San Jose election reform event and Diebold law suit money

[LaraOVC]

Hi everyone,
Here's an event you should check out if you are in the Northern California/Bay Area.
Also, if you haven't already heard, OVC (Open Voting Consortium) is having a fund-raiser for two weeks and for this week only (until noon Sunday, March 20) Jim March and Bev Harris (of Black Box Voting.org) are matching the money we raise dollar for dollar up to $2000 with money they won from a Diebold law suit! That means that for every dollar you donate, a dollar will be donated from Diebold! Please donate now at www.OpenVoting.org.

SAN JOSE EVENT: STOP U.S. ELECTION RIGGING NOW!

Date: Saturday, March 26

Time: 2:00pm-5:30pm

Location: St. James Senior Center 199 North Third Street (San Jose,
California)

Event description: Hear about the problems with the current election system and solutions for the future from speakers Alan Dechert, president of the Open Voting Consortium, Jim March, board member of Black Box Voting, Emily Levy from the Richard Hayes Philips Project, and Peter Drekmeier. Event will also include movie clips (Electile Dysfunction, Votergate, Linda Byrket's film) and an action planning session (conducted by a professional facilitator from the Institute of Cultural Affairs)!

Cost: $10 donation requested (no one will be turned away due to lack of funds!)

Event contact info: Lara Shaffer, [e-mail],
www.OpenVoting.org

[Kelvin Mace]

1. Just remember

the promise that Bev Harris and Jim March will actually part with any money should be taken with a grain of salt.

Ms. Harris has a BAD track record about money.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3246549&mesg_id=3246549

David Allen
www.blackboxvoting.com
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[LaraOVC]

2. thanks but

Thanks for the warning, but this is actually coming from Jim March's pocket and we know he'll be giving us the check in a few days. The fund raiser went really well. :)

[Kelvin Mace]

3. Uh, don't you have a problem

fund raising with people who have serious ethical problems?

Ms. Harris and Mr. March run an organization which has lied to the public about how much money it raised and has viciously smeared its own allies and employees.

Penny Little stole the film "Electile Dysfunction" from it's creators, Micheal Stimson of Take Back the Media and his wife, and is going to events like yours claiming it is her film.

You are giving these people a brand of legitimacy they do not deserve.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Andy_Stephenson]

4. Looks to me like they are trying to

Buy back credibility. Oh well...with a million bucks I guess you can buy a lot of credibility.

[Andy_Stephenson]

5. Wait a second!

Bev has stated that the money from the lawsuit was to be earmarked only for more litigation. Has she changed her plans?

Or...is she lieing again?

Better watch out...I see the set up coming. Perhaps David could find the information re the way the money was to be spent/used.

[symbolman]

6. OVC is using a property

specifically the film Electile Dysfunction, or any version or clips of it for fundraising that is not wholly owned or directed by Penny Little and as we are partial owners (we claim 50% ownership as was agreed by Penny Little from the start of this film) they do not have our permission to use it - as a matter of fact it's under a legal cloud which I am not at liberty to discuss here.

I have emailed you personally and the OVC administration asking in the nicest possible manner NOT to use any portion of this film to make money, or show what we consider an inferior version (while even offering support in the future) and evidently the OVC organization refuses to stop this behavior and/or potentially illegal use. I believe the org you are associated with to be at risk.

I wonder if some of the more ethical people associated with this movement would like to know exactly who they are dealing with as election fraud moves forward - they must be unaware as I know a lot of them to be highly moral people with good character.

Let me make this as simple as possible.

The Organization you work for DOES NOT have the permission from Micheal Stinson, Julie Sigwart, Takebackthemedia.com to use any portion of Electile Dysfunction, and never have - they've been asked many times NOT TO. Please alert them or have them contact me.

We have been very supportive and even asked our "angel" to donate upwards of $250 thousand dollars to the OVC organization if he so desired, yet it appears that OVC is abusing our good nature.

Contact me or have the admin of OVC contact me and I will give you the particulars of where, when and why OVC should not be showing any portion of this film.

