SCOTUS: Corporate Purchase of Elections = 'Free Speech'

Freespeech for People.org

Read the Freespeech for People.org  press release [10] responding to the Supreme Court decision issued January 21, 2010.

Read the Freespeech for People constitutional  draft amendment [11].

Read the Supreme Court ruling [12].

Listen to press call [13] on Supreme Court decision.

Read background articles [14]  . . . Resources continue @ Read More
 

Jeff Clements, Citizens United v. FEC: Time for a Free Speech for People Amendment? [15], American Constitution Society Blog 

Steve Cobble, People = Corporations, Not [16]., Huffington Post.

Is legalizing corporate electioneering "pro-business"? [17]

Jeff Clements, Beyond Citizens United v. FEC: Re-Examining Corporate Rights [18] American Constitution Society.

Jeff Clements, Making Democracy Work: Free Speech for People (PDF) [19]

Jamin Raskin, Corporations Are Not People [20] National Public Radio.

Jim Sleeper, Corporate Free Speech? Since When? [21] Boston Globe.

The Rights of Corporations [22] (editorial), New York Times.

Jess Bravin, Campaign Finance Ruling Looms [23], Wall Street Journal.

Monica Youn, Corporations Have No Business in Elections [24] Los Angeles Times.

Videos:

Jeff Clements [25]

John Bonifaz [26]

Transcript of arguments in Citizens United v. FEC, Sept. 9, 2009: PDF [27].

 Contact freespeechforpeople.org here [28]

Election Day Action Plan

1. Vote (on a real paper ballot, in person, in the precinct, whenever possible)

2. Be a Pollworker for Democracy [60]

3. Video the Vote [61]

4. Conduct a Citizens' Election Verification Exit Poll [62] (EVEP)

5. File Poll Incident Reports [63] with Voter Story, Watch the Vote, CNN, EDA, NPR, Twitter, and MORE [63]

6. Protect the Count [64]: Record Precinct Vote Counts and Watch the Ballots

7. Monitor the Central Count [65] at your County Elections Department

8. Be Prepared to Protest Suspect Election Outcomes [66]

1. VOTE

2. Be a Pollworker for Democracy

Throughout the US boards of elections are desperate for poll workers. The average age has been creeping up over the past decades, and in many instances there are critical shortages. We have significant testimony from poll workers who saved literally hundreds of votes in 2004. The power of even a single poll worker inside a polling station who is committed to democracy can be immense.
Read more [67]

Sign up: http://act.credoaction.com/pollworkers/index.html [60]

3. Video the Vote

We also urge citizens to join the Video the Vote [68] teams that will be going to thousands of polling stations. The bare but vital footage that was shot at besieged inner city precincts in central Ohio 2004 has stood as a vital beacon to show the tip of how thousands of voters were deliberately disenfranchised. This time, we need saturation coverage to protect against and document every possible violation of our rights as citizens.
Learn more and sign up: http://www.videothevote.org/ [68]

4. Conduct Independent Election Verification Exit Polls (EVEP) [69]

Election Defense Alliance, Election Integrity and The Warren Poll are organizing an Election Verification Exit Polling (EVEP) project as a safeguard for the November 2008 presidential election -- and we're calling on you to help. Exit polling provides an independent check on "official results" reported by suspect computerized voting systems. Unlike the national exit poll conducted by a private consortium of newsmedia corporations, who withhold their raw polling data and heavily "adjust" their results to match the reported election results (!), this Citizens' Exit Poll will fully disclose the data so there can be no doubt about the truth of the numbers and what they reveal about the purported truth of the official election results -- and, for that matter, the purported truth of the corporate newsmedia exit poll.

5. File Poll Incident Reports [70]

with Voter Story, CNN, EDA, 1-800 Our Votes, Watch the Vote, Twitter, NPR, and more

6. Protect the Count

Record the Precinct Vote Totals and Watch the Ballots
Watch the pollworkers print out the machine end-of-day vote reports from the voting machines. Then, with a video camera, record the "poll tapes" as soon as the pollworkers post them on the outside of the polling site. Slowly pan the length of the tally tape, recording all the vote totals on it. As soon as you can, upload this information to the Protect the Count Project: (upload links at YouTube and Black Box Voting forthcoming; check back soon.)
There are 3 additional parts to Protect the Count/ Tactics vary according to the nature of the electronic voting systems where you live.
Read and download the 4-page instructions here: Protect the Count [71]

Things to bring: Clipboards, notepads, pens, digital cameras, video cameras, tape recorders, cell phones, and binoculars (to see the tabulator monitor screens).

For further instructions on Central Count Monitoring, LOOK HERE [65]

Download the 5-page overview, "Gathering Election Evidence" [72]

BlackBoxVoting.org's Election Monitoring Watchlist: What To Watch For [73]

Also: Download the comprehensive 2006 Citizens' Toolkit by Black Box Voting Citizen's Tool Kit [74]

Ohio Election Justice Campaign: Quarantine That Machine! [75]
(Treat election violations as a crime scene)

8. Protest Suspect Election Returns: Code Orange Rapid Response Demonstrations

On election night, the EDA Data Analysis Working Group [76] will be rapidly checking election results against the citizen-organized Election Verification Exit Polls [62] (EVEP) and other baseline data such as pre-election tracking polls and voter registration figures, to determine if and where the "official" (computerized) vote counts are suspiciously at odds with observed reality. Please sign up now to be notified where and when to assemble for Code Orange [77] vigils on election night.

The purpose of these peaceful but resolute public demonstrations will be to convey these messages to the nation:

1. Insist that the news media not report as fact what they cannot verify (see Open Letter to the Media [78])

2. No concessions until all the votes have been counted (see Standing for Voters Pledge [79])

3. Candidates must challenge suspect outcomes

4. Reject suspect election results and demand handcounts of the voter-marked paper ballots

Election Day Watchlist

Source: Original content by Bev Harris posted at Blackboxvoting.org [81]. Cross-posted here with full attribution to BlackBoxVoting.org.

For an overview of citizen election monitoring -- what to look for, what questions to ask -- see this five-page digest:
BBV Guide to Gathering Election Evidence [72]

For the "Top 5 Things You Can Do To Protect Election 2008" download Black Box Voting's
2008 Citizens' Tool Kit [82].

You can also request a free printed copy of the 2008 Toolkit in a 4.5" x 7" booklet format easy to carry in your pocket.
Go to the home page of Black Box Voting [83] to request a copy.

For a comprehensive (118-page) year-round guide to election integrity activism, download Black Box Voting's 2006 edition of the Citizens' Toolkit, called "Take Back Your Elections"
Download the "2006 Citizens' Tool Kit" [74]

Journalistic malpractice
Watch for the media to announce who "wins" instead of stating "We predict (name of candidate) will win." News channels are supposed to report the news, not create the news. Results as reported by the news never match the actual results, by the way.

What to do: Object and reject premature "calls." Get the facts, however long it takes, and report them, wherever you can.

Also watch for:

"The gray pie slice" -- In the 2008 New Hampshire primary, CNN used a gray pie slice without a name to represent Ron Paul. Other candidates, even when pie slices were smaller, were colored and had candidate names affixed.

What to do: Record coverage start to finish to gather evidence of any journalistic malpractice.

Also watch for: Eroding vote totals. You may see candidate totals go DOWN during the count.

What to do: Record coverage start to finish.

Also watch for:
Unusual fluctuations or insufficient variations with minor candidates.
In one Minnesota district in 2004, for example, ALL MINOR CANDIDATES received the same percentages of votes, until screen shots were posted
and questioned by Internet watchdogs. Then the vote totals were spread more normally. In Florida in 2000, at one point the Socialist Worker
Party candidate had more votes dumped into his totals in a single county than he received statewide. One strategy for electronic vote
manipulation involves use of minor candidate vote bins to store votes temporarily.

What to do: Record television coverage start to finish to retain and examine later, and take screen shots of incoming AP totals from sites like http://www.politico.com [84].

WATCH FOR AND DOCUMENT VOTING RIGHTS PROBLEMS IN THREE AREAS:
- Access to voting (voter rolls)
- Fairness (deceptive practices)
- Counting the votes

ACCESS TO VOTING
Watch for: - Registrations hijacked to a different party - Omissions and improper additions to the voter rolls The new "electronic pollbooks" help to block citizen oversight and also introduce sophisticated attack vectors.

What to do:
Gather evidence: Documents, records, video, audio and photographs.
Persevere - keep gathering proof, even after the election is over.
Example: When voter registration is hijacked to a different party, there should be a paper trail. Find out your state's regulations for the paperwork
needed to change a voter's party preference. Use public records requests to request the backup documents. If they can't produce them,
expose the fraud by propagating the evidence, to blogs, legislators, citizens groups. Get your evidence to at least five different entities.
Find out if your local jurisdiction is now using electronic voter sign-in instead of observable paper pollbooks.

DECEPTIVE PRACTICES
Watch for:
Omission of candidate names on the ballot or screen; misdirection about where/when/how to vote; misleading ballot design; confusing or
misleading instructions; intimidation tactics

What to do:
Gather evidence and propagate it.

If it happens in the polling place:
Call an elections worker over and show them; then ask that they write the incident down to document it, and watch to see that they do so.
Then submit a formal public records request for a copy of the incident report and any other incident reports throughout the jurisdiction.

If it happens outside the polling place:
Video, photograph, get documents, and if you obtain evidence, propagate it to at least five entities, including Internet sites, mainstream
news, legislators, elections officials and citizens groups.

VOTE COUNTING
Watch for: Whether you can see the chain of custody; whether you can see the votes themselves being counted.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY:
The greatest risk for manipulation of the count is from inside access.
The best way to prevent vote-counting fraud by insiders is to require a fully public chain of custody. If chain of custody is not public, even
spot checks, audits and recounts will fail to ensure integrity in the election. Your ability to review chain of custody varies depending on your jurisdiction. Most locations nowadays have removed chain of custody from public view - which means citizens must go to
extraordinary lengths to learn the simplest information, if they can get it at all.

Look for:
Weak links in the chain, or "narrow spots in the pipe" where just a few people, or just one person, has access to the votes before (or shortly
after) the vote count is announced. JUST ONE BROKEN LINK means the vote count cannot be trusted.

What to do:
Get evidence of broken links, narrow spots in the pipeline, or inside-only access/oversight. Evidence means documents and videotape. Persevere
- it may take time to evaluate even one link in the chain. When you get evidence that the chain has been broken or left public view, propagate the evidence to at least five entities, like blogs, voting rights groups, open government groups, the media, and public officials. Prepare
a report with a local group of citizens, submit it to those with authority in your jurisdiction, request remediation of individual
issues before the next election.

ACCURACY OF THE VOTE COUNT Except in hand count locations, you will be unable to see your votes being counted. The counting is now controlled by government insiders and voting machine programmers. Your right to citizen sovereignty over your own government is at stake, and you have been placed in the position of trying to get circumstantial evidence to authenticate the count. This places an extraordinary and unsustainable burden on the citizenry. You can surrender the voting process to government insiders now, or you can put up a fight.

Look for:
On DRE (touch-screen, dial-a-vote) systems - observe screens carefully, watch for vote-hopping to selections you did not choose. The vote may hop to another choice immediately or after a delay, or even after you have page to a new screen.

What to do:
Stop the process immediately, call an elections worker over, see if you can replicate it, request that they write the incident down, stay and
watch while they do so, make a formal request for the public record of their incident reports and all other incident reports in your jurisdiction. Double and triple check before casting votes, and document all anomalies. (If you witness vote-hopping on a dial-a-vote system like the Hart eSlate, document it using every means necessary and contact Black Box Voting, BradBlog, and VotersUnite.)

After polls close, videotape poll closing activities and videotape the results tape and any other reconciliation forms filled out by poll
workers. If they won't let you videotape, then videotape them telling you that you cannot watch, or that you can't capture evidence of the
poll closing and counting procedures.

On optical scan systems (fill in bubble, draw arrow):
Observe whether the vote count increments when you deposit your ballot. After polls close, videotape poll closing activities and videotape the results tape from the optical scan machine and also videotape any other reconciliation forms filled out by poll workers. These should include number of ballots provided, cast, unused and spoiled, along with number of voters checked in to vote.

If you live in New York:
Most New Yorkers are voting on lever machines, which -- unlike the scanners and DREs -- are extremely difficult to tamper with in a wholesale, nontransparent way. However, many New Yorkers do not realize that customized Sequoia scanners are used to count tens of thousands of
absentee votes. Start asking questions about those votes (chain of custody, counting). Ascertain your rights to observe and examine your
computerized absentee counting system.

Also: New York public records laws include the VENDORS in freedom of information requirements.
Consider submitting public records requests directly to Sequoia Voting Systems. Ask for things like correspondence, incident reports,
invoices, contracts. These vendor-directed records requests are especially important because it looks like New York's Nov. 2008 elections will be run on Sequoia computerized systems, or something similar.

IF YOU LIVE IN GEORGIA, KENTUCKY, CONNECTICUT:
You, too, can request public records DIRECTLY FROM THE VENDOR. Let's get to work on opening them up.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ABOUT ACCURACY OF THE VOTE COUNT
Compare number of voters checked in to vote with number of votes. Note any arithmetic that doesn't add up. You may also want to visit the main elections division for your jurisdiction to observe and record procedures and activities. If you cannot view and record the computer screen, you are being blocked from viewing even circumstantial evidence of the count. Check your state election law as to whether counting votes in secret has ever been authorized. Persevere. Take as much time as it takes to gather real evidence, including evidence of efforts to obstruct your right to oversee chain of custody and counting.

Evidence means: Documents, video, audio and photos.

SURRENDER NOW OR DIG IN FOR THE LONG HAUL
The Government is currently displacing citizen sovereignty over election processes. Assert your right to sovereignty via documentation and
oversight to authenticate election procedures and results, and when your rights are obstructed, gather evidence of this and propagate it. All
evidence you acquire during the primary election cycle should be applied towards regaining citizen sovereignty over elections in the
Nov. 2008 election.

It's easy to become overwhelmed. Yet, if many different citizens simply welcome the awakening of their own civic
duty, trust to their own common sense and innate creativity, and take just one step, the next will become clear.
Trust me on this. Good luck and God bless, Bev Harris Founder - Black Box Voting

Guide to Gathering Election Evidence: A 5-page digest. Download BBV's "Gathering Evidence" [72]

Citizens' Toolkit 2008: A five-point guide to essential monitoring actions on election day Download BBV 2008 Citizens' Toolkit [85]

Citizens' Toolkit 2006: A general guide to year-round election monitoring and investigation Download BBV 2006 Citizens' Toolkit [86]

Help Build a National Election Integrity E-mail Network

The Election Integrity "Superlist" E-mail Network Plan in Brief:
With your help, Election Defense Alliance proposes building a national election integrity E-mail network composed of many separate e-mail lists, each one a branch in the larger tree.

Each branch will be managed by a participating individual or organization who agrees to transmit occasional election integrity messages to the addresses on the e-mail lists they manage.

Note: We are not asking for lists of individual e-mail addresses. We are asking you to help us make contacts with e-mail list managers, so that election integrity messages can be transmitted to the mailing lists they manage.

RATIONALE
Information and Speech Are Still Free on the Internet (Use or Lose)
Let's make full use of internet e-mail, the only mass communications medium we have that is not subject to corporate censoring of news about fraudulent elections. The EI movement should put to full use the power of proliferating e-mail contacts to branch out beyond the core membership of our respective electoral integrity organizations. This is what it will take to build the level of mass awareness necessary to break through corporate media control and reclaim our elections and government from the corporations and "unduly electeds" who have usurped our democracy.

METHOD
Building the Election Integrity Superlist involves identifying managers of e-mail lists, persuading them to participate in a national election integrity e-mail network, and asking 10 questions about the characteristics of each list they manage.

Participation in the network is always voluntary. Each list manager will have discretionary control over which messages to send or not send.

Please note, we are not asking for lists of individual e-mail addressess (always a closely guarded resource!).

Rather, we are compiling a list of e-mail lists, and obtaining agreements from list managers to relay occasional messages of broad relevance to the election integrity cause. All group and individual list managers participating in the network may propose messages to be sent over the network. Transmission of each message is always at the voluntary option of each participating group or list manager.

How to Participate

• Think of likely sources of e-mail lists
• Identify the persons who manage those lists
• Explain project and request list managers' participation
• Gather 10 points of information about each list
• Send in the list information to EDA [87]

That's it in a nutshell. A project discussion and methodological details are presented in greater detail at: http://electiondefensealliance.org/email_network_plan [88] where you will also find download links for a cover letter you can adapt for your own, and list questionnaire forms to use when interviewing list managers.

Help File Evidence for CA Investigation of Prop. 8

On Election Night, 2008, one or more members of the EDA Election Data Analysis Working Group downloaded the CNN screenshot of unadjusted exit poll results for CA Proposition 8 that is now the catalyst for a rapidly growing statewide call for an official investigation.

Election Defense Alliance is calling on any California voter who witnessed or otherwise has evidence indicative of miscount in the Proposition 8 contest to please file a formal complaint with the CA SoS office so it can be entered as evidence in an official investigation we have been told may be initiated as early as this Wednesday.

See sample complaint letter lower in this post, and click this link to download the CA election fraud complaint form [89].

EDA is asking for collective public review of the complaint and evidence, and any additional comment or correction you would recommend be added to the complaint and evidentiary letter (see below) sent to the CA SoS office, citing the EDA exit poll evidence.

EDA Director Dan Ashby is in communication with Sharon and Richard Tamm who filed the original complaint and letter of supporting evidence, (reproduced below) to which the CA SoS office has affirmatively responded.

EDA is prominently mentioned in that original complaint as the source for the most compelling single piece of evidence calling the official Prop. 8 vote count into question.

The CA SoS office has responded with a request for as much supporting evidence as possible to be submitted by Monday November 24 using the CA election fraud complaint form [89].
You can scan the completed form and any supporting documents and e-mail them to: Elections@sos.ca.gov [90]

However, evidence will continue to be accepted beyond Monday, so please do file additional reports when you can, but as soon as you can.

