Brad Blog

Syndicate content
Because it's not about Right or Left, it's about Right and Wrong!
URL: http://www.bradblog.com
Updated: 1 hour 55 sec ago

Obama Calls For Another Presidential Voting Commission - But Will It Mirror the Sham Baker/Carter Election Commission After 2004?

Tue, 02/12/2013 - 20:41

[UPDATED THRICE following the State of the Union address.]

Ryan J. Reilly had the scoop at HuffPo tonight. We're about to get another bipartisan commission on voting reforms...

President Barack Obama will announce a bipartisan presidential voting commission to focus on improving the Election Day experience, The Huffington Post has learned from two sources outside the White House with knowledge of the plans.

The commission is one of a number of efforts the Obama administration is making to address the problems that plagued voting on Election Day 2012. The commission, which will focus specifically on Election Day issues and not broader voting reform, will likely be co-chaired by one Republican and one Democratic lawyer, according to one of the sources.

After the 2000 Presidential election fiasco, a bipartisan blue-ribbon commission headed by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford was created by Congress. The commission offered reforms that ultimately helped lead to the disastrous Help America Vote Act of 2002. That bill, among other things, offered some $4 billion in federal money to states in order to "upgrade" to computerized voting systems. Those same systems, using proprietary hardware and software from private vendors, tally votes in secret and continue to fail in election after election even today.

After the 2004 Presidential election fiasco, a private bipartisan commission was created, as The BRAD BLOG was the first to reveal, by high-level Republican operatives and former Bush/Cheney officials calling themselves the American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR). The private commission, formed in secret, was headed by Carter and longtime Bush family friend James A. Baker III, the man who took Bush's 2000 fight to keep ballots from being counted in the state of Florida all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The inclusion of Baker on the commission led to an uproar from Election Integrity advocates, a furious response at The BRAD BLOG from the commission's Executive Director for our revelation of the scam, a letter from then Chair of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) stating his "strong opposition" to Baker's presence on the commission, and then a guest-blog from Conyers himself, here at The BRAD BLOG.

As Conyers noted at the time, and as the sham Baker/Carter commission's report ultimately showed, the private commission was created in order to lay the groundwork for polling place Photo ID restrictions down the road. "Make no mistake about it," Conyers wrote here at the time, detailing his belief that the commission's push for Photo ID restrictions was "more of the same old Ken Blackwell-style Republican electoral dirty tricks, where Democratic voters are deliberately disenfranchised so that Republicans can win elections."

While the privately created Baker/Carter commission was meant to appear similar to the official Ford/Carter blue-ribbon commission (Ford was ailing at the time of the second commission, so was replaced with Baker), we can only hope that whatever new commission President Obama has in mind won't end up with the same "dead-on-arrival" recommendations as the ones from Baker and Carter. Though those recommendations were roundly criticized at the time, they are still cited today --- as if they were official recommendations --- by Republicans hoping to disenfranchise legal American voters through new restrictions on voting.

* * *

UPDATE: Reilly at HuffPo had it right. The President announced his call for a new commission during his State of the Union address tonight...

We must all do our part to make sure our God-given rights are protected here at home. That includes our most fundamental right as citizens: the right to vote. When any Americans – no matter where they live or what their party – are denied that right simply because they can’t wait for five, six, seven hours just to cast their ballot, we are betraying our ideals. That’s why, tonight, I’m announcing a non-partisan commission to improve the voting experience in America. And I’m asking two long-time experts in the field, who’ve recently served as the top attorneys for my campaign and for Governor Romney’s campaign, to lead it. We can fix this, and we will. The American people demand it. And so does our democracy.

Relatedly, near the end of his speech, Obama told the story of Desiline Victor, who was a guest of the First Lady's at the speech...

We should follow the example of a North Miami woman named Desiline Victor. When she arrived at her polling place, she was told the wait to vote might be six hours. And as time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say. Hour after hour, a throng of people stayed in line in support of her. Because Desiline is 102 years old. And they erupted in cheers when she finally put on a sticker that read “I Voted.”

And, indeed, the chamber also "erupted in cheers" when the President shared the story. Well, not everyone. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), sitting behind the President failed to stand when most of the rest of the chamber did.

LATER UPDATE: Oy. Swift voting or Swift Boating?! Reilly files a new article at HuffPo detailing who will head up this commission:

Bob Bauer, former general counsel for the Obama campaign, and Ben Ginsberg, former top election lawyer for Romney's 2012 operation, will lead the commission, a senior administration official confirmed. This isn't the first time the duo has worked together: They previously negotiated the terms of the televised debates between their respective candidates.

Ginsberg is best known for his central role in the 2000 election, when he represented former President George W. Bush. Since then, he's been a key GOP recount attorney, representing former Republican Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman in the aftermath of his race against Democratic now-Sen. Al Franken in 2008.

Bauer, Obama's former White House counsel, successfully fought to force the state of Ohio to restore early voting for all registered voters last year when he worked for Obama campaign.

The BRAD BLOG's legal analyst Ernie Canning, in comments below, reminds us that Ginsberg, in addition to representing Bush/Cheney in both of their campaigns, "also doubled as the legal adviser for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" in 2004.

Indeed he did. At least until his work with the Swift Boaters came to light, and he was finally forced to resign from the Bush/Cheney campaign. The Swift Boat group was, at the time, established as a 527 political action group and was not supposed to be coordinating with campaigns. Their attacks on John Kerry, with Ginsberg advising them while a member of the Bush/Cheney campaign, was a very serious conflict of interest and perhaps a violation of the law.

Of course, that didn't keep either Norm Coleman in 2008, or Mitt Romney in 2004, from hiring him again, of course. And, apparently, it hasn't kept Barack Obama from tapping him to co-chair a commission on election reform.

So the man who worked with Baker to develop the strategy to keep votes from being counted at all in Florida in 2000, and who illegally advised a political action campaign on how to attack the man the campaign he was working for was running against in 2004, and who first fought to keep votes from being counted in Minnesota (before flip-flopping and demanding they all be counted once his candidate, Coleman, appeared to be losing) in 2008, and then went on to represent Romney in 2012 when his fellow GOPers were passing laws to keep legal voters from being able to cast their votes at all --- is now slated to head up Obama's new commission on voting reforms. That oughta work out great!

On the other hand, as Reilly goes on to report:

The White House said Tuesday night that the new Presidential Commission on Election Administration would focus on "common-sense, non-partisan solutions" and "develop recommendations for state and local election officials to reduce waiting times at the polls and improve all citizens' voting experience."

It will address voters' experience at the polls and will take input from customer service experts. The commission will also make recommendations to improve the voting experience of members of the military, overseas voters, voters with disabilities, and voter with limited English proficiency.

Here's the official fact sheet from the White House [PDF] describing the purpose and goals of the new "Presidential Commission on Election Administration."

So can Ginsberg's damage to the process of election reform be limited? We'll see. But it's shameful that anyone would even think of using a guy like Ginsberg on a legitimate election reform panel in the first place.

* * *

UPDATE 2/13/12: Ari Berman at The Nation adds this thought:

Voting rights groups appear split on the voting commission. The Brennan Center for Justice called it "an important step, focusing on improving the experience of voters." But the normally mild-mannered League of Women Voters sharply criticized the idea: "we were surprised and disappointed that the President did not suggest bold action to ensure that every American citizen can exercise the right to vote. Setting up a commission is not a bold step; it is business as usual. The President could have done much better by pointing to real solutions like that in legislation already introduced on Capitol Hill to require early voting, set limits on waiting times, provide for portable voter registration and set up secure online voter registration."

* * *Please support The BRAD BLOG's fiercely independent, award-winning coverage of your electoral system, as available from no other media outlet in the nation --- now in our TENTH YEAR! --- with a donation to help us keep going (Snail mail, more options here). If you like, we'll send you some great, award-winning election integrity documentary films in return! Details right here...


'Green News Report' - February 12, 2013

Tue, 02/12/2013 - 18:35


 

IN TODAY'S RADIO REPORT: 'Too pooped to pope': Pope Benedict's green legacy; Did global warming find Nemo?; State of the Union - Obama's next act on climate change; Wind power now cheaper than coal in some countries; PLUS: Fox 'News' surrenders to Germany (in the clean energy race) ... All that and more in today's Green News Report!

Listen online here, or Download MP3 (6 mins)...

Link: Embed:

Got comments, tips, love letters, hate mail? Drop us a line at GreenNews@BradBlog.com or right here at the comments link below. All GNRs are always archived at GreenNews.BradBlog.com.

