Election Reform-Fraud & Related News Wed 10/18/06 RADICALIZE & Find Truth

[kpete]

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News Wed 10/18/06 RADICALIZE-Find Out The Truth


Land Shark: radicalize = find out the truth about the Bush administration.

EXCLUSIVE: FIRST BUSH-APPOINTED CHAIR OF U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION SAYS 'NO STANDARDS' FOR E-VOTING DEVICES, SYSTEM 'RIPE FOR STEALING ELECTIONS'!

Former Chair Says He 'Was Deceived', EAC and Federal Efforts for Election Reform 'A Charade', 'Travesty'!

In Stark Contrast to Current EAC Chair, Rev. DeForest Soaries Blasts White House, Congress in Transcript of Unaired Interview from Major Broadcast Network!
Having resigned from the commission in April of 2005, Soaries goes on to explain that he believes he was "deceived" by both the White House and Congress, and that neither were ever "really serious about election reform."

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.

~George Orwell






Torture.
Secret prisons.
Hearsay evidence.
No habeas petitions.
Kangaroo courts.
Star chambers.



If you look real close you can almost see the erections.



All members welcome and encouraged to participate.

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

"Recommend"

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

[kpete]

1. Blocking the 2006 Vote

National Issues

Blocking the 2006 Vote
By Tova Andrea Wang, The Century Foundation
October 17, 2006
This article appeared on TomPaine.com. It is reposted here with permission of the author.


While much attention is appropriately being paid to the problems with electronic voting machines, we must also focus on the many other ways voters were disenfranchised in 2004 and could be again in 2006. In the midst of talk about paper trails and frozen computer screens, have we all forgotten the registration problems, the intimidation tactics, the tossed provisional ballots and the unacceptably long lines that led to so many disenfranchised voters in 2004? If so, we had better remember, because recent analysis shows the states have not done enough to make sure such problems don’t rear their ugly heads again during the 2006 and 2008 elections.


In 2000 and 2004, snafus in the voter registration process led to millions of voters being unable to cast ballots. In America, obstacles exist even for citizens trying to register to vote that are a continual factor in low voter turn-out rates. First, unlike most other countries, the onus is on the citizen, rather than the government, to figure how and where to register. Many in poorer and less-educated communities will not get the information they need to register and register properly. Election administrators may make mistakes in the collection and input of a voter’s information, leading to the rejection of that voter’s registration application or the failure of that voter’s name to appear on the right poll book in the right polling location. With many states having registration deadlines up to 30 days out from the Election Day, many would-be voters will register too late, especially in our society where people move frequently and must re-register every time they do so.


Some states are making it even harder to register, not easier, according to a recently published study of 10 key states conducted by The Century Foundation, Common Cause and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Most notable is Arizona, where one now has to provide documentary proof of citizenship in order to register. This has already led to thousands of voter registration forms being rejected throughout the state; election administrators readily admit that most of those rejected were citizens who, while perfectly eligible to vote, were simply unable to produce a birth certificate. New restrictions on third party voter registration drives—virtually the only groups that proactively work to register Americans in minority and poor neighborhoods—also threaten to reduce voter participation.


We should also remember the abominable, deceptive practices designed to suppress the vote which took place in 2004. In one notorious incident, a flier, purportedly from the “Milwaukee Black Voters League” was distributed in African-American neighborhoods. It read, in part:

more at:
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1895&Itemid=26

[kpete]

2. And the Winner Is ... Me

Editorial
And the Winner Is ... Me

Published: October 17, 2006
Voters in Ohio can be forgiven if they feel they have been beamed out of the Midwest and dropped into a third-world autocracy. The latest news from the state’s governor’s race is that the Republican nominee, Kenneth Blackwell, who is also the Ohio secretary of state, could rule that his opponent is ineligible to run because of a technicality. We’d like to think that his office would not ultimately do that, or that if it did, such a ruling would not be allowed to stand. But the mere fact that an elected official and political candidate has the authority to toss his opponent out of a race is further evidence of a serious flaw in our democracy.

Ted Strickland, the Democratic nominee, is leading Mr. Blackwell by as much as 28 points, according to one recent poll. In their panic, some Blackwell supporters have hit on the idea of trying to prevent the election from occurring. One of them filed a complaint alleging that Mr. Strickland, who is a member of Congress, does not live in the apartment where he is registered to vote. Mr. Strickland owns a condominium in another part of Ohio, and the complaint alleges that he actually lives there. If Mr. Strickland was not a qualified voter, he would be prohibited from running for governor.

