NY times letter from Peter Peckarsky

[abbiehoff]

A letter from Peter Peckarsky in today's NY Times.

"the probability that John Kerry won Ohio (and thus the presidency) was about 99 percent"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/opinion/l10vote.html

[babylonsister]

1. Thanks for this, and thanks to the NYTimes

for printing it!

[meganmonkey]

2. That's pretty good!

I am glad to see it in there. Part of me wishes he had been more feisty about it all (They're liars and theives! And evil bastards!), but I know you catch more flies with honey :)

[Quakerfriend]

3. Gotta love this line:

The laws of statistics do not change at the United States border.

Do you think they are getting closer to the fire??

OR is this just 'a little late' as per the status quo from the Times?

[BeFree]

4. Better late than never

It's 2006 that is our goal now. If we get our votes back, we will put dems in charge of congress, impeachment will ensue, and bushco will be stopped right on the edge of the abyss.

Florida 2000 was stolen. With the proof of 2004 also being stolen, 2006 will be a clinch because of the massive turnout reacting to the thefts.

Gotta find local candidates, starting now. And do away with the e-vote in 12 months, tops.

[kster]

6. Yes

paper ballots fixed is priority #1. I'm not sure how I could push myself and other people to vote in 2006 ,if the problem is not solved........ NGU!

[understandinglife]

8. I do not think stealing an election is protected by a statute of ...

....limitation. :evilgrin:

Peace.


TBO;24/7

[Amaryllis]

9. Will not be a clinch unless we get significant changes in e-voting issue.

[meganmonkey]

5. This is the editorial he is responding to, BTW:

It is no longer available free on the NYT site, but here is the link:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0C1FF6385F0C708CDDAB0894DD404482

(I took out the second paragraph only which mostly gave background on the case - so most of the article is here)

One of the strengths of our democracy is that citizens are free to question the results of an election. But four lawyers who did just that in Ohio, contesting President Bush's victory, are now facing sanctions. These lawyers, and other skeptics, may not have cast significant doubt on the legitimacy of the outcome. But punishing them for trying would send a disturbing message.
---snip---

Ohio's attorney general, who represents Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell in the matter, has asked the State Supreme Court to sanction Mr. Arnebeck and the others for mounting a "frivolous" challenge. Even though their case was weak, these lawyers did a public service by raising concerns that many voters shared. The burden put on Ohio's courts by their challenge was minimal. Courts know what to do when they get a weak case: throw it out.

Imposing sanctions would be likely to deter people from raising concerns about future elections, and ultimately undermine public confidence in the electoral process. The Ohio Supreme Court should make it clear that people have the right to challenge election results without fear of retribution.

It is odd that Mr. Blackwell, of all people, is requesting sanctions. He made many bad decisions as Ohio's top elections official, including one to reject voter registrations filed on insufficiently thick paper, an order he later retracted. Mr. Blackwell and the officials responsible for the 10-hour lines have not been held accountable for putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of Ohio voters. It will be a poor reflection on our election system if the only ones punished are the lawyers who tried to point out these deficiencies.

[troubleinwinter]

7. Peckarski's response:

I write as one of the four lawyers who face sanctions for contesting the Bush-Cheney victory in Ohio. (The others are Robert Fitrakis, Susan Truitt and Clifford Arnebeck.)

Concerning our "weak" case: We filed more than 900 pages of evidence opposing sanctions sought against us because the case was "frivolous." A critical issue was large discrepancies between official results and results of exit polls directed by Warren Mitofsky, a polling expert.

Our expert witness, Dr. Ron Baiman of the University of Illinois, testified that the probability that John Kerry won Ohio (and thus the presidency) was about 99 percent.

In a companion case affidavit, Dr. Baiman stated that Mr. Mitofsky's Jan. 19 explanation of the exit poll results does not suffice.

George W. Bush and Richard Cheney each waived their right to cross-examine Dr. Baiman and refused to appear for depositions, thus missing a golden opportunity to explain their precise involvement in the election and to enhance our country's stature in the minds of foreign citizens who know the meaning of a large discrepancy between exit poll results and official results.

The laws of statistics do not change at the United States border.