IN 'GREEN NEWS EXTRA' (see links below): Koch-backed 'Tea Party' started in 2002 with Big Tobacco; Meet your newest national park; Shell's damaged Arctic drilling rigs go to Asia; Map of cities to avoid as sea levels rise; Keystone XL pipeline: Just Say No; National Journal covers rising costs of inaction on climate change; Bloomberg's clean energy investor factbook; Flame retardants linked to ADHD; Why the US drilling boom lowered gas prices ... PLUS: Energy Subsidies and the 'Free Market' Lie ... and much, MUCH more! ...

STORIES DISCUSSED IN TODAY'S 'GREEN NEWS REPORT'...

'GREEN NEWS EXTRA' (Stuff we didn't have time for in today's audio report)...

  • New Research: World on Track for Climate Disaster:
  • Essential Climate Science Background:

    •

    Energy Subsidies and the 'Free Market' Lie

    Mon, 02/11/2013 - 21:22

    In the continuing "fight" over the automatic billions in federal subsidies granted to fossil fuel companies each year, versus the begging and pleading for similar subsidies that the renewables industry is forced to go through year after year, the Republicans have come up with a nifty pretend argument: "The government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers!"

    Of course, government has always done exactly that, and continues to do so each and every year by rewarding fossil fuel company "winners" with federal subsidies, despite record profits for many of them year after year. And, naturally, Republicans continue to support the government helping out those "winners".

    But in a recent discussion in comments around this topic, BRAD BLOG commenter "Sven O" made a very good point over the weekend. It's worth highlighting here for those who weren't following the full thread:

    About subsidies: All nuclear power plants would shut down immediately if their operators were required to have appropriate insurance coverage. All coal power plants would shut down immediately if people sick from dust emissions could sue the coal power plant operators appropriately for their failure to install proper emissions filters.

    Yup. So do you Rightwingers (and self-proclaimed libertarians) who think you believe in "free markets" really want such a market? I don't think you really do. But let us know...


    Toon of the Moment: 'Professor Droney'...

    Mon, 02/11/2013 - 15:45


    I Need Your Help

    Mon, 02/11/2013 - 09:05
    if (window.document.getElementById('post-9862')) window.document.getElementById('post-9862').parentNode.className += ' adhesive_post';

    [ED NOTE: Keeping this up at the top of the front page for a bit. Scroll down below it for more recent content. - BF]

    It would be rather easy to double The BRAD BLOG's readership in a week or quadruple it in a month. It's a pretty simple matter to pound out short "Look What This Republican Idiot Did Today!" items and other similar knee-jerkery. It brings in tons of traffic. But there are plenty of places that do that. Instead, I've tried, since opening this joint almost 10 years ago, to offer stuff that actually matters. We may not always succeed, but that is always my hope. I have tried since our inception to choose carefully what we devote attention to, in hopes of publishing things that we can actually add something beyond "me too-ism." It has always been my goal to remain a unique place on the worldwide Internets where focusing on helping to better educate the electorate is the prime directive.

    That, however, doesn't necessarily bring torrents of clicks and eyeballs. Yes, it's easy to offer crap that brings clicks. Sideboobage, literal and otherwise, makes lots of money for its progenitors, and it's really easy.

    There is a reason that The BRAD BLOG does not receive regular financial support from either foundations or corporations, and it's not because I'm against the idea, in principle --- so long as we'd be allowed to maintain 100% editorial independence. But it's because we are truly independent here, unlike many of some of the finest progressive websites on the net, that we find ourselves now in our tenth year still raking the muck on our own, with only reader support to help keep us in rakes.

    By way of just one recent example, I didn't even bother trying to pitch our exclusive investigative special report last week on what happened to the attempted Prop 37 "recount" to any other news sites. Though my independent work at such places helps to fund what we do here, it's unlikely that any of those sites, even progressive news sites, would be interested in paying for such a report that isn't particularly sexy and calls both Republican and Democratic officials on the carpet. It took some three weeks (at least) of digging and researching to make that report possible. And you'll only find that sort of work --- and my KPFK radio report that followed it in support --- generated here at The BRAD BLOG, despite how important I believe that story is to the nation; despite national election expert and UC Irvine law professor Rick Hasen declaring that it "calls for a legislative response"; and despite the fact that meetings are taking place this coming week in Sacramento to discuss what can be done about some of the problems that special report helped to expose.

    I could detail many other things that The BRAD BLOG does and offers exclusively, or, at least, unlike any other place on the net, but hopefully you get the idea.

    Nonetheless, despite my recent plea with our 9th Anniversary announcement, only a tiny fraction of the thousands who read this site regularly and/or every day, answered the call to chip in support to help keep us going. I'd really like to make it through our 10th year (and beyond!), but unless something around here changes, that may be very difficult, if not impossible.

    So, not to belabor this, I'm going to simply re-run below the section from that recent announcement that includes easy options I hope more of you will consider using to help keep us going. We've got only a few signed books left. [We've now sold the last of those, thanks! So if you now want one, please grab one at the author, Marta Steele's website!]. My thanks to those of you who have already chipped in after previous recent pleas (and, especially, to those of you who signed up to be sustaining monthly supporters!). But, to be perfectly blunt, we need more help. If you can afford to do so, I hope you will consider it. If you can't, I certainly understand. I hate asking, but I must. Either that, or I can start running nothing but "Republicans Suck!" videos and sideboobage! You'll let me know what you prefer.

    Here then, once again, are a few easy ways that you can help us keep going...

    • ONE-TIME DONATION

    If you are inclined, out of pure thanks for what we do here, and/or encouragement to continue, we'd ask that you hit our tip-jar with an online "anniversary gift" of any amount you'd like.

    You can contribute with either a credit card or PayPal at that link. Alternately, snail mail support to "Brad Friedman, 7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594 Los Angeles, CA 90028" is also very much appreciated!

    A one-time donation of any amount, from $10 to $1,000,000, is quite welcome! (We'll even be grateful for $5 if that's what you have to offer. Truly.)





    • MONTHLY SUSTAINING SUBSCRIPTION

    Even more than a one-time donation, sustaining, automated, monthly contributions of any amount you can comfortably afford is greatly appreciated as well.

    Monthly sustaining subscriptions of any amount you like are a quick and easy matter to create, via credit card or PayPal, as you prefer, and help to keep us alive year round! (For amounts other than those in the drop-down box below, please see the form in the light blue box mid-way down our right sidebar where you can specify any number!)


    Choose monthly amount... $10: $10.00 USD - monthly
    $20: $20.00 USD - monthly
    $50: $50.00 USD - monthly
    $100: $100.00 USD - monthly




    • COOL NEW PREMIUM OFFER!

    [NOTE/UPDATE: We've now sold the last of the limited number of signed copies of Marta Steele's new book! Thanks for those who purchased! If you'd like one now, please grab one at Marta's website! And, otherwise, read on below to find out about this very cool new book, in which we are featured quite prominently throughout!]

    If supporting The BRAD BLOG for the sake of support alone isn't enough to help you crack open your wallets, don't worry! We've got something to help sweeten the deal!...

    Marta Steele's newly published book, Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols: The Election Integrity Movement's Rise and Nonstop Battle to Win Back the People's Vote, 2000 - 2008, may be just the ticket!

    Finally, someone has endeavored to tell the real story of actual election fraud concerns in this country, and of the rag tag band of citizen patriots who have been quietly --- and sometimes not so quietly --- fighting against all odds to restore the very underpinnings of our democracy: the vote, the right to have that voted counted, and the right of we, the people, to know that it has been counted accurately.

    Steele chronicles the story of real American citizens and the fight for real democracy, while the rest of Rome --- and the partisans and the mainstream corporate media --- fiddle and burn.

    She also cites our work here at The BRAD BLOG hundreds of times throughout her book, beginning on page 1. (Thank you, Marta!)

    Readers of this site know that the story of U.S. democracy's sorry swoon over the past decade has not been in the horse races, but in the track conditions on which those horses have run. In Steele's book, she finally documents what many of us have been trying to do about those conditions, and what the horses have left behind on the track.

    While the accompanying "Endnotes" CD alone, included with the book and featuring TONS of supporting material, is well worth the price of admission all by itself, frankly, the book also includes a foreword by our friend Greg Palast, a preface by our friend Danny Schechter and an intro by our friends Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman.

    Steele has generously contributed a limited number of signed copies of Grassroots, Geeks, Pros and Pols to readers of The BRAD BLOG in support of our work here (thank you again, Marta!!!) Please consider grabbing yourself a copy, while supplies last, right here in support of our work as well!...