The complaint itself is without merit. No one disputes that Mr. Strickland lives in Ohio, or that he is registered. The only issue is which of his two homes he chose to register from, and the law gives voters with multiple homes broad discretion in choosing among them.

What is more interesting, and troubling, is the way the complaint is proceeding. The county board that heard it broke down 2 to 2, on party lines, about whether to hold a hearing. In the case of a tie vote at the county level, complaints like these get forwarded to the secretary of state’s office to be resolved. Mr. Blackwell says he has designated his assistant secretary to handle duties that could conflict with his candidacy. But passing these matters on to a subordinate who is a political ally and owes his job to the candidate hardly removes the conflict.

more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17tues1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[kpete]

3. Grapski-Florida Activist Charged With Felony Wiretapping

Florida activist, candidate charged with felony wiretapping



Miriam Raftery
Published: Tuesday October 17, 2006

The State of Florida has filed felony wiretapping charges against election reform activist Charles Grapski for audiotaping his efforts to obtain public records related to his investigation of alleged election fraud, RAW STORY has learned. He faces arraignment Tuesday, October 17th.

"The State has held charges over my head since May 1st, six months," Grapski told RAW STORY. "I have not been allowed until now the right of subpoena power to do discovery in my own defense. Now the State is saying I must choose between two rights: the right to a speedy trial, and my right to a fair trial."

RAW STORY has previously reported on officials' attempts to suppress Grapski's investigation and that Grapski was later banned by a judge from campaigning in the City of Alachua.

Grapski, a Democrat, said he dropped out of his bid to win election to the House of Representatives due to the unresolved threat of legal challenges and the judicial ban, which made it impossible for him to campaign in his district. He endorsed Democrat Chuck Chestnut IV, who won the primary race.

more at:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Florida_activist_candidate_charged_with_felony_1017.html

[kpete]

4. EAC Proposes A New Program For Testing Voting Machines

Under the Radar: The EAC Proposes A New Program For Testing Voting Machines
By Warren Stewart, VoteTrustUSA
October 18, 2006

As we approach the mid-term elections, with control of both the Senate and Congress hanging on an unsually large number of competitive races, nationwide concern is growing about the accuracy and reliability of voting systems. Lost in the pre-election frenzy, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has released a new Voting System Testing and Certification Program (VSTCP), open for public comment until the end of the month and the subject of a public hearing on October 26. The outcome of this review process will have a profound impact on how our votes are cast and counted in 2008 and beyond.



It wasn't supposed to be like this.

The culmination of a process set in motion by the passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002, the new testing and certification program was intended to ensure “that all voting machines will be accurate, secure and useable." To that end, HAVA created the EAC and tasked them with the development of new voting system standards and a program for testing and certifying them to those standards.




The new testing and certification regime was supposed to be in place by now. Handicapped by delays in the initial nomination process and severely underfunded, the EAC was unable meet the intended target of January, 2004 for the completion of new standards. The standards were only adopted in December, 2005 and won't become effective until December, 2007. Only after the new standards were in place did the EAC focus on the development of a process for certifying to those standards.



Federal voting systems standards did not exist until 1990 and it wasn’t until the mid-nineties that any sort of national system was established for testing and certifying that the machinery of elections met those standards. In 1994, the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), with no government funding, began a program in which voting machine vendors contracted with one of three laboratories referred to collectively as Independent Testing Authority (ITA) to test proposed voting systems to standards established by the Federal Election Commission.

more at:
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1899&Itemid=26

[kpete]

5. Alaska: Struggle For 2004 Election Data Continues

Alaska: Struggle For 2004 Election Data Continues
By Jake Metcalfe, Alaska Democratic Party
October 17, 2006

The Alaska Democratic Party recently obtained the electronic General Election Management System (GEMS) database for the 2004 elections by suing the state's Division of Elections in State Superior Court. The Division of Elections had refused for more than nine months to release the public records, but did so late last month just before a hearing was scheduled to begin in the case. An examination of the database reveal that modifications were made to the database on July 12 and July 13, 2006. On October 6, the Democratic Party filed new public records requests asking for a copy of the GEMS database as it existed before the changes made in July, 2006, and for the name and affiliation of each person who did any manual modification to the 2004 General Election GEMS database at any time, what data that person entered manually, and why those changes were made or those data were entered manually. The Division of Elections responded that they would not meet the Democratic Party's request. The following letter was sent to the Whitney Brewster, Director of the Alaska Division of Elections on October 12, 2006.




Dear Ms. Brewster:



I have received your letter of Oct. 10 denying the Alaska Democratic Party's request for public records, in which you state that you are unable to provide a copy of the 2004 GEMS General Election database as it existed before July 2006. Your letter further states that no public records exist, other than the audit log already produced, that would show the name and affiliation of each person who did any manual modification to the 2004 General Election GEMS database at any time, what data that person entered manually, and why those changes were made or those data were entered manually. You state that the request for public records is denied because the "requested records have either already been produced or do not exist."