Thanks for bringing this up Kelvin Mace - it's getting harder to support this particular org each time they add another unscrupulous person to their roster.

Takebackthemedia.com received over 100 million hits on their site in their first year alone. We have a lot of fans who know we are on the up and up and have moral value, we've fought the right wing for years and with great success, and many people know our word is golden.

Should Takebackthemedia.com decide to alert people to OVC's roster of who we believe to be unethical people and behavior we will do it with much fervor and resolve, we know a lot of people in high places, and we won't stop until this wrong is righted.

An organization cannot DEMAND honesty in election and claim to be defrauded when they have unethical people in their midst.

If your organization is somehow being mislead I can understand that but if not, I'm damned angry and cannot support any org that behaves in such a manner.

Just so the mods know, I'm not attacking OVCLara here, I'm angry with her organization and letting her know so she can alert them.

[Andy_Stephenson]

7. Symbolman...you know the old saying...

Birds of a feather...flcok together.

Penny, Bev et al, and OVC are looking more and more like birds of a feather.

[LaraOVC]

8. united we stand...

Guys,
I know there have been a lot of things that have happened with Bev Harris and Black Box Voting.org. I have heard lots of different sides and lots of different stories.
Here's what I do know: if we shoot each other down we will get nowhere.
If we stand together, we might actually be able to get what we all want: fair and public elections that are not run by corporations on secretly programmed machines with no auditable or recountable paper record of the vote.
Bev Harris has earmarked the money from the lawsuit for Black Box Voting.org and its litigation efforts.
Jim March is spending some of the money he gets on a motorcycle, some on OVC (Open Voting Consortium), and I'm sure some on BBV.org too.
OVC does not take sides. We are friends with Democrats and Republicans, Greens and Libertarians, etc.
We want to work with everyone to get fair elections for this country.

[Andy_Stephenson]

9. Self Delete

delete

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Sorry, we've heard this argument many times.

If you stand with snakes and skunks, you'll know it and the people around you will know it.

What you are saying to me, as an anti-BBV advocate, is that you are prepared to ally yourself with a proven liar. I get more than enough lies from the BBV Yakuza and don't need it from my "allies".

I, too ally myself with concerned citizens from all sides of the political spectrum. Somehow I manage to do so without associating with the likes of Bev Harris and Jim March.

You are advocating that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is a thoroughly discredited philosophy which has failed every time it is used. It is the antithesis of the liberal point of view, and yet you come to a liberal board and propose it.

Do you realize that Bev has been banned from this board TWICE for bad conduct? If so, why do you come here and bandy her name?

David Allen
www.blackboxvoting.com
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[Kelvin Mace]

11. BTW, you say you have "heard" a lot of sides and stories.

Have you actually READ any of the evidence against Bev? Evidence in her own words? It seems to me that Ms. Harris is hoping you can provide a means of rehabilitating her reputation. Do you wish to be used in such a manner?

So far, Bev has left a trail of allies behind her who regret ever having met her.

David Allen
www.blackboxvoting.com
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[LaraOVC]

12. interested in moving forwards

No, I haven't read evidence against Bev Harris because frankly I'm more interested in moving forward to make secure and accurate elections happen in this country than try to figure out what people said or didn't say or did or didn't do.

The only way we are aligning ourselves with Bev is by accepting money from Jim March so that we can keep the OVC project going...

I don't see how Bev is trying to "use" me to rehabilitate her reputation.

I withhold judgement about Bev and all the controversy around her because I don't know enough from each side to determine what "really" happened (ah, the subjective nature of reality).

Like I said before, I think we all need to work together as much as possible. The election reform movement gets attacked enough by DRE corporations and groups that think the election system we have is just peachy to be fighting with each other.

I hope you will try to figure out what can be done next to keep moving the movement forward....


Lara :)

[Kelvin Mace]

16. Well, you see now, that's a problem

No, I haven't read evidence against Bev Harris because frankly I'm more interested in moving forward to make secure and accurate elections happen in this country than try to figure out what people said or didn't say or did or didn't do.

