Voting machine suit seeks answers

[Mary Eberle <m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Mr. Muschick,

Thank you for writing the story in The Morning Call about the lawsuit 
concerning voting machines in Pennsylvania.

Toward the end, there is a sentence that I would like to draw to your 
attention:

"He [Mark Aronchick] said last week's general election, the first with 
widespread use of electronic systems because federal law required it, 
went well in Pennsylvania and the country."

We have been having a similar discussion about whether federal law 
requires electronic voting here in Colorado. Here is a note from a 
recent e-mail:

******************************************************************
From: Lou Puls [mailto:lpuls@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:42 PM
To: CVV Voting
Subject: RE: DC Article: "Larimer Shows Up Boulder"

Again, there was nothing mandatory in the federal HAVA law -- even the 
full title has the word 'voluntary' -- no big stick there.
What became mandatory was the foolish state statute, in order to 
implement grabbing the carrot of Federal funding -- a clever 
Ney/Abramoff/DeLay device to further corrupt elections.

Lou
*********************************************************************

I believe that we need to hold all election officials to the truth. 
Please seek out Pennsylvania people to quote who can point to 
Aronchick's false statement and give the readers the truth about why the 
nation has been plagued by these voting machines.

Are you subscribed to the list serves for
Citizens for Verifiable Voting (http://www.coloradovoter.net/) or 
Coloradoans for Voting Integrity (http://www.countthevotecolorado.org/)? 
The archives may be of use to you.

Sincerely,
Mary

Mary Eberle
1520 Cress Court
Boulder, CO 80304