Your response raises a lot of questions and indicates serious security breeches. Concerning the 2004 GEMS database as it existed before July 12, 2006, are you saying that you have only one copy of this database, which was subject to entry and potentially to manipulation by Division employees, and that no separate copy was kept in archives in a secure location? Why was an accurate, unmodified copy of the database not retained as a record of the election? Were any prior copies of this database destroyed?

more at:
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1897&Itemid=113

[kpete]

6. "Hacking Democracy" Debuts on HBO November 2nd

October 17, 2006 at 17:03:04

"Hacking Democracy" Debuts on HBO November 2nd

by Press Release

http://www.opednews.com



"HACKING DEMOCRACY" DEBUTS ON HBO NOV. 2nd

Executive Producer Earl Katz and Public Interest Pictures' are proud to announce that HACKING DEMOCRACY, a documentary that exposes gaping holes in the security of America's electronic voting system, will debut on HBO THURSDAY, NOV. 2 (9:00-10:30 p.m. ET/PT) – less than a week before the midterm elections.

From a current congressional hearing to persistent media reports that suggest misuse of data and even outright fraud, concerns over the integrity of electronic voting continue to grow daily. And if our voting process is not secure, neither is America's democracy.

In 2002, Seattle grandmother and writer Bev Harris asked officials in her county why they had acquired electronic touch screen systems for their elections. Unsatisfied with their explanation, she set out to learn about electronic voting machines on her own. In the course of her research, she unearthed hundreds of reported incidents of mishandled voting information. Harris also discovered a treasure trove of information about the inner-workings of Diebold Corporation's voting system.

Diebold software, or other software like it, is installed in thousands of counties across 32 states. In Florida, Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho presided over a trial "mini-election" to see if the Diebold system could be hacked without being detected. Computer analyst Harri Hursti "stuffed the ballot box" by entering votes on the computer's memory card and proved that by accessing a memory card before an election, someone could change the results – a claim Diebold had denied was possible.

more at:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_press_re_061017__22hacking_democracy_22_.htm

[kpete]

7. Dealing With Failure

Dealing With Failure
By Avi Rubin, Johns Hopkins University
October 16, 2006
This article appeared on Avi Rubin's Blog. It is reposted here with permission of the author.


An important sub-area of Computer Science is fault tolerance. In a nutshell, fault tolerance is the ability of a system to continue to function in spite of a failure of one or more of its components. A system that can continue to work even if many parts fail in unexpected ways is said to be more fault tolerant than one that does not.


It seems to me that one of the unheralded problems with the Diebold system, and with DREs in general is that it is extremely fault in-tolerant. Consider a few simple examples from the September 12 Maryland primary:

• In Prince George's County memory cards were accidentally left in the voting machines, causing votes not to be counted initially, and at the very least losing track of the chain of custody of those votes.

• In Montgomery County, and in at least one precinct in Baltimore county, smatcards were not delivered to the precincts, causing long lines and people leaving the polls without voting

• The removal and reinsertion of a memory card in a Montgomery County precinct caused the voting machine not to tally votes on the memory card. The votes had to be recovered by Diebold off the internal flash memory in the machines, once again losing track of the chain of custody of those votes.

• A dead power jack in my own precinct almost caused all the voting machines to run out of power and fail

more at:
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1892&Itemid=113

[kpete]

8. Provisional Ballot Problems Loom For Nov7, According to New Publication

Provisional Ballot Problems Loom For November 7, According to New Publication

One in Three Provisional Ballots Cast in 2004 Left Uncounted; No Fix Seen for 2006

10/17/2006 12:47:00 PM

...............

Facts from the briefing paper include:

-- Over one in three of the nearly 2 million "fail- safe" provisional ballots cast in the 2004 election were not counted.

-- Thirteen states each rejected over 10,000 provisional ballots in the 2004 election.

-- Twenty-three states counted less than 50 percent of the provisional ballots cast in that election.

-- Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia will not count a provisional ballot cast in the wrong precinct even if the ballot is cast in the correct county. When multiple precincts are located in the same polling place, something as simple as getting in line for the wrong precinct could cost a citizen their vote, such as happened in Lucas County, Ohio in 2004.

