Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News, February 1, 20006

[stillcool]

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 new Spring 2006 Edition of "Election Fraud and Reform News Directory" listed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x407240

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.

[stillcool]

1. Pennsylvania....

Allegheny County remains undecided about new voting machines
Wednesday, February 01, 2006

By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

For the second time in less than a week, Allegheny County's Board of Elections has delayed a final decision on buying thousands of touch-screen voting machines.
Board members had a deadline of yesterday to approve a contract with Diebold Inc. of North Canton, Ohio, for 5,600 touch-screen machines at a discounted price of $11.9 million. But the company has granted an extension until Tuesday
One activist, Richard King, of Squirrel Hill, said he and a group of voters plan this week to file a lawsuit against the county to block any purchase of new machines. They want to give the state Legislature time to pass a bill that would mandate the use of machines with paper printouts.
At yesterday's meeting, Angela Chan, the county's deputy director of administrative services, said officials had considered issues surrounding Diebold and were satisfied with the company's performance elsewhere.

"Obviously we've read a lot of the allegations that people are talking about," she said, referring partly to criticisms that some Diebold officials were too close to Republicans. "Obviously we cannot base our decision on hearsay or what's on the Internet."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06032/647602.stm

[stillcool]

2. and then there's this...

Another group sues to stop voting machine purchases
Tuesday, January 31, 2006

By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The lawsuit, filed in Commonwealth Court on Friday, contends that the state constitution guarantees voters a chance to decide if they want electronic machines. Butler and Cambria counties also are named as defendants in the lawsuit.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06031/646967.stm

[Wilms]

5. Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411466

[stillcool]

3. ...and this....

February 1, 2006
Schuylkill to buy touch-screen units
Commissioners vote along party lines with the lone Democrat pushing for the county to get optical scanners.
By Chris Parker
Of The Morning Call

Over the protests of Democrats, Schuylkill County commissioners on Tuesday voted 2-1 along party lines to buy Diebold touch screen voting systems to replace the paper ballots the county has used for decades.

Republican Commissioners Robert S. Carl Jr. and Chairman Frank J. Staudenmeier voted for the touch screens. Democratic Commissioner Mantura M. Gallagher voted against them.

County GOP chief Dan Daub favored the touch screens, and lashed out at his Democratic counterpart, Edward Kleha, for opposing them.

Kleha threatened to sue the county last week if the commissioners chose the touch screens.

''Mr. Kleha has turned a very important decision into a partisan political grandstand,'' Daub said. ''I believe it is childish, wasteful and deceitful for the Democratic party to file a frivolous lawsuit against county government.''

Kleha said the Diebold Election Systems machine would be ''easy to hack into'' and that the commissioners violated the state Constitution by failing to put the choice to a referendum.

The state Constitution also requires voting to be private, something the touch screen systems could not guarantee, he said.

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/lehighton/all-b1_1schuylkillfeb01,0,5180004.story?coll=all-newslocallehighton-hed

[stillcool]

4. ...and this...

WILKES-BARRE — Luzerne County’s 75-year-old voting machines were officially retired Tuesday.

The county’s new, electronic 17-inch touch screens allow residents to scroll through races and candidates, as well as review their ballots, before casting a final vote. The machine will present election options much like an ATM guides customers through financial transactions.

The machine does not allow the county to conduct legitimate audits or recounts, Smith claimed. The machine’s verified paper audit trail component is not state certified. As a result, county officials cannot legally use paper audit trails to back up election results.

If the federal or state government requires a verified paper audit trail, the iVotronic can be upgraded with less cost and difficulty than other systems, Piazza said.

http://www.citizensvoice.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16042818&BRD=2259&PAG=461&dept_id=455154&rfi=6

[stillcool]

6. Maryland

Lawmakers Consider "Paper Trail" For Voting Machines
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
WBAL Radio as reported by Robert Lang

State lawmakers want a back up in case there are problems this fall with the state's "Touch Screen" voting machines.
The House Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing on a bill to create a paper record of votes collected on each voting machines.
he general public couldn't review the records but party election judges or candidates representatives could have access to the records.
It has the support of Demcoartic leadership and Republican lawmakers. Del. David Boschert (R-Anne Arundel) says the records, "are good for the voters and good for democracy," since they can alert a candidate or election official if there is a problem with a voting machine.
Meanwhile, Maryland Eelections Adminsitrator Linda Lamone has asked for daily updates from the manufacturer of the touch screen voting machines, on efforts to fix problems that were detected in California and Pennsylvania.

http://wbal.com/news/story.asp?articleid=40303

[stillcool]

7. OHIO

New law requires Ohio voters to show identification at polls
By JIM PROVANCE
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS - Voters will be required to show identification before casting a ballot beginning with August's special elections under a bill passed solely on the backs of Republicans and swiftly signed yesterday by Gov. Bob Taft.