    SOLD OUT OF OUR SIGNED COPIES! THANKS!
    GRAB A COPY OF THE BOOK AT MARTA STEELE'S WEBSITE!


    Mistaken Response to Ex-Cop's Rampage Exposes Fallacy in NRA 'Guns Make Us Safer' Claim

    Sun, 02/10/2013 - 19:56

    The still unfolding events surrounding the murderous rampage that has allegedly been carried out by Christopher Jordan Dorner, a former LAPD officer who has vowed to take revenge for his 2009 job loss by killing other officers and their families, while tragic, provide a teachable moment.

    The notion advanced by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that safety can be insured if law abiding citizens simply take up arms or by adding armed police inside our schools is nothing more than dangerous nonsense.

    In this instance, as two people who had nothing to do with Dorner's rampage were mistakenly shot at dozens of times by police officers wrapped up in the manhunt, we saw what can happen when fear is added to the equation...

    Fear + guns = tragic, oft fatal consequences

    At 5:30 a.m. on Wednesday morning, Feb. 7, Torrance police officers mistook the blue Toyota Tacoma pickup truck depicted in the photo (above) as Dorner's gray Nissan Titan

    As the truck slowly rolled down a quiet residential street, at least seven officers recklessly opened fire, not only striking the truck, but nearby homes, cars and trees. The Torrance police officers, whom LAPD Police Chief Charlie Beck said were operating under "incredible tension," fired without warning or commands, injuring the two occupants of the truck, 71 year-old Emma Hernandez and her daughter, Margie Carranza, 47, who were in the process of delivering Los Angeles Times newspapers.

    "How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?" said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.

    Obviously, they didn't. Fearing for their own safety, the mere sight of the slow-moving truck was enough to trigger the barrage of, according to the LA Times, "between 20 and 30 rounds...Neighbors, however, suggested there were more shots fired."

    Long before serving in Vietnam, I learned the potential for fatal consequences when gun ownership and fear are combined.

    The year was 1959. I was eleven years old. So was my friend, Louis, who lived in a house on the next block with his mother and younger sister. His father, who was serving in the U.S. military overseas, was rarely home.

    During the sweltering summers in the San Fernando Valley, Louis sometimes liked to sleep on his back porch. His mother, made nervous by the fact that her husband was usually away, kept a loaded gun in their house.

    One night, she awakened to the sound of someone moving on the porch. She grabbed the gun and opened fire. It wasn't until after Louis fell that she realized she had killed her son.

    Gun ownership claimed two victims that night: Louis and a grieving mother left to live out her life knowing that she had taken her son's life.

    A gun is not a shield

    Dorner allegedly exchanged fire with an armed LAPD officer who was fortunate that the bullet fired by Dorner's rifle merely grazed his head. Two other Riverside officers were also armed, but that didn't prevent both of them from being shot while sitting at a red light inside their patrol car. Tragically, one of those two officers died.

    Almost daily, we are bombarded by stories of gun-related homicides, including numerous instances of mass murder. Yet, stories of armed citizens preventing these tragic events by way of guns used in self-defense are almost as scarce as hen's teeth.

    What we do see, in events like these, is the danger that can arise for everyone within range when bullets fly and nerves are shattered. The chaos of battle and the palpable fear that comes with it can impair the judgment of even highly trained law enforcement personnel --- a danger that is enhanced, not reduced by widespread, civilian possession of firearms.

    The financial incentive behind the "more guns make us safe" canard of the NRA --- the propaganda arm of the weapons industry --- is understandable. The fact that so many Americans have permitted these shameless propagandists to manipulate their fear is not.

    Courage does not come from buying firearms. It can be found only in those who stand boldly against the insanity of a heavily armed America and against those who choose to willfully misinterpret the 2nd Amendment.

    * * *Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968). Follow him on Twitter: @Cann4ing.


    U.S. Postal Service Victimized by GOP Privatization Scheme

    Fri, 02/08/2013 - 14:47

    The massive operating deficits that have driven the U.S. Post Office to announce an end to delivery of First Class mail on Saturdays, beginning in August, are not the product of postal service ineptitude. Those deficits are not the product of increased public access to emails or from competition by private delivery services like UPS or FedEx.

    The U.S. Postal Service has been victimized by the Orwellian-labeled Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA), which embodies a scheme designed to destroy the constitutionally established U.S. Postal Service in order to privatize mail and parcel delivery. In a lame duck session, at the peak of the USPS' profitability and productivity, a then Republican-controlled Congress forced the U.S. Postal Service "to pre-fund 75 years worth of pensions" in the span of ten years, "a requirement not made of any other public or private institution." If not for the onerous and unprecedented requirements of the PAEA, the U.S. Postal Service, which is not funded by any taxes, would now be experiencing a $1.5 billion surplus.

    The contrived demise of the postal service must be understood within the broader subversive goals of libertarian and right wing philosophy --- a philosophy which, despite the express provisions of both the Preamble and Article I of the U.S. Constitution, rejects the right of government to "promote the general welfare"...

    'Privatization' threatens democracy

    "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself," President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned in a speech to Congress on Apr. 29, 1938. "That, in its essence, is fascism --- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

    In The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein provided valuable insight on "privatization," a concept in which wealthy elites seek to turn everything that was historically considered part of the public domain into an activity or resource that can provide the billionaire class with an opportunity to extract a profit.

    Klein offers concrete examples documenting the authoritarian repression and economic desolation that befell every nation that embraced "neoliberal" free market economics and its accompanying austerity measures. As historian Chalmers Johnson observed on the book's cover, The Shock Doctrine "rips away the 'free trade' and globalization ideologies that disguise a conspiracy to privatize war and disaster and grab public property for the rich few" --- all, as part of "our headlong flight back to feudalism under the guise of social science and 'freedom.'"

    Where Klein discussed the disturbing prospects of privatized police and fire services, the ultimate absurdity came during the Sept. 13, 2011 'Tea Party' Presidential Primary Debate when former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) went beyond a call for the elimination of the of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Romney suggested that FEMA's critical disaster relief function should be privatized.

    Hurricane Sandy so exposed the folly of privatized disaster relief that the mendacious Republican Presidential candidate evaded reporters and the issue, even as he shamelessly sought to exploit the disaster via a staged photo op that included fake food donations.

    So when Sandy slammed into the Jersey shores and the President called for swiftly cutting through red tape to insure prompt assistance from FEMA and other federal agencies, the climate-science denying, oil industry oligarch Koch Brothers' keynote speaker, Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ), had a very significant decision to make. He could responsibly step forward on behalf of the citizens of the Garden State or he could abide by the ideological dictates of his plutocratic benefactors and be reduced to the same feckless sycophant that his party's standard bearer displayed with his fake food donations.

    To Christie's credit, he chose the former. Orwellian hard-right ideology simply gave way to a profound reality. No private organization is capable of handling a disaster of that magnitude, which requires res publica in the form of a coordinated effort of government at the federal, state and local levels. Thus, despite his prior commitment to the Koch brothers' privatization agenda, the harsh reality of the massive scope of Sandy's devastation compelled Christie to opt for sanity.

    But the U.S. Postal Service is not FEMA. The absurdity of privatization is not as readily apparent, and, as forcefully demonstrated during a Feb. 6 segment of The Ed Show on MSNBC (posted below), host Ed Schultz appropriately notes that a wide swath of the corporate-owned mainstream media has failed to report the fact that the forces of privatization, not the rise of email, explains the U.S. Postal Service's economic woes.

    Where were the Democrats?

    Schultz correctly notes that the scheme to destroy the U.S. Postal Service was hatched by Republicans during a lame duck session of Congress. Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress from 2008 to 2010. Why were there no efforts to repeal the PAEA during that session?

    Schultz discusses whether or not the GOP will succeed in destroying the Constitutionally-mandated U.S. Postal Service all together. The answer to that question, it seems, depends largely on how forceful the President and Congressional Democrats are in both speaking out and acting on the issue. It also depends on the extent of which the corporate media bothers to exercise its own Constitutional mandate to inform the electorate by addressing the real source of the Postal Services demise. It depends upon how forceful we the people are in speaking out as well.

    UPDATED 2/9/13: Credo Action is now circulating an on-line petition, which reads:

    Repeal the pre-funding mandate of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, implement common sense postal service reforms, and stop undermining the USPS with needless and unfair legislation

    Those who agree can sign the petition here.

    * * *

    Video of the 2/6/2013 Ed Show segment on the U.S. Postal Service's announcement to end Saturday deliver of First Class mail beginning in August, follows below...


    * * *Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968). Follow him on Twitter: @Cann4ing.