-- Many voters in 2004 were simply refused the opportunity to even cast a provisional ballot while others were told to vote provisionally even though they were eligible to cast a regular ballot. One Franklin County, Ohio resident-whose name was omitted from the poll list though other members of her household who had registered at the same time were listed-was challenged by a partisan poll watcher, blocked from voting and never offered a provisional ballot. Another voter in Prince George's County, Maryland was not found on the voter rolls and not provided a provisional ballot because there were "not enough." Precinct workers at a polling place in Warren County, North Carolina distributed provisional ballots to all voters in line while stating that their votes might not count.

-- Provisional ballots are increasingly being cited as a "fail-safe" insurance plan by those advocating stringent voter identification requirements. A voter without photo ID should always be permitted to cast a provisional ballot, according to the argument. However, under the recently enjoined photo ID law in Georgia, a provisional ballot cast by a voter without ID will not be counted unless that voter appears at the registrar's office with the appropriate photo ID within two days of the election. Similarly, Indiana's photo ID law, which has survived a legal challenge and is in effect for the November election, requires a provisional voter without acceptable ID to appear before the circuit court clerk or county election board with appropriate ID within 10 business days of the election in order for the provisional ballot to be counted.

-- Administrative errors complicate provisional ballot problems. For example, in 2006, a computer malfunction directed 150,000 Washington, DC voters to the wrong polling places. Washington, DC does not count provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct.

more at:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=74463

[kpete]

9. New Voter ID Laws Could Cost Millions Their Right To Vote

New Voter ID Laws Could Cost Millions Their Right To Vote, According to New Briefing Paper
By Timothy Rusch, Demos
October 17, 2006
Recent Court Decisions Find Impact Too Great, Laws Not Based in Fact

The Challenges to Fair Elections Series, published between October 16 and Nov 1, are available for download at here.


Millions of eligible voters could lose their right to vote in coming years if new state and national photo identification and proof of citizenship requirements for voting are implemented, according to a new briefing paper published by Demos, a national public policy and research center. The paper, part of Demos' 2006 Challenges to Fair Elections Series, offers evidence that new and prospective voter ID requirements, in states and on the national level, have been advanced without adequate consideration of facts or the potential impact on voting rights.


In recent years, states such as Georgia, Missouri and Indiana have enacted highly restrictive identification requirements for voting, and Arizona passed a statewide referendum that would require stringent ID and citizenship requirements at the polls. All of these laws have undergone recent challenges in court, and three--those in MO, GA, and AZ--have been legally enjoined and prevented from being enacted this year. Indiana's remains, and national debate, and further challenges to the court rulings in these states, will continue.


"New photo ID requirements for voting are being challenged in court because the evidence shows they have the potential to prevent millions of eligible US citizens from voting," said Miles Rapoport (pictured above), President of Demos. "The courts know, and the facts show, that misleading arguments and distorted facts about "voter fraud" have been used to advance ID legislation. Research proves that strict photo ID requirements for voting solve none of the real problems of elections in the United States, and will actually prevent far too many eligible voters from exercising their responsibility to vote."

more at:
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1893&Itemid=26

[kpete]

10. New Weekly Radio Program about Voting and Democracy to be Launched

New Weekly Radio Program about Voting and Democracy to be Launched

by Press Release

http://www.opednews.com



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CVI to Launch Important New Weekly Radio Program About Voting and Democracy on Wednesday, 10/18 at 8:00PM

Voice of the Voters:
The Power and Responsibility of Democracy

Will Be Aired on WNJC 1360AM, Philadelphia's Renaissance Radio Station

Lowell Finley, noted election law attorney, to be first guest.

Contact information:

Mary Ann Gould

Coalition for Voting Integrity

[e-mail]

(c) 215.588.8518

(h)215.357.5206

Doylestown - The Coalition for Voting Integrity is proud to announce the premier of a weekly radio show devoted to voting rights, election reform and voter-verified paper ballots. The show, to be hosted by Mary Ann Gould, co-founder of CVI, will be called Voice of the Voters, the Power and Responsibility of Democracy.
Although the show is planned to be based on an interview format with time for listener call-ins, it will not stop there. "This hour every week will let people hear from experts in the field of voting reform but it will also provide some entertainment built around voting issues that affect Pennsylvania as well as the rest of the country," said Ms. Gould. "We want people to be engaged in the struggle to make voter-verified paper ballots the nationwide standard and we want them to have some fun while doing it."

The Voice of the Voters' first three weeks are already booked with a series of experts in the field of voting reform:

more at:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_press_re_061017_new_weekly_radio_pro.htm

[kpete]

11. Elections May Leave Bush An Early Lame Duck

Elections May Leave Bush An Early Lame Duck

By Peter Baker and Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 18, 2006; A01



On desks around the West Wing sit digital clocks counting down the days and hours left in the Bush presidency, reminders to the White House staff to use the time left as effectively as possible. As of 8 a.m. today, those clocks will read 825 days, four hours. But if the elections go the way pollsters and pundits predict, they might as well read 20 days.