The new law also prohibits the filing of lawsuits in state courts to challenge the results of a federal election, eliminates the mandate for a random recount of electronic voting machines within two months of an election, and prohibits non-Ohioans from circulating petitions to change state law or the constitution.

Rep. Kevin DeWine (R., Fairborn), the bill's sponsor, defended the move to prohibit the filing of Ohio challenges in federal elections as occurred following President Bush's re-election in 2004. Suits were filed in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking to prevent the award of Ohio's electoral votes to Mr. Bush. The suits were ultimately dismissed.
"The U.S. Constitution and federal law clearly states that Congress is the arbiter of federal elections," said Mr. DeWine. "Ohio Supreme Court precedent going back to 1939 said they clearly do not have jurisdiction to make decisions on the contesting of federal elections."

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060201/NEWS09/602010422/-1/NEWS

[Wilms]

9. Ohio's Election Bill Signed Into Law

Wednesday, February 1

Ohio's Election Bill Signed Into Law

by Dan Tokaji

snip

A provision that has attracted less attention, but may also prove problematic, eliminates state-law contests of federal elections -- including for President, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House (3515.08). A losing candidate for these offices thus may no longer challenge the election under the contest provisions available to candidates state and local office. The new law instead provides that contests in federal races "shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of federal law." The trouble is, there aren't any federal law contest provisions, at least not any that allow for a judicial remedy.

To take an example of how this might come up, suppose that a candidate who narrowly loses a congressional race alleges that ballot-stuffing in her opponent's favor swung the election. Let's further suppose that the candidate is able to come up with affidavits from poll workers who witnessed the ballot stuffing, or even from those who did the stuffing admitting to their malfeasance. What recourse would the "losing" candidate have? She could still request a recount, but that won't do any good, since it will simply result in the recounting of the fraudulent ballots along with the valid ones. If the wrongdoing rises to the level of a federal constitutional violation -- say a denial of the fundamental right to vote or of equal protection -- then she might be able to bring a federal suit for violation of federal rights under color of state law (for you lawyers out there, that's a section 1983 suit). But most incidents of simple election fraud probably wouldn't rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

It thus appears unlikely that the losing candidate would have any judicial recourse. She could try taking her case to the U.S. House, which is ultimately the "Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of it own Members" under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution. But it's not clear what, if anything, the House would do -- and at any rate, a partisan political body is hardly a neutral forum for the resolution of such claims, and is not well-suited to hear and evaluate the relevant evidence in an election contest. Moreover, if the alleged fraud occurred in a federal primary election, it doesn't seem that there's anything the House could do. In effect, there would be no "jurisdiction" in the House over a primary election dispute. (Credit goes to my colleague Steve Huefner for noticing this.)

This is just one of the many legal issues that are likely to arise with respect to Ohio's newly passed election law in coming months and years. Though it may not be good for local election officials, poll workers, and voters, the new law will likely be a boon for lawyers and law professors. For better or for worse, and mostly for worse I fear, election law in Ohio continues to be a growth industry.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006/02/ohios-election-bill-signed-into-law.html

[Wilms]

10. Provisional Ballots in Ohio

Monday, January 30

Provisional Ballots in Ohio

by Dan Tokaji

No, this isn't just a flashback to those days in early November 2004, when those of us here at Moritz were bleary-eyed from lack of sleep. There's actually some news on the subject, on two fronts. (Before you D's out there get too excited ... I hate to tell you this, but Kerry still lost.)

U.S. District Judge David Katz in Toledo has issued this memorandum opinion in White v. Blackwell. The case concerns whether voters who applied for, but claim not to have received or cast, absentee ballots have a right to cast provisional ballots. Relying on a directive from Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, the Lucas County Board of Elections has denied such voters provisional ballots. The case was originally brought on election day in November 2004, and Judge Katz issued a TRO against the Secretary and county board that same day. (More documents from the case are available here, and I discussed this case in a recent G.W. Law Review piece which may be found here.)

