Election Protection Strike Force http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/ en Copyright 2010 Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:22:22 +0000 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Disgraceful: Discredited E-Voting Vendor VP Appointed to U.S. EAC Advisory Panel Federal body tasked with overseeing U.S. certification of e-voting systems appoints scammer Edwin Smith, VP of e-voting companies Sequoia, Dominion, Hart-Intercivic... Cross-posted from The BRAD BLOG Note: Brad Friedman, proprietor of The BRAD BLOG, is a co-founder of Velvet Revolution. Incredible. This would be the equivalent of appointing the sitting Vice President of Exxon Mobil to an EPA advisory committee, but Ed Smith has now been appointed to the disastrous U.S. Election Assistance Commission's (EAC's) Technical Guidelines Development Committee as one of their new "Technical and Scientific Experts." From the EAC's email announcement on Friday (posted in full at end of article):
Edwin B. Smith, III, vice president of compliance and certification at Dominion Voting Systems. Before joining Dominion Voting Systems, Mr. Smith was vice president of manufacturing, compliance, quality and certification at Sequoia Voting Systems. He also served as the operations manager at Hart InterCivic and the senior director of operations at K*TEC Electronics. He holds a Master of Business Administration from the University of Phoenix and a Bachelor of Science in engineering technology from Texas A&M.
So Smith went from voting machine company Hart Intercivic to voting machine company Sequoia Voting Systems and is now at voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems, where he is a VP, selling e-voting systems to jurisdictions around the country that receive federal money doled out by the EAC. And now he'll also sit on an advisory board at the EAC helping to advise which one of those companies sees their systems certified for use in U.S. elections by the EAC. Just amazing. But that's not even half the story of why this is just incredible, and another huge black eye for the EAC. (How many eyes do they have left to blacken at this point?) If you're not a long time reader of The BRAD BLOG reader, and don't recall who this Ed Smith is, read on. It's simply stultifying... Smith is the guy who, after years of paying a crackpot contractor named Mike Gibbons to do this and that for Sequoia with loads of federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) tax-payer cash, assigned him to do an "independent" analysis of Sequoia's touch-screen machines after they failed in NJ's 2008 Super Tuesday election. That was just after Smith had sent a letter threatening two Princeton computer scientists with legal action "to stop any infringement of our intellectual properties, including any non-compliant analysis," if they performed the actually independent analysis of the machines as they were tasked by NJ election officials to do. (Addtional outrage/irony shortly thereafter uncovered by The BRAD BLOG: Sequoia didn't even own the Intellectual Property rights to the machines in question. Rather, the IP rights were, and are still to our knowledge, owned by Smartmatic, a Venezuelan firm tied to Hugo Chavez. Sequoia lied to both federal investigators and state election officials about that relationship.) After The BRAD BLOG exposed who Smith's friend Mike Gibbons actually was -- a Sequoia insider, as well as a drunk and a philanderer with an obnoxious Facebook page seeking a "well endowed blonde nymphomaniac," only to change the page after we'd outed him to feature a photo of him and George Bush Sr. and a professed love of Jesus Christ instead -- Gibbons was fired. (He would be found dead a few months later, the actual cause of which we've never been able to ascertain.) Smith was severely reprimanded at Sequoia for the embarrassing incident, and has now been rewarded by moving on to Dominion, which is in partnership with his old friends at Sequoia to supply the new, failed e-voting systems recently deployed, disasterously, for the first time in last November's election -- the one where the results of the NY-23 Special Election for U.S. House will now forever be in question. The Sequoia/Dominion contract to supply faulty, secret vote counting machines to NY-23 is worth some $20 million federal tax-payer dollars. And now Smith's been been named to advise the EAC, the actual federal body tasked with overseeing, testing, and approving voting systems for federal approval -- the very body that is supposed to oversee the very scams that Smith attempts to pull off with his worthless, broken, easily hacked, often-failed, computerized secret vote-counting systems. And, in the case of the NY systems, they're being used even though they are neither federally nor state certified yet. This isn't just the Fox in the Hen House. This is the Fox who has already devoured every Hen in the House, in the Hen House. With feathers in his mouth and a sub-machine gun in his hands. The EAC is an absolute disgrace, and should long ago have been disbanded for one failure after another -- including the approval of virtually every e-voting system in use today, virtually every one of which has failed spectacularly, even as the EAC has refused to decertify any of them. Enough is enough.
* * *
The complete Friday press release from the EAC, announcing Smith's appointment, and others, follows in full below...
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005
________________________________________ For Immediate Release December 11, 2009 Contact: Jeannie Layson Sarah Litton (202) 566-3100 New Technical and Scientific Experts Appointed to EAC's Technical Guidelines Development Committee WASHINGTON- The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) today announced the appointment of four new technical and scientific experts to its Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), which is charged under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) with assisting EAC in developing federal voluntary voting system guidelines that are used to test and certify voting systems. The following new members were appointed jointly by EAC and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Steven M. Bellovin, professor of computer science at Columbia University. Dr. Bellovin's research focuses on networks and security. Before joining the Columbia faculty in 2005, he spent many years at Bell Labs and AT&T Labs Research, where he was an AT&T Fellow. He holds a bachelor's degree from Columbia University and a master's and doctorate in computer science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Diane Cordry Golden, program coordinator for the Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs. Dr. Cordry Golden has 30 years' experience providing training and technical assistance on disability policy implementation and assistive/accessible technology service delivery to government and nonprofit organizations at the local, state and national level. She has a doctorate in special education administration with an emphasis in disability policy, a master's degree in audiology, and a bachelor's degree in speech-language pathology. Douglas W. Jones, associate professor of computer science at University of Iowa. Mr. Jones served on the Iowa Board of Examiners for Voting Machines and Electronic Voting Systems for 10 years, where he helped examine and approve voting systems before they were sold to the state's county governments. He testified at the U.S. Civil Rights Commission hearings in Tallahassee, Fla., on January 11, 2001, and was involved in reviewing the federal 2002 Voting System Standards. Edwin B. Smith, III, vice president of compliance and certification at Dominion Voting Systems. Before joining Dominion Voting Systems, Mr. Smith was vice president of manufacturing, compliance, quality and certification at Sequoia Voting Systems. He also served as the operations manager at Hart InterCivic and the senior director of operations at K*TEC Electronics. He holds a Master of Business Administration from the University of Phoenix and a Bachelor of Science in engineering technology from Texas A&M. "We welcome this distinguished group of experts to the committee," said EAC Commissioner Donetta Davidson, the designated federal official of the TGDC. "We've just concluded our first two-day meeting with our new members, and it was filled with spirited, thoughtful and productive exchanges. We are fortunate to have such a dedicated and knowledgeable group of professionals working with us on federal voting system guidelines." HAVA established the TGDC to support the EAC by providing recommendations on voluntary standards and guidelines related to voting equipment and technologies. The TGDC's first task was to draft the third iteration of federal voting system standards, known as the voluntary voting system guidelines, which EAC issued in December 2005. The TGDC continues to work on future