Please Forward this page by clicking the E-mail This Page link below or by using the Share Page webtools, upper right column.

Click the Read More link to read the rest of this post and how you can help bring an investigation into the Prop. 8 vote count.

Election Verification Exit Polls May Also Turn Up Evidence

Additionally, EDA conducted citizen exit polls in 19 precincts in Los Angeles County and precincts in Alameda and San Francisco counties. This evidence may also be brought to bear in questioning the veracity of the official machine count on Proposition 8.

If you have been involved in analyzing any of the CA voting results, and specifically anything to do with Proposition 8, please contact the CA Secretary of State's Election Fraud Investigation Unit:

SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE
ELECTION FRAUD INVESTIGATION UNIT
1500-11th STREET, 5th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

English: 1-800-345-VOTE (8683)
Spanish: 1-800-232-VOTA (8682)

On the telephone menu, press option 2 to record a report of election fraud.

Please also send a copy of your complaint or other information to Info[at]ElectionDefenseAlliance[dot]org [91] with "Prop. 8" in the Subject line.

Collect Evidence of Machine Error for HAVA Sec. III Complaints

Additionally, you will see that the second page of the CA election fraud complaint form refers specifically to any indication that HAVA Sec. III has been violated.

Sec. III concerns standards of acceptable error rates in voting machines (which as we know, in practice are widely ignored).

This is an opportunity to cite evidence (such as EDA Council member Judy Alter has documented in L.A.) of machine read error rates in excess of the HAVA standards, as additional grounds for investigating the Proposition 8 vote count.

With enough public pressure, we may be able to bring about official recounts at the precinct, county, or even statewide level. If you have any knowledge of violations of HAVA voting machine accuracy standards, please include that in your letter of complaint too.

A list of the voting machines in every CA county [92] is attached for download.

Excerpts of Announcement Calling for Investigation of Prop. 8 Vote Count

Election Defense Alliance [93] and other election fraud watchdogs found a greater than 8% discrepancy between exit polls and reported results for Proposition 8. This is a key indicator of possible vote fraud and should be investigated by the Secretary of State. In order to do this she needs to receive Election Complaint Forms from California registered voters.

[Click to download CA election fraud complaint form [89].]

Final elections returns must be submitted to the Secretary of State's office by December 9th and will be certified on December 13th so we don't have much time.
They will combine all similar complaints into one investigation and the more citizen complaints they have the better.

I am going to drive my complaint (and any others that are ready) to Sacramento on Monday morning 11/24 so they can assign an investigator by the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.

--Sharon Ryals Tamm [filer of initiating complaint]

Otherwise mail it to the address listed on the second page of the form which is also listed below.

Or you can scan the completed form and any supporting documents and email it to: Elections@sos.ca.gov [90]
or you can call a complaint into the numbers listed.

SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE
ELECTION FRAUD INVESTIGATION UNIT
1500-11th STREET, 5th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

English: 1-800-345-VOTE (8683)
Spanish: 1-800-232-VOTA (8682)

When naming the "Person(s) and Organizations Against Whom Complaint is Brought" cast as wide a net as possible and include anyone and everyone you can think of who might be involved in, liable, responsible or accountable for possibly fraudulant elections results on Proposition 8. I have included how I filled out my complaint form below.

There is more evidence coming out from www.electiondefensealliance.org [93] that should be included but this was the best I could do for now.

The line for victims on the form could include names of California citizens whose right to marry was eliminated by Prop 8. Obtain their permission first.

Text from Initiating Election Complaint Form Submitted by Sharon Ryals Tamm

PAGE 1: ELECTION COMPLAINT FORM brought by Sharon Ryals Tamm

PERSON(S) OR ORGANIZATION(S) AGAINST WHOM COMPLAINT IS BROUGHT:
National Exit Polls (NEP aka Edison/Mitofsky); CNN; all companies whose election systems are used in the State of California including but not limited to ES&S, Sequoia, Hart Intercivic, and Premier Election Solutions (aka Diebold), all elections officials and elections personnel of the State of California, including all County Registrars' Offices and the Secretary of State's Office and their respective staff including temporary workers.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Date(s) and time(s) alleged events occurred: 11/04/2008—11/05/2008 including but not limited to the hours of 6am 11/04/08 to 1am 11/05/08 PST
Location(s) of alleged event(s): The State of California, all polling places, precincts, county and state elections and elections equipment locations, including those where votes were counted or machine tallied, especially in Los Angeles county.
Names and phone numbers of witnesses or other victims: Richard Tamm, 510-524-4608. Emily Levy 831-429-8946. Dan Ashby 510-233-2144.

DESCRIBE YOUR COMPLAINT (if necessary attach additional sheets):
Attached is initial evidence of a greater than 8% discrepancy between exit polls and tabulated results for Proposition 8. Recent elections history has shown this type of discrepancy is a key indicator of possible election fraud requiring further investigation. Please employ all means necessary to acquire and examine all data, equipment and persons that could possibly account for such a discrepancy; in particular, all raw poll data procured by National Exit Polls (NEP-aka Edison/Mitofsky) including which precincts they polled, the testimony of polling personnel, and exactly how NEP revised poll data later to match results reported on CNN. In addition to any California Elections statutes and regulations that may apply please review under the HAVA Title III Section attached and any other section relevant to the issues brought in this complaint. I request that regional hearings be held throughout the state on these concerns.

Text of Supporting Evidentiary Letter Provided to CA SoS Office by Richard Tamm

To the Honorable Debra Bowen et al:

I am writing to you to request that the Office of the Secretary of State of California launch an election fraud investigation into the vote count of Proposition 8 based on the following evidence.

I received the following as part of an email from Mark Crispin Miller who passed it on from Velvet Revolution:

'"Around the world, exit polls are used to determine the need for investigation of elections. In the U.S., the National Exit Poll (NEP, also known as Edison/Mitofsky) now adjusts results to match vote counts before issuing its final polling numbers. Election Defense Alliance downloaded NEP numbers from the internet on election night, however [around 8 PM, as told to me by Dan Ashby of EDA], before poll results were changed to match the official vote count.

This is the exit poll from early in the evening of election night.
There were 2,168 respondents, and they break down as follows (a "yes" vote is a vote against same-sex marriage):

[I rearranged the percentages reporting to the following format.]

Prop 8: Yes: No:
Males: 48% 52%
Females: 48% 52%

View actual screen capture

This is the exit poll from later in the evening. There were 2,240 respondents -- 72 more respondents than in the earlier poll -- and they break down in a very different way:

Prop 8: Yes: No:
Males: 53% 47%
Females: 52% 48%

View actual screen capture

This discrepancy should be ringing alarm bells. Something doesn't add up."

If you view the screen captures, you see they are from CNN, which I would consider to be a fairly reputable organization. The shift in percentages does NOT add up. Here's why:

Using the above percentages and respondent numbers, and assuming that Male and Female respondents are approximately 50% each, the shift can be seen this way:

Prop 8, Males and Females: Yes: No: respondents:
About 8 PM: 48% 52% of 2,168

Later in the evening: 52.5% 47.5% of 2,240
Percentage change: + 4,5% - 4.5%

Based on the number of respondents, percentages convert (without exit poll adjustments) to:
Prop 8, Males and Females: Yes: No: respondents:
About 8 PM: 1,041 + 1,127 = 2,168
Later in the evening: 1,176 + 1,064 = 2,240
Respondents change: + 135 - 63

For the percentage changes in the later exit poll reports to make sense, with the addition of 72 more respondents, we would have to see a change of + 135 for a Yes on Prop 8, and - 63 for a No on Prop 8.

My question is: How does the addition of 72 respondents to the later exit poll cause an increase of 135 votes for Prop 8 and a decrease of 63 votes against Prop 8?

Exit polls are done with people who just voted, telling how they had just voted. And exit polls have, traditionally, been extremely accurate, so much so that a number of European countries that still do hand-counted paper ballots use their exit polls to declare the winner before the hand-count is complete.

I request that the Secretary of State of California launch an election fraud investigation to get to the bottom of this. As time is of the essence, while final vote counts are still being tallied, you can immediately at least demand all relevant material from the National Exit Poll (NEP, also known as Edison/Mitofsky), and start a larger hand-counted paper-ballot audit of some selected precincts/counties.

Please consider this information and request with the utmost seriousness and urgency. And, if I can be of any further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you very much,

Richard Tamm

Oppose NY Scanner Certification, Albany Hearing, 12.15.09

Crucial State Board of Elections Vote Tuesday!

Board Scheduled to Decide on Certification of Optical Scanners to Count NY's Votes in Secret!

Can you come to Albany?

Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Noon
State Board of Election Offices
40 Steuben Street, 4th Floor
Albany, New York

Sign up to speak!

Take photos!

Bring signs!

If you can't make it to Albany...

Sign Up for Code Orange Rapid Response Demonstrations

No More Rolling Over

In 2004, Ukrainians took to the streets to protest a stolen election. They demonstrated by the millions, for days on end, until they overwhelmed the attempted electoral coup. They demanded a revote, and they got their legitimate government back.

In 2004, we Americans had our votes stolen and our government hijacked, but we were immobilized with shock.

This time we will be ready.

No More Stolen Elections

Election Defense Alliance and other election integrity allies are monitoring the lead-up to the election for danger indicators. We will know where to look, and what to look for.

We will be analyzing election returns in real time, and when we find vote theft and suppression,

we will call on you to rally for the republic in mass protests strategically focused for maximum effect.

We are neither predicting or announcing where the protests will be called.

Our response will be swift and decisive with the element of surprise and the determination to sustain protest as long as necessary.

How long?

Until we get an honest accounting of the votes.

We need to know who will stand with us in defense of our votes and where we can reach you when the call goes out.

United We Count

Can we count on you?

Yes! When the call comes, I will be there!

SIGN UP HERE [98]

03.16.09 Pledge Today to Keep Peter B. Collins on the Radio!

UPDATE 3.20.09

Although many people responded to last week's appeals to help sustain the Peter B. Collins radio show, there wasn't a sufficient level of projected income to meet the $5,000 monthly cost of the show.

So, Friday March 20 was the final over-the-air broadcast for Collins' independently syndicated program.  Collins announced plans to return in June with a podcast [Internet only] show, initially one or two days per week. 

On his final broadcast, Peter thanked all his loyal listeners and supporters. He offered to return any donations made with the expectation that the daily broadcast would continue, and invited everyone who would like to receive news about future plans for the Collins show to send an e-mail subscription request to: Peter at this address [99]  [ peter[at]peterbcollins[dot]com ]

==========================

Action of the Day Post    3.16.09  

Veteran San Francisco talk show host Peter B. Collins is one of our stalwart election integrity voices in broadcast media.

His show features Brad Friedman as a regular guest covering election issues every Friday for a full hour.

( Here's the most recent Friday show: http://www.peterbcollins.com/3-13-09/ [100] )

But times are tough in independent progressive radio, and just last week Collins announced that he is unable to continue meeting the monthly $5,000 expense of keeping his show on the air.

Loyal listeners are responding to keep Peter on the airwaves. Election integrity advocates Dale Axelrod, Dave Berman, and Mark Crispin Miller are circulating appeals on Peter's behalf.

If 500 people who tune into Peter's shows via Internet radio would pledge $10 a month, the show could go on.

Donation Page:  http://www.peterbcollins.com/you-can-help/ [101]

Collins is willing to reconsider, but that decision depends on how much public support is shown by end of today, March 16.

Those who regularly listen to Collins already know he is one of the best informed, most fearlessly progressive talk show hosts in the nation, and one of the few radio beacons for the election integrity message.

For those who don't know what they're missing, the Peter B. Collins radio shows are available as a podcast subscription at:

http://green960.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=peterbcollins.xml [102]

During live broadcasts  you can tune in via this KXRA Internet link: http://www.krxa540.com/component/content/article/5-listen-on-the-internet [103]

Past shows are also archived on the web at: http://www.peterbcollins.com/ [104]

In a recent post on his site Collins wrote:

"Since we started on KRXA in 2005, I've been covering the costs of producing the show and delivering it to our affiliate stations by satellite. With phone bills and the other expenses, it adds up to more than $5,000 a month. We get a little advertising revenue and some generous listeners contribute, but most of it is absorbed by my small business, Collins Media Services. Until last summer, I was able to cover the costs from my work as a radio producer and consultant. Like everyone else, the Bush recession has hit me hard."

(Full account at: http://www.peterbcollins.com/i-made-a-tough-decision/ [105] ).

As Dale Axelrod wrote in his public letter of support,

"Word has it that he (Collins] is open to the idea of an angel from heaven dropping in to help meet his $5000 monthly nut. If something like that were to happen, one of the nation's most intelligent, informative, insightful, entertaining, and important progressive voices would likely be able to stay on the public airwaves, where he belongs."

Can we get 500 mini-angels to pledge $10./month for the next 6 months, so we don't lose this important progressive voice?

E-mail Peter B. Collins at this address [106]

Let him know if you're willing to subscribe for at least 6 months, and how much you can pay.

Or, go directly to this contribution page to pitch in: http://www.peterbcollins.com/you-can-help/ [101]

Thanks (I'm in for $10./month)

Dale Axelrod

www.Verifygra.com [107]

For an Election that Really STANDS UP!

* * * Thanks to Dale Axelrod and Dave Berman for their letters that inspired this EDA Action of the Day.

We depend on activists around the country to keep us posted about needed actions.

Please e-mail your recommendations in to Info[at]ElectionDefenseAlliance[dot org with "Action of the Day" in the subject line.

EDA Widgets

Widgets are little patches of code that set up interactive connections from one website or blog to another. Widgets are a great way to introduce audiences on other sites to the election integrity cause, and to direct visitors to information and contribution pages at EDA and related sites. See below for a growing selection of EDA widgets that we hope you will use to help seed election integrity messages across the Internet.

How to Use Widgets:

Copy and paste the code blocks into a web or blog page where you want the widget to appear. Widgets can be installed on single pages, or as side column "blocks" displayed across multiple pages of a website. Widget code can also be inserted in the body of an HTML-enabled e-mail message, and sent out to your address book or other e-mail lists. Clicking the "Share" tab on these widgets enables e-mailing the widget code to share with others, who can then display the widgets on their websites and blogs.

EDA Newsfeed RSS Subscription Chiclet

[108]Subscribe in a reader [108]
 

EDA Newsfeed Headline Animator

[109]

↑ Grab this Headline Animator [110]

The EDA Frontpage News Widget

Displays live hyperlinks to the current frontpage news articles at EDA. Click the Options tag to display and select from a variety of code formats adapted for particular blogging and social networking platforms. There's also a version for running on a personal computer desktop.

Flip Out for Election Integrity

Action of the Day 9.19.09

Flip Out for Election Integrity

Turn 100 Lincolns into 10 Flip Ultra Videocams

to Help EDA   Defend the Vote [114]

Note: We made our initial goal of $500 thanks in largest part
to a long-time EDA supporter whose donation will enable us
to deploy 10 of these videocams to election monitoring teams.
If this idea appeals to you, you can help us buy more cams
with an earmarked donation on the EDA Donate page [115].

Here's a fun way to triple the reach of your Defend the Vote donation [114], by leveraging the Flip Video Spotlight offer.

Facebook Cause: http://k5cyz.tk [116]

Tweeters go here:  http://twitter.com/Dan_EDA [117]

For every $50 donated to this Defend-the-Vote fundraising drive, EDA will be able to deploy a discrete, high-quality handheld videocam to volunteer election monitors in the field, building on the "Video the Vote" movement that has proved so effective in awakening Americans to the crisis in our electoral system.

How this works:

As a participating partner in the Flip Video Spotlight program, EDA has the privilege of purchasing Flip Video Ultra 4GB 120-minute camcorders at a price of $50 -- a $100 savings over retail.

Your donation goes three times as far.

By reaching this $500 goal in 2 weeks, EDA can distribute 10 Flip Ultra videocams to EDA election monitoring partners such as
Save R Vote [118] (Riverside Co. CA) and Arizona Transparency Project [113] (Pima and Maricopa counties).

We can reach this goal in any of these ways:

50 gifts of $10 (the Causes minimum donation)
33 gifts of $15
25 gifts of $20
20 gifts of $25
10 gifts of $50
5 gifts of $100

Here's the Free Option:

Everyone can give a boost to this drive by forwarding and recommending this Flip for Election Integrity fundraising drive to your friends via e-mail and social network sharing.
Let's Flip Out for the next 2 weeks and see how we do.

To learn more about the Spotlight program, visit http://www.flipvideospotlight.com [119]

Meeting to Preserve NY Lever Voting, Manhattan, July 9

Registration Deadlines Closing Fast -- Let Everyone Know

Last chance to vote in the presidential election!

In 1 to 3 days from today (Oct. 4th through 6th) voter registration CLOSES in 26 of the States and territories.

Double-check your registration status (Poke your Vote to the right >>>>
or better, use the All State Registration Directory link also to the right. >>>>

Spread the Word.

Be Heard.

If you can, hand-deliver to your county elections department.
Otherwise, there may still be time to mail -- but check the mail-in regulations for your state.

Registrations Received By Mail: [ARIZONA -- For Example Only! Check your own state's rules.]

In the case of registration by mail, a voter registration is valid if it complies with
either of the following:

1. The registration is dated 29 days or more before an election and is received by the
County Recorder by first class mail within 5 days after the last day to register to
vote in that election.

2. The form is postmarked 29 days or more before an election and is received by the
County Recorder by 7 p.m. on the day of that election.

Check here for thorough registration details in your state [126]

Tell the President-Elect: We Want Paper Ballots

Send This Page to a Friend [1]

Barack Obama's Transition Team is calling for public input on what direction the US should go in.

1. Go to http://change.gov/page/s/yourvision [127] and let the President-Elect know what the people want and need from our government. 2. Please forward this email to everyone you know. [Click the "E-mail This Page" link at the foot of this article]. If they hear from millions of us, it will make a difference!

