Re: You really need to read this - trouble at the top

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Bob:

I am not a lawyer.

Questions that I would have:

(1) Who has standing to file a suit?

(2) What court has jurisdiction?

(3) If multiple courts have jurisdiction, which court would most likely be
able to deliver a verdict in time?

(4) Does Article VII Section 11 of the Colorado Constitution apply?
- - - - 
Purity of elections. The general assembly shall pass laws to secure the
purity of elections, and guard against abuses of the elective franchise.
- - - -

In terms of (4)  ... if recounts are theoretically impossible and the
original counts are theoretically impossible to verify, isn't that a blatant
violation of the section?

Those are question off the top of my head.

Ralph




On Tue, 11 May 2004 08:00:14 -0600, you wrote:

>I have spoken with Lynn and have made an appointment to speak with her in 2
>hours for tips on what facts to provide to our lawyers to advocate for a
>machine-less election in Colorado this fall.  Please advise if there are
>other questions you would like posed to her at 10 this a.m.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: alkolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 9:37 PM
>To: CAMBER; NEWS; Citizens for Verifiable Voting; Bob Mcgrath; Carol Mehesy;
>Donna Plutschuck; Monty Lambie; Pete Klammer; Peter Raich; Tracy Abell
>Subject: You really need to read this - trouble at the top
>
>
>
>Folks, 
>
> 
>
>The report below deserves your attention.
>
> 
>
>We've got to get our Representatives to understand the perils of
>non-verifiable elections.
>
> 
>
>Al
>
> 
>
> 
>
>CAMBER
>
>Citizens for Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results
>
>2867 Tincup Circle
>
>Boulder, CO 80305
>
>303-494-1540
>
>AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx> 
>
>www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz <http://www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz>  
>
>http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com <http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com>  
>
> 
>
> 
>
>
>  _____  
>
>
>From: SusanMarieWeber [mailto:susanmarieweber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 8:24 PM
>To: EG Group Notices
>Subject: Federal Commission NixesTalk Of Paper-Only Elections
>
> 
>
>http://www.rense.com/general52/fedd.htm
><http://www.rense.com/general52/fedd.htm> 
>
> 
>
>Federal Commission NixesTalk Of  Paper-Only Elections
>
> 
>
>Stacks Panels With Proponents Of Paperless Touchscreens
>
> 
>
>The atmosphere was electric. News cameras and documentary filmmakers jostled
>for position at last Wednesday's packed hearing of the federal Election
>Assistance Commission (EAC) on the "Use, Security, and Reliability of
>Electronic Voting Systems" in Washington, D.C. The elegant oak-paneled room
>was jammed with reporters, elections officials, business reps, and a
>sprinkling of activists. 
>
>  
>
>Tensions were running high as public confidence in America's electronic
>voting systems is collapsing. A steady stream of scientific reports and news
>stories about shady voting companies, who secretly install uncertified
>software, has the nation's election officials reeling. 
>
>  
>
>At the beginning of the hearing Chairman Dr. DeForest B. Soaries, Jr. said,
>"Voting has evolved, since the founding of our democracy. "Devolved" would
>have been a better description. 
>
> 
>
>At least one state, Missouri, will consider legislation (House Bill 1744)
>that effectively bans the use of all voting machines, including ballot
>scanners. California's Secretary of State Kevin Shelley has decertified
>thousands of Diebold touchscreen machines and has called for a criminal and
>civil investigation of the company. Several states are considering requiring
>printer attachments for paperless voting machines, while others are simply
>panicking and looking to Washington for guidance. 
>
>  
>
>And guidance is all they're going to get. The Bush Administration has pulled
>funding for the development and implementation of any meaningful standards
>or certification for voting technology, not that those things would make any
>voting machine secure, or give back to the voter their right to vote. 
>
>  
>
>At least the EAC hearing was an opportunity for a full and fair debate about
>the issue. Yes? Not a chance. 
>
> 
>
>Although Chairman Soaries went out of his way to announce that the
>Commission is bi-partisan, two Republicans and two Democrats. Bi-partisan
>doesn't mean balanced. If the Commission was balanced the panels should have
>been balanced, and they most definitely, were not. Of those who testified on
>the issue of voter verified paper trails (VVPT), 14 were against it and 5
>were for it.
>
> 
>
>And no one spoke in favor of paper-only elections. That was no accident. 
>
>  
>
>During a break in the testimony I hustled up to the front of the room to ask
>Chairman Soaries if there was going to be any testimony that would question
>the legal right or technical wisdom of allowing machines to be involved in
>the voting process. Soaries seemed taken aback by the question. He responded
>that it was not the roll of the Commission to address that issue. The
>Commission, he said, was there to "assist" election officials and voting
>machine manufacturers in setting guidelines for voting technology. 
>
>  
>
>That seems at odds with the EAC's mission statement which is quite broad,
>"The United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent
>bipartisan agency, is authorized by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to
>serve as "...a national clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of
>information" on various matters involving the administration of Federal
>elections."
>
> 
>
>Apparently, all the EAC wants to compile is a list of voting machine
>technologies from which election officials may chose. It's like picking