iterations and revisions to the guidelines for consideration by the EAC Standards Board and Board of Advisors, and for ultimate consideration and adoption by EAC. HAVA requires that members of the TGDC be made up of representatives from the American National Standards Institute, the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the Architectural and Transportation Barrier Compliance Board (commonly referred to as the Access Board), the EAC Standards Board and the EAC Board of Advisors. These organizations nominate new members to serve on the TGDC. Recent appointments include Access Board member Phillip Jenkins, senior software engineer of the IBM Human Ability and Accessibility Center; NASED member Ann McGeehan, director of the elections division, State of Texas Office of the Secretary of State; and EAC Standards Board member Donald Palmer, director of elections, Florida Department of State. Other members of the committee include Ron Gardner, director of field services, National Federation of the Blind; Linda Lamone, administrator of elections, Maryland State Board of Elections; Paul Miller, voting systems manager, State of Washington, Office of the Secretary of State; Helen Purcell, county recorder, Maricopa County, Arizona; Russ Ragsdale, city and county clerk, City and County of Broomfield, Colorado; and David Wagner, associate professor, EECS Department, University of California-Berkeley. Patrick Gallagher, director of NIST, chairs the committee. For information on TGDC resolutions, meeting minutes and related information, visit vote.nist.gov. Information about EAC's voting system testing and certification process, including the federal 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, is available at www.eac.gov. The EAC is an independent commission created by the Help America Vote Act. The EAC serves as a national clearinghouse and resource of information regarding election administration. It is charged with administering payments to states and developing guidance to meet HAVA requirements, adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, and accrediting voting system test laboratories and certifying voting equipment. It is also charged with developing and maintaining a national mail voter registration form. The three EAC commissioners are Gineen Beach, chair; Gracia Hillman, vice chair; and Donetta Davidson. There is one vacancy on the commission.
* * *
There's a lively discussion in the comments thread over at The BRAD BLOG. You're invited to join in with your comments.]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/12/disgraceful_discredited_evotin.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/12/disgraceful_discredited_evotin.html Blog Accountability Dominion Voting EAC Hart Intercivic HAVA Sequoia Voting Systems Voting Systems Certification Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:22:22 +0000 Diebold: Return Our Money! Diebold: Return Our Money site to send an email calling for the following:
  • Diebold/Premier: 'Return Our Money!'
  • Secretary of State Bowen: Throw Diebold Out of Our State, Once and For All!
  • Attorney General Brown: Investigate! Prosecute! Obtain a Refund!
 Your email will go directly to Diebold/Premier, and to the offices of Secretary of State Debra Bowen and Attorney General Jerry Brown. Become a fan of this campaign on Facebook! With enough support, we'll expand this program to other vendors and other states. Why are we starting with Diebold and with California? California officials recently revealed that ALL of Diebold/Premier's voting systems violate federal certifications guidelines!* These systems illegally do some or all of the following::*
  • delete ballots without notice
  • allow the "permanent" audit log records to be deleted
  • fail to properly record deletion of ballots
  • insert incorrect time stamps on audit log items.
Yet Diebold falsely claimed to meet all federal voting system standards! We will not stand by and tolerate fraudulent use of our tax dollars! Velvet Revolution thanks the following organizations for joining the Diebold: Return Our Money campaign: After Downing Street Black Box Voting.org Citizens for Legitimate Government Democrats.com Election Defense Alliance The Free Press Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution Progressive Democrats of America Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains Protect California Ballots Ruckus Society SavElections Monterey County SAVE R VOTE True Vote Organizations can sign up here. ]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/10/diebold_return_our_money.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/10/diebold_return_our_money.html Hot Items California Debra Bowen Diebold Diebold/Premier Jerry Brown Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:59:33 +0000 Velvet Revolution to Diebold: Give California Our Money Back! Diebold: Return Our Money! You can find us at DieboldReturnOurMoney.com. California officials recently revealed that ALL of Diebold/Premier's voting systems violate federal certifications guidelines! These systems illegally do some or all of the following:
  • delete ballots without notice
  • allow the "permanent" audit log records to be deleted
  • fail to properly record deletion of ballots
  • insert incorrect time stamps on audit log items.
Yet Diebold falsely claimed to meet all federal voting system standards. Accordingly, we demand that: 1) DIEBOLD: RETURN OUR MONEY!: Diebold/Premier has accepted well over $100 million in county, state and federal taxpayer funds for services which the company knew it could not perform. With California's devastating budget shortfall of $ 45.5 billion dollars, we demand the return of these funds from Diebold. The purchase price for hardware, software licenses, and maintenance fees should be returned to the State within 90 days. If Diebold's announced sale to Election Systems and Software becomes final, California must be fully reimbursed instead from ES&S. 2) SOS DEBRA BOWEN: DECERTIFY DIEBOLD!: Diebold/Premier products, currently used in 20 California counties, violate federal voting system standards and must be immediately and permanently decertified by Secretary of State Debra Bowen. 3) AG JERRY BROWN: PROSECUTE DIEBOLD!: California's Attorney General Jerry Brown must immediately launch a comprehensive criminal investigation into Diebold/Premier's knowing use and sale of faulty election systems that have undermined our elections. Further, unless Diebold/Premier, within 90 days, refunds to California all monies paid for its fraudulent software and equipment, we call on the State of California to file suit against Diebold/Premier seeking the return of funds for breach of contract and fraud. Visit the campaign page at DieboldReturnOurMoney.com to send a quick email to Diebold (c/o than the appropriately-named company representative Chris Riggall), SoS Bowen and AG Brown. Over 400 emails have already been sent in the first 48 hours of this campaign. As you may have heard, Diebold has recently been purchased by ES&S, its larger competitor. This purchase adds to the myriad problems with electronic voting yet another: one company's near monopoly on the industry. With the purchase of Diebold, ES&S will control approximately 85% of the nation's votes. An antitrust suit has been filed by another e-voting vendor, Hart Intercivic, and election watchdog BlackBoxVoting.org has filed a letter of complaint with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. Velvet Revolution's demands for a refund of CA's money paid to Diebold, whether it comes from the Diebold Corporation or from ES&S. Help us build momentum by supporting this campaign. Tell your friends about it! Join us on Facebook! (Become a fan of Velvet Revolution and DieboldReturnOurMoney.) Follow us on our brand new Twitter feed at vr_tweet. Donate to Velvet Revolution! VR is joined in the Diebold: Return Our Money! campaign by these fine organizations: After Downing Street Black Box Voting.org Citizens for Legitimate Government Democrats.com Election Defense Alliance The Free Press Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution Progressive Democrats of America Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains Protect California Ballots Ruckus Society SavElections Monterey County SAVE R VOTE True Vote Other California groups or national groups operating in CA are invited to join by sending us an email.]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/10/velvet_revolution_to_diebold_g.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/10/velvet_revolution_to_diebold_g.html Blog Black Box Voting California Debra Bowen Diebold Hart Intercivic Refund Jerry Brown Premier/Diebold Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:53:10 +0000 Diebold Admits to Major Software Flaws Software Bug Allows Ballots To Be Deleted; Audit Trail Won't Catch The Error

This Confirms What We've Know For Years, And Yes, We ARE Saying "We Told You So!"