EDA Communications group member Dale Axelrod (originator of the Paper Ballot Platform Plank) presents this recommendation:

Support Legislation for PAPER BALLOTS

Since we've recently had elections with very slim margins, no undocumented totals should be relied upon in presidential or congressional voting. All across the country, instances of paperless, electronic touch-screen (DRE’s) voting machines’ losing, misdirecting, or miscounting large numbers of votes has been well-documented. In the interest of ensuring auditable and trustworthy election results: PLEASE support immediate passage of ELECTION REFORM legislation requiring that paper ballots replace paperless, touch-screen voting systems in time for the November 2010 congressional elections. Trust in elections is central to trust in government. Only with a tangible, paper ballot can voters have confidence that there is something to count. Complete Details with Live Links at: http://www.paperballot.info/ [128] Download, print, and distribute this flyer [129]

The PLAN

Complete Details with Live Links at: http://www.paperballot.info/ [128]

WARNING: Straight-Party Ballot Option a Danger to Your Vote

Voters Beware in These 15 "Straight-Party" States:

Alabama Indiana Iowa Kentucky Michigan New Mexico North Carolina [130] Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island

South Carolina Texas Utah West Virginia Wisconsin

OVERVIEW

Voters are warned that use of the "straight-party" ballot option to be offered on voting machines in 15 states this November may result in the loss of votes cast for president and US senate. In 2004 reports of aberrant electronic voting machine behavior resulting in the cancellation of votes for president and senate were associated with the "straight party" mode of casting a ballot for an entire party-based slate of candidates.

Careful study of 2004 election incident reports (EIRS) revealed that the effects of straight-party machine voting in New Mexico in 2004, reported in this original investigative study by EDA Coordinator Judy Alter, were subsequently identified as having occurred in the same fashion on voting machines in other states that also offered the straight-party ballot option.

The straight party ballot option is a known and continuing danger in this upcoming presidential election. Given the proven risks, EDA urges voters to avoid using the "straight-party" option when casting your ballot. Cast your selections for each office individually.

===================

DOWNLOAD This Article:

This brief version [131] (printed below)

Full-length original report [132]

===================

Effects of the Straight Party Voting Option and Sequoia Voting Machines
Observed During the 2004 General Election in Santa Fe County, New Mexico

By Judith B. Alter, Ed.D.
Director, Protect California Ballots
EDA Council Member at Large

This study of a single county in New Mexico describes the effect of the "straight-party" voting option in relation to the high "under-vote" that occurred in the 2004 presidential election in Santa Fe County. The "straight party" voting option allows a voter to mark or cast a single vote that registers for all candidates in the voter's political party. This study revealed in Santa Fe County, several of the patterns found by other researchers who have studied the election in the entire state of New Mexico. Unusual voting patterns emerged when researchers compared the presidential results to the totals of the statewide "down-ticket" candidates in the three voting opportunities: Absentee, Early Voting, and Election Day. Different Sequoia voting systems were used for each of these three classes of voting.

After the November 2004 presidential election, the Green and Libertarian parties requested a recount in New Mexico because the state had the highest under-vote rate for president in the nation. Election officials record an under-vote when the voter does not make a choice for a particular race, in this case for president. Recount volunteers working with BlackboxVoting.org filed numerous public records requests for election documents. The material acquired from these public records requests provides the basis for the analysis provided here. The "straight-party" option appears to have contributed, in a major way, to the historic "under-vote" for president in New Mexico, 2004.

New Mexico Set National Record for Presidential Undervotes

The high under-vote rate (no vote for any candidate for an office) in Santa Fe County and the rest of New Mexico may have occurred primarily when voters chose the "straight-party" voting option on election day. Another vote reducing and possible vote-shifting scheme seems to have been present in the Sequoia scanners that counted hand-marked paper ballots cast during absentee and early voting in the straight party choices for minor third parties. Finally, a large discrepancy exists between the number of signatures on voter rosters, the total votes cast, and the presidential votes cast, especially on Election Day.

New Mexico voters had three different opportunities to vote; each was tabulated by proprietary Sequoia software. A voter could choose to vote: (1) absentee (ABS), using a paper ballot tabulated by Sequoia Optech 4C-400 scanners; (2) in early (EV) at five specified locations using a paper ballot tabulated by Sequoia Optech Insight scanners; or (3) on Election Day (ED), using Sequoia Advantage push button machines (DRE-direct recording electronic devices) that tabulated the votes and recorded the results on internal memory tapes. In Santa Fe County on election day 86 precincts or polling sites contained a total of 214 Sequoia push button DRE machines.

In Santa Fe County, 62% of the voters registered as Democrats, 18% Republican, and 20% as "other" or "decline to state." Of these voters, Absentee voters comprised 29% of the total Santa Fe County votes, 35% chose to participate in Early Voting, and 36% participated in Election Day voting. Of these voting choices, 0.26% of Absentee (ABS) ballots contained under-votes, 0.22% of Early Voting ballots recorded under-votes, and a full 4.2% of Election Day ballots were recorded as under-votes for president. This means that of the 36% of voters who voted on Election Day in Santa Fe County, 4.2% of them did not record a vote for president.

In contrast to results reported on the New Mexico Secretary of State's website, actual election night material provided the numbers of voters who chose the "straight-party" option. The "straight-party" option allows a voter of a specific party to check a single box indicating the intention to vote for all the candidates in that party for all the races. The voter would check one box and believe that all those running for any office of their party would receive their vote. The "down-ticket" races refer to all of those contests below the president, such as congressional or senate races, where a partisan vote was possible.

"Straight-Party" Voting

The evidence about how the "straight-party" option worked on election day came from the compiled lists of voter complaint calls received by the many election protection services sponsored by groups such as the NAACP, PFAW, MoveOn, etc. These complaints were compiled by the Election Incidents Reporting Service (EIRS) (http://voteprotect.org [133]). The reports shed light on the problems that occurred when voters chose the "straight-party" option in New Mexico and 16 other states with the straight party option.

EIRS records indicate that the "straight-party" option appears to have resulted in reports of missing presidential vote selections for every political party except the Republican Party. When a Republican voter selected the straight party option, a Bush vote appeared to register automatically; that is, the machine showed "Bush" (with rare exceptions). Many "straight-party" voters of parties other than the Republican Party may not have noticed the absence of a presidential vote on their review screens. Other voters who reported seeing no presidential vote on their review screens may not have realized how their choice of the "straight-party" option contributed to the absence of a presidential vote. The "straight-party" option appeared to have created a large under-vote by means of the no-vote-for-president (except Bush) phenomenon.

The second way the straight party option contributed to the under-vote occurred when voters selected candidates outside their straight party selection. Many voters may not have known that, on electronic voting machines, after selecting the straight party option, if they then voted for a candidate from another party, that non-straight party vote cancelled the voter's straight party choices throughout the rest of the ballot. For example, perhaps a Democrat voted for the Green Party candiate for county surveyor instead of the Democratic candidate for that office. That one vote outside the Democratic straight party slate would automatically cancel all of the voter's previously selected votes for Democratic candidates throughout the ballot.

Machines Spontaneously Presented Wrong Candidate Selection

Voters who chose the straight party option also reported another problem. Instead of no presidential choice appearing on the voting machine screen, voters reported that the wrong candidate, often Bush, appeared. Only two EIRS reports in New Mexico (Sandoval County) came from Republicans saying that their straight party selection initially displayed a vote for a Democratic or Green Party candidate. These voters reported being able to successfully correct the choice.

The difficulty in removing the wrong presidential choice, however, created another means of generating an under-vote. To override the automatic Bush vote or the voter’s wrong choice on the Sequoia push-button electronic voting machines, voters had to push the button for Bush (or the wrong candidate) again (a toggle mechanism) to erase the vote. Voters reported that they had to push the Bush button from two to ten times to remove that incorrect choice before they could vote for their preferred candidate.

Furthermore, after removing the vote for the wrong candidate and voting again for their intended choice, some voters reported that when they got to the review screen at the end of the ballot, they found no vote for president had registered. Voters reported the need to scroll back up the ballot one or two more times to vote again for their presidential choice. Even when the review screen actually showed their correct vote, citizens voiced concern that their vote might not actually register. They worried about the voters who were unable to find and correct this problem of a non-vote or a wrong vote for president.

The programmed mechanisms in the straight party option probably contributed to the high under-vote rate on Election Day. These programmed mechanisms for the straight party option include a vote shifting formula in the scanners used to count ballots for absentee and early voting (see below); and with the DREs on Election Day: no-vote-for-president for all but the Republican party; a difficult to change incorrect presidential vote; an inadvertent canceling of straight party votes when voting outside that party, or undetected or uncorrected Bush default. The under-vote total alone, 1117, amounts to 19% of Kerry’s loss by 5988 in New Mexico. In New Mexico, the Election Day statewide presidential under-vote was 17,095.

Down-Ticket Discrepancies in Early Voting and Absentee

One might assume that the "straight-party" discrepancies only occurred on the Election Day electronic DRE voting machines. Not so! Evidence shows votes for President for persons voting "straight-party" in third parties, such as the Green Party, both in the Absentee and the Early Voting choices were not recorded. For example, the straight party choice for the Green party showed 2 votes, but no votes registered for David Cobb. There were, however, minimal under-votes recorded; this implies another candidate received the "shifted" vote. Sequoia scanners with proprietary software counted both the Absentee and the Early Voting paper ballots. Since the three Democratic members of the State Election Board prevented the official hand recount, citizens have no way to know how much vote shifting occurred.

Roster Signatures, Total Votes Cast, Votes for President: Hidden Provisional Ballots

The website of the NM Secretary of State lists the total number of roster signatures for each voting occasion by precinct. A comparison of the total number of signatures with the total votes counted shows, for all voting occasions in Santa Fe, 1523 more roster signatures than total ballots cast. That is a large number of voters who signed the roster books, but for some reason, did not have their ballot counted. That number, 1523, is 27% higher than the tallied under-vote of 1117. The website also shows 205 phantom votes, (more votes cast than roster signatures) in the three voting occasions: 95 in absentee voting and 110 in early voting. Researchers Warren Stewart and Ellen Theisen explained that election officials subtracted phantom votes from the under-vote in their certified vote tallies instead of listing the phantom votes in a separate category on the certified totals.

The total number of more-signatures-than-votes-cast may be the uncounted provisional ballots: 2% of the total ballots cast in Santa Fe County. Rather than post the counted and uncounted provisional ballots as a separate category, Warren Stewart reports, the Secretary of State adds the total provisional ballots counted to the election night totals. Combine the 1523 uncounted ballots to the under-vote of 1117 and get 2640. This 2640 is 4% of the total Santa Fe County vote and it may represent the extent of voter disenfranchisement in this County. If the uncounted provisional ballots were primarily from newly registered Democrats whose voter registration forms remained unprocessed or destroyed, then much of the 2640 votes (under-vote + uncounted provisional ballots) amounts to 44% of Kerry’s 5,988 vote loss.

Summary

When voters use the "straight-party" option during an election, they run the risk of losing their vote. The effects observed in New Mexico have also been seen in many other states that offer the "straight-party" option. Whether intentional or unintentional, the use of proprietary software prevents citizens from observing the actual vote counting; thus, citizens do not know if their votes are counted as cast. Scanners that count paper ballots use proprietary software and are just as susceptible to large inaccuracies as the touch screen machines. Citizens must vote on paper ballots but unless citizens also hand count these ballots no one can verify the accuracy of the total vote count with or without the "straight-party" option. Since fifteen states in November 2008 continue to offer the "straight-party" voting option and almost no option to hand count paper ballots yet exists, after reading this evidence, voters should avoid using the "straight-party" option.

======================

Other Articles About the 2004 New Mexico Presidential Election:

Stewart, Warren. 2005. “Did We Bounce An Election?” www.votersunite.org [134] and http://www.votersunite.org/info/newMexicophantomvotes.asp [135]

Theisen, Ellen and Warren Stewart. 2004. “Summary Report on New Mexico State Elections Data.” www.USCountVotes.org [136]

Liddle, Elizabeth, and Josh Mittledorf. 2005. “Analysis of Undervotes in New Mexico’s 2004 Presidential Ballots.” www.USCountVotes.org [136]

Plotner, Robert Glenn. 2005. “A Guide to irregularities in the 2004 New Mexico General Election.” www.USCountVotes.org [136]

State of New Mexico, Office of New Mexico Secretary of State, Secretary of State, Rebecca Vigil-Giron, http://www/sos.state.nm.us/Election/cntyindx04.html [137]

=========================

Thank-yous: Green and Libertarian Parties, Jeremiah Akin, Warren Stewart, Ellen Theisen, Ken Aaron, Stuart Shakman, Dan Ashby, Myra Boime, Megan Matson, Scripps Howard News Service, Eva Kataja, Mitch Buszek, Wayne M. Burke, Lubosh Novak, and others in Recount New Mexico; Bernie Ellis, Kip Humphrey.

Tell EAC to Release Report: No Evidence for Alleged "Voter Fraud"

According to USA Today, a new report shows there is no evidence that significant numbers of voters are lying about their identity at the polls, voting twice or voting in the name of dead people. Yet across the country, burdensome voter ID bills and other legislation that disenfranchises eligible voters are being justified by this made-up epidemic. We deserve to know which threats are real and which threats are imaginary.

Please petition the Elections Assistance Commission to release its report on voter fraud!
http://www.ReleaseTheReport.com [138]

Right-wing members of Congress and state legislators have been passing onerous laws that make it harder for citizens to vote. Despite erecting barriers to the ballot box and disenfranchising voters, they’ve claimed these laws are necessary to stop rampant voter fraud. 

Thanks to a press leak, it is now public that the US Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) commissioned a report to find out about voter fraud.
According to USA Today [139],the EAC’s report shows that there is no evidence that significant numbers of voters are lying about their identity at the polls, voting twice, or voting in the name of dead people. Let me repeat that: NO
EVIDENCE.

While this has long been suspected by those of us who have fought discriminatory attempts to address “voter fraud” (e.g. voter ID bills that would, in effect, create a poll tax for poor, elderly and minority citizens who don’t have or need government issued ID in their regular lives), the
EAC report makes it official: voter fraud does not present a health risk to our democracy. That is, it would be official if the EAC had released it. … But it won’t release it.

Please petition the EAC to release the report at http://www.ReleaseTheReport.com [140]!

Across the country, states have been introducing legislation requiring voters to show identification before voting, preventing eligible voters from casting ballots. Indeed, the US Congress has tried to pass national Voter ID legislation four times in the last four months – all in the
name of stopping the one electoral cancer from which we don’t appear to be suffering. Worse, the mostly Republican legislators who are pushing such “prescriptions” are more like doctors who are getting kickbacks for prescribing cancer drugs to healthy people, insofar as they are keeping away from the polls voters who tend to cast ballots for the other party.

Sign the petition [141]
to the EAC urging that this report be released and that hearings be held on its findings. We deserve to know which threats are real and which threats are imaginary.

http://www.ReleaseTheReport.com [142]

-- Alert Researched and Distributed by People For the American Way

03/09/09 Support Ellen Brodsky in Broward Co. 'Trespassing" Trial

For Immediate Release March 9, 2009

For More Information Contact:

Tanner Andrews, PA

386-490-1128, Fax: 386 734 2116

E-mail address

Counsel for Ellen H. Brodsky

NOTICE OF TRIAL

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY FLORIDA STATE of FLORIDA,

Plaintiff v. ELLEN BRODSKY, Defendant

Please show Ellen Brodsky your support by being in the Court Room when her trial begins.

She did nothing wrong as evidenced by this video. http://www.youtube..com/watch?v=2CVMoLjOtP4 [143] ______________________________________________________________________________

Case Number: 2008-026997-MM10A

Type: MISDEMEANOR TRESPASS AFTER WARNING

Judge: Honorable Fred J. Berman

Location: BROWARD COUNTY CENTRAL COURTHOUSE

201 S.E.. 6TH STREET

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301

DATE: 03/11/2009

TRIAL: 9:00 A.M.

COURTROOM: 0418

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Can You Help with Legal Expenses?

It would be greatly appreciated if you could please send a check in any amount to help with her legal expenses. Please send to Ellen H. Brodsky, 2004 Granada Drive, Coconut Creek, FL 33066. Put in memo, Legal Expenses. It is not tax deductible. Ellen also has a Pay Pal account. If you wish to use your Credit Cards or your Checking Account with PayPal, please send an email to Ellen Brodsky, ehbrod@yahoo.com [144], and she will send you a Pay Pal Request Money email. Please specify the amount you wish to give in your email to Ellen. You'll be helping to uphold the right of every citizen to monitor every election.

Case Background:

Ellen was arrested on November 13, 2008 under the authority of Brenda Snipes, Supervisor or Elections while trying to observe the counting of our votes. Ellen was physically thrown out of the Canvassing Board Meeting of November 7, 2008, for raising her hand to ask three questions. She was threatened with arrest for trespassing and disorderly conduct should she ever return again to the vvoting machine warehouse.

So how is it possible for a citizen to be charged with trespassing when they are attending a public meeting to witness the counting of the votes?

The disorderly conduct charges were dropped, yet the state attorney representing the supervisor of elections continues to use this as justification for her arrest. The supervisor of elections property is limited to inside the building itself. Was Ellen in the box or uut of the box? This and other questions remain in dispute; and this is why Judge Berman has not dismissed the case.

Ellen pleaded not guilty at her arraignment on January 26, 2009. The Florida Sunshine Laws provide for the public to attend and address the proceedings of any public meeting including Vote Counting. Florida Statute 104.29 has provided the public the legal right to hear and see how our votes are being counted.

Judge Berman is the same judge who presided over the canvassing board during a  2005 logic and accuracy test recorded in this video by Black Box Voting that you can see here: http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/show.cgi?tpc=2197&post=7356

Judge Berman says all Broward County judges at some point get recycled to serve on canvassing boards and that he believes he can try the case fairly.

