Greatest Page

www.ElectionFraudNews.com

Louisiana

NAACP Legal Defense Fund Cases

Political Participation

Fulfilling and safeguarding voting rights have long been at the heart of LDF's efforts to help all citizens realize the nation's ideals. As the nation's oldest and most successful civil rights and public interest law firm, LDF is recognized for its pioneering and long-standing advocacy in the area of voting rights and political empowerment for people of color and the poor.

LDF played a major role in crafting and enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and has been involved in virtually every major voting rights-related legislative and administrative advocacy issue since, including the development, passage, implementation and defense of the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

Today, we continue to play a leadership role in monitoring and challenging redistricting plans and electoral practices that discriminate against minorities; educating the public and elected officials about voting rights issues; monitoring impact of new laws on minority voting power; and investigating precedent-setting voting rights litigation

www.ElectionFraudNews.com

Louisiana

Williams v. McKeithen

June 24, 2005

NAACP Legal Defense Fund Seeks Injunction to Postpone Jefferson Parish's Judicial Election

http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=639

Attorneys Simultaneously File Motion for Class Action in Pending Election Discrimination Lawsuit

On June 23, 2005, Louisiana attorneys Ronald Wilson and Natacha Hutchinson and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) filed papers in federal court here on behalf of several African-American voters in Jefferson Parish, seeking to postpone special elections to fill a recent vacancy on the State's Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The voters are plaintiffs in Williams v. McKeithen, a lawsuit alleging that the State's method of electing judges to that court violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) because it dilutes the voting strength of African-American voters in Jefferson Parish. African-American voters in Louisiana have successfully brought numerous other suits under the VRA to overturn practices that dilute their voting strength.

Under current Louisiana law, six of the eight judges on the intermediate court of appeals that covers three Parishes are elected by voters in Jefferson Parish at-large, rather than singly from smaller geographic areas, the system by which trial court judges in Jefferson Parish are elected. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the majority of white voters in the Parish usually vote similarly as a bloc to defeat African-American candidates in Parish-wide contests, which keeps black voters from being able to elect a candidate whom they support. No African-American candidate has prevailed an at-large contested election, while several minority candidates have been elected to the trial court in the Parish from individual districts. (Jefferson Parish, with a population greater than 450,000, is the second largest parish in the state. 22.2 percent of the voting-age population in the Parish is African American.)

The suit was brought after a member of the state Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals resigned his position in March 2005, and Governor Kathleen Babineaux-Blanco named a temporary replacement and scheduled a special election to fill the vacancy. In yesterday's filing, attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that unless the federal court issues a Preliminary Injunction, yet another judge will be elected to the court for a multi-year term through a voting procedure that violates the VRA and will once again prevent Jefferson Parish's African-American community from meaningful participation. If the injunction is granted, they suggest, the temporary replacement judge will continue to serve until the federal court decides the legal questions raised in the lawsuit.

The attorneys also filed papers asking the federal court to recognize the plaintiffs as representatives of all African-American citizens of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana who are eligible and registered to vote and to certify the suit as a class action.

www.ElectionFraudNews.com

Louisiana

Wallace v. Blanco

http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=791

February 23, 2006

Attorneys Urge Federal Judge to Remove Remaining Barriers to Voting for Displaced Louisiana Voters

Today, attorneys for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) and the Louisiana law firm of Roy Rodney and John Etter will appear before federal District Court Judge Ivan Lemelle for a hearing in Wallace v. Blanco. The lawsuit is challenging the limitations of the State's plans for helping New Orleans residents displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to vote in next month's elections for municipal offices, including the Mayor and City Council members.

The Wallace trial will address the barriers to full participation in the April primary and May general elections that still remain for evacuees temporarily living outside New Orleans, despite actions taken in the 2006 First Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature held from February 6-17. Although the legislature did enact special measures on a temporary basis that will ease some of the burdens on Orleans Parish voters displaced by the hurricanes, even these modest gains came only after the proposals were initially defeated, prompting a dramatic walkout by members of the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus.

The trial today will focus on two major features of current law:

(1) the requirement that persons who registered by mail must appear in person at a Registrar's office or polling place when they vote for the first time (the Legislature waived that requirement only for individuals who registered between October 5, 2004 and September 24, 2005), and

(2) the decision to allow evacuees to vote in Louisiana cities other than New Orleans, some of which are closer to the state's borders and to communities with large numbers of displaced New Orleanians in cities such as Houston (the Governor's "call" limited the subjects of the special session to in-state "satellite" voting only).

www.ElectionFraudNews.com

Louisiana

…just over 10% of the disenfranchised New Orleans evacuees cast votes in the mayoral primary. “Mission Accomplished Republican State Legislature!!!