Further, this admission shows that Premier Election Solutions (formerly and commonly known as Diebold Election Systems, Inc.) has NEVER been in compliance with federal election laws

Their admission calls into question every election anywhere that was run on Premier/Diebold software

A new report [pdf, 13 pages] issued by California's Secretary of State and submitted to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission describes how "a serious software programming error in GEMS version 1.18.19 caused the loss of 197 tallied ballots in the November 4, 2008, General Election. The report also describes several deficiencies in the audit trail logs in GEMS version 1.18.19." The report also says that Premier/Diebold was aware of the problems for at least four years but did nothing to warn its customers -- over 1,000 counties across the nation -- about it. Further, the software error causes votes to be lost, and the number of votes lost "greatly exceeds the maximum allowable error rate established by HAVA [Help America Vote Act]." As reported by Computer World, "defects in the software version violate voting system standards established in 1990 and would have made the systems ineligible for use in an election had they been detected." So in other words, any and all elections that used Premier/Diebold software, all of which occurred after the 1990 voting system standards were established, were run on illegal software. According to Wired, Kim Alexander of the non-profit California Voter Foundation said that Premier/Diebold's admission "confirmed one of my worst fears. The audit logs have been the top selling point for vendors hawking paperless voting systems. They and the jurisdictions that have used paperless voting machines have repeatedly pointed to the audit logs as the primary security mechanism and 'fail-safe' for any glitch that might occur on machines. To discover that the fail-safe itself is unreliable eliminates one of the key selling points for electronic voting security." Justin Bales, who is the general service manager for Premier/Diebold's western region, when asked if the company has taken any steps to correct the problem in their GEMS software, said, "No, not yet." Added Bales, "... but now we're taking a serious look at that." Gee, ya think? It's only an error that existed for years through countless elections in states all over America. And only now Premier/Diebold is going to take a "serious look" at the problem? Premier/Diebold also followed a familiar script used by all the voting systems vendors when equipment or software problems are found; blame the customers! Premier/Diebold's representative tried to say that this problem is partly the fault of election officials who should have somehow known how to correct this software error despite the company having never told anyone of the problem or provided instructions on how to fix it. According to our colleagues at The BRAD BLOG, Humboldt County Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich said that she was "offended" by this attempt to shift blame. "If you [Premier/Diebold] are saying that your system needs to be checked every damn time you turn it on, then I agree with you." Premier/Diebold continues to hack away at our republic, seemingly determined to make sure America's elections, one of the two pillars on which our entire democratic republic stands (the other being the Constitution) remain unsecure, inaccurate, unverifiable, and even criminal. Why? Why does Premier/Diebold hate democracy? Why do they want the terr'rists to win? Please excuse the snark, but we're angry about this. We've been yelling and shouting for years that Premier/Diebold's software is in violation of federal law, and for years we've been begging the "powers that be" to stop this bunch of crooks from having anything to do with American elections. And for our efforts, we've been either ignored or called conspiracy theorists, sore losers, lunatics, or worse. On a personal note, your humble blogger committed a crime in 2004 when I stole and exposed legal documents from the office of Diebold's California attorneys, documents that provided smoking gun proof that the corporation had been using illegal and uncertified software in the state, that they had been actively lying to the Secretary of State, the taxpayers, and the voters about the use of this software, and that they were working to cover up this crime and prevent it from ever coming to light. I was convicted of a felony for my theft, was nearly bankrupted, and I remain on probation to this day. And Diebold? A civil suit was filed against them and they settled out of court, admitted no wrong-doing, and paid a $2.6 million dollar fine. That might sound like a hefty penalty, but in 2003, their total revenue was about $100 million, and in 2004, the company cleared over $80 million. Diebold's 2004 revenue from only one of California's many counties, Alameda, was $12.7 million. So that $2.6 million fine was hardly an appropriate punishment. And worst of all, their equipment is still being used in California and around the nation. So it's been a proven fact and known for years that this company is corrupt, crooked, and criminal, that they're bunch of anti-democracy hoodlums, liars, and crooks. And yet they are still running elections in America. In fact, according to Wired, which reported on information gathered at VerifiedVoting.org, Premier/Diebold's criminally inept GEMS software "is used to tabulate votes cast on every Premier/Diebold touch-screen or optical-scan machine, and is used in more than 1,400 election districts in 31 states. Maryland and Georgia use Premier/Diebold systems exclusively, therefore the GEMS software counts every vote statewide." So once again we express the hope that finally, once and for all, California and all other states that do business with Premier/Diebold will cease and desist from doing so. Further, a criminal investigation into the company's behavior should be taken up immediately by the U.S. Dept. of Justice. Is that too much to ask?]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/03/diebold_admits_to_major_softwa.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/03/diebold_admits_to_major_softwa.html Blog Diebold GEMS software Premier/Diebold Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:40:00 +0000 NY Times: "Hurdles to Voting Persisted in 2008" Study finds 4% - 6% of eligible voters didn't vote or were discouraged from voting due to various problems According to a study by the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey (CCES), which the New York Times describes as "a consortium of more than 150 university researchers, led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who specialize in voting issues," approximately four to five million eligible voters (about 2% - 3% of all voters) didn't cast a ballot in the November, 2008 election because of registration problems or because they didn't receive their absentee ballot in time (or they never received it at all). This is the same number, roughly, of those who encountered the same problems in the 2000 election. The report, which was presented to the Senate Rules Committee today (webcast of today's hearing is available), highlights the problems with registration that about six to eight million Americans encountered when they tried to register to vote for the November election. According to the Times, Senator Charles E. Schumer, (D) New York, chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, said "It's clear that the high turnout on Nov. 4 of last year simply masked persistent problems that still need to be fixed. Had the election been close, these problems would have received a lot more attention because they could have made the difference in which candidate won." Schumer also said that the number of people prevented from voting in 2008 exceeded the popular-vote margin in the previous two presidential elections. Said Stephen Ansolabehere, a professor of political science at Harvard and the lead author of the study, "Registration issues were for 2008 what machine problems were for the 2000 election." In a separate report from the National Campaign for Fair Elections of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Jonah Goldman, director of the organization, said their election protection hot line handled more than 240,000 calls from voters during the 2008 election cycle, with more than one-third of the problems being voter registration issues. Voter registration issues were the largest single source of problems for voters, Goldman said. Those testifying at today's hearing, in addition to Prof. Ansolabehere and Jonah Goldman, were Curtis Gans, Director Center for the Study of the American Electorate, Nathaniel Persily, Professor of Law and Political Science at Columbia Law School, Chris Nelson, South Dakota Secretary of State, and Kristen Clarke of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Here are some of Sen. Schumer's quotes from today's hearing.