What you are saying is:

I have no intention of finding out whether the person I am working with might bring my organization into disrepute. All that matters to me is they have the same enemy as me. As long as they are fighting against my enemy, I am not going to look too closely at their ethics.

Not exactly a ringing endorsemen for your cause, is it?

You also seem to be missing the point that you are coming to DU to solicit support for your cause, while associating yourself with three highly objectionable people. Two of whom have been banned from the site due to their egregious actions.

That is kind of like soliciting support on a pro-choice web site while announcing Randall Terry as a speaker at your rally.

It is rather insulting.


David Allen
www.blackboxvoting.com
www.thoughtcrimes.org

[emlev]

13. As a person who's speaking at this event...

and who has spoken now at two other OVC events, I have a few things to say on this topic.

First of all, I want to say that LaraOVC has repeatedly asked me to speak at their events because of my knowledge, as project manager for Richard Hayes Phillips, of what happened in Ohio in the November election. In order for the audience to understand the need for a solution such as OVC, they first need to understand what the problems are that OVC is trying to solve. Outlining some of the problems has been my role.

I believe that LaraOVC and the OVC organization are well-intentioned and really do want to work with everyone on the goal of safe, secure, voter-verifiable elections. I suspect--though I don't know this to be true--that if Andy Stephenson wanted to speak at one of their events (health permitting), they would welcome him. I have been and remain disturbed by their decision to continue showing a film that is as legally/ethically entangled as is Electile Dysfunction, regardless of whose side of the story they believe--despite the fact that I'm actually *in* the current version of the film.

At the last event of theirs that I was asked to participate in, during the Q&A portion of the evening LaraOVC and I publically disagreed about one issue: the controversy surrounding California's change of Secretaries of State. I felt welcome to state my opinion even though it differed from that of LaraOVC and perhaps OVC as a whole. She did nothing to try to get the audience to take her side over mine.

It's important to me that my work and that of Richard Hayes Phillips be accurately seen as completely separate from that of OVC. I would like to be able to continue to participate in their educational events because they're the main thing happening in my neck of the woods. Yet I feel concerned about being seen as taking sides, particularly sides that I have not chosen to take. I'm in conflict about this. Trying to do my best thinking about how to support the good work that's happening and the causes I believe in without getting bogged down in the painful conflicts.

[salin]

14. First,

thank you for your work, and your continued work to raise awareness. It speaks well that you have an awareness and a concern about some of the controversies - and do not want to get mired in those. Regardless of motives (I chose not to go to that point), integrity of those leading others is very important. Why? Because to move forward fully - the issues HAVE to become part of the public psyche... which involves two major factors...

a) Some REAL press coverage which returns to the issue enough time that listeners/readers/viewers begin to react to new stories with a sense of recognition (oh ya... I remember that is ian issue that really makes me unnerved... what is new on that front???), AND

b) enough grass roots activism to both 1) mount challenges where it is needed (eg leg power) and b) continue to raise public awareness on an intentional and sustained level.

Lack of integrity at the top can easily prevent those two factors from fully emerging. It can make the press continue to be dismissive - and thus withhold coverage; and it can turn activism into acute cynicism and thus silent/immobilize those who could help move things forward.

Again, thanks for your work - and your honesty here.

Advice - keep your skepticism healthy as you participate in different forums and activities ... Follow that inner ear... and steer new activists towards efforts that are likely to have some effect (per local issues and immediacy issues, and towards organizations that are not embroiled in controversies per inter movement conflict), and speak out if you sense that folks are being exploited (eg turns more into fundraising than activism). I am not suggesting that the latter is happening - but have witnessed some shameless levels of the latter type of activity here in these forums over several years - so it isn't out of the realm of possibility.

[LaraOVC]

15. OVC = open open open and NOT taking sides

As Emily articulately stated, the OVC (and Lara) is NOT interested in taking sides on any controversy (other than we think there should be an open, accurate voting process in the United States!).