MD: Politics of the Absurd – Early Voting, a Manufactured Crisis

Washington Post:
Ehrlich Agrees to Buy Early Voting Machines Despite Opposition to Law

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702213.html
By Steve Vogel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 8, 2006; Page B02

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. reluctantly agreed to buy the computer equipment needed for early voting in Maryland yesterday after warnings from state election officials that a failure to do so would leave the state unprepared for the primary elections in September.

The three-member Maryland Board of Public Works, which includes Ehrlich, approved a $2.4 million contract for 200 electronic poll books, which can track voters who cast a ballot at select locations in the week leading up to an election.

Despite his contention that early voting legislation passed by the General Assembly "is a joke and a fraud on the people," Ehrlich agreed that the state had an "obligation" to support a voting measure required by law.

The Republican governor has warned of the potential for fraud with early voting and has used previous meetings of the board to assail the measure. He vetoed legislation last year that authorized early voting but was overridden by the Democrat-controlled legislature. At the Board of Public Works meeting yesterday, he again questioned the reliability of the e-poll books, as they are known.

www.ElectionFraudNews.com

Maryland

The Advancement Project

http://www.advancementproject.org/

PDF: http://denistn.mine.nu/pdf2html.php?url=http://www.advancementproject.org/reports/MDNutshell.pdf

Voter Registration

• Who may register to vote in Maryland?
• When will the primary and general election be held?
• What is the voter registration deadline for each election?
• Where can a person apply for voter registration?
• What information must be provided on a voter registration application?
• How does a homeless person register to vote?
• May a person register to vote by mail? Is so, are there special requirements for
first-time voters who register to vote by mail?
• Will mail-in voter registration applications be accepted if they are received by
the registrar's office after the registration deadline?
• May a person correct or complete a form after the deadline for voter registration
if it was submitted before the deadline?
• Are there any rules relative to assisting others with the completion of a voter
registration application?
• How many voter registration applications may individuals or groups conducting
voter registration drives receive from the State Board of Elections or registrar
offices?
• Are there any special rules pertaining to the federal registration application?
• May persons conducting voter registration drives make copies of completed
voter registration applications before delivering them to the registrar's office?
• Are persons conducting voter registration drives required to deliver or mail
completed voter registration applications to registrar offices within a certain time
limit?
• When voter registration applications are mailed or delivered to the election
officials, how long will it take for the application to be processed?
•What can a person do if his application is denied?

Identification Requirements
• What identification is required for voter registration?
• What identification is required at the polling place?
• What identification is required to obtain or file an absentee ballot?
• What identification is required to validate a provisional ballot?

Voter Registration List Maintenance
• For what reasons can a person's name be removed from a list of registered voters?
• What are the procedures for removing names of persons who have felony
convictions or found to be mentally incompetent?
• How often are names removed from voter registration lists?
• Should voters be notified before their names are removed from voter registration
lists?
• May a person whose name has been removed due to a felony conviction have his
right to vote restored?
• What can a voter do if he learns that his name has been removed from the registered
voters' list in error?
• Can a voter obtain a photocopy of voter registration lists?

Early Voting (In Person) and Absentee Ballots

Is early voting allowed in Maryland?
•Who is permitted to vote by absentee ballot?
•How may a person request an absentee ballot?
•How must one vote an absentee ballot to ensure that it will be counted?
•Are there special instructions for absentee ballots requested by certain first-time voters?
•When will absentee ballots be counted?
•What is the procedure for determining if an absentee ballot will be counted?
•Are there special instructions for canvassing absentee ballots received from certain
first-time voters?
• What should a person do if he requested an absentee ballot but wants to vote in person
on Election Day?

Polling Place Locations/Procedures

• For how long are the polls open on Election Day?
• When must polling place locations be finalized?
• How are decisions about polling place locations made?
• How and when will voters be notified about polling place changes?
• Will there be central polling locations where voters, regardless of where they live,
can vote?
• What are the solicitation restrictions at polling places on Election Day?
• Under what circumstances will voters be required to show identification at the polls on
Election Day?
• Can a person's right to vote be challenged at the polls?
• What accommodations must be made for non-English speakers or persons unable to
read?
• What accommodations must be made for voters with disabilities?
• How much time do voters have to cast their ballot?
• If a voter is in line to vote at poll closing time but has not reached the voting
machine, may she still vote?
• May voters who have moved to a new address within a county but have not
registered at their new address be allowed to vote at the precinct for their old
address?
• May voters who have moved to a new address in another county but have not
registered at their new address be able to vote at the precinct of their old address?