"If voting is the heart of democracy, registering Americans is the life-blood of our republic. ... What the butterfly ballots and hanging chads were in 2000 is what voter registration problems are today." "Hidden from [sic] the excitement of this past election was the fact the millions of voters, through no fault of their own, were shut out of this process due to deeply rooted problems that need to be fixed." "As many as seven million eligible and registered voters were denied the right to vote, whether it was a photo ID requirement, list purges, no match/no vote comparisons, or simply because they moved..." "As many as 9 million additional people were prevented from registering due to deadlines and change-of-residency requirements." "Put together, you get massive disenfranchisement, and this is undemocratic, and unacceptable."
A webcast of the entire hearing can be viewed here. ]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/03/ny_times_hurdles_to_voting_per.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/03/ny_times_hurdles_to_voting_per.html Blog Voter Disenfranchisement Voter ID Voter Registration Voter Suppression Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:55:12 +0000 E-VOTE BOMBSHELL: Diebold Tabulator Drops Votes, Allows Undetectable Audit Log Deletion New CA SoS report confirms findings of 'Humboldt Transparency Project', discovers even more egregious failures in widely-used Diebold voting counting system

One of the citizens who designed the software, responsible for the startling discoveries, offers his thoughts...

Cross-posted at The BRAD BLOG. by Mitch Trachtenberg of the Humboldt County Election Transparency Project California Secretary of State Debra Bowen has released a remarkable 13-page report [PDF] of her office's investigation into how the Diebold/Premier GEMS software silently dropped all votes contained on 197 ballots from Humboldt County, California's November 2008 general election. The report shows that this version of GEMS not only deleted a batch of ballots without DieboldGEMS_AuditLog_ClearButton_HackAndCover.jpg any request by --- or alert to --- the elections staff, but also failed to note the deletion in the system's audit log. The report also points to other startling deficiencies with Diebold/Premier's software: "Key audit trail logs in GEMS version 1.18.19 do not record important operator interventions such as deletion of decks of ballots, assign inaccurate date and time stamps to events that are recorded, and can be deleted by the operator." That's right. The Diebold/Premier vote tabulation system in question, not only fails to record all events accurately, and sometimes at all, it also allows for anyone with access to the system, to completely delete audit logs, covering the tracks of any tampering that may have occurred, at any time, on the system. Any of these flaws, the report concludes, "appears to violate the 1990 Voting System Standards to an extent that would have warranted failure of the GEMS version 1.18.19 system had they been detected and reported by the [federal] Independent Testing Authority [ITA] that tested the system."...]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/03/evote_bombshell_diebold_tabula.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/03/evote_bombshell_diebold_tabula.html Blog Accountability California Debra Bowen Diebold/Premier EAC Election 2008 Election Fraud Election Irregularities Election Reform Humboldt County Voting System Certification Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:00:36 +0000 Success: Mark Gitenstein Out Of Consideration Cross-posted from Velvet Revolution.us Two weeks ago, we made a major push to oppose Mark Gitenstein to head the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy. We did a post on VR, sent out a press release to the national wires, personally contacted Gitenstein to ask him to withdraw his name, created and placed a web ad on BradBlog, and coordinated with Public Citizen, another org opposed to Gitenstein. Our opposition was based on Gitenstein's lobbying and legal work for the Chamber of Commerce which was one of Karl Rove's main tools for corrupting elections nationwide. Well, we succeeded. Yesterday, the Obama Administration announced that it was withdrawing Gitenstein from the job. According to the Washington Post, this was a big win since Gitenstein looked like a shoe-in because of his previous work for Joe Biden.
"The widely expected nomination of Mark Gitenstein, a longtime aide to Vice President Biden, for the job of assistant attorney general for legal policy, the point office for judicial selections, is not happening. The choice of Gitenstein, a highly regarded Washington lawyer and longtime chief Democratic counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Biden formerly chaired, had been considered a done deal, what with his Biden connection and many friends in the legal community. But liberal opposition, including a campaign against him by Public Citizen, was sharply critical of his legal work for a number of business clients and most especially for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That forced the White House to reconsider the nomination, Roll Call reported Wednesday. That opposition overcame strong support for Gitenstein from other liberals and also from influential Obama campaign insiders, a source told us yesterday. There are other lawyers who might like the job, including George Washington University law professor Spencer Overton, a leading Democrat and big-time bundler of contributions for the Obama campaign."