Ellen's attorneys want to make sure she can get a fair trial in Broward County.

"Being arrested is not recommended and ultimately, the experience makes us sick of our government. That is the effect that they hope for, which is to punish us for trying to be good citizens when we expect transparency and open government." -- Ellen Brodsky

Contact Information for Ellen Brodsky

Ellen H. Brodsky Founder, Broward Election Reform Coalition http://groups.yahoo.com/group/electionreform/ [145] Candidate for Supervisor of Elections, Broward County, November 2008 http://www.ellenbrodsky.com [146] E-mail address [144] 954-263-6032

Give a Year-End Gift for Election Integrity

Donate by Thursday, Dec. 31 and Take a 2009 Tax Deduction

May 8: Tell HCA, NO Coverup! Investigate Florida-24th CD!

The following emergency response action comes from The PEN (Peoples' E-Mail Network)

Everyone has heard about the dramatically suspicious results in the Jennings congressional race in FL-13, but did you know that there were massive parallel shenanigans going on in FL-24 as well? And yet we got a tip late today that tomorrow the House Administration committee is secretly, and without public notice, preparing to dismiss their own inquiry into this other still NOT conceded race run by Clint Curtis, the famous voting software rigging whistle blower.

Since the election, dedicated volunteers have spent massive hours painstakingly collecting affidavits from citizens block by block in the district that constitute direct proof that the results in FL-24 are also not only beyond credulity, they are patently fraudulent. There is a still LIVE challenge to this election the Florida state courts, JUST AS in the Jennings case. So why is the House administration even considering refusal to hear this evidence, where it may even constitute evidence of a broader statewide conspiracy, and give additional weight to the Jennings FL-13 challenge as well?

Because of the shortness of time this will be primarily a PHONE action. Please locate the member of the House Administration committee closest to you from the list below and call them first thing in the morning. Distance being equal you may find the Democrat more receptive. Tell them that even if you are not in their particular district, they are the closest House member to represent you on this committee. And ask them to give the evidence in the FL-24 ALSO the fair and just congressional hearing it deserves.

You can call toll free at 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803 and ask for your choice of House member below, in particular the CHIEF OF STAFF listed, or you can use their direct dial phone/fax numbers.

MORE EVIDENTIARY INFORMATION IS BELOW THIS COMMITTEE MEMEBER LISTING SECTION

CA-3
Dan Lungren (R)
ph: (202) 225-5716, fax: (202) 226-1298
Chief of Staff: Victor Arnold-Bik
email: victor.arnold-bik.house.gov

CA-16
Zoe Lofgren (D)
ph: (202) 225-3072, fax: (202) 225-3336
Chief of Staff: Stacey Leavandosky
email: stacey.leavandosky.house.gov

CA-22
Kevin McCarthy (R)
ph: (202) 225-2915, fax: (202) 225-2908
Chief of Staff: James Min
email: james.min.house.gov

CA-53
Susan A. Davis (D)
ph: (202) 225-2040, fax: (202) 225-2948
Chief of Staff: Lisa Sherman
email: lisa.sherman.house.gov

MA-8
Michael Capuano (D)
ph: (202) 225-5111, fax: (202) 225-9322
Chief of Staff: Robert Primus
email: robert.primus.house.gov

MI-3
Vernon Ehlers (R), Ranking Member
ph: (202) 225-3831, fax: (202) 225-5144
Chief of Staff: Bill McBride
email: bill.mcbride.house.gov

PA-1
Robert A. Brady (D), Chair
ph: (202) 225-4731, fax: (202) 225-0088
Chief of Staff: Stan White
email: stan.white.house.gov

TX-20
Charles A. Gonzalez (D)
ph: (202) 225-3236, fax: (202) 225-1915
Chief of Staff: Kevin Kimble
email: kevin.kimble.house.gov

THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE'S POSSIBLE BOGUS REASONS FOR DISMISSING THE CLINT CURTIS CONTEST (talking points if you get challenged on the phone):

* [Not enough evidence.] What we did not have is mainstream media coverage. What we do have is hard evidence that there is a discrepancy between the official count and the affidavits that were gathered from actual voters.

* [Sworn affidavits not good enough.] In the past, it was exit polls that were considered not good enough because they did not connect the vote with the voter. Our system does exactly that. It is like having a paper ballots to count except even better. It is signed. Affidavits and eye witness testimony are the corner stone of our legal system.

* [Your signature not good enough.] If the committee is not willing to accept what every court in the country requires as evidence, what level of proof are you willing to accept?

* [Source code unknown.] If the committee requires the errors in the code to be found, we must be allowed access to the code and the machines. We are aware of hundreds of experts willing to independently examine and blueprint those proprietary systems should that opportunity become available.

DETAILED BASIS OF THE CONTEST:

The Congressional Contest filed by Clint Curtis is a Contest where the results of the election can be proven. Unlike Christine Jennings, whose loss was caused by 18,000 missing votes that unfortunately can never be found, Clint Curtis for Congress Campaign has found and tabulated data from actual voters that conclusively proves that Mr. Curtis received more votes than the official results recorded.

The reason Mr Curtis did not concede is that although there was an apparent 16% loss, this loss did not reflect the Zogby Poll taken just weeks before the election that showed us within 2% points nor by the polling conducted by the online vote verification tool http://www.VoteNow2006.net [153]. The Zogby Poll also revealed that Curtis was leading among likely voters who describe themselves as Independents by a full 11 points. The opponents lead was just 45% to 43%, with one in ten (10%) undecided.

The so called wide margin of 16 points in Mr. Curtis' race is the exact reason it possible to find where the count was not accurate. If the results were closer like a 51/49 split or 369 votes as in the Jennings race, it would have been nearly impossible to determine whether or not the official results were accurate. Every voter would have to be contacted to find the few votes that may not have been recorded accurately.

On virtually every block walked by volunteers, the results have shown that more votes were cast for Clint Curtis than officially recorded. Walking for Democracy, the volunteers gathered sworn affidavits signed by the voters in District 24 as to how they voted for Governor, Congress and Amendment Three. The Governor's race and Amendment Three were control questions. The results from that data confirm the official results, while the data in this Congressional race is shown to be inaccurate.

For example in Precinct 66 in Seminole County (highlighted below), official results showed that Mr. Curtis received 57% of the Democratic and Independent vote. According to the affidavits gathered however, he received over 80% of that vote. In each of the precincts that have been walked, he has received from 6%- 22% more Democratic and Independent votes than the official results.

This simple method of determining how voters actually cast their ballot, can be independently verified. Congress can mandate a non-partisan group of volunteers or pay personnel to gather affidavits from District 24 voters. The cost is minimal and results easily obtainable. Congress owes it to the American people to determine once and for all whether or not the electronic voting machines counted accurately. This is not about partisan politics. This is about our Democracy.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at http://www.millionphonemarch.com/in.htm [154]

march50:113989

Powered by The People's Email Network
Copyright 2007, Patent pending, All rights reserved

Pima Supervisors Vote to Disclose Election Databases

Bookmark for daily updates on Pima Election Integrity Trial: http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/pima.html [155]

VICTORY!

Only the Board of Supervisors has the authority to decide whether to appeal the court's ruling, and they haven't yet met to make any decision on the matter.

Tuesday morning January 8, 2007 we will present affidavits and letters from renowned computer scientists and election integrity activists stating that releasing these databases cannot harm national security as Chuck Huckelberry and his lawyers claim.

Copies of the supporting declarations may be downloaded from the links at the foot of this article.

Election Trial item early on agenda
Please arrive by 9:00 a.m.

There are some 800 databases going back to May of 1998. Making them public could prove our votes were NOT counted inaccurately. If there is no probl
em, what is Pima County afraid of? Could these databases and audit logs prove the County committed election fraud?

The Democrats have also taken issue with several of Judge Miller's findings of fact as not supported by the testimony, and some of his conclusions of law as erroneous. See Democrats Motion to Amend for more details.

Bill Risner make a powerful case that Judge Miller would be hard-pressed to ignore that the Judge quite simply got several points wrong in his under-advisement opinion.

Discussion of the lawsuit will be one of the very first items on the agenda, so try to at the Board's Chambers by 9 am.

Contact the Supervisors and let them know this is a critical issue for you. Sources near the case indicate the Board will probably vote to appeal unless Ann Day decides to vote with Ray Carroll. She should be the target of heaviest lobbying. Ray Carroll is already in support of election integrity; call and thank him for his leadership.

Ann Day, District 1
(520) 740-2738

Ramón Valadez, District 2
(520) 740-8126

Sharon Bronson, District 3
(520) 740-8051

Ray Carroll, District 4
(520) 740-8094

Richard Elías, Chairman, District 5
(520) 740-8126

See http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/pima.html [155] for in-depth coverage

Plan L to Save New York's Levers and Block the E-Machines

Dear New York Friends,

This is the first in a series of quick and simple actions designed to stop computerized voting from coming to NYS and Help Save Our Lever voting machines by letting our Election Commissioners, elected representatives and the press hear from you: New Yorkers who will not be silent while our secure voting system is replaced with "crap".

Please choose one of the sample letters below and e-mail to the NYS Election Commissioners at info@elections.state.ny.us [96] - Make sure the subject line says "Share with all election commissioners"

We know everyone is pressed for time but the impact of your letter will be enhanced if you are also able to cc your letters to:
-- your local election commissioners - http://www.elections.state.ny.us/CountyBoards.html [167]
-- your state representatives - www.congress.org [168] for email addresses
-- your local media - www.congress.org [168] - for media click on # 8 "media guide."

We encourage you to personalize your letters if you desire and please include your e-mail address and your town. Scroll to end of letters for important information.

Here are the letters to choose from:

LETTER 1

Dear Commissioners,

As a citizen of New York and resident of (fill in the blank) County I am appalled to learn that New York still intends to replace our dependable and transparent lever voting machines with electronic voting systems which the consensus of scientific experts has deemed too unreliable and insecure and about which the National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated "experience in testing software and systems has shown that testing to high degrees of security and reliability is from a practical perspective "not possible."

As election commissioners who have sworn an oath to protect the voters of New York, the state legislature will heed your advice. The requirements of HAVA have now been met through the provision of ballot marking devices at every polling place. I implore you now to inform the legislature what common sense, your professional experience and oath of office demand - that secure, transparent and reliable elections depend upon the retention of our lever machines and the rejection of electronic optical scanners and DREs.

Yours Sincerely,
Name
town

LETTER 2:

Dear Commissioners,

We look to you to uphold your oath of office to protect the voters of New York. Our county election commissioners cannot fulfill their oaths to do the same if you blind them with computerized vote counting machines that renders the process they are responsible for, invisible. We have been watching and reading and we know that software-driven voting machines are "insufficient to guarantee a trustworthy election." (Project EVEREST/, Ohio Secretary of State, 2007). Do not certify computerized machines that have been shown to allow one person "...with temporary access to a single voting machine" to steal the entire election. (California's Top-to-Bottom Review, 2007). Indeed you cannot in good faith certify machines when the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the agency which advises the US Election Assistance Commission on the writing of federal voting system standards, has already found that, " ...testing to high degrees of security and reliability is from a practical perspective not possible."

SAVE OUR LEVER VOTING SYSTEM.

Sincerely,
Name
Town

Letter 3

[ FOR THOSE WHO READ THE RECENT BLOG POST AT http://re-mediaetc.blogspot.com/ [169] ]

Dear Commissioners,

We look to you to uphold your oath of office to protect the voters of New York. We have been following the progress of New York's certification testing of the optical scan voting systems, including your weekly reports to Judge Sharpe and your public Commissioners meetings. As your best efforts have shown, you cannot in good faith "certify" any software-driven voting systems. This should come as no surprise however, since the National Institute of Standards and Technology has already found that, "...testing to high degrees of security and reliability is from a practical perspective not possible." (Requiring Software Independence in VVSG 2007, Nov. 2006)

We know from the experience of other states that software-driven voting systems are "insufficient to guarantee a trustworthy election." (Project EVEREST, Ohio Secretary of State, 2007). Please do not certify computerized machines that have been shown to allow one person "...with temporary access to a single voting machine" to steal the entire election. (California Secretary of State's Top-to-Bottom Review, 2007).

We ask you to PLEASE SAVE OUR LEVER VOTING SYSTEM. Return the Title I HAVA money, and continue to provide and perfect accessible ballot markers for voters with special needs to comply with HAVA using Title II funds. But please do not ask the vast majority of New York's voters to trust that the software will get it right on election night, when this is impossible to guarantee.

Sincerely,
Name
Town

If you have not yet SIGNED the PETITION to stop computerized voting and save our levers

please go to http://www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org/save_ny_levers [170]

Details: http://electiondefensealliance.org/MCM_Moyers_Journal_pbs [171]

Thanks for your commitment to safeguarding our democracy. Please circulate this action alert and the petition among your friends, lists, groups and other New Yorkers willing to resist the take over of our electoral system,

Rady Ananda, Joanne Lukacher, Andi Novick, Howard Stanislevic

Re-Media Election Transparency Coalition
http://re-mediaetc.blogspot.com/ [169]

Election Defense Alliance.org
http://www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org/save_ny_levers [170]

--------------------------------------
* "[T]he voting industry sells crap. And that's the problem." -- SBoE Commissioner Kellner, 6/19/08

Reclaim the Vote, Day by Day

Nov. 9 - Actions for Day 2 of Reclaiming the Vote (Click here) [172]

Nov 8 - Day 1, Reclaiming the Vote: "Widespread Vote-Switching" [173] -- EDA Data Analysis Project

Reverse Mississippi's Deliberate Ballot Design Manipulation

Update: In a partial victory that fell short of actual correction to this situation, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that state law requires that contests for national office be placed at the top of the ballot (rather than be buried at the bottom) -- but stopped short of issuing an order that this be done.
To download a PDF of the court ruling in Barbour v. Berger click here. [174]
We recommend especially the dissenting opinion by Justice Diaz joined by Easly and Graves.

Action of the Day 091708

-- [Today's action prepared by the Care2 Petition Site: http://www.care2.com]
EDA editor's note: We are reproducing the text of the Care2 Alert verbatim.
The facts speak for themselves. Republican officials in Mississippi in charge of the state's election procedures have deliberately chosen to alter ballot design in violation of state law and common sense, with the predictable result that voters will be disoriented and many will probably error when voting on the U.S. Senate race.

Denouncing the perpetrators of partisan election manipulations like this one is NOT a partisan act on our part.
Election fraud, manipulation, and dirty tricks are wrong no matter who the perpetrators are -- and it is a multipartisan civic duty to put a stop to it.

Tell the Mississippi governor: The purposefully confusing ballot is illegal!
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/0Xto/wRCg/E0DA [175]

The Republican Secretary of State decided to bury the Senate race below all local contests on the ballot.
The race, between interim Senator Roger Wicker -- a Republican temporarily appointed to replace Trent Lott -- and former Democratic Governor Ronnie Musgrove, is expected to be close, making it one of the most important in the state.

Not only does burying this Senate race below all the local ones confuse voters, it's a direct violation of state election law, which clearly states that federal races must be on the top of the ballot!

Tell Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour -- who approved the ballot -- to reverse his decision in order to maintain the integrity of America's electoral process!
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/0Xto/wRCg/E0DA [175]

Vote Election Transparency into the Top 10 List at Change.org

Action of the Day January 11th through 15th

Second, Final Round of Voting Underway for "Top 10 Ideas for Change"

Download PDF flyer [176]

The election integrity proposal Move the Country Towards Transparent Elections [177] at Change.org, won 1st place in the Technology Policy category, qualifying for a runoff contest to place among the "Top 10 ideas for change." Out of 88 finalist ideas, this proposal is the ONLY ONE addressing voting system integrity. The second and FINAL voting round is now underway. Voting ends at 5 pm (Eastern Time) on Thursday, Jan 15th. The top vote-getting proposals will be presented to the Obama administration with advocacy backing from the Change.org coalition of organizations (see below for more about the Change.org coalition). This election transparency proposal, currently with 1500 votes, is in 36th place out of 88 entries. Running in 1st place with 10,219 votes is a proposal to legalize marijuana, while a proposal to forgive student loans is in 10th place with 5061 votes. So, quite a few votes are needed to lift this election transparency proposal into the Top 10. Vote Here Now [177]. The proposal calls for open source software election systems. Although we at EDA advocate HCPB (hand-counted paper ballots) as the most satisfactory solution for a number of practical and philosophical reasons, we can agree with open source advocates that private corporations have no business running elections, and that open source, nontabulating ballot scanners and printers can help overcome linguistic and physical access barriers to voting while screening for accidental overvotes and undervotes. There are many informed and stimulating comments [177] in the discussion on this proposal which we recommend for your consideration. Additionally, there are many other important proposals on a wide range of policy topics [178], and you may vote for as many as you like. Whatever other issues you may wish to support, however, we urge everyone to cast a vote for election transparency [177]. As we should all realize by now, without honest elections, no other aspirations for positive social change can be achieved. "Change" begins with ensuring that our votes count! Vote Here Now [177].

Here's How to Help:

1. Vote in the final round [177]. Then help us GOTV (get-out-the-vote): 2. Link this page to your web or social networking site. (Use the "Bookmark/Share" tools in the top right column). 3. Forward this page using the "E-mail this page" link at the foot of this article. 3. Send e-mail blasts to your lists now through the 15th. Feel free to attach or link to this PDF flyer [176] Dale Axelrod of the EDA Communications Working Group is mobilizing the GOTV effort behind this proposal. Contact Dale with your ideas and offers of assistance: E-mail [179] Voice Mail (24 hrs): 415-824-1549 Mobile: 707-235-9089

Download PDF flyer [176]

More Details about Change.org and the "Top 10 Ideas for Change"

Source: http://www.change.org/ideas [180]

What is Ideas for Change in America?