    Fox 'News': Germany Leads World in Solar Because 'They Get a Lot More Sun Than We Do'

    Thu, 02/07/2013 - 19:07

    This is a map of annual sunlight in the U.S. and in Germany (on lower right), according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory...

    Yet, this is how Fox Business Network "reporter" Shibani Joshi explained, on Fox "News" today, why it is that Germany leads the world in solar energy production, while "the hopes for solar in the U.S. have dimmed":

    They've got lots of sun. Right? They've got a lot more sun than we do. ... In California, it's a great solution, but here on the East Coast it's just not going to work.

    Sigh. See Media Matters for the full Fox video and actual facts and stuff, including the actual reason why solar energy is so successful in Germany, where, last year it powered about a third of the country's energies need on a single Friday in May, and a full 50% of its energy needs the next day on Saturday. (On average last year, solar accounted for some 4% of the country's energy needs, with other renewables there accounting for about 20% total. That, as the country, in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, moves away from nuclear entirely and attempts to replace all of that power with clear renewables. See our "UPDATE & CORRECTION" below for more details.)

    And, while taking in all of the misinformation from Fox above, keep in mind that yesterday PPP released the results of its 4th Annual TV News Trust Poll which finds, among other things, 70% of Republicans still actually trust Fox "News". Even more incredibly, some 67% of Republicans trust Fox more than any other source.

    Can't imagine why Republicans are so obscenely misinformed these days.

    [Hat-tip @alutz3 on the Twitters.]

    UPDATE & CORRECTION 2/9/2013: Fox' Joshi has now filed a correction, of sorts, buried on the Fox "News" website (as opposed to front and center on one of their highest watched programs, Fox and Friends, where she originally misinformed millions of Fox viewers. See below for that update and a correction of our own...

    Joshi now writes somewhere on the Fox "News" website:

    I incorrectly stated that the chief difference between the U.S. and Germany’s success with solar installations had to do with climate differences on a "Fox and Friends" appearance on Feb. 7. In fact, the difference come down more to subsidies and political priorities and has nothing to with sunshine.

    The rest of her article goes on to argue why fracking and natural gas are still much better alternatives than solar anyway. So her agenda is the same, but she's offering different arguments to support it now. That's what suffices as "reporting" on Fox "News".

    For our own part, we have a correction to make as well. We originally reported above that "solar energy is so successful in Germany" that "it powers, on average, about 30% of the country's energy needs, despite being at a higher latitude than Seattle."

    In fact, as BRAD BLOG commenter "Sven O" noted below, solar only accounted for an annual average of about 4% of the Germany's energy needs last year, with, as Reuters reported last year the country getting about 20% of its annual electricity from both solar and other renewable sources.

    The Reuters article notes, however, that last May when the country's latest solar power record was shattered, solar in Germany supplied "a third of its electricity needs on a work day, Friday, and nearly half on Saturday when factories and offices were closed.":

    (Reuters) - German solar power plants produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity per hour - equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity - through the midday hours on Friday and Saturday...
    ...
    Norbert Allnoch, director of the Institute of the Renewable Energy Industry (IWR) in Muenster, said the 22 gigawatts of solar power per hour fed into the national grid on Saturday met nearly 50 percent of the nation's midday electricity needs.
    ...
    The record-breaking amount of solar power shows one of the world's leading industrial nations was able to meet a third of its electricity needs on a work day, Friday, and nearly half on Saturday when factories and offices were closed.

    Government-mandated support for renewables has helped Germany became a world leader in renewable energy and the country gets about 20 percent of its overall annual electricity from those sources.

    Germany has nearly as much installed solar power generation capacity as the rest of the world combined and gets about four percent of its overall annual electricity needs from the sun alone. It aims to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.

    Germany has nearly as much installed solar power generation capacity as the rest of the world combined and gets about four percent of its overall annual electricity needs from the sun alone.

    We regret our original error.


    'Green News Report' - February 7, 2013

    Thu, 02/07/2013 - 17:55


     

    IN TODAY'S RADIO REPORT: Obama nominates REI CEO for DOI; Historic Nor'easter to hit Nor'east, historic low water levels in Great Lakes; Ben & Jerry's junks GMOs; Saving Indonesia's rainforest; PLUS: Find the nation's biggest polluters - in your backyard... All that and more in today's Green News Report!

    Listen online here, or Download MP3 (6 mins)...

    Link: Embed:

    Got comments, tips, love letters, hate mail? Drop us a line at GreenNews@BradBlog.com or right here at the comments link below. All GNRs are always archived at GreenNews.BradBlog.com.

    IN 'GREEN NEWS EXTRA' (see links below): "These big pools of oil will be burned if we choose to cook ourselves"; Air pollution linked to higher infant mortality; Flame retardants linked to ADHD: study; OH: Frackers illegally dump toxic fracking fluid into storm drain; Big Oil profiting from record high gas prices; BP objects to $34b spill bill from states; Faulty bolts halt offshore drilling; USDA reports climate change to slam farms, forests ... PLUS: AZ's anti-Agenda 21 bill wants to eat your brains ... and much, MUCH more! ...

    STORIES DISCUSSED IN TODAY'S 'GREEN NEWS REPORT'...

    'GREEN NEWS EXTRA' (Stuff we didn't have time for in today's audio report)...

  • New Research: World on Track for Climate Disaster:
  • Essential Climate Science Background:

    •

    KPFK 'BradCast': The Blocked Prop 37 'Recount' and the Fight to Count Paper Ballots

    Thu, 02/07/2013 - 09:35

    Yesterday on KPFK/Pacifica Radio's BradCast I was joined by Tom Courbat, longtime Election Integrity advocate and 25-year former CA county fiscal manager, and Dr. John Maa, who initiated and paid for the first "recount" of a statewide initiative in California (Prop 29).

    Courbat helped lead the coalition who recently attempted a "recount" of Prop 37, which would have required Genetically Engineered Foods to be labeled as such. Maa unofficially advised the group, until the entire process was blocked by the outrageous, and seemingly illegal, pricing set for hand-counting paper ballots in Fresno County by their Registrar of Voters Brandi Orth, as we detailed in our exclusive Special Report on Monday.

    One election official, Orth, effectively stopped the attempted confirmation of the computer-tabulated results of the election dead in its tracks, and once again put the lie to the notion that secretly-tallied paper ballots are just fine because "we can always count them after an election if there are any questions about the results."

    Unfortunately, both Orth and CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen declined to join us on the show today to discuss the disturbing facts we uncovered in our special report, which UC Irvine election law professor and nationally-recognized elections expert Rick Hasen linked to Tuesday night, along with his assessment that the seemingly "arbitrary" pricing of attempts to oversee our own elections "calls for a legislative response."

    Plus, in the second part of the show, a few quick news items and, as usual, a visit from Desi Doyen with the latest Green News Report.

    Download MP3 or listen online below [appx 58 mins]...
    [See post to listen to audio]


    GOP at Brink of (Not So) Civil War?

    Wed, 02/06/2013 - 20:35

    How far to the Right has the Republican Party gone over the past few years? So far that they now seem to even consider Karl Rove a traitor to their cause.

    As evidence, take a look at these headlines from Rightwing sites taking Rove to the woodshed this week in response to his recently announced plan to form the "Conservative Victory Project" Super PAC to keep "Tea Party" candidates who Rove feels can't win general elections, from winning Republican U.S. Senate primaries in the first place...

    That's some serious blow-back from Rove's own base --- or what used to be his base. Yes, the hard right Brain of Bush is now far "to the Left" of his own party. Oh, well. Win by the sword, etc...

    Rachel Maddow's full segment from Tuesday night, on the GOP's attempt to rebrand themselves and the civil war that seems to be ensuing --- particularly as two of the House's most extreme Rightwing loons, Rep. Paul Broun (GA) and Rep. Steven King (IA), each plan to seek their party's nomination for U.S. Senate in their respective states (Broun is really a piece of work, as Maddow details) --- follows below. Get your popcorn...



    Speed Blogging: This, That, The Other Thing

    Wed, 02/06/2013 - 14:51

    THIS) UC Irvine election law professor and nationally recognized expert Rick Hasen links today to our exclusive special report from Monday which called out the Fresno County, CA Registrar of Voters for illegally overcharging for the citizen-attempted oversight "recount" of last November's Prop 37 initiative (which would have required Genetically Modified Foods to be labeled as such.) As we reported in that investigative report, her actions effectively stopped the attempted "recount" dead in its tracks, highlighted the possibilities for abuse by a single election official and the county-by-county disparities in "recount" pricing.