Voter Intimidation

• What constitutes illegal intimidation of voters at the polls?
• Are law enforcement officers allowed in a polling place during voting hours?


www.ElectionFraudNews.com

New Jersey

Newark Star Ledger:
Judge requires consolidation of voting districts after election

Saturday, June 24, 2006
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1151126313140190.xml&coll=1

BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG
Star-Ledger Staff

A judge yesterday ordered the consolidation of some 200 voting districts with fewer than 250 voters, but not until after the November general election.

snip



Wilson said there is "clearly plenty of time" between now and November to notify voters that their polling place has changed. He noted that in 2002, the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed Democrats to change their candidate for U.S. Senate just 34 days before the general election.


www.ElectionFraudNews.com

New Jersey

The Montclair Times:
Voting machines ready for election: Long-awaited, often-debated electronic models

Thursday, June 01, 2006
http://www.montclairtimes.com/page.php?page=12233

By ERICA ZARRA
of The Montclair Times

With the June 6 primary election fast approaching, Essex County’s new electronic voting machines are ready for their long-awaited, often-debated debut.

All 700 touch-pad models from Sequoia Voting Systems have been inspected, certified and are being shipped to polling sites this week, despite lawyers’ and activists’ continued questioning of their quality and legality.




www.ElectionFraudNews.com

Patriot News:
Group questions electronic voting system
State legislators call for paper record to verify results

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1151189726228190.xml&coll=1

Sunday, June 25, 2006
BY KATHLEEN HAUGHNEY
For The Patriot-News

snip

"You can't ignore the security flaws," said Common Cause of Pennsylvania Executive Director Barry Kauffman. "What good is it if a person speaking Spanish can vote because of the machine, or a disabled person can vote ... if it doesn't count?"

snip



www.ElectionFraudNews.com

Pennsylvania

The Advancement Project

http://www.advancementproject.org/

PENNSYLVANIA VOTER PROTECTION LAWS IN A NUTSHELL

PDF: http://denistn.mine.nu/pdf2html.php?url=http://www.advancementproject.org/reports/PANutshellf.pdf


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Advancement Project wishes to thank supporters of our Voter Protection Program including the
Arca Foundation, Bauman Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Ford Foundation,
Jeht Foundation, Open Society Institute, Rockefeller Foundation, the Wallace Global Fund, and
several individual donors, for making this publication possible.
PENNSYLVANIA VOTER PROTECTION LAWS IN A NUTSHELL

Voter Registration

• Who may register to vote in Pennsylvania?
• When will the primary and general election be held?
• What is the voter registration deadline for each election?
• Where can a person apply for voter registration?
• What information must be provided on a voter registration application?
• How does a homeless person register to vote?
• May a person register to vote by mail? Is so, are there special requirements for
first-time voters who register to vote by mail?
• Will mail-in voter registration applications be accepted if they are received by
the registrar's office after the registration deadline?
• May a person correct or complete a form after the deadline for voter registration
if it was submitted before the deadline?
• Are there any rules relative to assisting others with the completion of a voter
registration application?
• How many voter registration applications may individuals or groups conducting
voter registration drives receive from the State Board of Elections or registrar
offices?
• Are there any special rules pertaining to the federal registration application? .
• May persons conducting voter registration drives make copies of completed
voter registration applications before delivering them to the registrar's office?
• Are persons conducting voter registration drives required to deliver or mail
completed voter registration applications to registrar offices within a certain time
limit?
• When voter registration applications are mailed or delivered to the election
officials, how long will it take for the application to be processed?
• What can a person do if her/his application is denied?

Identification Requirements

• What identification is required for voter registration?
• What identification is required at the polling place?
• What identification is required to obtain or file an absentee ballot?
• What identification is required to validate a provisional ballot?

Voter Registration List Maintenance

• For what reasons can a person's name be removed from a list of registered voters?
• Under what circumstances will a person's name be placed on a list of inactive voters?
• How does the voter get her/his name back on the active list?
• What should the voter do if s/he changes her/his address?
• What are the procedures for removing names of persons who have felony convictions?
• May a person whose name has been removed due to a felony conviction have her/his
right to vote restored?
• What are the procedures for removing names of persons who have been found mentally
incompetent?
• What may a voter do if s/he learns her/his name has been removed from the registered
voters' list in error?
•
Who may obtain a list of registered voters?

Absentee Voting

•Who is permitted to vote by absentee ballot?
•How may a person request an absentee ballot?
•When is the deadline for requesting an absentee ballot?
•May a first time voter cast an absentee ballot?
•What steps must a voter take if s/he requests but does not receive an absentee ballot?
•How must voters cast an absentee ballot to ensure it is counted?
•When is the deadline for casting an absentee ballot to ensure it is counted?
•When will absentee ballots be counted?
•What is the procedure for determining whether the absentee ballot will be counted?
• What should a person do if s/he requested an absentee ballot but wants to vote in person
on Election Day?