Yes, Andy Stephenson (or Bev Harris or David Allen or Penny Little or Julie Stigwart) would be more than welcome to speak at an event OVC organizes. If anything, I think these controversies make this issue more interesting to people. :) I'm all for debates (as Emily said, I got a kick out of the fact that we have slightly different opinions about Kevin Shelley. We joked about it at the last event we did together and we let each other give their position. We know we have similar goals for making the election system of this country fair, public, accurate, and open and that's what really matters.)

I have now talked with both sides of the Electile Dysfunction controversy and have an agreement with both. I'm friends with Penny because she lives close by and I've seen her a bunch. I'm sure if Julie lived nearby, I'd be friends with her too. She sounded nice on the phone. :)

I am honestly not too familiar with the Bev controversy. I'm not really interested in making a judgement about this. OVC and I have done nothing to take sides about it. We want to work with whoever wants to work with OVC and has skills, resources, knowledge, etc to offer. If David Allen or Andy Stephenson wants to put up $2000 in matching funds for OVC, we'd be more than happy to accept it. ;) And, like I said before, they are more than welcome to speak at an event if they are interested and in the area.

About Shelley: Even Greg Palast says that Kevin Shelley did the good things he did because he was under a lot of public pressure. If anything, this is a great compliment to all of us activists.
I really don't know enough about the stuff Shelley was accused of to say what I think about it or him as a Secretary of State. I just know that he's not Secretary of State now and we should all do what's needed to be done to convince whoever becomes the new Secretary of State to listen to the election reform activists as much as possible. OVC has been working with several groups and organizations on this and whoever's interested in joining, please email me ([e-mail]).

To be perfectly clear: the OVC is not interested in taking sides on any controversy, especially in-fighting within the election reform movement. We are a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to the development, maintenance, and delivery of open voting systems for use in public elections. We will work with anyone (Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Democrats, etc) on this issue. We are interested in educated the public about the need for election reform and an open voting system. Movies and speakers are good ways to do this. We accept any knowledge people want to share through movies or speeches.

That's all I have to publicly say about these controversies. If people have questions about them (the only one I really know any details about is the Electile Dysfunction controversy), please email me personally ([e-mail]). I won't give a judgement, just forward your questions to both sides and let them answer you. At this point, it's not really a public debate so much as a private argument and I think we should all stay out of it.

Sincerely,
Lara :)

[salin]

17. I do hope that you are unfamiliar

with Andy's current trials - or your joke about accepting his "matching $2,000 donation" is in exceptionally awful taste. Perhaps in trying to stay "fair" in conflicts you have missed some very vital information. Between this - and the comment on another thread that the expensive "special election" Gov Schwartzeneggar is calling is not worth any conversation unless he were to explicitly state an intent to rig the election... without even exploring issues related to fair elections during "special" elections (which often have fewer polling places open among other issues that are open to problems)... well - it does leave lingering questions.

Again the issue is important. Just have watched some activity which has - giving the benefit of the doubt - been well intended - but has set actual movement forward backward instead.

[emlev]

18. I wasn't joking

LaraOVC, you wrote, "as Emily said, I got a kick out of the fact that we have slightly different opinions about Kevin Shelley. We joked about it at the last event we did together and we let each other give their position. We know we have similar goals for making the election system of this country fair, public, accurate, and open and that's what really matters."

I'm not comfortable with your characterization of our public disagreement about Shelley at the recent OVC event. These issues are so serious, I'm concerned about you getting a "kick" out of disagreement about them. I understand about the energy in disagreement and that's a fine thing to welcome; however, I want to be clear that the serious threat of California becoming the next Ohio is no laughing matter to me. I do believe you and I share the goals of "fair, public, accurate, and open" elections and that matters a whole lot. But I believe that Shelley's removal as California's Secretary of State and what now seems to be his inevitable replacement with a Bush-supporting Republican is cause for grave concern and bold action.

[Wilms]

20. Emlev, please help me understand this.

What I understand the problem to be with McPherson is some of the members on the transition team, not McPherson per se.

Is that not-accurate?

What do we know about McPherson's attitude toward...