    Our report also puts the lie to the notion that paper ballots, secretly-tabulated by computers, are just fine because if there are any concerns about the results of elections, we can always just count them by hand later. As our report detailed: no, we can't.

    When linking to our report today, Hasen added: "This calls for a legislative response." Of course, we concur and thank the professor for noticing.

    THAT) We'll be discussing that report today on my KPFK/Pacifica Radio BradCast at 3pm PT, when I'll be joined by Tom Courbat, who helped lead the attempted Prop 37 "recount", and Dr. John Maa who helped advise the effort after he, himself, requested and paid for the first statewide initiative "recount" ever after last June's failed Prop 29 initiative (which would have added a $1-per-pack cigarette tax to fund cancer research). Unfortunately, Fresno's Registrar Brandi Orth declined my invitation to join us on the show today to explain her position, while CA Sec. of State Debra Bowen's office has so far failed to respond at all to several invitations to do so. I'll hope that changes between now and showtime. You can listen LIVE from 3p to 4p PT right here.

    THE OTHER THING) I'd been so busy over the past week or three working on that report that I haven't really had much opportunity to enjoy the fact that The BRAD BLOG is now, officially, in our tenth year of trouble-making and muckraking. I was, however, able to take some time to discuss it, and reminisce a bit, with our friend Angie Coiro of In Deep Radio up in San Francisco. You can listen to that interview right here. Long-time BRAD BLOGGERS may particularly enjoy it.

    Relatedly, though I made a fairly impassioned pitch for support of The BRAD BLOG in my 9th Anniversary posting, and offered a very cool premium for those who may wish to purchase it, I've had astoundingly few folks willing to contribute or purchase the premium. Given the thousands who read this site every day, it's disappointing to be able to count those who have answered my plea on two hands.

    If you've gotten anything of value from this site over the years, please consider supporting us with a donation, so we can try to make it through year number 10. We are truly reader supporter (that means you), and do not rely on foundational or corporate support. You are the only thing that gives us a chance to keep going. Please consider donating a little something, if you can.


    'Green News Report' - February 5, 2013

    Tue, 02/05/2013 - 17:59


     

    IN TODAY'S RADIO REPORT: Energy Sec. Steven Chu steps down; Record high gas prices = Big Oil profits; US carbon emissions fall; Obama to blame for Superbowl power outage?; PLUS: The Superbowl ad you didn't get to see ... All that and more in today's Green News Report!

    Listen online here, or Download MP3 (6 mins)...

    Link: Embed:

    Got comments, tips, love letters, hate mail? Drop us a line at GreenNews@BradBlog.com or right here at the comments link below. All GNRs are always archived at GreenNews.BradBlog.com.

    IN 'GREEN NEWS EXTRA' (see links below): SF, NY plan 'managed retreat' from rising seas; 'Climate sensitivity' not the same as projected future warming; Windfarms break Spain energy record; GMOs: Food industry to push federal label law?; MT's wild bison vendetta; Fox News invents statistics on climate science; Coloradans fight fracking; Ozone hole contributes to climate change; Virtual hike of the Grand Canyon ... PLUS: Do sea urchins hold key to reducing carbon emissions? ... and much, MUCH more! ...

    STORIES DISCUSSED IN TODAY'S 'GREEN NEWS REPORT'...

    'GREEN NEWS EXTRA' (Stuff we didn't have time for in today's audio report)...

  • New Research: World on Track for Climate Disaster:
  • Essential Climate Science Background:

    •

    U.S. Department of Justice Leaks 'White Paper' 'Legalizing' Murdering Americans With Drones

    Tue, 02/05/2013 - 14:07

    Here is the 'white paper'. With a few tweaks and a more creative title --- like "Murder With Your Hands Clean" --- this memo could sell a lot of copies.

    And why not? Either there's a whistleblower in the Department of So-Called Justice about to be charged with espionage, and NBC is about to face the same persecution as WikiLeaks, or this is one of those "good" leaks that the White House wanted made public in an underhanded manner --- perhaps as an imagined boost to morality-challenged CIA director nominee John Brennan who faces his Senate Rejection Hearing on Thursday.

    The white paper, which is thought to be a summary of a longer memo, says the United States can murder a U.S. citizen abroad (abroad but somehow "outside the area of active hostilities" even though killing him or her seems rather active and hostile) if three conditions are met:

    1. an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;

    The memo goes on to base its claims on the supposed powers of the President, not of some random official. Who is such an official? Who decides whether he or she is informed? What if two of them disagree? What if he or she disagrees with the President? or the Congress? or the Supreme Court? or the U.S. public? or the United Nations? or the International Criminal Court? What then? One solution is to redefine the terms so that everyone has to agree. "Imminent" is defined in this memo to mean nothing at all. "The United States" clearly means anywhere U.S. troops may be.

    2. capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible;

    And if a high-level official claims it's infeasible, who can challenge that?

    3. the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

    When a U.S. drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, no one had shown either of them to meet the above qualifications.

    When a U.S. drone strike targeted and killed 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, no one had shown him to meet the above qualifications; I don't think anyone has made such a claim to this day. And what about his cousin who died for the crime of being with him at the wrong time?

    The sociopaths who wrote this memo have "legalized" the drone-killing of Americans with the exception of all the Americans known thus far to have been murdered by our government with the use of drones.

    * * *

    Cross-posted at WarIsACrime.org...

    David Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org and works for RootsAction.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.


    The Rich History of Pacifica Radio Archives

    Tue, 02/05/2013 - 09:05

    I am extremely proud that The BRAD BLOG is now a part of Pacifica Radio's nearly 65-year legacy, as highlighted in the new, very cool video above.

    My own show, The BradCast, airs on Pacifica's Los Angeles affiliate, KPFK 90.7 FM on Wednesdays at 3pm PT, and it's an honor that our broadcasts are now part of Pacifica's long and crucial legacy of broadcasting in the public interest over our public airwaves.

    Archives of the The BradCast are available at KPFK here, or via RSS feed, and even on both the Stitcher Radio and TuneIn apps on your favorite smart device.

    You can peruse and help preserve Pacifica's incredibly rich and historical audio archives at PacificaRadioArchives.org


    Forget About Fresno: How One CA County Clerk Stopped Prop 37's Oversight 'Recount'

    Mon, 02/04/2013 - 09:35

    What happened last November in California's Prop 37? Is it really possible that progressive California doesn't want Genetically Engineered Foods to be labeled as such? According to the reported results of that election, that would seem to be the case. But did Californians really vote against such labeling?

    Unfortunately, thanks to a lack of overseeable public hand-counts on Election Night, and a gaping weakness in the state's otherwise liberal "recount" law, we're unlikely to ever know for certain.

    A weeks-long investigation by The BRAD BLOG into the months-long attempted effort to confirm the results of the Prop 37 ballot initiative last November, serves to highlight not just the weakness in California "recount" law, but also the notion that paper ballots, secretly tallied by optical-scan computers, are just fine, since, as the knee-jerk saying goes, "we can always count the paper ballots by hand afterwards if there are any questions about the results."

    The fact is: no we can't. As our investigation reveals, election officials have the ability to stop an attempted "recount" dead in its tracks, by simply charging contestants anything they like for the effort. They are able to price such oversight beyond the means of most citizens, and are even doing so in apparent violation of state election code and regulations, as we found in Fresno County, CA last month during an attempted citizen oversight campaign of Prop 37 results.

    But that election was not the only one where an attempt to examine paper ballots to assure accuracy of the secret computer tallies has been stymied by officials in the Golden State. The matter is rife for abuse and continues to frustrate Election Integrity advocates, even as both the CA legislature and the CA Secretary of State have done little to correct the situation...

    Democracy 'only available to high-rollers'

    California has one of the most liberal election contest laws in the nation. It allows for any "elector" (voter) to challenge the results of any race or initiative on the ballot by filing for a hand count of ballots in any county and any number of precincts they choose, provided they pay the full costs of the hand count. (In the event that the post-election count leads to a race or initiative being overturned, those costs are to be reimbursed to the challenger.)

    Sounds great, in theory. Many other states allow such post-election oversight only under certain circumstances, such as automatic "recounts" in the event of very close elections, or by certain individuals defined as having "standing," such as a candidate in the particular race being contested.

    But as The BRAD BLOG originally highlighted as long ago as 2006, after the controversial U.S. House Special Election to replace the disgraced Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in California's 50th Congressional district, there is an enormous flaw in state law that allows any county Registrar of Voters to essentially stop any recount challenge dead in its tracks.