Ideas for Change in America is a citizen-driven project that aims to identify and create momentum around the best ideas for how the Obama Administration and 111th Congress can turn the broad call for "change" across the country into specific policies. The project is nonpartisan, and invites all political points of view. It is not connected to the Obama campaign or the Obama Administration.

How does it work?

Anyone can submit an idea and comment and vote on others. The top 10 rated ideas will be presented to the Obama Administration on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009 as the "Top 10 Ideas for America." We will then launch a national campaign behind each idea and mobilize the collective energy of the millions of members of Change.org, MySpace, and partner organizations to ensure that each winning idea gets the full consideration of the Obama Administration and Members of Congress.

How are the top ideas determined?

The "Top 10 Ideas for America" will be determined through two rounds of voting. In the first round, ideas will compete against other ideas in the same issue category. The first round will end on December 31, 2008, and the top 3 rated ideas from each category will make it into the second round. The second round of voting will begin on Monday, January 5, and each qualifying idea will compete against the qualifying ideas from all other categories. Second round voting will end on Thursday, January 15.

Work-from Home Volunteers to Help Document '08 Elections

Action of the Day

Monday 11.17.08

Working from your home computer, here's how you can help with EDA Election '08 exit poll and monitoring projects.

We currently have 3 projects to choose from.

1. Entering exit poll questionnaires into a database entry form.

2. Researching voter turnout in conjunction with the exit poll project.

3. Entering election monitoring reports for Save-R-Vote.

In all cases we will provide you a coordinator contact, easy instructions, and an estimate of how much work/time is involved.
You choose how much time you can put in.

Follow the "Read more" jump link for details and contacts.
Click the "E-mail this page" link to forward this request to others.

Data analysts are working on the numbers, but they could use your help entering the exit poll responses into a master database.

Data entry is as simple as clicking selection boxes with a mouse.

The more people we have taking small portions of this work, the sooner we can complete the database and begin publishing results.

If you can help, please send an E-mail to Info@ElectionDefenseAlliance.org [6] with "EVEP Data Entry" in the Subject line.

Or, leave a phone message with your contact information at: 510 275 5723.

Thank you,

Dan Ashby
EDA Co-founder and Director

Election Defense Alliance is a sponsored project of International Humanities Center, a 501(c)(3) organization

Let the People Count

Had Enough of "Faith-Based" Elections Entrusted to a Corporate Machine?

Tell Congress and the Media You Want Paper Ballots Counted By Hand in The Precincts. Then Sign Up to Join the WE COUNT Corps.

Click Here [181] for a quick, one-click way to write your U.S. Senators, your Representative, and your regional newspaper all at once. We provide a sample letter you can adapt to make your own. Copy, paste, alter, and add what you want to say. Click here to Act [181]

Do More --

Volunteer to hand-count ballots in your local precinct:

Click here to Join the WE COUNT Corps [182]

THUR NOV 9 -- Day 2 of Reclaiming the Vote

Action 1

Send in Election Night CNN and CBS Exit Poll Screen Captures to EDA Data Analysis Project

Think the 2006 Midterm Elections were clean? Think again!
Early analysis shows that the mainstream media exit polls have been shifted about 3% to the right.

EDA was able to capture unadulterated exit poll figures for only a few of the states at a few time intervals.

Collecting as many of the original exit poll displays BEFORE they were "adjusted" is our highest election forensics priority.
(But keep on sending county and precinct election data, too!)

IMPORTANT! Do NOT just collect what is on news sites now.
Make sure you are sending in original, nonrevised exit polls you captured on election night.
REPEAT, the exit polls that are displaying now on news sites such as CNN and CBS have been falsified.

Send your exit poll captures from CNN* and CBS (two different exit polls)
to EDA Data Analysis [183]

(The CNN display is the main network news consortium exit poll. CBS commissioned a second, different exit poll).

Action 2

Observe and Collect the Manual Tallies in Your Counties-- Call Today!

(This action alert from Verified Voting, about the Transparency Project, a comprehensive plan to document all phases of the Midterm election.)

Today's focus: Capture the Voter Verified Paper Records and/or Manual Tally random sampling of the vote totals.

Read on, then phone your local election office to find out when and where these counts will be conducted, and go observe,record,and send in the results to the Transparency Project [184].

* (Please forward to the EDA Election Data Analysis Project [185] also).
__________________________

Friends,

We're now on the other side of Election Day -- can you believe it? But the election is not over yet -- the vote-counting continues, and so must our efforts to protect democracy! We need you, RIGHT NOW, to find out if and when manual audits are occurring in your area, and if they are, to go and observe the auditing process.

As many of you know firsthand, people in various parts of the country worked very hard over the last few years to achieve an important safety net for our democracy: voter-verified paper records (VVPR's) and routine manual audits. VVPR's provide for recovery of voter intent - and, thus, for accurate elections - in the case of machine failure. Manual auditing of the VVPR's serves as a diagnostic tool that can be used to pinpoint and uncover hidden problems, ensuring that our elections, no matter how smooth they may seem on the outside, accurately reflect the will of the people.

Please check to see whether audits might be happening in your area. If so, we urge you to IMMEDIATELY take the following steps:

1. Call the elections department in your county, township, or voting jurisdiction TODAY to find out when and where the audit will be conducted. Please be aware that the audits will begin VERY soon in most places, which means that you MUST call NOW.

2. Make sure you know the requirements to observe in your area, if any.

3. Participate in observing a portion or all of the audit process. Don't worry if you can't observe the whole process - any observation that you're able to conduct will be useful.

4. Complete Verified Voting's Audit Observation Questionnaire. There are two separate questionnaires -- one for manual audits of votes cast on a specific percentage of machines or percent/number of votes, the other for manual audits of a specific percentage of precincts -- depending on the state in which you live. Please keep reading for information on your area!

5. Submit your completed questionnaire to Verified Voting, so that we can compare auditing practices in different areas. The information that you submit will be made publicly available, minus any personally identifiable information.

You can submit your completed questionnaire online at http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6409 [184],

or you can fax it to us at 940-403-2255,

or mail the hard copy to Verified Voting, 1550 Bryant St., Suite 855, San Francisco, CA 94103.

Out of the twenty-eight states that now have a VVPR requirement statewide, thirteen have an audit requirement (see http://verifiedvoting.org/audits [186]). KY and PA also have an audit requirement, even though there's no VVPR law -- and some additional states do them voluntarily.

If you live in CO, CT, NM, NY, WA, or PA:

Fill out the machine questionnaire, which can be downloaded here: http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/AuditQ-Machine.pdf [187]

If you live in AK, AZ, CA, HI, IL, KY, MN, NC, or WV:

Fill out the precinct questionnaire, which can be downloaded here: http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/AuditQ-Precinct.pdf [188]

A few additional notes on various states:

AZ - If you live here, due to the way the law is written, you may need to push to make sure the audit actually happens. AZ may need actual participants to carry out the audit, not just observers.

CO - Be a part of history! The audits here will be the first ever under the new statewide requirement.

MN - If you plan to observe in this state, please contact us at observer@verifiedvoting.org [189], so that we can put you in touch with the group that is coordinating an observation effort there.

NM - This state's audit law doesn't take effect until 2007, but it would be a good idea for the Secretary of State to conduct one anyway. Consider orchestrating a letter-writing campaign to the Secretary of State to make it happen. People there have already been writing to the editors of local newspapers.

NV - There is no audit requirement here, but audits have been conducted for the past few years. Call your elections department for more information.

PA - Audits here are of a specific percent/number of votes (as opposed to a specific percentage of randomly selected machines or precincts).

VT - This state doesn't have an audit requirement, but might conduct one. Call your elections department to find out if it's happening.

Your observation of audits can help to:

- Pinpoint specific machine-related or vote-counting problems.
- Ensure that audits are being conducted in the way that they are supposed to be by law in your area, and if not, ensure documentation of errors that occur in the process.
- Determine the best methods for conducting audits in the future (e.g., is it better to randomly select machines? precincts? etc.).

Effective manual audits entail hand-counting a significant number of the paper ballots and comparing those totals to the machine counts in order to make sure the system is counting properly. Manual audits can help us tell whether the machinery of our democracy is working properly. Your participation will make a difference! Make that call now to find out where and when to GOTO - Get Out To Observe!

All the best,

Courtenay

Courtenay Strickland Bhatia
President, Verified Voting
415-487-2255 work
415-235-0126 cell
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ [190]

Every vote must count as cast.

Vote for Election Transparency by Midnight 12/31

Deadline Tonight Dec. 31st at Midnight Pacific Time (3:00 a.m. Eastern, 2:00 a.m. Central) Cast your votes NOW at www.Change.org [191] for Election Integrity and Transparency. Complete Details Below.

Thousands of citizens inspired by the Obama presidency are submitting policy proposals to a contest called "Ideas for Change in America" sponsored at the website www.Change.org [191]. Voting in the first round closes TONIGHT Dec. 31st at midnight (Pacific time). That gives the eastern half of the country enough time to party in the New Year and still vote until 3:00 a.m. The top 3 proposals voted for in each category will advance to a final round of voting, from January 5 through January 15. The top 10 proposals to emerge from the final voting round will be presented to the Obama Administration on Inauguration Day as the "Top 10 Ideas for America." To read more below about "Ideas for Change in America" and the consortium of organizations sponsoring Change.org, see the bottom of this article, and visit this link: http://www.change.org/ideas/faq [192] And while you're at the Change.org website, be sure to visit the EDA page: http://www.change.org/electiondefensealliance [193] The page just went up, and could use some testimonials to fill it in. If you like what we do, please leave a good word for us. Thanks!

3 Election Integrity Proposals are in the Running -- But They Need Your Votes!

You can vote for all 3 EI proposals from this page, using the widgets below. The widgets will take you to the webpage for each proposal. You will see a Vote button on the page, and when you click it, you will be prompted to open an account. It only takes a minute; then you can vote. There are three different EI proposals in three different categories --but only one of them at the moment is in a position to get past this first elimination round. In the Technology Policy category, a proposal called "Move the country towards transparent election systems" is in 1st place with more than 700 votes and seems positioned to advance to the second voting round. This proposal, initiated by an Open Source voting proponent, and boosted with votes by Open Voting Consortium members, is very open and nonprescriptive in its language: Move the country towards transparent election systems The currently utilized intellectual property software based election systems have been proven deficient by government study ( CA Secretary of State Top to Bottom Review etc)- Transparency in government should start with elections- We must implement uniform, open source, paper ballot systems by immediately conducting feasibility studies. The Obama administration should consider candidates with open government understanding when interpreting EAC positions. -- Brent Turner (Election Reform Activists for Obama ), SF, CA Dec 13 http://www.change.org/ideas/view/move_the_country_towards_transparent_el... [177] This idea is currently in 1st Place in Technology Policy and is in position to make it into the second round. But no sense in being complacent. EDA recommends voting for this measure, since it is the ONLY election-integrity-related proposal that has a chance of advancing past this elimination round of voting. (EI advocates of all stripes can debate the message once this proposal makes it to the second round of voting). You can vote for this issue RIGHT NOW by clicking this widget. (Be sure to come back and vote for the 2 HCPB proposals too).

The HCPB Proposals

There are two HCPB (hand-counted paper ballot) proposals in two different categories. Clearly, EDA advocates HCPB solutions to the election crisis. But neither of the HCPB proposals have nearly enough votes to survive the elimination round. We recommend voting for them anyhow. There is no penalty for multiple voting, and every vote counts. Maybe the 1048 members of this EDA news alert list can do something to improve those numbers between now and midnight -- especially the 94 of you who have offered to forward EDA announcements on to your own e-mail lists! You can vote for each of the 3 EI proposals using the widgets embedded on this page. And, you can FORWARD this message right now by clicking the E-mail this article link at the foot of this page. In the Other [194] category, a HCPB proposal called "Return to citizen-run, citizen-counted, citizen monitored elections" is currently in 57th Place in Other and needs 1858 more votes to make it into the second round. Here are the top 3 issues in the Other category: 3,310 votes, Appoint Secretary of Peace in Department of Peace and Non-Violence 1,989 votes, Repeal the Patriot Act 1,921 votes, End Corporate "Personhood" Return to citizen-run, citizen-counted, citizen monitored elections reads in part: Control of elections must be taken back from corporations, whose procedures right now and for the last several election cycles equate to secret vote counting (with secret software and non-transparent procedures -AND brought back into the hands of citizens through hand-counted paper ballot elections - WITH enhanced security procedures such as video cameras on the ballot box - WITH citizens monitoring all day - WITH ballot boxes never leaving the table until 7pm when the box seals are broken and multi-partisan teams of citizens count all the votes until they all agree on the totals...AND TOTALS are posted, as Tom said, AT THE PRECINCT LEVEL. In this way, ballot boxes are extremely difficult if not impossible to stuff; ballot boxes may end up in the river or in the trunk of someone's car, but only after all the votes are counted. If any other computerized counting device is used as a second count, the hand count MUST be the "count of record" or the real results can easily be subverted. For the full text, see: http://www.change.org/ideas/view/return_to_citizen-run_citizen-counted_c... [195] To vote for it now, click the widget:

Be sure to come back and vote for the other EI proposals too.

The other HCPB proposal, in the Government Reform category, is called Hand Counted Paper Ballots (NOW), and reads as follows: Hand Counted Paper Ballots (NOW) The most single urgent issue confronting this country, preceding in importance all others, simply because it presupposes all other change in government, is emergent need for the return to observable voting process; and the only way to do that securely, and with voter confidence worthy of the name, is through the casting and counting of hard copy (i.e., paper) ballots, and posted at the precinct level, so as to secure the chain of custody for citizens. We have seen our democracy hijacked, de facto, by privatized voting interests, counting our votes in secret, an event that is absolute anathema to any believer in democracy, and prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that one person shall cast a vote. Not a machine. The only way to return citizen confidence to voting, crucial to a credible and legitimate democracy, is to cast observable, palpable, ballots without the mediation of machines (or private voting criminals, ah, companies) and to have those ballots counted by fellow citizens as may be drafted at random, such as we do juries. If we do not resolve these chain of custody issues, we will not be secure in the results of our elections, nor even know who it is that controls and calculates them. We the People...must know; or change will be stillborn, void, and meaningless. -- John Ervin, Balboa, CA Dec 27 http://www.change.org/ideas/view/hand_counted_paper_ballots_now [196] This idea is currently in 46th Place in Government Reform [197] and needs 1427 more votes to make it into the second round.

Pull Out the Stops "til Midnight, Then Plan for Round 2

Dale Axelrod, a member of the EDA Communications Working Group [198], is taking the lead promoting the EI vote in the "Ideas for Change" contest. Dale writes: ". . . we need to make an diligent effort to maintain our 1st place position through tomorrow night. It looks like it's going to be neck and neck with the hardcore, internet savvy, 3rd-place proponents from now 'til midnight on the 31st. Can you email any of your private lists to vote today? (I can send you a sample email message if you'll email me directly.) Also we want to get organized now so we'll be ready when the 2nd round begins on Monday, January 5. Each qualifying idea will compete against the qualifying ideas from all other categories. The voting will end on Thursday, January 15. We need to be smart about our cyber-GOTV effort. Can you help with a second e-mail blast to your lists when the time comes, or do you have any other connections (i.e., social networking), or other ideas? Please reply via e-mail directly to me (dalea@sonic.net [179]) ASAP so we can get setup and ready to roll on January 5th. Thanks, Dale Sonoma County Democratic Central Committee, Alternate, District 2 www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org [199] Communications Working Group ------------------ Dale Axelrod ------- Petaluma CA 94952-3212 Phones (California, USA): ----- SF Voice Mail (24 hrs): 415-824-1549 -------------------------- Mobile: 707-235-9089 Web sites ----------- www.verifygra.com [200] ------------------------- www.paperballot.info [201] ------------------------- www.caricaturist.com [202] Email ---------------- dalea@sonic.net [179]

Source: http://www.change.org/ideas [180]

What is Ideas for Change in America?

Ideas for Change in America is a citizen-driven project that aims to identify and create momentum around the best ideas for how the Obama Administration and 111th Congress can turn the broad call for "change" across the country into specific policies. The project is nonpartisan, and invites all political points of view. It is not connected to the Obama campaign or the Obama Administration.

How does it work?

Anyone can submit an idea and comment and vote on others. The top 10 rated ideas will be presented to the Obama Administration on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009 as the "Top 10 Ideas for America." We will then launch a national campaign behind each idea and mobilize the collective energy of the millions of members of Change.org, MySpace, and partner organizations to ensure that each winning idea gets the full consideration of the Obama Administration and Members of Congress.

How are the top ideas determined?

The "Top 10 Ideas for America" will be determined through two rounds of voting. In the first round, ideas will compete against other ideas in the same issue category. The first round will end on December 31, 2008, and the top 3 rated ideas from each category will make it into the second round. The second round of voting will begin on Monday, January 5, and each qualifying idea will compete against the qualifying ideas from all other categories. Second round voting will end on Thursday, January 15.

Actions for Super Tuesday and Beyond

What You Can Do to Defend the Vote on Super Tuesday

1. Vote (on a real paper ballot whenever possible)
2. Voter Education at the Polls
3. Record Precinct Data at Close of Polls
4. Monitor the Central Count at your County Elections Department

1. VOTE

2. VOTER EDUCATION at the POLLS

Sure it can be daunting -- talking to fellow citizens about democracy, and the government we share responsibility for.
But it is necessary!

Take along a friend or two and suddenly, it's not so hard.
You will find it is one of the most satisfying civic action experiences you've ever had.
Try it -- you'll like it. Trust us on this.