Polling Place Locations and Procedures

• What hours are the polls open on Election Day?
• When is the final list of polling place locations made available to the public?
• How are decisions about precincts and polling place locations made?
• How and when will voters be notified about polling place changes?
• What activities are restricted at polling place on Election Day?
• What activities are permitted at polling places on Election Day?
• Can voters request assistance with voting equipment at the polling place?
• Can a child/minor enter the voting booth with the voter?
• What accommodations must be made for non-English speakers or persons unable to read?
• What accommodations must be made for voters with disabilities?
• If a voter is in line to vote at poll closing time but has not reached the voting machine,
may the voter still vote?
• May voters who have moved a new address in another precinct but who have not
registered at their new address, be allowed to vote at the precinct for their old address?
• Are poll watcher or other non-voters permitted inside the polling place?

Challenges and Voter Intimidation

• Can a person's right to vote be challenged at the polls?
• Who can challenge a person's right to vote at the polls?
• What can a person do if s/he is challenged at the polls?
• What steps are taken if a voter's name does not appear on the poll book?
• What constitutes illegal intimidation of voters at the polls?
• Are law enforcement officers allowed in a polling place during voting hours?
PENNSYLVANIA VOTER PROTECTION LAWS IN A NUTSHELL
4
• To whom should a person report acts of intimidation?

Provisional Ballots
• What is a provisional ballot?
• Who may request a provisional ballot?
• Why and when will provisional ballots be provided to voters?
• Who decides whether a voter gets a provisional ballot?
• What can a voter do is s/he requests but does not receive a provisional ballot?
• What information must be provided to voters who cast provisional ballots?
• How do election officials determine whether a provisional ballot will be counted?
• Does the voter who cast a provisional ballot have a right to present evidence or appear
before the election officials whether it will count?
• When will provisional ballots be counted?
• How can voters find out whether the provisional ballots they cast were counted?
• Does the voter have a right of appeal?

www.ElectionFraudNews.com

Tennessee

Tennessean.com:
State's ballots pose fraud risk, report says

By ANNE PAINE
Staff Writer Saturday, 06/24/06
http://www.fairviewobserver.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060624/NEWS0206/606240338/1321/MTCN06

Tennessee and 15 other states that aren't requiring voter-verifiable paper ballots are at "high risk" of compromised elections, according to a report released Thursday.

The report issued by Common Cause, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group, concluded that accurate election results require voters to be able to confirm their votes on a paper record and a "statistically meaningful and transparent audit process."




www.ElectionFraudNews.com

This letter to the editor (sent by one of our Gathering To Save Our Democracy members) was just sent to the Tennessean regarding our slimy State Election Coordinator, Brook Thompson. With regard to Brook, a quote that President Gore used in "An Inconvenient Truth" comes to mind, attributed to Sinclair Lewis: "It is impossible to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." In Brook's case, the "salary" in question slides under the table, I expect.
---------------------
So Tennessee Election Coordinator Brook Thompson thinks our elections will be just fine, even though Tennessee is one of only 16 states that are listed as at "high risk" for compromised elections (6/24 Tennessean: "State's ballots pose fraud risk" By Anne Paine). How did we get on such a list? Our elections will use computer voting machines with no voter-verified paper ballots; equipment that has been proven over and over to be both hackable and undependable. In 2006, we've seen THOUSANDS of problems with this equipment. Mr. Thompson is on the Board of Directors of The Election Center, an "educational" group that is funded by the vendors of such machines, and is the only member of said board to be of such lofty rank within a state's government. Why is Thompson so confident in computer voting machines? Fox Alert! Fox in charge of Henhouse! Mr. Thompson is the guy who insisted that our counties buy these computers to vote. Both of Tennessee's major vendors, ES&S (who broke the Davidson County contract almost as soon as it was signed!) and Diebold (which designed 3 ways to sneak into their own machines and change votes without detection!), have been shown as breathtakingly incompetent, if not criminal. Mr. "Conflict of Interest" Thompson claims he has "not yet seen" the Common Cause report which lists our state so badly. Isn't that his job to know such information??? Mr. Thompson misinforms the citizens of the state and the Legislature as to what's happening in our elections. There is no way, without a paper ballot to look at and place in a ballot box, for a voter to be sure if the vote was recorded correctly. Tennesseans, freedom-loving Americans, deserve to have free, fair elections. Brook Thompson hurts the process. He should resign.

So should our SoS in Virginia, appointed by a Democrat and still serving despite opposing any
real election rights allowing the public to know who was elected and supporting the "no recount"
recount for A.G. in 2005 by talking about ALL those pesky ballots that need to be recounted.

She should have demanded that they be recounted and Thompson should read reports on his great
state before he says everything is OK.

Hope to see you soon!

TX: Judge, Now Congressman, Doesn’t Know Requirements to Vote


Texas

TheStatesman.com EDITORIAL
Carter's embarrassing tirade helps stop an important law

EDITORIAL BOARD
Monday, June 26, 2006
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/06/26votingrights_edit.html

Texas Republican congressional leaders should take a closer look at their state and history. If they did, they might not blurt out embarrassing comments like those uttered in Congress last week.