    That's exactly what happened in January during a citizen-led attempt to confirm the results of California's Prop 37, an initiative that would have required Genetically Engineered Foods to be labeled as such on their packaging. Despite progressive victories up and down the Golden State last November, Prop 37 --- opposed with some $44 million from corporations such as Monsanto and DuPont --- reportedly failed.

    The citizen-led attempt to make sure that Prop 37 actually failed --- since, without a citizen-funded "recount" all results in California are still tallied in secret by computers (as they still are in almost every other state in the union) --- was stopped dead in its tracks in Fresno County by the Registrar of Voters' demand for more than $18,000 before even a single ballot could be examined for accuracy. And that was just the starting price.

    "Democracy in Fresno County is only available to high-rollers," one of the citizens involved in the attempted hand-count told The BRAD BLOG. It's a story that, unfortunately, we've seen before in this state and something needs to be done about it, as it makes the notion that "we can count paper ballots later, if needed" absolutely absurd.

    Blocking oversight for the 2006 Special U.S. House Election in San Diego

    As we reported exclusively back in 2006, then-San Diego County Registrar of Voters Mikel Haas had estimated that the cost of hand-counting the CA-50 Special Election would be anywhere from $120,000 to $150,000. The citizen contesting the election at the time, Gail Jacobson, was told that she would need to offer a prior payment of $6,000 before the counting could even begin.

    Using the Registrar's un-itemized numbers, as we reported in great detail at the time, the cost of counting in San Diego amounted to approximately $1.00 per ballot. At the same time, in neighboring Orange County, a hand count that had taken place not long before the San Diego race had cost the challengers just .14 per vote.

    In the aftermath of the CA-50 race, the Democratic National Committee had considered calling for and sponsoring the challenge themselves, but decided against it at the last minute, choosing instead to have their "Voting Rights Institute" issue a statement calling on the County to pay for "a swift and verifiable 'manual count' of all 150,000 ballots cast" in the special election, given "the importance of verifying the facts related to the election and voting machine irregularities in this race," that The BRAD BLOG had detailed at the time.

    Our exclusive reports on the tainted electronic tabulation systems used in that race had been picked up and advanced by, among others, CNN's Lou Dobbs, CourtTV's Catherine Crier, Tribune Media's Robert Koehler and the far-right conservative Rush Limbaugh fill-in host and San Diego radio personality Rodger Hedgecock. They had all decried the security breaches we had painstakingly detailed in the aftermath of that election, even as folks like Hedgecock, a rock-ribbed Republican, had otherwise supported the reported winner, Brian Bilbray.

    "The San Diego County election official responsible for administrating post-election manual vote counts has given three different arbitrary cost estimates for conducting the hand count," Greg Moore, the Director of the DNC's Voting Rights Institute had complained at the time in his statement. "The quoted fees are as much as six times the costs estimates for similar hand counts in surrounding counties."

    "The estimates portray the expense of a manual vote count to be cost prohibitive," Moore said on behalf of the Democratic Party.

    Attorneys for the citizen challenger described the San Diego Registrar's quoted price for a hand tally in the CA-50 Busby/Bilbray race as arbitrary and capricious. Without the institutional support of the DNC, the count simply became impossible for the contester to afford.

    Nothing was done to standardize the pricing of such oversight in the wake of CA-50. And six years later, the problem has once again served to block a citizen attempt to assure the accurate results of their own election for the statewide Prop 37 initiative.

    Prop 37 oversight blocked by Fresno County

    A similar case to what happened in CA-50 has now helped to stymie the "recount" efforts for Prop 37 as well, according to the rag-tag coalition of citizens who had banned together in an effort to confirm the secretly-tallied results.

    One of those citizens is long-time Election Integrity (EI) advocate Tom Courbat. He spent 25 years working in local government in three different California counties, as a Senior Budget Analyst in Los Angeles County, a Fiscal Manager in Shasta County, and a Finance Director in Riverside County.

    Courbat helped lead the effort over the past several months, along with other Prop 37 proponents and EI advocates, in an attempt to confirm the officially reported results of the controversial initiative. But after counting ballots in two other counties, the group hit a cold, hard wall when the citizen oversight campaign reached Fresno County.

    "The 'price of admission'", in Fresno, "is $18,000," Courbat told us when relaying the tale of what happened after the group had carried out successful hand counts of Prop 37 ballots in both Orange County, one of the state's largest, and Sierra County, one of its smallest. In both of those counties, the cost of hand counting, determined by the local Registrars, was reasonable enough, and no significant mistallies were discovered in either of the two counties. Courbat reports that Registrars Neal Kelley in Orange and Heather Foster in Sierra were extremely cooperative in both cases.

    The group counted ballots from a sampling of precincts in Orange County, the third-largest in the state, over three days in December. The cost was $5,400 total (a $3,600 "set up" fee, and then $600 per day thereafter.) In Sierra County, the second smallest in the state, they were able to oversee a hand count of every ballot in the county --- all 1,822 of them --- in about four hours. The entire cost for the count there was just $500.

    Fresno, however --- the tenth most populous of California's 58 counties --- was another story entirely, and mirrored what had happened back in 2006 in San Diego.

    As Courbat described it --- and as the The BRAD BLOG has confirmed after reviewing documents and communications sent between him and Fresno's Registrar of Voters Brandi Orth --- he was told by Orth that, due to the way the county stored absentee vote-by-mail ballots (which comprise "at least half of all ballots cast" in the county) it would "take several days" to locate and "pull the ballots related solely to the precincts selected for recount. And if there was a subsequent desire to recount more precincts, the entire process would have to be initiated all over again."

    In fact, in a January 9th, 2013 correspondence [PDF] from Orth to Courbat, detailing the estimated costs of the count, the Registrar explains that "Fresno County has 142,109 voted vote-by-mail ballots, stored in over 315 boxes." She wrote that "it will take 5 business days at six hours per day to manually locate the vote-by-mail ballots for the precincts involved in the recount, before the recounting of ballots can commence."

    Five days just to locate the ballots?

    The letter from Orth goes on to give the various general costs for the count, including 5 "Recount Board" members (ballot counters) who would each be paid an average of more than $46/hour, including salaries and benefits, for the tally.

    $46 per hour to count ballots?

    A 3-member "Executive Staff" would also be required at the counting, according to the cost estimate included in Orth's letter to Courbat. Their costs: $648.54 per person, per day. That's $92 an hour in both salaries and benefits for each of them for the estimated 7-hour long days.

    For a count with a single 4-person counting board and 1 supervisor, Courbat was told his coalition would be charged, in total (in addition to the $14,000 set up fee) $4,029.96/day to count the one ballot initiative in Fresno. That, compared to $600/day for a hand count by a single counting board in Orange County and $500/day for the same in Sierra County.

    During discussions with Orth about the estimated costs of counting in Fresno (according to the CA Election Code, the challengers were able to choose which counties from among CA's 58 that they wanted to count, so long as they were actively counting in at least one county), Courbat was stunned to learn that costs were running up, even during his initial phone conversations with the Registrar.

    "She indicated that staff was already keeping track of all the time they were spending 'getting ready' for the recount," Courbat told us, at which point he says he asked her: "We're not on the clock in our conversation right now to get a cost estimate, are we?"

    He says she replied, "well, yes". After which, Courbat reports, "it became apparent that Fresno County intended to charge for anything and everything they possibly could in regard to the recount."

    When Courbat finally received his official estimate from Orth, "It indicated we should bring $18,823.52 to the recount on Monday morning to cover their 'set up' costs and first day costs of over $4,000." The payment needed to be provided, according to Orth's letter, "in either cash, cashier's check or money order payable to the County of Fresno."

    Courbat says, "She also indicated that her office had already incurred a cost of about $4,000 prior to providing us with a cost estimate, which she verbally stated she expected to be paid." He says the group will be doing no such thing.

    The prohibitive fees resulted in the group being forced to call off the Prop 37 "recount" effort entirely.

    Violations of election code, regulations and state clerks' recommendations

    "Based upon the numbers provided by the Fresno ROV," Courbat, the veteran CA county Finance Director told us, "it would have cost nearly $38,000 by the end of the first week, $58,000 by the end of the second week and $78,000 by the end of week three."

    "Obviously the cost is so extreme that the common citizen could not afford to have a recount conducted in Fresno County," he said. "The difference is so stark between Fresno and Orange as to be insulting to the cause of Democracy."

    But it wasn't only "insulting", it very well may have been illegal.

    We sought comment from Orth to give her the opportunity to justify the seemingly very high costs of hand counting in her county versus other counties in the state.