INFORMATION SHEETS you can download, print, and hand out to voters:

a. How Do You Know? (handbill)
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/HowDoYouKnow.pdf [203]

8 mini-handbills per sheet. Photocopy and slice along cutlines.
Color gets attention! Color copies cost about 50 cents. Otherwise, B&W will do.

b. VOTERS' "TOP 10" 411
What the Corporate Newsmedia Aren't Telling You About Elections and Your Vote
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/EDA_Top10_rev020508.pdf [204]

The "Top 10" factsheet above can be printed back-to-back with the election integrity volunteer form below:
( Problem-solving Sequence: 1. Get Informed. 2. Take Corrective Action. Right? )

c. Election Integrity Volunteer Signup Sheet
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/Volunteer_Signup_020508.pdf [205]

Be present at 8:00 with a clipboard, notepad, pen, flashlight -- and digital camera if you have one.
Ask the pollworkers to copy or photograph the information on the pollworkers' signed summary report (sometimes called the "Blue Sheet")
that records how many voters cast ballots in the precinct; how many ballots were received, voted, or voided; how many foreign language and provisional ballots were cast; and other important information. Also ask to see and record the voter sign-in sheets (showing who voted at the precinct) and any machine trouble reports.

Watch the pollworkers print out the machine end-of-day vote reports from the voting machines. Then copy by hand, or photograph, these "poll tapes" after the pollworkers post them on the outside of the polling site.

If you can, please upload this information to the Precint Tally Capture Project: (link forthcoming)

Things to bring: Clipboards, notepads, pens, digital cameras, video cameras, tape recorders, cell phones, and binoculars (to see the tabulator monitor screens).

For further instructions on Central Count Monitoring, LOOK HERE [65]

ALSO See BBV and OEJC guides below for additional details about what to watch for and questions to ask.

ADDITIONAL GUIDES to ELECTION DAY MONITORING

BlackBoxVoting.org's Guide to Election Monitoring: What To Watch For [206]

Also: Download the comprehensive 2006 Citizens' Toolkit by Black Box Voting Citizen's Tool Kit [74]

Ohio Election Justice Campaign: Quarantine That Machine! [75]
(Treat election violations as a crime scene)

Top 10 Reasons Elections Are in Trouble

CLICK HERE to DOWNLOAD [204] and print this page as an informational handout
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/EDA_Top10_rev020508.pdf [204]

TOP TEN REASONS WHY OUR ELECTIONS ARE IN REAL TROUBLE…

What You Haven’t Read in the Paper or Heard on the News and Need To Know

10. The power elites--the big corporations and their media subsidiaries--are controlling what messages you hear about problems with our election system.

9. Democrats and Republicans have both repeatedly demonstrated that neither have the interests of democracy and its voters at heart when it comes to the electoral process.

8. HAVA, the Help America Vote Act of 2002, was promoted as the solution to the “hanging chad” problems in Florida as well as an aid to the disabled and those citizens not fluent in English. In fact, it became a “feeding frenzy” for vendors of electronic computerized election equipment who saw it as an opportunity to gain money and favor from big government contracts—and to take a direct, if covert, hand in determining who governs America.

7. Beginning in 2004, many independent studies (e.g., Princeton and Johns Hopkins Universities, NYU’s Brennan Center, Congress’ Government Accountability Office, and several Secretaries of State) have proven that all software-driven equipment used in our elections is highly susceptible to malfunction and manipulation.

6. Many people believe that a mandatory “paper trail” and a spot audit of the trail, will make electronic voting secure. But there are simply too many ways around these provisions.

5. Audits, and even recounts, now have a history of being subverted, as much as the elections they are intended to validate.

4. There is NO REASON to assume that the vote the voter thought he or she cast on a touchscreen was what was recorded inside the machine and what was printed on the paper trail. There is NO REASON to assume that the vote on a paper ballot fed into an Optical Scanner is counted as the voter intended.

3. Using the rationale that disabled people need touchscreen machines for independent and private voting ignores the fact that totally mechanical paper-based systems have been developed as alternatives to computerized equipment and are being used in some jurisdictions with equal effectiveness.

2. Corporate take-over of our democracy is occurring right under our noses. Elections are now being owned, operated, and often decided by corporations – not voters.

1. An honest election system means that the citizens can actually SEE THE VOTES BEING COUNTED, and participate in the process. Without that, the rest is just a show.

Most democracies in the world count at least the major races by hand.
It is a tried and true system, tested through the centuries.
WHY DON’T WE?

Election Defense Alliance (EDA) is a nationwide network of citizen election integrity groups and individuals
working at the national, state, and local levels to ensure that our election process is honest,
transparent, secure, subject to unambiguous verification, and fully accountable to the public.

We invite you to come work with us. http://www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org [199]

CLICK HERE to download Volunteer Signup Form [205]
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/files/Volunteer_Signup_020508.pdf [205]

Election Defense Alliance is a project of International Humanities Center

Attachment	Size
EDA_Top10_rev020508.pdf [210]	297.61 KB
Volunteer_Signup_020508.pdf [211]	135.74 KB

Aug. 4 Action: Study Decertification Directives and Thank Secretary Bowen!

Send Congratulations and Messages of Support to Secretary Bowen
E-mail to votingsystems@sos.ca.gov [212] or phone (916) 651-7834
On August 3, 2007, Secretary Bowen announced her decisions regarding which systems in the review will be permitted to be used in the 2008 elections and beyond. The following documents detail Secretary Bowen's decisions.

Decertification/Recertification Decisions Issued August 3, 2007,
by California Secretary of State Debra Bowen

Diebold Election Systems, Inc.

• Withdrawal of Approval/Conditional Reapproval [213] (.pdf, 6,734KB)

Hart InterCivic

• Withdrawal of Approval/Conditional Reapproval for Hart System 6.2.1 [214] (.pdf, 5,886KB)
• Voluntary Withdrawal of Certification of Hart System 6.1 [215] (.pdf, 303KB)

Sequoia Voting Systems

• Withdrawal of Approval/Conditional Reapproval [216] (.pdf, 4,631KB)

Elections Systems and Software, Inc.

Voting Systems Certification

Definition of A Vote [223]

UC Final Reports

The University of California has submitted the reports on the findings from the top-to-bottom review. The red team and source code team reports are separated by voting system. The accessibility report contains findings on all of the voting systems that were reviewed. The document review team submitted their reports on schedule. Their reports will be posted as soon as the Secretary of State ensures the reports do not inadvertently disclose security-sensitive information.

UC Source Code Team Reports:

• Principal Investigator's Statement on Protection of Security-Sensitive Information [228]  (.pdf, 13.9KB)
• Diebold Elections Systems, Inc. [229]  (.pdf, 561KB)
• Hart InterCivic [230]  (.pdf, 573KB)
• Sequoia Voting Systems [231]  (.pdf, 831KB)

UC Red Team Reports:

• Overview by UC Principal Investigator Matt Bishop [232]  (.pdf, 303KB)
• Diebold Elections Systems, Inc. [233]  (.pdf, 498KB)
• Hart InterCivic [234]  (.pdf, 376KB)
• Sequoia Voting Systems [235]  (.pdf, 108KB)

UC Accessibility Report:

• Accessibility Report [236]  (.pdf, 1.07MB)

---

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION1225 New York Ave. NW Suite 1100Washington, DC 20005

For Immediate Release
August 3, 2007

Contact:
Jeannie Layson
Bryan Whitener
(202) 566-3100

EAC Will Post and Distribute State Reports on Voting Systems

WASHINGTON- The United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has

adopted a policy authorizing staff to post and distribute
voting system reports and studies that have been conducted or commissioned by a state or local government.

"EAC believes it is important to provide a central location for election officials to post reports about their voting systems that can be shared with election officials throughout the nation and the
public," said Chairwoman Donetta Davidson.  "This will provide an opportunity for election officials to share critical information and good ideas.

"As part of our role as the national clearinghouse for election information, EAC will continue to explore ways to share and distribute information about how, where and when we vote."

The new policy is part of the EAC's clearinghouse responsibilities under Section 202 of the Help America Vote Act.  To be considered for posting on the EAC website, a state or local government must submit the report to the EAC chair or executive director and certify that the
report reflects their experience operating voting systems or implementing EAC's voluntary voting systems guidelines.

EAC is also operating the federal government's first voting system certification program. For information on voting system test labs, registered voting system manufacturers, voting systems that have been submitted for testing, test plans, notices of clarification, and other program-related information, click

here.

EAC is an independent bipartisan commission created by HAVA. It is charged with administering payments to states and developing guidance to meet HAVA requirements, adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, and accrediting voting system test laboratories and certifying voting equipment. EAC also serves as a national clearinghouse and resource of information regarding election
administration. The four EAC commissioners are Donetta Davidson, chair; Rosemary Rodriguez, vice chair; Caroline Hunter; and Gracia Hillman.

Continuing: Oppose S.1487 and H.R. 811 as Written

The Rules Committee of the US Senate will reportedly be conducting a hearing on S1487 on July 25.

CURRENT ACTIONS for the week of July 30:

1. Call your Senators to Oppose S. 1487 [237]
S . 1487 is a dangerous, anti-democratic measure even worse than H. R. 811. Amend or end.

2. Call your Representatives to Amend or Reject H.R. 811 [238]
A well-intentioned, if misguided election reform bill that the vendors' amendments twisted into the "Voter Con" Act of 2007
It seems beyond repair at this point.

3. Instead, urge your Representatives to Co-sponsor the Kucinich bill [239] or push to correct the corruptions of H.R. 811 with these amendments: A Five-Point Proposal for Real Election Reform [240]

4. California: Voting Systems Review Hearing -- Support Secretary of State Bowen in Protecting the Vote
Click here for Action Details [241]

Please contact both your US Senators (contacts below), and ask them to oppose S. 1487 as written.

Ask your senators to read this analysis [242], and work to improve the bill.

If the bill is not improved by amendment, Senators should withdraw their support and vote it down.

For in-depth background and talking points, see these articles on S. 1487: http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/s1487_analysis [243]

Senate Contacts: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm [244]

There are 25 areas of function, and many of them have severe problems.

I hope that all activists can agree that this bill is the wrong way to election reform.

I hope we can have a strong showing at the hearing next week, to demand a better bill and to make sure that our Senators understand why each of these flaws is wrong, and how to improve it.

--Teresa Hommel

New Jersey Should Investigate Sequoia [03.19.08]

ACTION ALERT: New Jersey Should Investigate Sequoia and Move to Paper Ballots
March 19, 2008

Thanks to Kathy Dopp and John Gideon for providing the ingredients for this action alert.

Please take a minute and fill out this email form. Also ask your New Jersey friends to call on the NJ attorney general to authorize an independent investigation into the malfunctioning Sequoia voting machines. (Princeton University Computer Scientist Ed Felten has volunteered to do the investigation for free!)
http://www.nj.gov/lps/formmail.htm [245]

Also ask the NJ attorney general -- who is also the chief state election official in NJ -- why she has not saved New Jersey taxpayer monies by switching to paper ballot optical scan systems to comply with legal requirement for auditing NJ elections -- rather than asking for delay after delay in meeting the legal requirements for election auditing.

Cost comparison studies showing that the costs of all-new optical scanning equipment pays for itself in reduced election administration costs within four years and then saves lots of money.
(See http://electionmathematics.org [246] and click on "Voting Systems" for cost comparisons)

These news articles on the N.J. situation are forwarded from the Daily Voting News:

NJ: Interesting Email from Sequoia
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1265 [247]

NJ: Sequoia Voting Systems Threatens Princeton Computer Scientists with Legal Action
if they Carry Out NJ Commissioned Analysis of the Company's Touch-Screen Voting Machines
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5814 [248]

NJ: Voting data test is blocked
Manufacturer cites licensing violation
http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-4/ [249]
120581310587220.xml&coll=5

NJ: Legal threat thwarts Union voting-machine check
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-9/ [250]
1205818545270600.xml&coll=1

NJ: State Senate OKs delaying vote-verification method
The paper procedure won't be ready by the Nov. election, N.J. said.
Touch-screens bring doubts.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/ [251]
20080318_State_Senate_OKs_delaying_vote-verification_method.html

NJ: E-Voting Firm Threatens Ed Felten If He Reviews Its E-Voting Machine
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080317/185348564.shtml [252]

NJ: E-Voting Vendor Threatens Princeton Computer Scientists With Legal Action
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/2826/e-voting-vendor [253]-
threatens-princeton-computer-scientists-with-legal-action

NJ: Voting Machine Company Strong-Arm Tactics Succeed in Blocking New Jersey Investigation (So Far)
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5820 [254]

NJ: Voting-Machine Maker to Princeton Researcher: 'Hands Off'
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/18/voting-machine-maker-to [255]-
princeton-researcher-hands-off/?mod=googlenews_wsj

Transparency Project: Now Through Election Day --Anyone Can Do This

[This page was originally published in advance of the 2006 midterm elections, but the recommendations are perennial and the links are still good.]

The Transparency Project is a methodology prepared by Verified Voting.org to enlist voters everywhere in taking checklists along when they go to vote at the polls, and recording what you can readily observe or learn by asking questions. Some of the checklists apply to pre- and post-election day event monitoring, and require an additional measure of preparation and commitment. But these are tasks that any voter can do.

The purpose is to get a detailed snapshot of the state of our elections from many localities, and assemble into a big picture, utilizing large numbers of participating citizen observors.

In addition to the state and local Election Transparency Scorecards, Pre-Election Testing and Early Voting Questionnaires, you can now download questionnaires to guide you in observing ballot accounting (reconciling the number of votes cast versus the number of voters who signed in) at the time the polls close on Election Day, and in observing auditing in areas that already have a voter-verified paper record and that plan to conduct manual audits after Election Day.

In addition, you can also download our new Voting Process Accessibility Questionnaire, which is available in three different versions -- on the web, in text format, and in large print.

To access the full set of questionnaires, simply go to https://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6390.

Not sure where to start? Begin filling out our Election Transparency Scorecards right now!
Don't wait for Election Day in order to take action!

You can complete the Election Transparency Scorecards for your state and county RIGHT NOW, even before Election Day. Oftentimes, you can do this from your own home as long as you can make some phone calls to your elections department. These scorecards will provide crucial background information for whatever incidents occur on Election Day.

For example, with information from the scorecards, we'll be able to find out whether locales with LESS transparency and openness in their process have MORE problems on Election Day. Worried that you won't be able to answer all the questions on the scorecards? Don't worry -- we'll be happy to receive any information you can gather. Not a part of an election observation group? No problem -- these scorecards can be completed by individuals. Not sure if you can finish the scorecard by Election Day? That's okay too... we can still use your information even after the elections are over (but the sooner, the better!).

If you plan to complete an Election Transparency Scorecard for your state and/or your county (or other local voting jurisdiction), please e-mail us at observer@verifiedvoting.org [189]

and tell us which state and/or local jurisdiction you're covering. We'd like to get a scorecard in for every state in the nation, and as many counties as possible! By letting us know which you're covering, we'll be able to fill in the gaps.

The state Election Transparency Scorecard can be downloaded at http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/ETScorecardState.pdf [256].

The local (county) Election Transparency Scorecard can be downloaded at http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/ETScorecardLocal.pdf [257].

Wondering what you can do on Election Day? Take the Voting Process Accessibility Questionnaire with you when you go to vote!

When you go to vote, make it an opportunity to observe! Take our Voting Process Accessibility Questionnaire with you and use it to gather information on the level of access to the voting process for persons with disabilities. Here at Verified Voting, we want nothing less than a voting system and process that provides full access to the ballot for all our citizens, privacy and independence in casting the ballot, and an accurate count of the ballots cast. Measuring the level of accessibility will help us know where there are obstacles that need to be addressed.

The Voting Process Accessibility Questionnaire can be downloaded at https://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6401 [258].

Join the Election Transparency Project discussion list -- watchthevote@verifiedvoting.org [259]!

Verified Voting is happy to announce our new Election Transparency Project nonpartisan discussion list, watchthevote@verifiedvoting.org [259]. This discussion list was created just for you, the Election Transparency Project volunteers. By subscribing, you’ll be able to communicate easily with other Election Transparency Project volunteers and citizen observers from all over the country. The movement for free and fair elections is vibrant and alive and growing! Join the WatchTheVote list to connect with other Election Transparency Project participants!

To subscribe to the WatchTheVote discussion list, go to http://vevo.verifiedvoting.org/mailman/listinfo/watchthevote [260].
Nonpartisan posts related to voting and elections are welcome!

Good news! Voter Action's legal team is here to help!

Voter Action will be offering legal support to project participants for DRE-related voting machine problems before, on, and after Election Day via its toll-free number -- 1-888-SAV-VOTE. Voter Action's legal teams will also lend their legal eye to the information that we gather through this project. Verified Voting is grateful to have Voter Action's legal support, and happy that Voter Action is encouraging people to get out and observe through its recently announced Watch The Vote national outreach campaign.

Wondering how to submit the data that you've gathered?

Never fear! We'll be sending more info to your inbox soon on how to submit the data that you collect. Rest assured that it'll be simple, easy, and painless. We'll also offer some training sessions for those who choose to enter their data via our online system -- more on that soon! Remember, the info that you provide will be the springboard for reforms to the election process for years to come.

We're counting on you to help us secure trustworthy elections for the United States. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact us at observer@verifiedvoting.org [189], or at 415-487-2255. Thanks so much for your dedication and commitment to saving our democracy!

Most sincerely,

Courtenay Strickland Bhatia, Verified Voting President, Dr. David Dill, Verified Voting Founder, and the rest of the Verified Voting Team

Verified Voting Foundation
1550 Bryant St., Suite 855
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-487-2255 phone
940-403-2255 fax
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ [190]

Every vote must count as cast.

CA Voting System Review Hearing July 30

Public Hearing on California Voting System Top to Bottom Review

-- Write out and practice delivering your 2-minute Public Comment statement

"Members of the public are encouraged to submit written comments on agenda items.
Written comment should be sent by US mail to the address above or by email to votingsystems@sos.ca.gov [212].
Those wishing to provide oral comment at a meeting should complete a speaker's card upon arrival."

-- Research a more in-depth critique of the voting systems components up for review [scroll down to see listing]
Click here for comprehensive background on CA Voting System Review [224]

-- More extended statements can also be made with prior arrangement

"Those wishing to provide an extended statement should submit a request via the email address above or contact Lowell Finley at (916) 653-7244 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting."