The historically illiterate griping stopped cold a vote to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. That's unfortunate on a number of fronts, but especially considering that the bill enjoyed support of the Democratic and Republican leadership, as well as the White House. Both parties understood that voting rights are fundamental to our democracy. That law guarantees those rights are protected.

The bill had passed a key GOP-controlled House committee, 33 to 1. It was clear sailing until John Carter, R-Round Rock, and some other GOP leaders tried to gut the bill. Carter and company objected to a requirement that Texas and some other Southern states get clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court before making changes to voting standards or procedures. Texas lawmakers also objected to the law's requirement that jurisdictions print ballots in other languages if 5 percent or more of their voting-age populations have limited English skills.



www.ElectionFraudNews.com

Washington Post:
Judge Excludes 26% of Ballots in Va. Recount

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901883.html
By Carol Morello
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 10, 2005; Page B03

Virginia

MYDD.com
The Virginia recount, McDonnel's plan B

by Alice Marshall, Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 01:32:01 PM EST

The Republicans are setting up the spin if Creigh Deeds prevails in the recount. Shorter version, they have no intention of respecting the will of the people-

The Richmond Times-Dispatch

But if the recount between the two candidates for attorney general, Republican Robert F. McDonnell and Democrat R. Creigh Deeds, ends in a tie, the General Assembly will determine the outcome. Here, the odds would be in McDonnell's favor, because the assembly is controlled by Republicans.

... The assembly could play another role in deciding the attorney general's race. If the recount overturns the initial election results and hands the victory to Deeds, McDonnell likely will contest that. A contested election goes to the assembly.

If you live in Virginia, especially if you live in a Republican district, please contact your Delegate and ask them to support the results of the recount, whatever it might be. Ask them to support the decisions of the courts and the will of the people. Please remind your Delegate that this was never about who serves as Attorney General, it is about who chooses the next Attorney General.

www.ElectionFraudNews.com

There is a distinct difference in approaches in our little corner of the activist world.

One is focused on fraud as the predicate for activism. The simple facts point to massive
fraud on the part of one party; two stolen presidential elections should be enough of an
explanation. But it's not, there are many more examples, Georgia 2002, Ohio's Hackett-Schmid
race, and so forth. The focus is political by the very nature of events and it's not easy to
alter once you've seen the evidence, again and again. This would fall under "election fraud"
if you had to pick a term but it's really a much larger movement; the movement for social
justice, which has always included expanding the franchise through voting rights.

The other faction, if a movement this small can have factions, is the "election integrity"
group. This focus emphasizes the reliability of the machines, databases, etc., and points
out errors and malfunctions on a regular basis. The fact that these errors almost always
favor the Republicans is not a point of emphasis. There are, however, members of this group
who jump over the partisan attribution and focus the issue on the legitimacy of rule by those
who cannot demonstrate that they were elected (a common trait with the "election fraud" faction).
The organizations in this faction label themselves as non partisan.

In point of fact, both factions serve a useful purpose. In my humble opinion, on a purely
logical basis, "election integrity" is an issue only because of "election fraud." However, that
doesn't mean that the only useful function is to point out fraud; the integrity piece, especially
when it involves the "we don not consent" philosophy for failure to demonstrate a real election,
is extremely important.

As things move move on, we all have to remember that we're part of the much larger ark of history
which began, really, in the English Civil War (we're the "diggers") and continues throughout our
history with minority and the womens voting rights movement. It's all about expanding or
contracting the franchise as a fundamental belief along with the obvious requirement of free,
fair and transparent elections.

But you had a question...I think Common Cause is more in the second group, election integrity.
In that sense, there is probably some set of 'objective criteria' which excludes Blackwell...but
I'm not in agreement with that exclusion. We reviewed all the stories out of the primaries and
there were a host of examples of blatant bias. Most of the problems, the major ones showed up in
the Cuyahoga area, Cleveland. Wonder why? My other response is, "Imagine how bad these states
are if Ohio didn't make the cut"...but that's nonsense. Ohio is the epicenter of political
corruption and election fraud. So next time I do this thread, it will focus entirely on Ohio.

Great photoshop. Downloaded! Thanks for asking.

Voting System Recommended For Federal Certification By Unqualified Person

LA County's System, for example, Was Apparently Approved for Use at the Fed Level by a Former Waitress/Bartender!