    Orth responded several times in detail to our questions. She believes she is going strictly by the book, and offered The BRAD BLOG an Excel spreadsheet breakdown [XLS] of the specific daily costs she had estimated for the Prop 37 count. While her breakdown did not include details on the $14,000 set up fee, it detailed expenses of daily costs, including the seemingly exorbitant salaries and benefits for members of both the Recount Board (five of them, four of whom would determine whether ballots read YES or NO in the Prop 37 race, the other would serve as "supervisor") and "Executive Staff" (three of them, whose roles in the recount were not specified by Orth, nor by state law.)

    While Orth cited California Election Code and the state's Code of Regulations, and included an attached document with recommendations for "Recount Billable Items" from the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials (CACEO) for staffing levels and salaries, her estimated costs for at least some of those items are in direct contradiction of several of those authorities.

    For example, Orth's breakdown of average costs for each member of the Recount Board is $38.18/hour including both salary and benefits. Each Executive Staff would receive an average of $76.80/hour in salary and benefits for overseeing the hand count. (Orth's per hour numbers are lower than our own estimate offered above because she presumed an 8-hour day, rather than the 7-hour day she had specified in the estimate given to Courbat.)

    But CA Election Code 15625 specifically notes that "Each member of a recount board shall receive the same compensation per day as is paid in the jurisdiction within which the recount is being conducted to members of precinct boards [poll workers]."

    Moreover, the CACEO statement from 1991 on "How to Prepare a Recount Estimate" [PDF] which Orth cited, and was kind enough to send to us along with her response, echoes that section of the Election Code by specifically noting that Recount Board members are to be "Paid same as precinct workers/No overhead."

    "Fresno County followed these guidelines in preparing the estimates for Mr. Courbat," Orth told us in her initial response [PDF].

    But Fresno County appears to have done no such thing.

    How much do precinct workers receive in Fresno County? "Precinct Officer Clerks are paid a flat rate of $150 per day in accordance with Section 1314 of the Fresno County Salary Resolution," Orth explained in one of her responses [PDF] to us. "There is no hourly rate for this type of employment arrangement."

    And yet, by her own recount cost estimates, Recount Board members would not be paid the Fresno precinct worker rate of $150/day (18.75/hour for an 8-hour day) as prescribed by law and echoed by CACEO recommendations, but rather, Orth had decided to use her own employees from the Elections Office to hand count ballots instead, at an average cost of $305/day ($38.18/hour for an 8-hour day).

    Orth explained that rather than hire voters at $150 day, as state regulations and CACEO guidelines call for, she chose to "exercise the option of utilizing employees of the Elections Office, as Board Members, to conduct the proposed Prop. 37 recount because they are the most experienced in all aspects of the elections process."

    We asked what experience such employees bring to the process of determining whether voters had chosen either YES or NO on Prop 37 on each ballot, and she explained in a subsequent note [PDF] that, she "knew that the ultimate scope of the recount could also include an examination of all of the election material, such as precinct ballot statements, 1% tally results, rosters, canvass results, etc. The election staff were also responsible for several of these processes during the election and their experience would be beneficial to provide any explanation to the proponents."

    "Fresno County takes a recount request as a serious matter and ultimately my Office wants to be as efficient as possible in responding to the proponents requests and questions," she added. "I made the decision that it would be appropriate to use experienced election staff to not only serve as recount board members but also to utilize them to explain and respond to any other election process question."

    But that's not what either the law or the state clerks' association calls for. Also, since she included a full three Executive Staff members to be present each day (one of whom was to be herself), which neither the state Election Code nor CACEO calls for, it seems there would have been more than enough "experience" in the room to guide the ballot counters through any tricky questions that arose without using her elections office employees as counters.

    Making matters still worse, according to section "20818 Staffing" in the CA Code of Regulations [PDF], as posted at the Secretary of State's website, employees of the Elections Office "shall not be compensated as a special recount board member...for any day for which the jurisdiction otherwise compensates the employee unless the employee uses one of his or her vacation days."

    None of the workers were planning to use vacation days, it seems, otherwise they would not have been specified to receive their normal salary and benefits for the recount, but rather the flat $150/day allowed by state and county law.

    When confronted with all of these citations, and her seeming disregard for the state code, regulations and even CACEO recommendations, Orth was unmoved. She replied in her final response [PDF]: "I am confident that our decisions are consistent with the law, and not only provide assurance to our electorate that any recount in Fresno County is handled lawfully, but that it would be conducted with the best interest of the voters in mind."

    How vastly overcharging voters to confirm the results of their own election is in the "best interest of the voters" remains unclear.

    In all, Orth's estimated daily costs for the Recount Board alone was more than 200% of the costs allowed by state law. Rather than the $1,527.26 Orth was charging, the cost should have been just $750 for a four-person board plus one board supervisor, paid $150/day each.

    But those are overcharges that we were specifically able to nail down in comparison to what they should have been, as specified by the state Election Code. There seems to be no legal authority, on the other hand, that specifies the need for three "Executive Staff" --- the County Clerk (Orth), the Systems and Procedures Manager, and the Principal Staff Analyst, at an average hourly expense of $76.80 in both salary and benefits, to be present for each 8-hour day of counting. Those numbers seem to be included in the estimate purely at the whim of Orth. Neither Orange nor Sierra Counties seem to have charged anything like that for whatever Executive Staff may have been present during the Prop 37 hand counts in those counties.

    Despite our request, we did not receive a detailed breakdown from Orth for her seemingly exorbitant $14,000 set up costs.

    Not Just Fresno

    But this article is not meant to vilify Orth as a bad actor. Rather we are hoping to detail an endemic problem in both California law, along with the short-sighted notion that paper ballots, tallied by computers in a way that humans cannot oversee on Election Night, can easily be counted by hand after an election if there are ever any questions about computer-tabulated results.

    Dr. John Maa, an Assistant Professor at the UCSF Division of General Surgery and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Heart Association, San Francisco Division, was an ardent proponent of the failed Prop 29. That initiative, from the June 2010 primary ballot in California, would have would have increased taxes on cigarettes by $1-per-pack to fund cancer research. According to state-wide computer tallies, it reportedly lost by fewer than 30,000 votes out of more than 5 million cast statewide that year.

    Maa funded and carried out a recount of that ballot initiative in what was, at the time, the first-ever recount of a statewide proposition in California. Prop 37 would have been the second such effort and Maa unofficially help to advise the group hoping to confirm its results. He told The BRAD BLOG that the Prop 29 count "lasted nearly 3 months, and involved almost 60 days of hand recounts."

    He cited similarly disparate charges from county to county during his own attempt to confirm the results of that ballot initiative. That effort set him back some $250,000 of his own money, he told us, and led to similarly exorbitant prices in counties like Los Angeles and Sacramento.

    Maa broke down for us the disparate approximate costs he was charged to confirm the computerized results of the election in various CA counties this way:

    • Orange County: .29 per ballot
    • Placer County: .94 per ballot
    • Los Angeles County: $2.24 per ballot
    • Sacramento County: $3.86 per ballot

    No, the per ballot price for counts in those last two counties are not typos.

    "A wide variability of recount costs across the State of California was revealed through both the Prop 29 and Prop 37 recounts," Maa told us, adding, "The estimated costs and initial deposit requested by the Fresno Registrar for the Prop 37 recount exceeded the startup costs for all of the counties in the Prop 29 recount."

    Again, the point in highlighting these issues is not to vilify any particular state county clerk, but rather to place a spotlight on the fact that there are few if any standards for setting prices for such hand counts. That lack of standards is both rife for abuse and makes the possibility of citizen oversight of secret computer tallies next to impossible for all but the wealthiest of challengers, such as Maa, or a large organization, like the DNC.

    For example, could a candidate for the Board of Supervisors in Fresno County who had questions about the results of her election afford $18,000 for one single day of hand counting in order to verify the results of that election? Would such a candidate have $38,000 on hand after the election for a single week of hand counting? It seems unlikely at best, in most cases.

    The issue seems to make laughable the notion that "paper ballots tallied secretly by computers are fine, because if there are any questions about the results we can always go back and count the paper ballots." Well, good luck with that!

    Why No Cost Standards?

    "I believe that certain Registrars have misapplied the Elections Code and Secretary of State's instructions about allowable recount expenses," says Maa. "I do believe that the California Legislature, Secretary of State, State Board of Equalization or State Auditor should review the costs associated with recounts to better understand the inconsistencies across the State of California. As our State does not have a mandatory trigger for an automatic recount in the case of a close contest, requesting a recount remains the primary strategy to audit the certified results."

    So what has the state Legislature, or CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen (D), done to try and solve the problem or make the system more fair and accessible for average citizens?