This turn of events now has Spencer Overton as the top contender for the job. Mr. Overton has been a friend of the election integrity movement for years after he, as a member of the Baker-Carter Commission on election reform, led the opposition to that report and actually wrote a dissenting report. Mr. Overton is another terrific, black Harvard grad law professor at George Washington University. He has been a vociferous opponent of voter photo ID laws and voter suppression. A copy of the original VR post is below. 2/10/09: VR Opposes Any Nomination Of Mark Gitenstein To the DOJ Office of Legal Policy Obama's potential nominee to head The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy, Mark Gitenstein, worked as a lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce between 2000 and 2008, helping his law firm earn more than $6 million in fees, according to federal lobbying records. Obama has set forth strict rules against lobbyists working for him and so Mr. Gitenstein will have to get a waiver. VR Is vehemently opposed to this appointment because of the obvious conflict of interest under which Mr. Gitenstein will labor and because of his work for the Chamber, an organization has been engaged in pervasive illegal and corrupt activity regarding elections nationwide at the behest of big business and Karl Rove. Gitenstein, a partner at the Mayer Brown law firm in Washington, was a longtime senior aide to Vice President Joe Biden. And he has a good civil rights record. In recent years, however, he also has served as counsel to the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform, which pushed for changes in federal litigation rules and adding business-friendly judges to state courts. Many of the same front groups which joined the Chamber ILR legal reform 'coalition' were involved in the organization's turn to full-blown rightwing partisanship and were responsible for putting George Bush into office and keeping him there. The litigation by Ohio Attorney Cliff Arnebeck regarding the manipulation of the 2004 election in Ohio uncovered evidence that long time Bush IT expert Mike Connell created front groups for the Chamber (on behalf of Karl Rove?) in an ongoing pattern of corrupt activity to defraud elections. Mr. Arnebeck was able to tie the Chamber to Connell's activities because Arnebeck had sued the Chamber earlier for creating front groups that illegally funneled and laundered money to attack Ohio Supreme Court Justice Alice Resnick. Mississippi Judge Oliver Diaz wrote to us recently to complain about being targeted by the Bush DOJ in a political prosecution directed by Karl Rove. He wrote, "election fraud is a major concern to me... In my last election, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce funneled about $1 million to defeat me. This is part of a strategy to stack out courts with conservative shills for big business. They have refused to disclose their donor list." So now, Obama wants to have Mark Gitenstein, who lobbied for the one of the most partisan, corrupt and opaque organizations in the country, decide what judges are to be put on the federal bench. The same Chamber that coordinated attacks on Democrats nationwide for suing Big Tobacco, such as Don Siegelman. What kind of ethics and integrity can Mr. Gitenstein have lobbying for such an organization? We urge everyone to contact their Senators to express disapproval for this possible nomination. Note: Mr. Gitenstein also lobbied for AT&T, collaborator of FISA.]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/02/success_mark_gitenstein_out_of.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/02/success_mark_gitenstein_out_of.html Blog DOJ Office of Legal Policy Mark Gitenstein Spencer Overton Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:16:56 +0000 Down the Rabbit Hole Maddening chain of email illustrates the EAC's continued protection of e-voting vendors at the expense of the voters Just wanted to call attention to a report from John Gideon of VotersUnite.org. His organization's experience in trying to get an answer to a very simple and straightforward question illustrates how the idea of the EAC working for we, the People, and not for their corporate and political masters, is at best a joke, and at worst part of the continued threat to our elections, and thus a threat to our republic. I won't go into detail in this post; John Gideon explains it all better than I ever could. But John's report on the infuriating and exasperating circle-jerk of emails he received from the EAC is a must-read for anyone concerned about how our government, and the EAC, have failed and continue to fail the voters of this country.]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/02/down_the_rabbit_hole.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/02/down_the_rabbit_hole.html Blog EAC VotersUnite.org Sat, 28 Feb 2009 09:48:15 +0000 Meet The New Holt Bill Same As the Old Holt Bill

I hope we won't get fooled again.

Bev Harris, founder of Black Box Voting, one of the nation's leading election integrity watchdog groups, and our colleague Brad Friedman of The BRAD BLOG, weigh in on a draft of a new bill from Congressman Rush Holt, (D) New Jersey, tentatively called the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2009." The discussion draft of the bill can be read here [pdf, 62 pages]. Bev Harris writes that the so-called "new" Holt bill is "basically exactly the same as the old Holt Bill, and every bit as much a danger to our liberty as the other Holt Bill. In fact, clause for clause, it's pretty much the same." She continues: "Now, one wonders, in a new administration and with new political realities, why would one put forth a bill that supports secret vote counting?" Good question. "The new Holt Bill, just like the old one, seeks to further centralize power and to further institutionalize the concept of counting our votes in secret. It is a danger to our right to self-government," writes Harris. Brad Friedman has done some analysis of the proposed bill, and he finds much to be concerned about. In general, he finds that "while the bill offers some improvements over previous versions, the major flaws still inherent in the legislation -- as it's currently drafted -- will fail to ensure the security, accuracy, and transparency that American democracy requires and deserves." One the one hand, the bill would require "the use of an individual, durable, voter-verified, paper ballot" for every vote. And that's a good thing. But in it's current form, the bill would also allow those ballots to be "marked through the use of a nontabulating ballot marking device or system." That's a problem. Ballot marking devices, or BMDs, are touchscreen computers on which a voter makes his/her selections, and then the ballot is printed out. They are dangerous devices on which to run an election. For one thing, they are know to sometimes flip votes. See this report for Brad Friedman's own personal experience with a BMD in June of 2008, and how it mismarked his ballot. "Further," writes Friedman, "concerns about computer-printed ballots was illustrated by several academic studies. One, from Caltech/MIT described how some 80% of voters do not take the time to verify the accuracy of computer printed records or ballots. Another, even more disturbing, from Rice University in the Summer of 2007, found that, among those few who do bother to review the computerized summary of their selections at the end of the voting process, two-thirds of them don't notice at all when the computer has flipped a selection from one candidate to another, or changed a vote on a ballot initiative." The very important issue of transparency, a vital component to clean and verifiable elections, receives no boost in this draft bill. Friedman reports that in this bill, "corporate trade secrets, fully protected, take precedence, apparently, before you, the voter. Not good for a public voting system, designed for, and paid for by, the public, who deserve no less than 100% transparency for any system used to carry out public elections, the very heart of our democracy." Friedman does find some good things in this draft, including a requirement that "federal voting system test labs must disclose test results, good or bad, and make them 'available promptly to election officials and the public' after testing is completed." More details on his analysis can be read on his blog post.]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/02/meet_the_new_holt_bill.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/02/meet_the_new_holt_bill.html Blog Bev Harris Black Box Voting Brad Friedman Holt Bill The BRAD BLOG Sat, 28 Feb 2009 09:22:11 +0000 Uganda's Electoral Commission Urges Reforms And with some of these reforms, the United States should follow Uganda's lead The New Vision (which bills itself as "Uganda's leading website") is reporting under the headline "Election thieves to be imprisoned" that the Ugandan Electoral Commission is advocating several reforms to Uganda's election laws, and a number of them are excellent ideas which the United States would do well to emulate. Among these reforms are:
Heavy fines for electoral offenders. "Politicians found guilty of cheating in elections will be sent to prison for up to two years or made to pay heavy fines if a new proposal by the Electoral Commission (EC) becomes a law." [snip] "The opposition coalition also wants the electoral law to be amended so that the EC is given power to disqualify candidates involved in rigging or other election malpractices for at least seven years."