In its most recent order, the court rejects the argument that the case is moot, noting the uncontradicted evidence that the Secretary of State has promulgated -- and not retracted -- guidance that a provisional ballot should be denied to those who requested an absentee ballot. The court notes that Blackwell's office continued to provide the same guidance and form that prompted the original TRO, even after the November 2, 2004 election. In particular, the order cites an August 2005 special election for a congressional seat, in which the same forms were used. The court goes on to finds Blackwell's guidance to be in plain violation of HAVA when it comes to federal elections, a point that doesn't seem to be in serious dispute. It also finds Lucas County to be in violation of HAVA, despite their claim that "we were only following orders."

If the facts are indeed as stated in Judge Katz's opinion, it's hard to see what Blackwell's office could have been thinking. There's really no serious question about the underlying legal issue, namely that voters have a right to cast a provisional ballot if they certify that they're eligible and registered in the jurisdiction (though, as the court's order rightly notes, whether those provisional ballots are actually counted is a separate question). So why didn't the Secretary of State's office correct its guidance to counties? It's a mystery to me. To top it all off, the inexplicable actions of Blackwell's office have left the State of Ohio on the hook for attorney's fees which Judge Katz -- quite properly, in my view -- awards to plaintiffs.

snip/links

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006/01/provisional-ballots-in-ohio.html

[Wilms]

13. New research on voting machine availability and voter turnout in Ohio

Election Updates

New research on voting machine availability and voter turnout in Ohio

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

by Michael Alvarez

There is a paper by Ben Highton (UC-Davis) that is forthcoming in a political science journal (PS), "Long Lines, Voting Machine Availability, and Turnout: The Case of Franklin County, Ohio in the 2004 Presidential Election." Highton is a well-known scholar who has produced a series of good studies of a variety of issues associated with voter turnout.

Highton uses precinct-level data from Franklin County, Ohio, and undertakes a series of different statistical analyses to estimate the effect of availability of voting machines in precincts on 2004 voter turnout. There are some minor methodoligical quibbles here, in particular whether it is appropriate to model this as using a linaer model and what other specifications of the turnout model (especially including other control variables) might yield. But I doubt these methodological quibbles would have much of an effect on Highton's major conclusions from his analysis.


Highton's basic conclusion is:

The strong association between the availability of voting machines and turnout in Franklin County, Ohio in the 2004 presidential election was largely the result of factors unrelated to the causal effect of the availability of voting machines on turnout. That said, after controlling for other causes of turnout, the relationship does not disappear, suggesting that machine scarcity was a cause of lower turnout. The magnitude of the effect in terms of votes was about 22,000, which would have diminished George W. Bush’s statewide margin by about 6,000 had there been no scarcity of voting machines on Election Day. Thus long lines at polling places in Franklin County do not appear to have cost John Kerry the presidential election, but they do appear to have cost him votes.

Given that the Franklin County Board of Elections, like all Ohio county election boards, has four members, two Democrats and two Republicans, attributing the scarcity of voting machines and its consequent effects to partisan maneuvering is probably not warranted.

snip

http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2006/01/new-research-on-voting-machine.html


Report .pdf
http://apsanet.org/imgtest/065-0681.pdf


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411630

[stillcool]

8. Arizona

Agency chief, 34, to run for secretary of state
Casey Newton
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 1, 2006 12:00 AM

Pledging to bring new reforms to the office, a member of Gov. Janet Napolitano's Cabinet has announced plans to run for secretary of state.
Israel G. Torres filed paperwork Monday after resigning his post as director of the Registrar of Contractors. He had been director since 2003.
The 34-year-old Democrat will face former state representative and Tucson city Councilman Bruce Wheeler in the September primary.
I have a real vision for the secretary of state's office," said Torres, a lawyer and former chairman of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "Our elections really are in need of some reform here in the state of Arizona."
Election issues look to figure largely in the campaign. This year will bring the implementation of controversial Proposition 200 voting standards. Brewer has also faced criticism for buying Diebold voting machines, which some activists have called unreliable.
On that front, a group calling itself Arizona Citizens for Elections Reform filed paperwork Monday to create a ballot initiative that would require elections to produce a voter-verified durable paper ballot that would be preserved 24 months afterward.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0201torres-0201.html

[stillcool]

12. "Straitjacket Jan Brewer"......