At least that would be the end of George W. Bush's presidency as he has known it. If Democrats win one or both houses of Congress on Nov. 7, the result will transform the remainder of Bush's time in office and dramatically shift the balance of power in Washington. Ending a dozen years basically passed in exile, congressional Democrats would have a chance to help steer the nation again -- following a campaign spent mostly assailing Bush's vision rather than detailing their own.

Around Washington, key figures in both parties have been trying to figure out what a Democratic victory would mean. Bush has been meeting privately with Cabinet secretaries in recent weeks to map out an agenda for his final two years in office. The White House says it is not making contingency plans for a Democratic win, but Bush advisers are bracing for what they privately recognize is the increasing likelihood. And Democratic leaders have been conferring about what they would do should voters return them to power.

Emboldened by victory, and bitter from grievance, Democrats could use their ascendance to block Bush's agenda, force him to respond to theirs and begin a new era of aggressive oversight and investigation. A Democratic victory, analysts in both parties said, could mean that some of Bush's tax cuts would not be renewed, attempts to revive his Social Security investment plan would be doomed and efforts to further broaden national security powers in the face of civil liberties concerns would be thwarted.

more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701586_pf.html

[kpete]

12. ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purged Ohio Voter Rolls Oct 1st

ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purged Ohio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early.
by KStreetProjector
Wed Oct 18, 2006

.................

Then, one insider, probably an extremist, but certainly very close to Mr. Ken Mehlman abruptly stopped the conversation. He told table that it was impossible they would lose either house. He also predicts an Ohio GOP sweep.

He informed the group that over the last year, in four critical states the GOP needs to hold huge purges of the voter rolls have just been finished.

The insider did not say which four states, but did say Ohio was among them.

His claim was a new Diebold voter registry system had been installed over the last year. The last week of July and the first week of August a "test run" was made of the systems ability to purge ineligable voters. The purge generated names and test letters sent out to 1.2 million Ohio addresses with a focus on University's, Apartment addresses with high turnover. He claims they made the letters seem just functionary, but they have an action component to avoid being purged from the rolls.

.................

much more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/18/85915/109

[bananas]

17. discussed by Thom Hartmann

"UP NEXT: Thom Hartmann: HOW he thinks they are going to steal the election"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2422903&mesg_id=2422903

[texpatriot2004]

13. K & R for Transparent Democracy nm

[kpete]

14. MS: More on Fraud Allegations in Missouri Supreme Court Voter ID Dissent

October 18, 2006
More on Fraud Allegations in Missouri Supreme Court Voter ID Dissent
Following up on this post, Justin Levitt of the Brennan Center sent the following very interesting message to the election law list, reprinted here with permission:


Rick's report of Weinschenk v. Missouri makes a very important point about the overall balance of potential harms involved in voter ID laws. Another element of his posting, however, deserves a brief clarification, especially in the context of reports on any irregularities that may occur in the upcoming election.

Rick accurately quotes the dissent's characterization of available evidence on fraud. Regrettably, however, Judge Limbaugh's characterization was itself inaccurate, and incorrectly bolsters a report often cited as proof that fraud occurs.

In the snippet that was disseminated, the dissent claims that "A subsequent report from then Secretary of State Matt Blunt noted, as even the plaintiffs have acknowledged here, that 79 voters registered from vacant lots, 45 people voted twice, and 14 votes were cast by the 'dead.'"

more at:
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/006952.html

[kpete]

15. OH: ONLY 30% Of Dem Respondents Believe 04 Count Was Fair/Accurate

Alarm Bells for G.O.P. in Poll Results in Ohio

..............

Many Democrats in Ohio still harbor resentment about the 2004 presidential contest between Mr. Bush and Senator John Kerry, which Mr. Bush officially won by about 120,000 votes out of 5.6 million cast in Ohio. Only 30 percent of Democratic poll respondents said they believed the 2004 vote count was fair and accurate, while 64 percent said it was not. (Many conspiracy-minded Democratic activists accused Mr. Blackwell, who serves as statewide supervisor of elections, of manipulating voting technology to help Mr. Bush win.) Republicans, by 89 percent to 8 percent, said the voting was fair and balanced.


more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/us/politics/18poll.html?ei=5094&en=4d5ba620e9153e44&hp=&ex=1161230400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

[Kurovski]

16. Kick.

I absolutely refuse to look that closely at the photograph. No way.

[freedomfries]

18. K & R

great thread kpete