>rotten apples out of the same barrel. 
>
>  
>
>Soaries added that election officials know that they can use paper ballots
>instead of machines. But, that's not really true. Many state elections
>officials believe that the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandates the
>purchase of modern voting technology. It doesn't. Some state officials also
>believe that the blind and English-illiterate are legally entitled to these
>machines. They aren't. Someone at the EAC should call Rhode Island's
>Election Commission (401-222-2340) and order a tactile paper ballot for the
>blind. They should also look into how other countries handle the illiteracy
>problem through the use of pictures and symbols as well as words. See:
>www.electionaccess.org/Bp/Ballot_Templates.htm. 
>
>  
>
>The Commission put on a good show of giving voting machine vendors a hard
>time. However, Chairman Soaries reassured the vendors that the Commission
>was there to "assist" them. It was clear that the EAC has set the stage for
>another problematic "public-private partnership".
>
> 
>
>In his testimony Dr. Avi Rubin debunked the myth that there's any security
>or integrity to paperless voting technology. And California's Secretary of
>State Kevin Shelley was also impressive. However, excluding Avante, the same
>old lies were told by the vendors, election officials, and organizations
>like the League of Women Voters. Their mantra was, as always: nothing is
>100% accurate, but the machines are safe, secure, and "fun" to use. People
>really "like" using them. They even had polls to prove it. 
>
>  
>
>The Commission's talking points for future action were also the usual stuff:
>improve voter and poll worker education, gain back voter confidence
>(emphasis on "con"), and improve the public's perception of whatever the
>heck is going on. Apparently, all the bad news about voting machines is
>scaring people. And that might mean that people will not vote. Of course,
>voters aren't voting anyway, the machines are. But, the EAC was not going to
>let that "reality trump the importance of "perception", a word Chairman
>Soaries repeatedly used. 
>
> 
>
>Conny McCormack, County Clerk and Registrar of Los Angeles County, who is
>very pro-paperless touchscreen technology, employed a very clever strategy
>in her remarks to the Commission. McCormack pointed out that public concerns
>raised about touchscreens are the same concerns raised in the past about
>lever machines and ballot scanners. She clearly wanted to give the
>impression that U.S. elections were secure using those technologies. But,
>the facts prove otherwise. 
>
>  
>
>One of the best articles written about vote fraud and technical
>irregularities is the 1996 article, Pandora's Black Box, by Philip M.
>O,Halloran. One of the worst vote fraud cases happened in Cincinnati, Ohio. 
>
>  
>
>The following is an excerpt from the Cincinnati Post of October, 30th, 1987:
>"Cincinnati Bell security supervisors ordered wiretaps installed on county
>computers before elections in the late 1970s and early 1980s that could have
>allowed vote totals to be altered, a former Bell employee says in a sworn
>court document. Leonard Gates, a 23-year Cincinnati Bell employee until he
>was fired in 1986, claims in a deposition filed Thursday in Hamilton County
>Common Pleas Court, to have installed the wiretaps. Cincinnati Bell
>officials denied Gates, allegations that are part of a six-year-old civil
>suit that contends the elections computer is subject to manipulation and
>fraud. Gates claims a security supervisor for the telephone company told him
>in 1979 that the firm had obtained a computer program through the FBI that
>gave it access to the county computer used to count votes." 
>
> 
>
>O'Halloran reports, "Another Cincinnati Bell employee, named Bob Draise,
>admitted to being involved in a second phase of the illegal operation, which
>involved wiretapping several prominent Cincinnati political figures
>including a crusader against pornography named Keating and the Hamilton
>County commissioner, Allen Paul." "...as a result of the ensuing scandal,
>Draise was convicted and five Cincinnati police officers, who were allegedly
>involved in the wiretapping operation, abruptly resigned. The alleged
>involvement of the FBI was never pursued and the Bureau itself did not
>follow up on the Gates allegations. In spite of all the evidence, the appeal
>by the plaintiff failed and the issue was laid to rest." 
>
>  
>
>There are numerous examples of vote fraud and irregularities down through
>the decades that myself and others have enumerated and can be found on the
>following webpage: www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachineErrors.htm
><http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachineErrors.htm> 
>
> 
>
>Judging from what's going on in Missouri and around the country, it appears
>that the public is finally beginning to question America's 100-year bad
>habit of using voting machines. In was an interesting moment at the EAC
>hearing when Chairman Soaries said that history was being made that day. Our
>right to vote was being debated all over again. And in that beautiful
>oak-paneled room I could almost see our founding fathers scratching their
>heads wondering how we could have messed up such a simple process. But,
>crooks love chaos. And we've got that by the bushel load. 
>
>      
>
>My mantra remains: Vote Paper Ballots, Ditch the Machines. 
>
> 
>
>Lynn Landes is one of the nation's leading journalists on voting technology
>and democracy issues. Readers can find her articles at
>http://www.ecotalk.org/ EcoTalk.org. Lynn is a former news reporter for
>http://www.dutv.org/ DUTV and commentator for the British Broadcasting
>Corporation (BBC). Contact info:
><mailto:lynnlandes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>lynnlandes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / (215) 629-3553