Sounds like a great idea! And in America, we'd also like to extend that law to any and all election officials and even private citizens who are convicted of violating election laws. This would include issuing disinformation about voting or registration, illegal purges of the voter rolls, and ignoring state laws regarding the certification of election results.
Period of declaration of results should be increased from 48 hours to a week. Apparently, under current Ugandan law the results from each precinct are required to be certified and turned in within 48 hours. The Commission wants to extend that time limit to one week. "Though opposition parties oppose the proposal, the commission says it is difficult to secure securing [sic] the results from all returning officers within 48 hours."
It seems that Uganda understands what many American election officials and even many American voters don't -- that the accuracy of the results and the importance of counting every vote are more important than speed. Waiting a few days or even a few weeks for election results is well worth it if the extra time will lead to correct, every-vote-counted-and-counted-accurately results. American politicians and election officials could learn some lessons from Uganda!]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/02/ugandas_electoral_commission_u.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/02/ugandas_electoral_commission_u.html Blog Election Integrity Election Law Election Reform Uganda Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:21:35 +0000 Mississippi Senate Pushes For Voter Photo ID Law pulled legislation that they passed on January 15 requiring that voters show a photo ID before being allowed to vote, stripped all amendments out of it, and passed the new legislation. The previous version had an amendment that allowed voters age 65 an older to vote without showing a photo ID. Governor Haley Barbour had pressed for the removal of that exemption. He got his wish. The new version, sans exemption for voters 65 and older, passed in the Senate, but the state's House version, while making ID mandatory for voting, still has the exemption for people age 65 and older, and allows non-photo versions of identification, such as utility bills, bank statements, and paychecks. The fate of the law is now unclear. Velvet Revolution would like to see the House version become law in Mississippi. Requiring voters to have some form of identification is acceptable if non-photo ID is included, and the House version does that. However, Governor Haley Barbour (R) may well refuse to sign the bill if it contains any exemption from the photo ID requirement. Said Barbour in his 2009 State of the State address, "As to Voter ID, it is past time we catch up with our sister states and with business, medical, financial and the rest of the government world by requiring a picture ID to vote." Delbert Hosemann, the Republican secretary of state, is also a strong proponent of photo ID requirements for voters. He would most likely urge Barbour to veto any bill that did not require all voters to show photo ID. As always, the Republicans claim that photo ID requirements are necessary to prevent voter fraud. Yet, as reported by the Jackson Free Press, "When asked for evidence that the additional regulation is needed, Republican supporters typically refer to cases of fraud involving absentee voting -- which does not require ID now, nor would under a voter ID requirement. 'They've never been able to offer a solid case where an ID requirement would have been useful because preventing fraud is not their goal,' NAACP President Derrick Johnson told the Jackson Free Press last month. 'This is all about disenfranchising voters, not cleaning up voting.'" Mr. Johnson is correct. Velvet Revolution continues to insist that photo ID requirements for voting are sinister methods of disenfranchising the elderly, minority, and low-income voters, people who very often vote for Democratic candidates. We believe it's no surprise that those who are in favor of photo ID requirements are almost invariably Republicans. ]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/02/mississippi_senate_pushes_for.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/02/mississippi_senate_pushes_for.html Blog Mississippi voter ID laws Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:53:08 +0000 Editorials in Minnesota and Oklahoma: No Voter Photo ID Law writing in the Star Tribune in response to Minnesota Republican legislators who recently renewed their call for voter photo ID laws in the North Star state, says such legislation is a solution "in search of a problem." She quotes Coleman campaign attorney Joe Friedberg, who said, "There aren't any allegations that I'm aware of of fraud or bad faith by voters. Nobody accuses anybody of it." Sturdevant points out that the "finding puts a heavy burden on the Republican legislators" because "without clear evidence of a problem, it's difficult to justify an additional barrier to voting..." "That requirement [that a voter show a state-issued photo ID at the polls] would fall hardest on the estimated 135,000 Minnesotans who are eligible to vote, but lack a driver's license or other government-issued photo ID card." Sturdevant concludes with the following: "If anything, the Coleman-Franken recount has shown that the simpler Minnesota can make its voting procedures, the better." Well put, Ms. Sturdevant. Over in Norman, Oklahoma, an unsigned editorial in the Norman Transcript is headlined "Extend voter times but leave ID rule out." They point out that Oklahoma's Governor Brad Henry has said he's in favor of adding some additional early voting days, but that the state's Republican legislators have said "any change in election reform would have to include a proposal requiring voters identification at the polls." House Speaker Chris Benge, R-Tulsa, told the Oklahoman, "We're going to be pushing voter ID very heavily." I'll let the last three paragraphs of this fine editorial speak for itself:
"That's a sure fire way to disenfranchise and turn away potential voters. Believe it or not, some individuals do not carry photo identification. The poor who rely on public transportation or the elderly who no longer drive may just give up on casting their ballot. "The cases of non-registered voters casting ballots are rare. The election's integrity is more often challenged at the registration process or through folks who vote twice -- once by mail or in-person absentee -- and then again on election day. "Oklahoma's professional election system is one of the nation's best. States look to Oklahoma for leadership on how to run elections. Let's not try to fix what's not broken."