1. Shelley's Paper mandate
2. Using Sequoia
3. Timing with regard to HAVA and $
4. Bush (you wrote he's a supporter)

[emlev]

22. Partial reply

I don't think I'm the most informed person about your first three questions above. Not about the fourth, either, but I do have a bit to say about that.

McPherson is from my county. He was a two-term State Senator. I admit to not having paid much attention to him at all. I recently spoke to a local democratic party activist who had this to say (this is my summary, not quoted material):

Bruce McPherson is known as a moderate Republican, but there's no such thing under the Bush administration because all Republicans are being asked (that was a nice word!) to toe the party line and can't get anywhere if they don't. McPherson's family used to own our local paper (Santa Cruz Sentinel) and still has enough of a relationship with folks at the paper that it was hard to get any coverage of conservative things he did while in office, including even letters to the editor. While he was mild in his first term, once he was re-elected and no longer needed the votes of local people to stay in office (because of term limits he couldn't seek a third term), he started acting like a Republican. He was a fundraiser and supporter of Bush, was instrumental in making the recall of Gray Davis happen, and did both of those things during hours the taxpayers were paying him to be a state senator, despite many objections to that. He voted for a budget that abolished the Coastal Commission. She said he's very clearly part of the Bush camp.

I hope this is helpful. I wish it were somewhat more specific.

[Wilms]

23. Thanks, emlev

Very helpful.

Do you think the local activist can get us some links?

It would be great if we could compile a sort-of "20 Things you didn't know about the SoS nomination situation" compendium.

And for me, McPherson doesn't even have to be a bad guy if the transition team is enough to bias things inappropriately.

If McPherson has a pretty face, let's find the ugliness behind all this.

BUT LET'S FIND IT.

There's been thousands of opining posts on this matter...little in the way of links. I admit to being a bit skeptical, and worse, I've come across negative info that I think may have been overlooked because of how upset some of us are over this.

But that's not a good space to fight from. We need ammo.

The activist reports:

"He was a fundraiser and supporter of Bush, was instrumental in making the recall of Gray Davis happen, and did both of those things during hours the taxpayers were paying him to be a state senator, despite many objections to that. He voted for a budget that abolished the Coastal Commission. She said he's very clearly part of the Bush camp."

Ask them for links.

And thanks for the response.

[emlev]

24. I'll see if I can reach her tomorrow.

Would you be willing to PM me a list of specific questions? I have only a phone number for her, not an email address. I'm speaking at the OVC event tomorrow (Sat) and won't have time to do more than make one phone call to her in the morning, if that. But I'll try.

[Wilms]

25. Here are the questions I have currently.

Shelley

Where is the evidence showing that the most serious charges (not just the ones we're willing to acknowledge) brought against Shelley were fabricated? (And, so and so, did so and so, and got away with it does not apply.)

Why might he have needed to beg for donations for a defense fund, when he had spent $3.5MM of personal funds campaigning for that office?


McPherson

Where's the documented dirt on McPherson? (I know about Gropes, and Cons, and Bots, and the Shelley Coup, but this is MCPHERSON who's up for confirmation.)

Where's the documents related to McPherson's fund raising for Bush and of any laws he may have broke doing it?

Where's any documents tying McPherson to any special interest, especially the 'special election' boosters?


McPherson/Shelley's Mandates

Where's any documents showing any McPherson insensitivity to Shelley's Mandates?

Where's any documents showing any McPherson bias against using Sequoia?

Where's any documents showing any McPherson ties with McCormak?


Strategy

What are the reasons I should not view this battle as a misplaced fight against re-districting and/or some or more of the initiatives, rather than on an attack on Election Reform? (Firemen recommend shooting water at the fire's base, not at the flames.)

What is being done to bring pressure, not on McPherson's nomination, but on the Transition Team Members for whom we/once we can document as conflicted?

What are the arguments supporting the idea that the election reform movement would do well to alienate the probable SoS, who by largely bi-partisan accounts, including that of a future election opponent (Debra Bowen), is viewed as fair minded person; and further, distract from other necessary efforts including doing outreach with county BoE's?
Why should I not be very :scared: about the idea of email circulating filled with insulting name-callings and unsubstantiated allegations?