By John Gideon, Executive Director VotersUnite.Org

6/26/2006

The next step in the process is review of the ITA test and the voting system by a panel of 'experts' called the Voting Systems Board Technical Committee. This committee is under the auspices of the National Association of State Elections Directors (NASED). One might think that this part of the process would be free and clear of any reason for concern. One would be wrong…

According to a presentation made by Sandy Steinbach, the chairperson of the NASED Voting Systems Board Technical Committee, the three members of her panel are all computer engineers and elections experts. This presentation was made during a conference of federal, state, and local election officials hosted by the California Secretary of State, November 28 and 29, 2005. Slide 10 in Steinbach's Power Point Presentation says:

NASED Voting Systems Board
Oversees the Qualification process
Works with the ITAs to assure compliance with the test standards
Technical committee of 3 people who are both computer engineers and election experts reviews all ITA reports

Those members are Paul Craft, Steve Freeman and Dr. Britain Williams, none of whom are computer engineers. Arguably, none are elections experts either. And, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) knows this and has said nothing about it. In fact EAC Commissioners Donetta Davidson and Paul DeGregorio and EAC Secretariat Brian Hancock sat on the same panel as Steinbach as she gave this presentation.

snip

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3003


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x436728

Polk Co. Iowa Suffers From Ballot Programming Errors

Iowa Candidates Are Realizing They Might Really Have Not Lost

By John Gideon, VotersUnite.org and VoteTrustUSA

June 26, 2006

snip

It should come as no surprise to the state of Iowa that now a candidate in Polk County has announced that he plans on challenging the election results. He just happens to be a five-term incumbent who was running against a political newcomer and lost by a wide-margin.

The problem in Polk County is that officials have closed their eyes and ears to the facts that there is a ballot programming error as they try to make the issue into a political threat to the Polk County Auditor who happens to be running for Secretary of State.

The problem is the poor workmanship from ES&S and poor procedures that seem to be wide-spread in the state of Iowa. The problem is not with county auditors or elections officials unless they allow the 'status quo'. Every county in the state that used the same software and machines MUST do a hand recount of every paper ballot cast in the primary. No exceptions. The state is responsible to the voters and candidates to ensure this is done. If not; the voters need to begin asking why their votes are not important.

A long-term, but hopefully not too long-term, fix is to kick ES&S and their ballot programming out of the state. Oklahoma did it early on. The Iowa counties can easily do their own ballot programming and they will then be in control of their elections and not share that control with someone else. The voters of the state of Iowa deserve no less.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1429&Itemid=113

Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x436730

Tally is rising in registration fraud

June 26, 2006

Martin Wisckol Martin Wisckol
Register columnist
THE BUZZ
mwisckol@ocregister.com

The verifiable number is now up to 536 Democrats who were fraudulently reregistered as Republicans by bounty hunters paid for each new voter they brought to the GOP.

But based on phone calls made by a Democratic Party volunteer to warn of the fraud, the ultimate number could top 1,000.

An aggressive voter registration drive in the central part of the county this spring, funded by the county GOP, attracted the scofflaw signature gatherers. Some victims noticed the problem when they received registration update cards from county Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley or letters from county GOP Chairman Scott Baugh welcoming them to the party.

snip

If half of all the fraud victims are unaware, there could be 1,000 or more victims in all.

snip

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/columns/article_1193843.php


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x436732

Inhibiting Election Fraud in 2006: Simple. Not easy. Very, very important.

by IndyOp

Jun-26-06

I keep running into threads from people who want to know WHAT TO DO TO STOP THE THEFT OF THE 2006 elections!?!?!

Keep it simple: We want all eligible voters to vote, and for the votes to be cast and counted accurately. Stay 'on message' in everything you say and do.

It is not easy: There are many issues to think about and it can be hard knowing how to get started.

snip

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1513269

He's anti-VVPAT getting really low marks from many in the ER movement. Still, he's a fierce advocate for Voting Rights. Apparently, it's a complicated world.

The Hyde Vote Suppression Bill

by Dan Tokaji

June 26, 2006

I've been in Washington, DC for the past few days and, on Thursday, attended a hearing of the House Administration Committee on H.R. 4844. Although somewhat lost in the last few days with the news that Voting Rights Act renewal has stalled (more on this to come), this is a very significant bill. Proposed by Rep. Henry Hyde (D-IL), the bill would make drastic changes to both the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) that would drastically alter -- and, in my view, undermine -- the way they presently function.

As the testimony on Thursday made clear, the bill is a product of the intense and increasingly polarized debate over immigration. Briefly, the bill would require applicants using the federal mail registration form to provide a photocopy of documents proving that they're citizens of the United States. In addition, HAVA's limited identification requirement would be amended to require all citizens to provide "current and valid photo identification" in order to vote.

Election officials would be forbidden from accepting "any ballot,"

including even a provisional ballot,

from those who lack photo ID. The bill would take effect in the November 2006 elections.