The fight against disenfranchising voter photo ID laws will continue in many parts of the country, including Minnesota and Oklahoma. But it's refreshing to see editorials using clear and fact-based arguments against these democracy-hating voter photo ID laws.]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/01/editorials_in_minnesota_and_ok_5.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/01/editorials_in_minnesota_and_ok_5.html Blog Minnesota Oklahoma voter ID laws Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:52:54 +0000 Formal Complaint Filed Against California's Riverside County Registrar of Voters ROV Barbara Dunmore Certified The County's Election Results On Dec. 2 -- Yet Thousands Of Votes Have Yet To Be Counted! From Tom Courbat of Save R Vote we have learned that EI activist Art Cassel has filed a formal complaint with the California Secretary of State regarding Riverside County Registrar of Voters Barbara Dunmore's certification of the 2008 election results even though thousands of votes are still uncounted. According to an article in The Desert Sun, "County Registrar of Voters Barbara Dunmore told the county Board of Supervisors in an e-mail last week she would not be done counting until the end of January, which will be more than eight weeks after she certified the election was final." The article points out that Dunmore did inform the Secretary of State's office that although she had certified the county's election results, she was not finished counting all the ballots. In response, Nicole Winger, a spokeswoman for the Sec. of State's office said, "Of course, notifying the Secretary of State's Office that one is out of compliance does not make one compliant." Says Cassel, "The registrar's office has a simple job: Count the votes and comply with state law. If something did go wrong [with the count] who would know it? It's pointless. If they're doing it to fill the requirement, what is the purpose of the requirement if the ability for a candidate to challenge the election is gone? It seems like a colossal waste of the taxpayers' money." Courbat of Save R Vote wrote in an email to supporters that, "It has been confirmed that Registrar of Voters Barbara Dunmore certified the November 4, 2008 election results on December 2, 2008, with full knowledge that thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of paper trails from electronic votes remained to be tallied." Courbat continued, "It is now known that the 100% manual tally of the electronic votes [which is required by law] cast in the November 4, 2008 election is still not completed, a full 10 weeks after the election. And it has been discovered that instead of counting the votes in clear public view as required by law, the ongoing counting process has been taking place in a staff area generally out of the line of citizen's sight." This secret out-of-the-public's-view counting of ballots is yet another violation of California's election law by ROV Dunmore. Courbat claims that Dunmore "has commonly complied with State Election Code and regulations on a selective basis, including refusals in the past to post election results at each precinct." Failures of county election officials to follow election procedures in a number of CA counties are at the core of Velvet Revolution's request to SoS Bowen's office to investigate the vote count on Proposition 8, the ballot measure that amended California's Constitution to eliminate marriage equality. This new information from Riverside County is a glaring example of why that investigation must take place. Last year, we reported that Save R Vote joined with a retired Riverside County district attorney in an audit of the office of the Riverside County Registrar of Voters. The results of that audit are due in early March, and hopefully these recent developments will be included in the final report. As our colleague Brad Friedman of The BRAD BLOG wrote back in 2007, "How is It That Barbara Dunmore Still Has a Job?" That's a good question. I'd reckon it's a safe bet that most people who repeatedly violated the law in the course of doing their jobs would be fired PDQ. But not, apparently, if you're a crooked registrar of voters in Riverside County.]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/01/formal_complaint_filed_against.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2009/01/formal_complaint_filed_against.html Blog Barbara Dunmore Election 2008 Election Irregularities Riverside County SAVE R VOTE Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:16:43 +0000 Attorney Cliff Arnebeck: Ohio Republicans "Not Giving Up Jim Crow Strategy" Senate Bill 380, What The Ohio GOP Calls "Election Reform," Passes Ohio Lame-Duck General Assembly Along Partisan Lines

Diverse Group of Ohio Bloggers, State Media, and Election Integrity Activists Urge Gov. Strickland To Veto

VR Issues Call to Action For Ohio Residents And EI Activists Nation-Wide: Urge Gov. Strickland to Veto SB 380

UPDATED Dec. 19: According to the Columbus Dispatch and the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Gov. Strickland has indicated he will veto SB 380. Thus, VR's call to action on this matter -- contacting the governor's office and urging him to veto the bill -- is now a suggestion that you contact the governor and thank him for vetoing SB 380. Contact information is below. Thanks for all you do. This week, in a lame duck session of the 127th Ohio General Assembly, Senate Bill 380, a so-called "election reform" bill, passed along partisan lines. With the Republican dominance over the Ohio legislature in its final days, the party that we believe is conducting a "War on Democracy" is trying to make it harder for Buckeye State residents to vote. Regardless of the overheated rhetoric about almost completely non-existent "voter fraud" -- see this post for information on a study by the League of Women Voters of Ohio which found only four fraudulent ballots in Ohio out of over nine million votes cast in two elections -- and the GOP's insistence that registration fraud is equivalent to voter fraud (memo to the GOP: the two are not the same thing), this bill's sole purpose is to suppress voters. Among other problems, the bill would make it more difficult for absentee voters to vote, and it would lead to more rejections of absentee ballots for non-substantive reasons like minor variations between the information on a voter's registration form and the information in the Ohio Board of Motor Vehicles database. Ohio Attorney Cliff Arnebeck, currently litigating the groundbreaking lawsuit regarding alleged manipulation of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio (King Lincoln v. Blackwell, summarized on the Strike Force blog here and detailed on Velvet Revolution's dedicated website, RoveCybergate.com), offered testimony in opposition to the bill, as did Ohio's Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. In an interview with VR, Arnebeck said, "The bill passed the House over the eloquent opposition of Democrat Dan Stewart, ranking member on the elections committee, again on partisan lines." Arnebeck continued: "The Ohio Republican Party is not giving up its Jim Crow strategy of suppressing black voters and college voters. This is in spite of their new Republican chairman's statement that the Republican Party has lost a generation of voters." Editorials in the Columbus Dispatch, the Akron Beacon Journal, the Toledo Blade, and bloggers at the Buckeye State Blog (who called SB 380 the "Disenfranchise College Kids Because They Vote for D's Act") and Progress Ohio, among others, joined Ohio election officials in stating their opposition to the bill. But the GOP pushed it through anyway. Because making it easier for voters to actually, you know, vote is never a good thing to Republicans unless they're certain those voters will vote Republican. Now that the bill has passed the General Assembly, the calls to kill the bill have turned to calls for Governor Ted Strickland to veto it. Added to those voices is a letter (reproduced in full below) from a diverse group of national and Ohio reform advocates, including Common Cause Ohio, the Fair Elections Legal Network, the Citizens' Alliance for Secure Elections, the Secretary of State's Voting Rights Institute (VRI) Advisory Council, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, People for the American Way, and the NAACP National Voter Fund calling for the bill to be vetoed. As of yet, there's been no sign from Strickland's office as to what he'll do with this badly flawed and disenfranchising bill. We urge all residents of Ohio, Election Integrity activists and organizations, and other interested groups and individuals to contact Ohio Governor Strickland and respectfully urge him to veto SB 380. Contact information can be found on this page, and an email form is here. Following are excerpts from Mr. Arnebeck's and Sec. of State Brunner's testimony in opposition to this bill. From Cliff Arnebeck [pdf, one page]:
I share with the sponsor of this bill a concern about election fraud in the state of Ohio and a sense of urgency in regard to addressing such fraud. However, I differ with the sponsor in regard to the kind of election fraud we face and how we should address it. Therefore, I urge you not to recommend this bill for passage by the Ohio House of Representatives. [snip] Contrary to the unfounded concerns over fraud by voters addressed in SB 380, the real problem of fraud in our elections, that has been well documented from 2000 through 2006, needs to be addressed. The evidence has a national scope, and therefore will require the cooperation of public officials, particularly our law enforcement officers -- federal, state and local -- and citizens around the country to confront it. Because Ohio was at the center of both the state prong of the concerted attack upon judicial integrity and constitutional government in 2000, and the federal prong in the 2004 Ohio stolen election, our state is well positioned to lead in providing the public interest response. Failing to respond to this real threat is not a prudent option for many reasons. If we fail to hold these perpetrators of election fraud accountable, they will: 1) obstruct our restoration of the rule of law, 2) continue to plot new election frauds and 3) under the cloak of civility, have a better chance of succeeding again.
From Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner [pdf, 3 pages]
SB 380 is a bill that does more than make mere corrections or tweaks. It makes sweeping changes to very complex issues, and addresses these multi-layered issues in a piecemeal way. It is clear from the comments of the bipartisan participants at the Ohio Elections Summit and the volume of opposition and interested party testimony on this bill thus far, that these purported legislative tweaks are highly controversial and, in their current and anticipated forms, will result in more litigation that will cost Ohio taxpayers money. [snip] ... SB 380 is premature and problematic. Senate Bill 380 attempts to direct the Secretary of State to operate the Statewide Voter Registration Database in a way the database was not designed to perform. Unfortunately, this bill includes overly-broad and simplified language that could be construed as violating federal law. [snip] SB 380 would make significant changes to how absentee ballot identification envelopes are handled. These changes will lead to a significant increase in the number of absentee ballot requests and absentee ballots cast that are rejected for purely technical reasons. Furthermore, these changes will not enhance efforts to prevent voter fraud. Boards of Elections already have the tools they need to determine the eligibility of ballot requests and ballots cast. SB 380 changes the form for the absentee ballot ID envelope from substantial compliance to mandatory compliance. The bill also mandates complete compliance with the form on the part of the voter. Under this change, a voter must provide all the information on the envelope and that information must be an identical match with board of elections records. As a result, there is a strong probability of many more absentee ballots being rejected for technical, rather than substantive, reasons. [snip] Currently, observers are allowed during early voting and on Election Day. The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that observers must be allowed anytime and anywhere in-person voting is taking place. One provision in SB 380 redefines "during the casting of ballots" to include any time a person "votes" an absentee voter's ballot in-person. Article XVII, ยง1 of the Ohio Constitution defines the dates on which elections shall be held. Absentee ballots are not "cast" until they are "counted", and no ballot is counted until Election Day. SB 380 redefines when the casting of ballots occurs and thereby, redefines when the election takes place. SB 380's redefinition of the timing of elections is likely an unconstitutional provision that will lead to costly litigation. The proposed changes in SB 380 are not minor corrections of purportedly ambiguous laws. SB 380's provisions impact a great many other issues and sections of Ohio's elections laws. The bill has the potential to negatively impact the entire elections process. As the chief election officer of the state, the concerns raised in SB 380 weigh heavy in light of our successful elections cycle. I respectfully request that any election legislation be introduced after careful thought and deliberations so that we may offer comprehensive, bipartisan solutions to any issues that we may find.
And the letter from many and varied reform advocates to Governor Strickland: ]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2008/12/attorney_cliff_arnebeck_ohio_r.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2008/12/attorney_cliff_arnebeck_ohio_r.html Blog Cliff Arnebeck Election Integrity Jennifer Brunner Ohio Ohio SB 380 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:26:19 +0000 Attorney in Ohio Election Fraud Case Offers Cooperation for Investigation into California's Proposition 8 Arnebeck cites exit poll discrepancy Cliff Arnebeck, the Ohio attorney currently litigating the groundbreaking suit regarding alleged manipulation of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio, has written a letter to California Secretary of State Debra Bowen expressing concerns regarding the proposition 8 vote count. Arnebeck's voice echoes Velvet Revolution's call for an investigation of the vote on Prop 8, which amended California's state constitution to eliminate marriage equality. Arnebeck raises questions about the Prop 8 vote count based on discrepancies between exit polls -- which are used worldwide to flag suspicious election results -- and official vote totals, such as detailed here at the Velvet Revolution Election Protection Strike Force. The California portion of the National Exit Poll initially showed Prop 8 being defeated; then the poll results were adjusted to match election night vote tallies and showed Prop 8 passing. Arnebeck writes, "Based on information we have received, it appears that this year's California Proposition 8 election reflects such an exit poll discrepancy. The issue presented in Proposition 8 is part of the national culture war that Mr. Rove and his associates seek to perpetuate. Therefore, we want you to know of our interest in this election and our interest in cooperating with you in any review you may conduct in this matter." The full text of Arnebeck's letter is reprinted below and also available in .pdf form below. Arnebeck informs Bowen in his letter that he intends to subpoena the "underlying exit poll data for Proposition 8 election. This is a part of our effort to assist the new generation of honest law enforcement authorities, of which you are such a prominent part, for the purpose of further documenting and terminating the pattern of corrupt activity in which Mr. Rove and his associates have heretofore engaged." The Ohio lawsuit, King Lincoln v. Blackwell, in which Velvet Revolution is involved, is summarized on the Strike Force blog here and detailed on Velvet Revolution's dedicated website, RoveCybergate.com. The suit intends to show that "IT guru" Mike Connell manipulated the vote totals in the 2004 presidential election in Ohio via a scheme that involved rerouting election data through computer servers he controlled in Tennessee. See also Rove Is A Common Criminal. Read the full text of attorney Cliff Arnebeck's letter to Secretary of State Debra Bowen Cal Prop 8 letter.pdf(.pdf) or 'below the fold.' Velvet Revolution has not yet been told whether or not Bowen's office will investigate the Prop 8 vote count. Our call for an investigation is based on a variety of indications of problems with the vote count resulting in complete absence of a basis for voter confidence in the announced results of this discriminatory ballot measure.]]> http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2008/12/attorney_in_ohio_election_frau.html http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2008/12/attorney_in_ohio_election_frau.html Blog Cliff Arnebeck Debra Bowen investigation Karl Rove King-Lincoln v. Blackwell Proposition 8 Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:29:47 +0000