Empowering the Secretary of State, especially this secretary of state, to decide when elections can be suspended is a crazy idea. Sanity must prevail in state government
By John Dougherty
Article Published Feb 2, 2006

We are inching dangerously close to the point where elections in Arizona can be suspended for an indefinite period of time for the flimsiest of reasons.
Claiming to be acting at the request of the U.S. Department of Defense, Secretary of State Jan Brewer is seeking unprecedented authority from the state Legislature to postpone elections for a wide range of nebulous reasons.

In a grab for power that has been ignored by mainstream reporters covering the state Capitol but sharply criticized by voting-rights groups, Brewer wants authority to postpone state and federal elections in the event of a civil disorder, a natural disaster, a state of emergency or any other catastrophic event.
None of these events is specifically defined in a bill sponsored by Republican Representative Doug Quelland, at Brewer's request. A civil disorder, critics of the bill say, could range from massive riots that set a city ablaze to a handful of protesters staging a sit-in on the Capitol mall.
By a 6-2 vote, the House Judiciary Committee on January 19 approved Quelland's bill that includes no specific deadline to reschedule a postponed election. Instead, House Bill 2148 only requires the Secretary of State to reschedule the postponed election "as soon as practical."

Not only has Brewer failed to get to the bottom of the huge voting scandal that may have affected other races in the September 2004 primary election in Maricopa County, she is now trying to shove the dreaded Diebold touch-screen voting machines down our throats.
Brewer wants to put these machines, which New Mexico recently moved to ban, in more than 2,000 precincts across Arizona. The "direct recording electronics" voting machines do not create a paper trail so that their tabulations can be audited. In other words, there is no way to compare the votes that appear on the machines with hand-marked paper ballots.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2006-02-02/news/dougherty.html

[Wilms]

14. Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=411187&mesg_id=411187

[Wilms]

11. AK: Open up voting files - Public's right to know should trump objections

Open up voting files

Public's right to know should trump company's objections

Published: February 1, 2006

The Alaska Democratic Party is demanding to see the state's electronic voting files from the 2004 election to answer some questions about the results. The Division of Elections says no, because the state's contract with its supplier, Diebold Election Systems, says Diebold owns the data format and the format is proprietary information, even though the data is public.

The Democrats are right to demand the data format that Diebold used in 2004, and the state should find a way to give it to them. The state should never let a company's proprietary claims take precedence over the public's right to public records and the need to confirm without doubt the integrity of Alaska elections.

There is no evidence that any election fraud or wrongdoing occurred during the 2004 balloting. But vote count discrepancies or simply vote count questions are no light matter, particularly given Alaska's history of close elections and Diebold's checkered history of performance and recently shown vulnerability to computer hacking in other states.

For example, according to Alaska Democratic Party spokeswoman Kay Brown, it's not clear how the Diebold system counted up to 2,000 absentee ballots in 2004. In order to know for sure whether there were any problems, state Democrats want the results as formatted by Diebold's system, not results translated into another format.

snip

http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/7408758p-7320831c.html

[Wilms]

15. Wisconsin Approves the Vote-PAD Assistive Device

Wisconsin Approves the Vote-PAD Assistive Device

By Vote-PAD Press Release

January 31, 2006

Port Ludlow, WA - Vote-PAD, Inc. is proud to announce that the Vote-PAD (Voting-on-Paper Assistive Device) has been approved by the Wisconsin State Elections Board for use in hand-counted paper ballot municipalities.

After meeting with U.S. Department of Justice attorneys, Kevin Kennedy, Executive Director of the Wisconsin State Elections Board, announced the state’s approval of the Vote-PAD. Mr. Kennedy said the attorneys spent considerable time looking at the device and asking questions about its use in the voting process. It was indicated, he said, “that they did not see anything that should stop Wisconsin from proceeding with approval.”

The Vote-PAD is an inexpensive, non-computerized, voter-assist device that helps people with visual or dexterity impairments to independently and privately mark the same paper ballot as other voters. The Vote-PAD was developed to help small towns and counties comply with the accessibility requirement of the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002. It allows them to continue administering elections the same way they have in the past.

Ellen Theisen, President of Vote-PAD, Inc. and developer of the device, said, “We are delighted! One of our immediate goals was to offer the small Wisconsin municipalities a low cost, low tech, reasonable alternative to electronic voting. This approval is a real win for the small communities and for the state of Wisconsin.”

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=862&Itemid=51

[Wilms]

16. Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411665