-- Download the sign template files in the attachments box at the foot of this page and print out signs to bring
(See below for a sample)

-- Help compile a list of reporters to send a pre-event press release

Journalists in any media (newspaper, blog, radio, tv) for whom you have their personal, direct work address, phone, and fax
We can probably engage the assistance of a veteran Sacramento publicity specialist who has aided CEPN actions in the past.

-- Car Pool Arrangements

Click here for the Sacramento Car Pool Blog [261]

--Amtrak Train is also an option; the Capitol Corridor line runs up from the Peninsula to Sacramento.
Click here for Amtrak ticket and route information [262]
Click here for the Sacramento train schedule [263]
Click to download Walking Map [264] from the Sacramento Amtrak station to the Offices of the Secretary of State (30-minute walk)

1. SEQUOIA WinEDS version 3.1.012/Edge/Insight/400-C

a. WinEDS, version 3.1.012
b. AVC Edge Model I, firmware version 5.0.24
c. AVC Edge Model II, firmware version 5.0.24
d. VeriVote Printer
e. Optech 400-C/WinETP firmware version 1.12.4
f. Optech Insight, APX K2.10, HPX K1.42
g. Optech Insight Plus, APX K2.10, HPX K1.42
h. Card Activator, version 5.0.21
i. HAAT Model 50, version 1.0.69L
j. Memory Pack Reader (MPR), firmware version 2.15

2. DIEBOLD GEMS 1.18.24/AccuVote

a. GEMS software, version 1.18.24
b. AccuVote-TSX with AccuView Printer Module and Ballot Station firmware version 4.6.4
c. AccuVote-OS (Model D) with firmware version 1.96.6
d. AccuVote-OS Central Count with firmware version 2.0.12
e. AccuFeed
f. Vote Card Encoder, version 1.3.2
g. Key Card Tool software, version 4.6.1
h. VC Programmer software, version 4.6.1

3. HART INTERCIVIC – System 6.2.1

a. Ballot Now software, version 3.3.11
b. BOSS software, version 4.2.13
c. Rally software, version 2.3.7
d. Tally software, version 4.3.10
e. SERVO, version 4.2.10
f. JBC, version 4.3.1
g. eSlate/DAU, version 4.2.13
h. eScan, version 1.3.14
i. VBO, version 1.8.3
j. eCM Manager, version 1.1.7

Notice is further hereby given that the above-referenced public hearing will also give interested persons an opportunity to express their views regarding the voting system identified below:

1. Election Systems and Software, Inc. InkaVote Plus Precinct Ballot Counter Voting System, version 2.1 (Los Angeles County)

a. InkaVote Plus Precinct Ballot Counter with ADA unit, firmware version 1.10
b. Unisyn Election Management System, version 1.1
c. Ballot Generation, version 1.1
d. Election Converter, version 1.1
e. Election Loader, version 1.1
f. Voter Converter, version 1.1
g. Vote Tabulation, version 1.1

Click here to download 2-page <"http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ttbr/ttbr_public_hearing.pdf">Hearing Agenda

ALL ITEMS MAY BE RE-ORDERED TO BE HEARD ON ANY DAY OF THE NOTICED MEETINGS. THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED WITHOUT NOTICE. Members of the public are encouraged to submit written comments on agenda items. Written comment should be sent by US mail to the address above or by email to votingsystems@sos.ca.gov [212]. Those wishing to provide oral comment at a meeting should complete a speaker's card upon arrival. In all cases, the presiding officer reserves the right to impose time limits on presentations as may be necessary to ensure that the agenda is completed. Those wishing to provide an extended statement should submit a request via the email address above or contact Lowell Finley at (916) 653-7244 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. In accordance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, reasonable accommodations are available. Requests for reasonable accommodations should be made at least 5 working days in advance of the hearing date. To request reasonable accommodations, please call (916) 651-9163.

More 8.5 x 11 sign templates like this are in the download attachment box below. Print as is, or have enlarged at a copy shop.

Anyone receiving this message, feel free to forward to interested persons and lists.

Vote Paper Not Vapor: Circulate the CA Tangible Ballots Initiative

FURTHER INFORMATION:

Petition Circulator Do's And Don'ts
http://www.tangibleballot.org/pdf/PetitionCirculatorDosAndDonts.pdf [274]

Petition Circulator Legal Rules
http://www.tangibleballot.org/pdf/PetitionCirculatorLegalRules.pdf [275]

We can't accomplish this as just individuals in the EI movement. There simply aren't enough of us. We need to convince neighbors and friends and family member and our civic organizations of the importance of becoming individual leaders in this effort. Let your local Kiwanis and Rotary, Lions, and similar organizations know that you are immediately available to speak on the voting machine issues, including, but not limited to, the Tangible Ballot Initiative. The truly genius part is enlisting just 10 supporters to engage 10 more voters to accomplish this. And that is the key to success. It works in nearly every organizational effort, and it can work here too. Just get ten people to get ten people and ensure follow up and the job is a success.

Here's the math: If 100 of us committed to solicit just 10 individuals each, who would then agree to seek just 10 others each, with a goal of every person obtaining 100 signatures, we would have 1 MILLION signatures, double what we need! It sounds hard, until you ask around, and as result, realize that the people already know they are being screwed. They just want an outlet, and now we have one upon which everybody can agree; we all agree that solid ballots are key.

NO TIME TO HESITATE

Today, we stand at a crossroad. The crossroad between taking the lead as Election Integrity Advocates to put the Tangible Ballot Initiative (TBI) (www.tangibleballot.com [272]) on the November 4, 2008 Presidential General Election ballot, or to let the effort fail. Why is this important and why should we care?

TBI removes electronic touchscreen machines and Direct Electronic Recording (DRE) machines from the legal definition of a 'ballot'. No more will a new Secretary of State be able to declare machines with secret software owned by corporations to be 'ballots' as has been done twice in the last decade. If we can't see and touch our ballots, how can we ever be sure our votes are counted as cast? Please take up the cause ' NOW - it can change the course of history with your help!

Please go right away to http://www.tangibleballot.org [276]. All the tools you need are there, right now.

Also, you are welcome to write to Harry Lehmann, at his private email, hvl[at]lehmannlaw[dot]com [277]; just be sure to put 'tangible volunteer' in the subject line, and, of course, you are welcome to write a reply back to me. We will all remain at our watch posts, doing our best over time to monitor the system. But the way things are now, with computerized election results, there is often, 'nothing to watch.' The Tangible Ballot Initiative gives us the opportunity to put our talking aside, and to take action, today. For that reason our focus now is on action. Please join me in this worthy effort.

SPECIAL LOCATIONS SUGGESTION

This Friday and Saturday are ORGANIC MARKET DAYS, where our signature gathering will be focused on places like Whole Foods, and Trader Joe's. This Sunday is COFFEE HOUSE DAY, where the focus is on Starbucks, Peets, and your favorite coffee spot.

We'll keep you updated weekly on new spots, but please, please go to www.tangibleballot.org [276] right now and download your first petition. For help on any of this, call me!

Tom Courbat
951-677-6451

Tangible Ballot Initiative (TBI) Pledge

The illustration below is for EXAMPLE ONLY.

To submit a TBI PLEDGE, go to the live fillable form located at: http://www.tangibleballot.org/CirculatorForm1.jsp [273]

I, ____________________ have recruited ten (10) voters who have each agreed to accomplish two outcomes:

1. Recruit 10 additional voters to accomplish outcome #2 before April 17, 2008, and
2. Obtain signatures of 100 registered voters on the TBI petition at www.tangibleballot.com [272]

The ten voters I have recruited are:
Name E-mail Phone #

1. __________________________________________________________
2. __________________________________________________________
3. __________________________________________________________
4. __________________________________________________________
5. __________________________________________________________
6. __________________________________________________________
7. __________________________________________________________
8. __________________________________________________________
9. __________________________________________________________
10. __________________________________________________________

I agree to work closely with these ten voters to assist them in accomplish their two goals.

_________________________ _____________ ______________________ _____________
Printed Name Date Email address Phone

Please submit completed pledge forms to Harry Lehmann at hvlehmann[at]earthlink[dot]net [278]

03/09/09 Defeat Texas Voter Suppression Bill, SB 362

Voter Suppression Legislation: ACTION ALERT 3/9/2009 This Tuesday, March 10th starting at 9am, the Texas Senate will hold a hearing as the Committee of the Whole on SB 362 - Fraser and Estes, avoter suppression bill that would require strict identification requirements for voters at the polls.  According to Brennan Center reports, this legislation has the potential to disenfranchise as many as 2 million Texans.  Also, 8% of voters that have registered in Texas since 2006 were unable to provide a driver's license or state issued ID number.       The Senators and advocates that are working to fight this legislation and to protect Texans fundamental right to vote need your help!!!!   How you can help:   Contact your Senator.   Call, email, or fax your Senator and tell them you are opposed to Voter Suppression Legislation, specifically SB 362 by Fraser and Estes.     Register your opposition to this bill.  Please stop by the Senate chambers during the debate on the 10th and sign a card against SB 362.  Every citizen has the right to register their position on legislation during committee hearings.  Go to the Senate chambers and tell the Senate Clerk that you want to “drop a card” against SB 362.  Fill out the form and check the box that you are opposed to this legislation.  The Senate Clerk will begin taking forms at 8:00am.   Give oral testimony against this bill.  If you would like to deliver testimony to the Senate you may do so.  Public testimony will begin in the afternoon and could run through the night, so be prepared to spend the entire day at the capitol if you intend to give oral testimony.  Also, you need to bring 40 copies of your statement with you.  You can sign up for testimony beginning at 8:00am with the Senate Clerk in the Senate chambers, keep in mind there may be many people wanting to give testimony so the earlier you sign in the better chance you will have of being toward the top of the list.   Attend the hearing in support of the Senators fighting this legislation.  There will be a lot of different groups at the Capitol on Tuesday to show their support or opposition to this legislation.  Please attend if you can.  You can watch from the Senate gallery or the Capitol Auditorium (floor E1.).  The groups in support of this legislation are holding a rally at 10am on the South Steps of the Capitol; you are encouraged to attend with signs that show your opposition to this legislation.  Please be respectful while in the Senate Chambers and gallery though.     Educate people across the state about this issue.  Please write op-eds and letters to the editors regarding the potential impact of this legislation (See information below or email txelectionreform@yahoo.com [279] if you need additional information).  Write articles for local newsletters and papers.  Please forward this email to everyone you know.  Texans need to know the REAL impact of this legislation.      Stay engaged and be prepared to do this all over again when this legislation is passed from the Senate to the House.  Once this passes the Senate we will need to start helping the Representatives defeat this legislation.  This could happen in a matter of weeks after it passes the Senate, so be prepared to start calling your Representatives soon.     Talking Points   Voter Impersonation Fraud Doesn’t Exist – despite spending millions of dollars to investigate and stop voter fraud, the Attorney General of Texas has never prosecuted a single case of a voter impersonating another voter at the polls.   Voter ID measures propose an extra hurdle for many Texans that is reminiscent of the poll tax.  The working poor and senior citizens are less likely to have a photo ID - or the time or ability to get one. In 2006, a study by the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice found that 18% of citizens 65 and over, 25% of African American citizens, and 15% of voters earning under $35,000/year don’t have government-issued photo identification.   Voter ID does not address most common election fraud or other more common election related problems.  Thousands of eligible Texans are denied the right to register to vote and many eligible voters are turned away from the polls every election.  We need to spend time ensuring that every eligible Texan has the right to vote, not wasting time and resources on addressing something that does not exist.    We have much bigger priorities in the State- healthcare, tuition deregulation, and economy.  All of these issues deserve time and resources of the Senate.  These issues impact every Texan every day.     This legislation will cost the State and Counties to implement.  Loss of Revenue From Issuing Free Drivers Licenses (No ID is free. The state has to pay for it and the potential voter will have to spend time and money obtaining the documents needed to obtain a drivers license). Pollworker Training Voter Education Costs   As many as 2 million Texans could be disenfranchised: Women- Name on ID does not match voter registration including recently married, divorced, hyphenated names, and new middle names Older Texans - Lack current state issues photo identification, may have utilities and mail under relatives name Students- Out-of-state license, mail goes to university p.o. box, no utilities, attending private university Homeless - No driver's license, no mail or utility bills  Low-income - Use public transportation, move frequently and may not have bills or mail with correct address, DMV lacking in inner-city metroplexes Texans with disabilities- No drivers license Will need accessible transportation to obtain identification Victims of identity theft - Identification is stolen and may not have 2 copies of other identification at time of voting Natural Disaster victims - No identification or documents staying with relatives therefore no mail or utility statements in their name Recent arrivals to Texas- Out-of- state identification, utility bills and other mail may not be correct name at time of election Native American Indians- Lack photo identification and not likely to have government issued documentation Additional resources:   Who Represents Me? http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/ [280]   Senators - Contact Information http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Members/Members.aspx?Chamber=S [281]   Representatives - Contact Information http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Members/Members.aspx?Chamber=H [282]   Senate Chamber Texas Capitol Location - 2E.8 (2nd floor East Wing) Senate Gallery - 3E.5 (3rd floor East Wing)   Parking -Texas Capitol, Capitol Extension and Capitol Visitors Center Parking is available in the Capitol Visitors Parking Garage at 1201 San Jacinto located between Trinity and San Jacinto Streets at 12th and 13th streets. Parking is free for the first two hours and $.75 for each half hour thereafter (maximum daily charge: $6.00); accessible parking is available.  More information available from State Preservation Board’s website.   State Preservation Board http://www.tspb.state.tx.us/spb/plan/Plan.htm [283]   Help Get the Word Out to friends and family across Texas. We need to hear stories from people this will impact. Tell your family and friends to contact us at txelectionreform@yahoo.com [279]   Texans Against Voter Suppression Legislation http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=55794930819 [284] William C. Velasquez Institute National Office 206 Lombard, 1st Floor San Antonio, TX 78226 (210) 922-3118 California Office 2914 N. Main St., 1st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90031 (323) 222-2217 Florida Office 2646-A NW 21st Terrace Miami, FL 33142 (305) 635-6965

Attend Tucson Hearing on 2006 RTA Ballot Destruction --08/28/09

Week of July 30: Federal Election Bills, and CA Voting System Review Hearing

1. Nationally -- Continue messaging Congress to oppose S. 1487 and H.R. 811 as written, and advocate amendments to effect true election integrity. Click here for action details. [286]

LOCATION
Office of the Secretary of State
1500 11th Street
1st Floor – Auditorium
Sacramento, California 95814

Public Rally in Support of Secretary Bowen, starting 9:00 a.m. in front of the building

Press Conference, 9:30 a.m.

HEARING begins at 10:00 a.m. inside the Auditorium

Complete Agenda and Detailed Listing of Voting System Components Presented Below (scroll down)

Some Practical Preparations

For those who can attend in person:
-- Write out and practice delivering your 2-minute Public Comment statement

If you cannot attend, you can still submit testimony:

"Members of the public are encouraged to submit written comments on agenda items.
Written comment should be sent by US mail to the address above or by email to votingsystems@sos.ca.gov [212].
Those wishing to provide oral comment at a meeting should complete a speaker's card upon arrival."

-- Research a more in-depth critique of the voting systems components up for review [scroll down to see listing]

-- More extended statements can also be made with prior arrangement

"Those wishing to provide an extended statement should submit a request via the email address above or contact Lowell Finley at (916) 653-7244 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting."

-- Help compile a list of reporters to send a pre-event press release.

Journalists in any media (newspaper, blog, radio, tv) for whom you have their personal, direct work address, phone, and fax

-- Car Pool Arrangements
Click here for Car Pool Blog [261]

--Amtrak Train is also an option; the Capitol Corridor line runs up from the Peninsula to Sacramento.
Click here for Amtrak ticket and route information [262]
Click here for the Sacramento train schedule [263]
Click to download Walking Map [264] from the Sacramento Amtrak station to the Offices of the Secretary of State (30-minute walk)

NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held to give interested persons an opportunity to express their views regarding the Top-to-Bottom Review of the voting systems identified below.
1. SEQUOIA WinEDS version 3.1.012/Edge/Insight/400-C

a. WinEDS, version 3.1.012
b. AVC Edge Model I, firmware version 5.0.24
c. AVC Edge Model II, firmware version 5.0.24
d. VeriVote Printer
e. Optech 400-C/WinETP firmware version 1.12.4
f. Optech Insight, APX K2.10, HPX K1.42
g. Optech Insight Plus, APX K2.10, HPX K1.42
h. Card Activator, version 5.0.21
i. HAAT Model 50, version 1.0.69L
j. Memory Pack Reader (MPR), firmware version 2.15

2. DIEBOLD GEMS 1.18.24/AccuVote

a. GEMS software, version 1.18.24
b. AccuVote-TSX with AccuView Printer Module and Ballot Station firmware version 4.6.4
c. AccuVote-OS (Model D) with firmware version 1.96.6
d. AccuVote-OS Central Count with firmware version 2.0.12
e. AccuFeed
f. Vote Card Encoder, version 1.3.2
g. Key Card Tool software, version 4.6.1
h. VC Programmer software, version 4.6.1

3. HART INTERCIVIC – System 6.2.1

a. Ballot Now software, version 3.3.11
b. BOSS software, version 4.2.13
c. Rally software, version 2.3.7
d. Tally software, version 4.3.10
e. SERVO, version 4.2.10
f. JBC, version 4.3.1
g. eSlate/DAU, version 4.2.13
h. eScan, version 1.3.14
i. VBO, version 1.8.3
j. eCM Manager, version 1.1.7

Notice is further hereby given that the above-referenced public hearing will also give interested persons an opportunity to express their views regarding the voting system identified below:

1. Election Systems and Software, Inc. InkaVote Plus Precinct Ballot Counter Voting System, version 2.1 (Los Angeles County)

a. InkaVote Plus Precinct Ballot Counter with ADA unit, firmware version 1.10
b. Unisyn Election Management System, version 1.1
c. Ballot Generation, version 1.1
d. Election Converter, version 1.1
e. Election Loader, version 1.1
f. Voter Converter, version 1.1
g. Vote Tabulation, version 1.1

ALL ITEMS MAY BE RE-ORDERED TO BE HEARD ON ANY DAY OF THE NOTICED MEETINGS. THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED WITHOUT NOTICE. Members of the public are encouraged to submit written comments on agenda items. Written comment should be sent by US mail to the address above or by email to votingsystems@sos.ca.gov [287].