I know that the words "vote suppression," which I've used in the title to this post are strong ones, and I generally try to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. But I don't know how else to describe a bill that would require voters to produce documents that many of them don't have, in order to register or to vote. As Rep. Hyde has undoubtedly noticed, there's no one document that all citizens have to prove their citizenship. And according to a task force report produced for the Carter-Ford commission in 2001, approximately 6-10% of adults lack a state-issued driver's license. The Hyde Bill is actually worse than the Georgia photo ID bill enjoined by a court last year, in that it doesn't even make a token effort to provide voters with identification they lack.

Is Rep. Hyde's intent to suppress votes? That I don't know. During his testimony, he displayed an astounding ignorance of the consequences that his bill would have on the many people who don't have the documents his bill would require. He also could provide no estimate of how many noncitizens actually attempt to vote. In fact, none of those who testified in support of this bill provided any such estimate. The closest anyone came was the Harris County registrar, testifying in support of the bill, who said that of 1.9 million voters, a total of 35 foreign nationals attempted to register. Note that these are only alleged non-citizens who attempted to register, not those who tried to votes -- and some may have been people applying for citizenship with no intention of actually voting until they gained their citizenship. But even if we assume that all of them tried to vote, those 35 people amount to 0.0018% -- or one ineligible voter for every 54,285 eligible ones.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006/06/hyde-vote-suppression-bill.html


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x436737

Who do we voting activists have as a national spokesperson??

Let's say that we could get on Oprah or some other major talk show.
Who would we have go on... I know a lot of intelligent people, but so often they will go off on whatever is there speciality and start talkingin minutia.
Bringing Andy Stephenson back fromt he dead would solve the problem but assuming we cannot do that -
who do YOU suggest?

Carol

Analysis finds e-voting machines vulnerable
Updated 6/26/2006
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Most of the electronic voting machines widely adopted since the disputed 2000 presidential election "pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state and local elections," a report out Tuesday concludes.

There are more than 120 security threats to the three most commonly purchased electronic voting systems, the study by the Brennan Center for Justice says. For what it calls the most comprehensive review of its kind, the New York City-based non-partisan think tank convened a task force of election officials, computer scientists and security experts to study e-voting vulnerabilities.

The study, which took more than a year to complete, examined optical scanners and touch-screen machines with and without paper trails. Together, the three systems account for 80% of the voting machines that will be used in this November's election.

While there have been no documented cases of these voting machines being hacked, Lawrence Norden, who chaired the task force and heads the Brennan Center's voting-technology assessment project, says there have been similar software attacks on computerized gambling slot machines.

"It is unrealistic to think this isn't something to worry about" in terms of future elections, he says.

more at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-26-e-voting_x.htm

New York: Last in HAVA Compliance or First in Election Integrity?

You've read about it in the press, seen it on the Internet, perhaps even blogged about it yourself, but what's really behind New York's reported tardiness in complying with the Help America Vote Act? Perhaps it's the State's preoccupation with election integrity.

By Howard Stanislevic, VoteTrustUSA E-Voter Education Project

June 27, 2006

The history of New York's purported non-compliance with Help America Vote Act (HAVA) is a long one. Much has been made of HAVA's lack of requirements for voter-verified paper audit records (VVPARs) or paper ballots that can be used to allow independent verification of e-voting system tallies produced by Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) and Optical Scan (OS) systems (paper ballots provide this capability inherently of course). But bills in the New York State legislature from both sides of the aisle have required VVPARs with random audits since at least 2004. New Yorkers may be stubborn but they're not stupid.

It would be patently absurd to replace a transparent, statewide, non-proprietary, low-tech mechanical lever voting system that even prevents write-in overvotes and can only be corrupted the old fashioned way -- one machine at a time -- with opaque, proprietary, computerized e-voting systems, programmed en masse by as few as a single insider, with no means of independent verification whatsoever. And contrary to popular belief the potential for programming error or malfeasance applies equally to DRE and Optical Scan technologies. Fortunately, the independent verification issue was resolved here years ago; the legislature declared, "There shall be paper." So too was the issue of source code escrow, which recently prompted at least one major e-voting vendor (Diebold Election Systems) not to compete in the state of North Carolina. As in the Tarheel State, the escrow of vendors' proprietary software has been a requirement in New York's legislation for years.

New York law also requires the testing of every e-voting machine or system in the state approved after 1986 with at least 800 votes per year. While some may consider this excessive it's not burdensome to do with optical scanners. However, it should be noted that a typical ballot can have literally trillions of valid vote combinations, all of which cannot be tested. This is one reason why New York law also provides for party representatives and others to audit the ballot definition programming generated by election management systems. The significance of this statute is something that even some in the election integrity community do not yet fully appreciate.