(In fact, I don't need an answer to the last two questions. I'd be happy to think such esoteric ideas are pondered.)

[emlev]

26. Wilms, these are good questions; however

I don't think my person is the right one to ask most of htem. She's not even in the election reform movement. She's simply an active local Democrat who's familiar with McPherson because he's from this county. Your points about strategy are well-taken. (I'd add to them: If we succeed in getting McPherson rejected, who's likely to be the next nominee?)

I'm willing to call her and ask if she can document any of the things she said to me about McPherson. Even if she were the right person to ask the rest of your questions, I wouldn't have time to ask her.

[emlev]

27. Put in a call to her

but won't reach her until tomorrow at the earliest. Given how tight the time is, I'd recommend you look for your answers elsewhere. I'll let you know if I learn anything from her. Sorry.

[emlev]

28. Talked to my contact about McPherson again

She unexpectedly called me back today. For conitext, she is on the Executive Committee of the California State Democratic Party and also on the CADEM Resolution Committee.

She said the best way to get documentation of McPherson not being moderate is to look at his voting record in the last six months of his term as state senator.

Mostly what she talked about was strategy: that McPherson is going to be confirmed, and that if he were rejected we wouldn't get anyone better. She thinks that at this point the best we can do is to make sure he is asked very specific tough questions and that he answer them in public, on the record. These should include getting public and on-the-record committments from him that he will uphold the list of reforms (including VVPAT) that Shelley agreed to. She says that both John Laird and Joe Simitian have agreed to pose tough questions, and that she has heard that Lonnie Hancock is also going to ask tough questions. She recommends that we submit the questions we want asked.

She also said that if the Dems in the Assembly were going to try to stop McPherson, they'd need a "champion" of the cause among them and they'd need to have a better Republican to offer as an alternative to McPherson.

One more thing: She said that they way to get state Democrats to support a particular issue is to take it to the Resolution Committee of the CA Democratic Party.

I know a lot of your questions remain unanswered. This is the best I could do today. I found it helpful, if discouraging.

[nicknameless]

29. Dems in the Assembly DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT A REPUB!

There is precedence for keeping the Undersecretary of State in office! This was done in previously -- 1987. Elizabeth Whitney remained in office, as the Dems in the Legislature would not confirm the Repub replacements offered by then-Governor Deukmejian.

I see no reason for the Dems to cave-in and approve McPherson. Current Undersecretary of State, Cathy Mitchell, can and should remain in office until a replacement can be chosen legitimately by the voters.

From Sacramento Bee
By Dan Walters -- Bee Columnist
Published 2:15 am PST Tuesday, March 8, 2005

“… The McPherson situation most closely resembles what happened after Jesse Unruh, a legendary political figure who had become state treasurer in 1975, died in office in 1987. Elizabeth Whitney, who had been Unruh's chief deputy, took over the office and wound up running it for nearly two years as Republican Gov. George Deukmejian and a Democrat-controlled Legislature battled over a successor…”

The article portrays this strategy as ultimately painting the Repub candidate as a martyr, but the circumstances under which Shelley was hounded out of office are entirely different and spearheaded by anti-democracy, right-wing thugs. At least given his chosen transition team, McPherson appears to be part of that coup movement.

[emlev]

19. I'm glad to hear you've talked with Take Back the Media

and hope that what you worked out will be satisfactory to everyone concerned.

I also appreciate your making OVCs positions as clear as you're able.

[Andy_Stephenson]

21. Lara...sorry but I am trying to raise money myself to live right now.

Just so you know...I have been diagnosed with a pancreatic tumor. I am facing a major surgery that in and of itself could kill me. After that I am facing chemo therapy (at least 2 rounds). Even after all that there is no guarantee I will live. So unfortunately I will not be able to "match" funds for your little project as I have my own project I am working on. As much as I care about free and fair elections...my health and wellbeing will have to come first right now.