    Since taking office in 2006, Bowen's work in bringing first-of-its-kind independent oversight to the electronic voting systems used in CA, via her landmark "Top to Bottom Review" of all such systems, was both laudable and key to improved security for the easily-hacked, oft-failed systems used in CA and all other states in the union. But little has been done to ensure private citizens (voters!) --- with concerns about the secret vote-tabulation systems still in use across all 58 counties in the state --- can verify the accuracy of those systems.

    We asked Bowen's office for comment about the seemingly exorbitant estimated costs for hand counting in Fresno versus other counties, as well as the similarly exorbitant costs estimated for the CA-50 Special Election in San Diego in 2006.

    "The secretary of state's office could not speak to what the costs are from county to county," Bowen's spokesperson Shannan Velayas told The BRAD BLOG. Velayas included a 2008 letter [PDF] highlighting the Secretary's support of AB 2959, a state bill that year which would have required Registrars to provide a voter requesting a recount with an itemized estimate of costs associated with conducting it.

    "This measure provides additional transparency so voters are better informed about the costs associated with a recount," Bowen said in the letter.

    The bill, however, did not call for standardized pricing and still allowed Registrars to set largely any pricing they wanted. It passed unanimously in both the state Assembly and Senate before being vetoed by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) who wrote in his veto message that the bill "imposes an unnecessary mandate on elections officials. Recounts are requested in a scant few elections and the proponents have failed to demonstrate any abuse on the part of elections officials estimating recount costs."

    Some of those who have attempted recounts disagree with the former Governor about a lack of "abuse on the part of elections officials estimating recount costs."

    (Unfortunately, after responding to previously queries, Bowen's office did not respond to our request for comment after we detailed the specific violations of state elections code seen in Fresno's estimated costs for Recount Board workers. We'll update if her office offers comment.)

    Maa suggests that solutions to the problem "might include a standard price per ballot recounted, requiring the Registrars to provide a better estimate of recount costs upfront, and standardizing the total recount fees within a reasonable range across counties."

    "A candidate or recount requester should not be disadvantaged in one county relative to a candidate/ requester in a neighboring County where the recount fees can be an order of magnitude less expensive," he said, citing another recent attempted "recount" in a race for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors which was "cancelled after the recount requester was informed of the very high startup and daily costs for the recount by the San Francisco Elections Office."

    Not all "recounts" are the same, Maa observed. "I was pleased to note in reviewing the costs across California counties yesterday that recent recounts have been held that were relatively inexpensive, and of one recount that reversed the initial outcome resulting in a refund of all of the recount monies deposited by the requester."

    Unfortunately, that's not the case in every situation, and an election official who wishes, for any reason, to keep a count from going forward has the complete capacity to do so. And that's here in California, with our liberal "recount" laws. Attempts at citizen oversight of computerized tabulation systems in other states is likely even much more difficult if not impossible in many cases.

    For his part, though the results of Prop 37 can no longer be confirmed for accuracy, Courbat is working with a member of the state legislature in hopes of introducing a future bill that might address the problem. Standardizing costs for such counts, as Maa suggests, would be a very good place to start.

    "Citizens need 'cost containment' of recount costs to ensure every citizen, regardless of his/her economic status, can exercise the basic democratic right to a recount," Courbat says. "And it SHOULD be a big deal for crying out loud, it is the last line of defense in maintaining the democratic operations of our republic."

    Until such a bill is signed into law --- and until "Democracy's Gold Standard" of fully transparent, precinct-based hand counts are in place, allowing for full citizen oversight on Election Night --- elections in California and most of the rest of the nation, are still an exercise in faith and trust in secret vote tallies and the officials who run them. That hardly seems the way to run the "world's greatest democracy".

    * * *

    UPDATE 2/6/2013: UC Irvine election law professor and nationally recognized expert Rick Hasen links to our report today and adds: "This calls for a legislative response." Of course, we concur.

    UPDATE 2/7/2013: We discussed this issue with both Tom Courbat and Dr. John Maa on my KPFK/Pacifica Radio show on Wednesday. Unfortunately, both Fresno Country Registrar of Voters Brandi Orth and CA Sec. of State Debra Bowen declined to join us for the conversation. Listen to the show here...

    * * *Please support The BRAD BLOG's fiercely independent, award-winning coverage of your electoral system, as available from no other media outlet in the nation --- now in our TENTH YEAR! --- with a donation to help us keep going (Snail mail, more options here). If you like, we'll send you some great, award-winning election integrity documentary films in return! Details right here...


    Photo of the Moment: Shooting 'Skeeters'

    Sat, 02/02/2013 - 21:53

    Dang. He totally bagged those pigeons.


    NEWSFLASH: Federal Criminal James O'Keefe Is a Liar

    Fri, 02/01/2013 - 18:07

    You'll be shocked --- shocked --- to learn (once again) that rightwing political propagandist and operative James O'Keefe, a federal criminal, is also a professional liar.

    From O'Keefe's Project Veritas Investigates: Voter Fraud" racket on January 11, 2012...

    That was the lie. Here's the truth. From TPM's report on the dropped criminal investigation of a Congressman's son today:

    Police in Arlington County, Va. have dropped an investigation into Patrick Moran, the son of Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), stemming from an election-season "voter fraud" hidden-camera video released by conservative activist James O'Keefe.

    Police told a local Patch reporter that both Morans had cooperated with the investigation, but that O'Keefe had not complied with several requests for the full, unedited video in his possession, along with the identity of the videographer.
    ...
    "We want the full version. That's our job, to do a thorough investigation. And that's a huge piece of the process right there," [police spokesman Dustin Sternbeck told Patch.]

    Of course, we've highlighted O'Keefe's lies about releasing full, unedited videos, from which he creates his doctored and deceptively edited video propaganda, many times.

    For example, despite his fundraising pleas to the contrary, it took a deal for criminal immunity from the California Attorney General in 2010 before O'Keefe finally agreed to turn over the raw, unedited videos from his phony 2009 ACORN "Pimp" Hoax to law enforcement. (The AG's investigation determined that the only violations of criminal law seen on the tapes were O'Keefe's.)

    The screenshot from his dishonest fundraising plea at the top of this article was published after he and his co-conspirators trumped up secretly video taped "voter fraud" incidents during last year's New Hampshire Primary.

    As we reported in great detail at the time, even while attempting to raise money on his fake "voter fraud investigation" --- which led to the Republican Mayor of Manchester calling for O'Keefe and his gang to be "arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law" --- O'Keefe lied about the release of what he claimed were the full, unedited tapes from that particular scam. They weren't. James O'Keefe had lied then, just as he did about the ACORN tapes, just as he has done, according to law enforcement, in the Virginia case.

    James O'Keefe is a professional liar. That's how he makes a living. Alert the media.


    Al Gore: 'Our Democracy Has Been Hacked'

    Fri, 02/01/2013 - 16:36

    Speaking to Jon Stewart on The Daily Show this week, former Vice-President Al Gore said:

    Our democracy has been hacked. It's been taken over. It no longer operates the way our founders intended it to, because of anonymous donors, big money, corporations as people, might makes right. The lobbyists and special interests are now in control. They can't do anything without begging permission from the powerful special interests and it is time that we take our democracy back and it can be done.

    Gore also offered a few interesting words about capitalism in the 1/30/2013 clip from The Daily Show which is posted below. In a lengthier conversation on MSNBC's Morning Joe this week, posted below as well, Gore also discusses the deadly costs of the uncontrolled dumping of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and the ravaging effects its having on our planet, criticism of his sale of Current TV to the Qatari-owned Al Jazeera, and he goes on to say that "both capitalism and democracy have been hacked"...



    * * *Please support The BRAD BLOG's fiercely independent, award-winning coverage of your electoral system, as available from no other media outlet in the nation, with a donation to help us keep going (Snail mail, more options here). If you like, we'll send you some great, award-winning election integrity documentary films in return! Details right here...


    Colbert Now Accepts Science of Climate Change, But 'Problem is Too Big to Cure, Just Give Up'

    Fri, 02/01/2013 - 09:40

    On Monday's Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert brilliantly exposed the core of the Rightwing's denial of climate science. Once you accept the scientific evidence, he suggests, you might feel compelled for a minute to do something about it, but there are just too many people who are profiting off what we are doing now. Plus, it all sounds very hard.

    "Sure, I know America beat Tojo, we crushed Hitler, we put a man on the moon. But incrementally reducing C02 emissions? That sounds like a lot of work."

    Colbert has a better idea. Just have another piece of "cheese cake, crawl in to bed, and wait for death"...