In numerous states we have seen incidents of miscounted races, the outcomes of which were reversed by errors or misconduct affecting ballot programming (also known as election configuration, ballot definition files and election definition). Clearly New York and all other states need to be able to audit this data before it's loaded onto their voting systems for each election and vendors must be required to provide a means for doing so on every machine or scanner to ensure its correctness. New York provides for this, including a formal definition of the Election Configuration, in its latest Voting System Standards approved unanimously by the State Board of Elections last April. After all, verifying the ballot definition can easily be done by any poll worker with a lever machine simply by inspecting the ballot face. Unlike e-voting systems, with lever machines what you see it what you get.

snip/links

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1436&Itemid=113


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x436851

( Air Date: 6/27/2006 )

Federally mandated electronic voting machines lead to increased costs and voting irregularities, local officials said at a meeting of the Senate State Affairs committee Tuesday. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA), passed in 2002 by the federal government, requires the use of voting machines in elections involving federal ballots, and recent state legislation has extended this statute to all local and state elections.

County clerks and election officials from across Texas testified about the issues that their regions have faced as a result of new voting standards. Witnesses reported delays in getting machines from vendors, programming errors and bugs that lead to ballots being rendered useless, and at least one case in which a candidate`s party affiliation was changed by the machines. Similar cases occurred in Jefferson County during two recent elections.


http://216.87.159.39/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=11771

ars technica

6/27/2006 1:36:22 PM, by Peter Pollack

File this in the "seemed like a good idea at the time" drawer. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002, partially in response to the controversy surrounding the 2000 presidential election. Among the act's provisions is a requirement that states create and maintain central databases of voter lists—a function which was traditionally handled at the county level. While a central database can certainly help reduce certain types of vote fraud and perhaps protect against some of the confusion that reigned in 2000 when numerous voters were wrongly listed as ineligible, it also puts all of the voter's eggs in one very tempting basket for identity thieves. That alone would make the voter database little different from any other large collection of personal information, if it weren't for the fact that concerns have arisen that many states are not taking proper measures to protect that data from intrusion.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060627-7146.html

Vicksburg Post

<6/27/06>
By staff reports

A thin stream of voters went to polls early to help decide which Democratic challenger will face incumbent U.S. Sen. Trent Lott in November.

Voters have a choice between business consultant Bill Bowlin of Hickory Flat and state Rep. Erik Fleming of Clinton. Polls opened at 7 a.m. and were to remain open until 7 p.m.

Bowlin and Fleming made today's runoff in a primary election that was held June 6 and had initially four candidates. Fleming finished first statewide with 44.1 percent of the vote and Bowlin second with 22.1 percent. They eliminated businessman James O'Keefe of Long Beach, who received 19.9 percent, and retiree Catherine M. Starr of Hattiesburg, who received 14 percent.

The runoff is necessary because a majority of votes was required to win the nomination and neither candidate received such a number.

Lott, from Pascagoula, is seeking a fourth consecutive term in the Senate. Today's winner and Libertarian Party candidate Harold Taylor will also be on the Nov. 7 ballot.

http://www.vicksburgpost.com/articles/2006/06/27/news/news03.txt

Toledo Blade

Article published Tuesday, June 27, 2006

By JIM PROVANCE
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS - A legislative committee yesterday refused along party lines to kill rules written by Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's office that have added fuel to allegations the GOP gubernatorial candidate is trying to suppress voter registration.

"They're making it harder, harder, harder to register," said Senate Minority Leader C.J. Prentiss (D., Cleveland).
Republicans, in turn, accused Democrats of trying to make political hay against Mr. Blackwell during an election year for writing rules based on a law passed by the General Assembly.
"I've been among the first to find fault with when it's deserved, but this is on us," said Sen. Jeff Jacobson (R., Vandalia). "I did draft , so I know what I intended to do."

Those compensated to register voters - and not those writing the checks - would be required to submit the cards they gather to county election boards or the secretary of state's office. They could not submit them to any other drop-off location like the Bureau of Motor Vehicles available to those seeking to register themselves.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060627/NEWS09/606270389

District race



LAST UPDATE: 6/27/2006 8:29:16 PM

Utahns headed to the ballots Tuesday to cast their votes in this years primary elections on the first electronic touch-screen system used in the State.

The same system was used last month in Mississippi's elections and wasn't very successful. Many counties ended up returning to paper ballots. But Utah voters gave the system the thumbs up.

"I was a little nervous about the machines, but they were helpful and I found that my thumb worked," said Gail Martin, a resident of Salt Lake County.

Many others found the process easy and efficient. Though machines were put into place for efficiency, a significantly low number of voters showed up to voting stations by Tuesday afternoon; So low that Salt Lake County only expected a seven percent turn out.

http://www.abc4.com/local_news/local_headlines/story.aspx?content_id=53A881F1-3960-4AEF-8DFC-CC356FCBE0B1

http://electionresults.utah.gov.


on edit at 10:08pm PST none of the links at above site working....:shrug:

maybe a "minor glitch"

polls closed at 8pm


:evilgrin: