Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News January 16, 2006

[autorank]

He gave his life for democracy
“"Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us."”


He told the most profound TRUTH about our current circumstance on Martin Luther King's birthday:
“A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men.".”

Never forget the pursuit of Truth.
Only the deluded & complicit accept election results on blind faith.

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News January 16, 2006

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.

Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.

If you can:

1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.

2. Post stories using the "Election Fraud and Reform News Sources" listed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x371233

3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.

4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.

If you want to know how post "News Banners" or other images, go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=371233#371391



All previous daily threads are available here:
http://www.independentmediasource.com/DU_archives/du_2004erd_el_ref_fr_thr_calenders.htm

Please

"Recommend"

for the Greatest Page (it's the link just below).

[autorank]

1. DC: NAACP Calls on Gov Purdue to give up GA voter ID law!!!

People fought and died for voting rights. What do those who oppose those rights think, that we’ll just roll over? Not like, not now, not ever.

NAACP: Georgia's New Voter ID Law Will Unfairly Burden Thousands of Black, Poor and Elderly Voters
NAACP is requesting Gov. Sonny Perdue distance himself from the legislation

http://naacp.org/news/2006/2006-01-11.html

Bruce S. Gordon, President and CEO, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

(NAACP) today said that Georgia's recently passed voter identification legislation places an unfair burden on poor, elderly and African American voters and reduces their access to the polls.

Gordon has asked Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue and Glen Richardson, Speaker of the State House of Representatives, to distance themselves from the legislation, Senate Bill 84. "The legislation violates both the state and national constitutions," said Gordon.

"The effect of this insidious legislation is to require several hundred thousand voters who went to their local registrar's office to vote, to in essence, go back to the office a second time to re-register for a photo identification card,” said Gordon. “This would be a major burden for the poor and the elderly who do not own a car or have a driver's license."

[autorank]

2. New Methods for Flagging Vote Miscounts Released: NEDA

Here is some good work. Gore let loose today, called the crime by it’s ugly name and opened the gates to the TRUTH. Make election integrity happen.
(Note: Press release, no restrictions apply. Full text permission.)

New Method for Flagging Vote Miscount Released -- Specific Type of Statistical Analysis Can Indicate Vote Count Errors in Past and Future Elections

The National Election Data Archive (NEDA) has developed a new sophisticated statistical method for indicating whether reported vote counts in any particular election race has, or has not, been counted correctly. The new scientific method is being made publicly available for analyzing exit poll data may help restore faith in U.S. democracy. The method will be used to Analyze the 2004 Ohio Presidential Election Data.

(PRWEB) January 16, 2006 -- After over a year of research, the National Election Data Archive (NEDA) has developed a new sophisticated statistical method for indicating whether reported vote counts in any particular election race between two candidates have, or have not, been counted correctly. The method is being made publicly available on the Internet "Vote Miscount or Exit Poll Error? New Mathematical Function for Analyzing Exit Poll Discrepancy", is publicly available. at http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit-Poll-Analysis.pdf and will enable independent analysts to objectively evaluate the validity of any past or future election results.

Given the continuing controversy over the large exit poll/vote count discrepancies in the 2004 presidential election, the number of computer “glitches" primarily favoring one candidate over the other, and allegations that electronic vote tampering may have been responsible, a scientific method for analyzing exit poll data appears essential for restoring faith in U.S. democracy.

The method presented is compared with several prior analyses of the 2004 exit poll/vote count discrepancy by pollsters Edison-Mitofsky, NEDA, the Election Sciences Institute, and others. Errors in those earlier reports, which led to problematic conclusions, are noted and contrasted with the more correct analysis method presented in this latest report.

Method to be Used on 2004 Ohio Presidential Election Data

NEDA will shortly be releasing a report using this analysis method for Ohio's 2004 presidential election. It will provide striking support for corrupted Ohio vote counts of sufficient magnitude to reverse the outcome of the election.

The National Election Data Archive (NEDA) is a nonprofit organization of statisticians and mathematicians devoted to the accuracy of U.S. vote counts. NEDA is currently seeking support to build a national public election data archive to make detailed precinct-level vote-type election data available for immediate post-election independent analysis of voting patterns.

[autorank]

3. GORE IN DC, Jan. 16, 2006. Is there any doubt about stealing an election

This is a stunning indictment of everything that has happened over the past five years. Can anyone doubt election theft is part of the package. The speech was a stunning attack on those who subvert our democracy and take it away from the ultimate goal of inclusiveness. Time to pick this up and run with it. It’s the blue print for a restoration of trust and honesty, which requires election integrity.
(Here's what I wrote, thanks to Alastair, althecat, of Scoop)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0601/S00122.htm

Tuesday, 17 January 2006, 11:51 am

Al Gore’s Devastating Indictment of President Bush

CALLS FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL
Quiescent Congress and Judiciary Enabling Tyranny

Special for Scoop Independent Media
From Washington, DC
Michael Collins
January 16, 2005

Al Gore delivered a devastating indictment of President George Bush today in a major speech before three thousand cheering citizens at Washington DC’s Constitution Hall. (See... Al Gore: America's Constitution is in Grave Danger )

He provided a detailed specification of crimes against the U.S. Constitution and concluded by calling for the immediate appointment of a special counsel by Attorney General Gonzalez whose position is sorely compromised by conflict of interest. The future of the American experiment in rule by laws rather than men, the Constitution rather than tyranny, is at stake. Gore made the case that Executive Branch abuses of the Constitution represent rule through tyranny.

Gore quoted former Congressman Bob Barr who said, “The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will.” Gores bill of particulars included the following actions:

1. Appointment of a special counsel immediately to investigate gross violations of the U.S. Constitution. Gore said, “Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the Executive Branch has violated other laws.” The specific investigation should “pursue the criminal issues raised by unwarranted wiretapping of Americans by the President.

2. “Whistle blower protections should immediately be established for members of the Executive Branch who report evidence of wrong doing” by the President and his team.

3. The Senate and the House should hold hearings “into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the President.”

4. “The Bush proposals for the Patriot Act “should under no circumstances be granted unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have recently been revealed.”

5. Gore called on “any telecommunications company” providing the government with access to private communication to “Immediately cease and desist their complicity in that apparent illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens.”

6. Finally, going off of his prepared test, Gore said that any candidate for public office in 2006 should face a litmus test, regardless of party, based on their support for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the President’s transgressions against the Constitution.




Bush: “…a threat to the very structure of our government.”

Gore began his speech with an example of disregard for Constitutional safeguards. He recalled the case of Martin Luther King and his victimization by the FBI. Through illegal surveillance, the government tried to end his effectiveness as a civil rights leader, destroy his marriage, “and blackmail him into committing suicide.” Gore pointed out that J. Edgar Hoover’s intimidation and threats to FBI staff caused them to perform illegal wire taps and engage on spying activities that they clearly knew were wrong. Then in a stunning indictment of former CIA Director, George Tenant by saying that “much the same thing” had happened in the delivery of intelligence, clearly false, to the President to justify the Iraq war. The crowd came to its feet for one of six standing ovations during the speech.

The author of the attack on the Constitution was clearly named, the President of the United States. Gore cited the example of unauthorized National Security Agency (NSA) “spying on large numbers of Americans for the last four years and eavesdropping on large volumes of telephone calls, e-mail messages and other internet traffic inside the United States.” Bush’s assurances that nothing like this was happening without appropriate judicial processes was cited as an example of false statements to serve the ends of executive power.

Bush: Assumes powers that “the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution – an all powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free.”

Gore cited Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine to make his case. He quoted Madison’s argument that the accumulation of “all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands...” is ‘the very definition of tyranny.’” This was a critical point that the former Vice President returned to throughout the speech: the United States was established with the goal of rule by law and not by men, rule by participation not tyranny. His presentation made it very clear that Bush represents a new form of despotism that seeks power to meet its ends rather than competing for power in the political process.

<snip>

He noted the quiescence of the legislative and judicial braches and the effective self-censorship of the media enable this process as never before. He was particularly harsh on television news, the primary source for political information for most Americans. Gore called for ongoing and expanded protection of the Internet as the citizens last hope for political dialog and advocacy.

A call for political courage. Our founders were threatened with hanging. What is holding current leaders back?

Gore noted that “fear drives out reason” as one justification for lack of congressional action. He pointed out that “The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors.” He noted that even with British troops on the march, the founders stood steadfast in defense of the cherished goal of a rule by laws rather than men, the Constitution rather than tyranny.. He posed two more rhetorical questions. Are we in more danger now than the threats we faced from fascism? Are we in more danger now than the world-ending threats posed by Soviet power?

This was a clear indictment of Congress for failing to check relentless Executive power grabs and abuses and a call to arms a real opposition movement, not just of Democrats but of all who value the Constitution and American ideals.

One of the boldest political speeches in decades.

Today’s speech was no ordinary political event. It represented one of the boldest political attacks on the President by a major leader since the Civil War. A former Vice President, Senator, member of the House of Representatives, has just accused the President of the United States of willfully lying to the people of the United States in order to accumulate unconstitutional powers, subvert the Constitution, and change the face of American democracy from a government that seeks the rule of law to one that relies on the rule of men, in this case President George W. Bush. Lincoln was attacked for trying to ruin a way of life and accused of destroying the fabric of the constitution. Roosevelt was charged with trying to create a welfare state. Nixon was accused of specific crimes which violated his oath of office. But no President since the Civil War has been accused by a former Vice President or President of deliberately trying to end Constitutional rule through the unlawful accumulation of power; trying to impose tyranny on the people of the United States.

It was a remarkable speech that will send shockwaves across the political spectrum for years to come.

END

[autorank]

4. PA: Court stops voting machine purchase!

Thank you PA DUers and other election integrity workers. You make a difference.

State court to hear suit over voting machines

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/s_414254.html


By David Hunt
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, January 17, 2006

A group of concerned citizens and a state senator are asking Commonwealth Court for an order blocking Westmoreland County from buying 750 computerized voting machines.

An injunction hearing has been scheduled for 1 p.m. Thursday in Harrisburg, according to court records.

Concerned citizens and state Sen. Jim Ferlo, an Allegheny County Democrat, sued Westmoreland County earlier this month, alleging that the county violated the state constitution when the commissioners decided to buy 750 touch-screen voting machines without first scheduling a referendum on the purchase.

Although the lawsuit was filed in county court, both sides agreed the issue carries statewide importance and Westmoreland County Judge William J. Ober signed an order last week transferring the civil action to Commonwealth Court.

[autorank]

5. Iraq: Fraud detected in Iraq electio-- 1% of ballot boxes tossed.

Wow, I was afraid that somebody actually stole the election. This should make exactly nobody happy. More stife, bitterness, hate. What a mess.

YAHOO—AUSTRALIA/NZ

Fraud detected in Iraq election

Tuesday January 17, 08:11 AM

The Independent Electoral Commission in Iraq, which is collating the results of December's parliamentary election, has announced that the votes cast in 227 ballot boxes have been annulled because of fraud.

(won’t impact overall result)

Iraqi and US officials hope the creation of a unified government following elections on December 15 will help to undermine the Sunni-backed insurgency.

Initial indications showed Iraq's Shiite majority came out on top in the poll, but final results have been delayed by the electoral commission's probe, which was launched after Sunni-backed and secular parties complained of fraud.

[autorank]

6. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 & Amendments

United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Voting Section
Introduction To Federal Voting Rights Laws

* Introduction To Federal Voting Rights Laws
* Before the Voting Rights Act
* The Voting Rights Act of 1965
* The Effect of the Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act of 1965
The 1965 Enactment
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_b.htm
By 1965 concerted efforts to break the grip of state disfranchisement had been under way for some time, but had achieved only modest success overall and in some areas had proved almost entirely ineffectual. The murder of voting-rights activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi, gained national attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism. Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that would become the Voting Rights Act.

Congress determined that the existing federal anti-discrimination laws were not sufficient to overcome the resistance by state officials to enforcement of the 15th Amendment. The legislative hearings showed that the Department of Justice's efforts to eliminate discriminatory election practices by litigation on a case-by-case basis had been unsuccessful in opening up the registration process; as soon as one discriminatory practice or procedure was proven to be unconstitutional and enjoined, a new one would be substituted in its place and litigation would have to commence anew.

President Johnson signed the resulting legislation into law on August 6, 1965. Section 2 of the Act, which closely followed the language of the 15th amendment, applied a nationwide prohibition against the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on the literacy tests on a nationwide basis. Among its other provisions, the Act contained special enforcement provisions targeted at those areas of the country where Congress believed the potential for discrimination to be the greatest. Under Section 5, jurisdictions covered by these special provisions could not implement any change affecting voting until the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia determined that the change did not have a discriminatory purpose and would not have a discriminatory effect. In addition, the Attorney General could designate a county covered by these special provisions for the appointment of a federal examiner to review the qualifications of persons who wanted to register to vote. Further, in those counties where a federal examiner was serving, the Attorney General could request that federal observers monitor activities within the county's polling place.

The Voting Rights Act had not included a provision prohibiting poll taxes, but had directed the Attorney General to challenge its use. In Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the Supreme Court held Virginia's poll tax to be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Between 1965 and 1969 the Supreme Court also issued several key decisions upholding the constitutionality of Section 5 and affirming the broad range of voting practices that required Section 5 review. As the Supreme Court put it in its 1966 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Act:

Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat wide-spread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-28 (1966).
Back to top
The 1970 and 1975 Amendments

Congress extended Section 5 for five years in 1970 and for seven years in 1975. With these extensions Congress validated the Supreme Court's broad interpretation of the scope of Section 5. During the hearings on these extensions Congress heard extensive testimony concerning the ways in which voting electorates were manipulated through gerrymandering, annexations, adoption of at-large elections, and other structural changes to prevent newly-registered black voters from effectively using the ballot. Congress also heard extensive testimony about voting discrimination that had been suffered by Hispanic, Asian and Native American citizens, and the 1975 amendments added protections from voting discrimination for language minority citizens.

In 1973, the Supreme Court held certain legislative multi-member districts unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment on the ground that they systematically diluted the voting strength of minority citizens in Bexar County, Texas. This decision in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), strongly shaped litigation through the 1970s against at-large systems and gerrymandered redistricting plans. In Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), however, the Supreme Court required that any constitutional claim of minority vote dilution must include proof of a racially discriminatory purpose, a requirement that was widely seen as making such claims far more difficult to prove.
Back to top
The 1982 Amendments

Congress renewed in 1982 the special provisions of the Act, triggered by coverage under Section 4 for twenty-five years. Congress also adopted a new standard, which went into effect in 1985, providing how jurisdictions could terminate (or "bail out" from) coverage under the provisions of Section 4. Furthermore, after extensive hearings, Congress amended Section 2 to provide that a plaintiff could establish a violation of the Section without having to prove discriminatory purpose.
Back to top

[autorank]

7. What it took to get The Voting Rights Act of 1965

For those who insist Bush won, for those who apologize for the unconstitutional tyranny, for those who offer comfort to this administration through agreement that they actually held their breath and failed to behave in elections as they behave in every single other aspect of their rule, for those who fail to remember history, for those who fail to honor the fallen…when you say there’s no difference between candidates, then look at these pictures and read the story of the fallen heroes of the voting rights movement.

The struggle continues

[autorank]

8. This is the January 17, 2006 thread. I'm stuck in the 16th...wonder why?

:blush:

[Stevepol]

9. Virginia on the road to reform

Virginia on the march. From VotersUnite.



Virginia: Time for Reform - Assembly Must Act to Eliminate Voting-Machine Manipulation
By Ivy Main, The New Electoral Reform Alliance for Virginia
January 16, 2006

Let's say you are a campaign manager whose candidate is running for a seat in the General Assembly. Your guy is in a tight race, and he may not win merely by running an honest campaign on the issues. Fortunately, you don't care about honesty. You are completely unscrupulous and will resort to anything to give your man an edge. You've already tried negative campaigning, distortions, and promising the impossible. It's time for dirty tricks. What are your options?

Here are three: (1) You can inflate the number of votes for your guy through vote fraud; (2) you can decrease the number of votes for the other guy by voter intimidation; and (3) if neither works, you can try to change the actual vote count by manipulating voting machines.

Let's start with vote fraud. This is different from old-fashioned vote-buying that, though attractive, still limits you to one vote per voter. The point of vote fraud is to increase the votes per voter by having them vote in place of other people. . . . . .

This guy is on top of it I think. Here's the link:

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=745&Itemid=113

[VeryZexyLiberal]

10. MLK

Was a great man

[Algorem]

11. OH-State legislators try to iron out election-reform bill

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060118/NEWS24/601180439/-1/NEWS

COLUMBUS - The House and Senate yesterday took a step toward resolving differences over a controversial election-reform bill by naming their conference committee members.

But the most controversial aspect of the bill, requiring voters to show some form of identification before casting a ballot, won't be on the table for discussion.

"It amazes me how it doesn't even include a military ID," newly sworn-in House Minority Leader Joyce Beatty (D., Columbus) said.

"We can send our young folks to fight across the waters, and they can't come in and use their ID ."...

[Algorem]

12. OH-Cuyahoga Dem works for Ney on "election reform",is e-vote lobbyist

Official at CSU worked for Ney
Patrick Sweeney once led Democrats in Ohio House

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1137576820235940.xml&coll=2

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

-- ...

CSU's senior adviser on government relations, William Napier, said Sweeney works for the House Administration Committee on election reform issues, which it oversees. Since Sweeney works part time at CSU and his federal job doesn't conflict with university interests, Napier said he doesn't consider it a problem...

For the House Administration Committee, Sweeney works with state legislatures and other organizations around the country in implementing the Help America Vote Act, passed to improve voting procedures after the problematic 2000 election...

Walsh said Sweeney regularly commutes to Washington and travels around the country speaking to groups about voting reform...

In 2002, Hart InterCivic of Texas retained Sweeney to lobby the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections to buy its electronic voting machines...