Those wishing to provide oral comment at a meeting should complete a speaker's card upon arrival. In all cases, the presiding officer reserves the right to impose time limits on presentations as may be necessary to ensure that the agenda is completed.

Those wishing to provide an extended statement should submit a request via the email address above or contact Lowell Finley at (916) 653-7244 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

In accordance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, reasonable accommodations are available. Requests for reasonable accommodations should be made at least 5 working days in advance of the hearing date. To request reasonable accommodations, please call (916) 651-9163.

URGENT! "No on H.R. 4844!" Call Congress TODAY!

Stealth Voter Disenfranchisement Labeled as "Federal Election Integrity Act"

(Thanks to the National Campaign for Fair Elections (NCFE) for taking the lead on this.)

Urgent action is needed to oppose H.R. 4844, the deceptively titled Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006. A vote is expected in the U.S. House tomorrow or Thursday. Please act now!

Contact your Representative today to oppose H.R. 4844. [290]

Contrary to its title, the bill will undermine the integrity of our electoral process by imposing unnecessary barriers to full participation in federal elections. The bill's requirements of proof of citizenship and photo identification as a prerequisite to voting may appear innocuous, but in reality they will disenfranchise seniors, minority voters, low income voters, students and young voters, and voters with disabilities. In addition, the implementation of H.R. 4844 places a huge burden on state governments.

Proponents of photo identification provisions at the polls and proof of citizenship when registering to vote claim that these draconian constraints are necessary to guard against identity fraud at the nation's polling places. But there is no credible evidence that voter impersonation or non-citizen voting is anything but an anomaly. As the United States District Court found in Common Cause v. Billups (when considering a Georgia law requiring ID at the polls), photo identification requirements amount to an unconstitutional poll tax and burden the fundamental right to vote of eligible American citizens. To learn more about restrictive photo ID and proof of citizenship requirements, download the two PDF factsheets listed below.

Urge your Member of Congress to vote NO on H.R. 4844. When you take action [290] you will be directed to the NCFE website where you can send a sample letter to your Representative or customize your letter based on our talking points and your own opinions. A fax is automatically generated and sent to the Washington, DC office of your Member of Congress.

Urgent! U.S. House vote on photo ID this week

Urge your Representative to vote NO on H.R. 4844, the
so-called Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, which would impose a
restrictive photo ID requirement on all American voters. A vote is
expected Wednesday or Thursday of this week in the U.S. House.

Click here to act now! [290]



Download and read the two PDF fact sheets below for more information.

9/1/06 - Watch "Block the Vote" on NOW with David Brancaccio

About the Show
(Video will be available soon on EDA TV)
Click here to check the OPB Schedule where you live for showtimes. [290]

Across the nation, states have enacted new laws supposedly designed to prevent voter fraud and avoid election-day debacles. But qualified voters may also be left out in the cold, especially minorities, the poor, the elderly and the disabled. Friday, 9/1/06, this week NOW looks at several states where these new rules may keep voters away from the polls in November. Critics charge that the Bush administration is part of the problem as the U.S. Department of Justice, which is charged with protecting the rights of all voters, has signed off on a number of the new regulations.

In Florida, new penalties that can reach up to $5,000 for registration delays or problems, which forced traditional registration advocacy groups, like the League of Women Voters, to avoid registering voters for a crucial primary.

"The law has done harm because the League of Women Voters, as well as other organizations, were not able to register voters before the primary," said Dianne Wheatley-Giliotti, the president of the LWV in Florida. Florida Rep. Ron Reagan defends the law saying "it's to encourage people to turn them [registration forms] in on time."

In Georgia, a new law requires residents to show photo identification before voting, blocking thousands of people who currently lack the proper ID as well as the means of acquiring it. But are these voting barriers unintended consequences or intended outcomes? Some distrust the true motives of lawmakers.

"This is a concerted effort to make sure that certain people don't have the opportunity to vote, that they don't have the opportunity to participate in their own democracy," Georgia state representative Alisha Thomas Morgan told NOW.

8/24/09 - Fight Back Against Election Nullification in San Diego!

PLEASE SHARE THIS APPALLING STORY ON YOUR LISTS AND BLOGS

Summary: It thus appears now based on the signed pleadings of the defendants in the California 50th District Election contest in San Diego (the Busby/Bilbray race) that the US media overlooked one of the great political stories of the year: A power grab by the Speaker of the House seven days after the June 6 election to terminate any further election or action in San Diego County except those actions that they choose not to attack the jurisdiction of.

This power grab and premature election termination was accomplished by swearing in Brian Bilbray on June 13, only seven days after the election and weeks before the election was certified and before all votes were counted, and then subsequently arguing that nobody else (and especially the San Diego Superior Court) has any power or jurisdiction to do anything about it, based on the allegedly exclusive power of the House to judge the Qualifications of their Members under Art. I, sec. 5 of the US Constitution.

The power grab became clear only a couple days ago, when the jurisdictional argument above was filed and made perfectly clear the mental state and specific intent of the defendants when Bilbray was shuttled to DC to be sworn in seven days after the election. The swift swearing took place at least 16 days prior to the certification of the election on or about June 29. But, if this swift swearing is to be given effect as the Defendant Brian Bilbray and Registrar Haas argue, then the "exclusive jurisdiction" of the House of Representatives also deprived Registrar of Voters Haas of any jurisdiction to certify results in the first place! The election was thus never legally finalized or certified, it legally "never happened."

Thus, we have an incomplete, invalid election. The parties to the election contest now all agree, they just get there in different ways. The motion to dismiss / argument against jurisdiction of the defendants reveals the powerplay that occurred on June 13th, with the premature swearing in.

Shades of 2000, with a selection decided in Washington DC, and the pitiful States and their citizens ordered to pipe down and "get used to it"?

Election Nullification Argued By Election Contest Defendants
Defendants Allege in Motion to Dismiss that Swearing-In Bilbray on June 13th or 17 days Prior to Certification Deprived San Diego Superior Court of Jurisdiction! Pre-Certification Swearing-In Means Race Never Validly Certified; In Effect Busby/Bilbray Election Decided in DC, Terminated in San Diego

In briefs filed August 22 with San Diego Superior Court in the Busby/Bilbray election contest in California’s 50th Congressional District, the Defendants argue that the House of Representatives has exclusive jurisdiction over the qualifications of its Members under Art. I, sec. 5 of the US Constitution. But if this is indeed the case, then Registrar of Voters Mikel Haas was also without jurisdiction to certify or finalize the results, the exclusive and sole jurisdiction resting with the House of Representatives! Thus, no legal election was ever concluded or had in California’s 50th Cong. District, according to the necessary conclusion of the defendants’ arguments against jurisdiction of the Court.

It thus appears now based on the signed pleadings of the defendants that the US media overlooked one of the great political stories of the year: A power grab by the Speaker of the House to terminate any action in San Diego County except those actions that they choose not to attack the jurisdiction of.

A brief chronology helps to reveal the posture of the case:

On June 6, 2006 Republican Brian Bilbray allegedly slightly outpolled Democrat Francine Busby in the special election for California’s 50th Congressional District, despite Busby’s lead in the polls going into the election. There were immediate cries of foul following the election due to major irregularities, including electronic voting machines sent out to the homes and cars of volunteers for up to 12 days prior to the election, and irregular election results like huge mega-precincts of absentee ballots where turnout was thousands of percent more than registered voters.

On June 13, 2006, Bilbray flew to Washington, DC and was sworn in as a member of the United States House of Representatives by House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

On or about June 30, 2006, 17 days after Bilbray was sworn in as a member of the House, Mikel Haas, Registrar of San Diego County, officially completed the audit of election results required for certification, and officially certified the election of Bilbray over Busby based on 163,931 votes cast, of which 2,053 votes were said to be cast on Diebold TSX touchscreens, and the remainder scanned via Diebold Accuvote OS computers.

On July 31, 2006, the Contestants filed an election contest, seeking a hand recount and to invalidate the election on several grounds, not only including the affirmative evidence of irregular results, but also including the stonewalling of citizen information requests and the pricing of recounts at an estimated $150,000 that made it difficult or impossible for any citizen to tell who won the election.

On August 22, 2006 the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the swearing in of Bilbray deprives everyone else of jurisdiction including specifically the San Diego Superior Court because Art. I, sec. 5 of the US Constitution has been held to mean that the House and Senate are the judges of the Qualifications of their Members, one of those qualifications is supposed to be “election.”

The facts of the case thus present unique questions of Constitutional law, that appear to be a case of first impression. In Roudebush v Hartke, the US Supreme Court held in 1972 that the State’s jurisdiction under Art I sec. 4 of the US Constitution to define the time place and manner of elections gave the States jurisdiction over the counts and the recounts of votes. But the defendants attempt to distinguish that case, because the Senate in the Roudebush case set an example of responsible constitutional behavior by awaiting the results of the Court challenge before swearing in. However, in this case, the House had no such patience, and in no uncertain terms is telling San Diego Courts and San Diego county where to go, and that is wherever those who are completely powerless as against the mighty lords of the House of Representatives go.

In a filling in San Diego Municipal Court yesterday, attorney Paul Lehto outlined the core of the dispute in stark terms:

Defendants are in effect arguing for the remarkable proposition that unilateral self-serving actions by a majority party in the House of Representatives to shuttle in a member of the same party can be effective, even if those actions do violence to and amount to circumvention of other sections of the US Constitution as well as the California constitution.

These other provisions include Art I, sec 4’s requirement that States control the Time, Place and Manner of Elections, another Art. I sec. 2 requirement that elections for the House take place every two years “by the People,” and the fundamental constitutional right of the people of San Diego’s 50th Cong District to vote and to have that vote counted under both federal constitutional law as well as California’s Constitution in Art II, sec. 2.5 which states:

““{A voter} who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this state shall have that vote counted.” Calif. Elec. Code § 15702 further defines the scope of what “shall” be done under this constitutional provisions by defining “vote” for the express purpose of this Constitutional section as follows: “For purposes of Section 2.5 of Article II of the California Constitution , “vote” includes all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election, including, but not limited to, voter registration, any other act prerequisite to voting, casting a ballot, and having the ballot counted properly and included in the appropriate totals of votes cast with respect to candidates for public office and ballot measures.”

By including both prerequisite acts to voting as well as post-voting acts and acts of appropriate tabulation, it is clear that the full scope of counting is included within the protection of the California Constitution. This broad scope naturally includes a second counting, also known as a recount. Of course, in the electronic voting context, this “recount” would be the first real count by any human being(s).

Lehto and Simpkins filed a withering response to this argument that the San Diego Superior Court is powerless to protect San Diego voters. They point out what the Court must conclude if it were to accept the defendants’ jurisdictional arguments:

Clearly, the swift swearing in did not end the election in the 50th Congressional District, and it did not render everything, including the certification of results weeks later, nugatory and without “jurisdiction.” If this swearing in had this effect, then in the course of dismissing this case the Court would be bound to conclude that the certification of the results after the swearing in of Bilbray was without force and effect, without jurisdiction, and in contravention of principles of federalism, as Defendants argue. That conclusion, however, requires either an absurdity, or the conclusion that our Congressional election was canceled by decision of the Speaker of the House, before all the votes were fully counted, and well before certification.

Ongoing interference by the House of Representatives or persons associated therewith continues. Attorney Paul Vinovich, Counsel to the House Administration Committee, Chaired by the “retiring” Congressman and architect of HAVA Bob Ney of Ohio, arranged to deliver a letter to San Diego Superior Court presiding Judge Yuri Hoffman, arguing the constitutional exclusive jurisdiction of the House.

This type of communication with judges is forbidden, unless all other parties are involved, under the prohibition against ex parte contact with judges. In his own handwriting, Vinovich wrote on the fax cover to plaintiff’s attorney Lehto, “Letter delivered to court last evening.” Lehto received the letter via fax just before 9 a.m. Thursday morning, many hours after the letter was admittedly provided to the judge by Vinovich himself. The letter is posted here [PDF], complete with its circular and contradictory reasoning that the subsequent certification of Bilbray after the rushed swearing in confirmed the correctness of the swearing in.

The Defendants literally argue that the Courts are powerless to stop them (i.e., the Courts are “without jurisdiction”). Friday will reveal whether the courts are indeed powerless in San Diego County. But if they are powerless, then the Registrar of Voters was also powerless to complete the election, and we have a premature termination of the election process, decided in Washington DC, and enforced on San Diego. Much like Bush v. Gore in 2000, the process of elections has been short circuited by a legal coup d’etat that makes no legal sense, but which courts may or may not have the courage to see through.

One thing is sure. The defendants must also believe, having signed the briefs on constitutional motions to dismiss, that the certification of the election was invalid, because it occurred weeks after the swearing-in of Brian Bilbray deprived everyone except the House of Representatives of any jurisdiction to do anything. On that point of invalidity, the parties all now apparently agree.

Well …

Ain't that beautiful?

HALT HOLT! H.R. 811 is the "Patriot Act of Elections"

Let's greet them with whirring FAX machines pouring out citizen opposition to H.R. 811.


Prior to Spring recess, the HCA was trying to "fast track" H.R. 811.
An unprecedented outpouring of citizen protest stopped them in their tracks.

Keep FAXING and pouring it on until Congress gets the message:

END the EAC

(Keep the unitary executive OUT of elections)

BAN DREs

(The Holt bill permits them)

END SECRET COUNTS

(The Holt bill extends federal law protection to trade-secret voting software)

Copy and Forward this Page Widely with this Link: http://www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org/Halt811 [300]

EDA 811 Alert

You can forward this alert directly to others as an e-mail message, if your browser supports a "Send this Page" function; or you can download this page from this link: http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/EDA_811_Alert [307] then copy and paste into a fresh e-mail message and send. The advantage of using this page as an action e-mail is that it conveys live links that enable others to forward and subscribe for future EDA alerts. I confirm [308] that I wish to receive election integrity news and action alerts from Election Defense Alliance. You may unsubscribe [309] if you no longer wish to receive our e-mails.

Warn Congress: H.R. 811 is The Patriot Act of Elections An Election Deception Too Dangerous for Democracy April 16, 2007     (And Who Will Decide) Who Counts the Votes? [310]   TAKE QUICK ACTION [311] SUBSCRIBE! SPREAD WORD! ACT! [312] PEN a Letter to Congress and Press [313] State, County Election Officials Oppose H.R. 811 [314]   (And Who Will Decide) Who Counts the Votes? "The Patriot Act demanded that in exchange for safety, we must give up civil rights. The Holt Bill demands that in exchange for a paper trail, we must transfer control of elections to White House appointees." --Bev Harris, Founder of BlackboxVoting.org The EAC [315], created as a temporary advisory commission to implement HAVA, is in fact a federal executive commission that can at any time be converted into a federal regulatory agency by the insertion of a single line of text in any act of Congress. Regulatory powers would enable the EAC to effectively bypass Congress and create law that preempts Constitutional state sovereignty in election administration. This would allow four White House appointees to determine: Which voting systems are approved for use in our elections Who counts the votes, and how votes are counted How recounts are conducted and outcomes decided This is a clear and present danger to American democracy. We cannot allow it! Halt H.R. 811!    Quick Links EDA Halt 811 Action [316] PEN Letter Generator [317] Forward This Alert [318] EDA 811 Resources [319]   We'd all like to think that Rush Holt's H.R. 811 bill, The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, is a good thing. But just like No Child Left Behind, The Healthy Forests Act, and The Patriot Act, the name doesn't match the reality. Well-intentioned groups such as MoveOn and PFAW--and even some voting activist groups--have been taken in by the Holt "Voter Confidence" spin. They assure us that H.R. 811 will "Ban Paperless Voting," but here's what's hidden in the fine print: H.R. 811 Actually Requires More Computerized Voting! The Holt bill opens a back door to permanent electronic voting in every polling place in America, by mandating a new generation of unnecessary, unproven computerized voting technology, adding more secret software to our elections, and sending at least another $4 billion in taxpayer money to the electronic voting industry.--and-- H.R. 811 Consolidates Executive Control of Elections H.R. 811 gives permanent control over the nation's voting equipment to the Election Assistance Commission [315] (EAC) -- four White House appointees!       TAKE QUICK ACTION     FAX the House Committee on Administration FAX your own House Representative FAX your Secretary of State CLICK and PICK UP at the Halt 811 Action Page: [316]   PEN Tool to Write Press and Congress Model Letter and Talking Points Provided Downloadable Factsheets E-mail, Phone, and FAX for Congress For more on what's DEAD WRONG with H.R. 811, see EDA 811 Resource Page [319] Thirteen Significant Problems in H.R. 811 [320] by Nancy Tobi HR 811: Ten Blunders in A Deceptive Boondoggle [321] by Bruce O'Dell Critical Annotation of H.R. 811 [322] by Bev Harris and More       SUBSCRIBE! SPREAD WORD! ACT!     Join the Election Defense Alliance Mail List [323] Send a Subscription Invitation [324] Now Write, Phone, FAX Congress! [325]       PEN a Letter to Congress and Press     To the Honorable: I write in opposition to the Holt Bill, H.R. 811, which promises "increased voter confidence" but actually perpetuates secret vote-counting by computers while handing centralized control of federal elections to four White House appointees. Because it requires a computerized text conversion device in every polling place, H.R. 811 would actually require electronic voting machines, effectively ruling out noncomputerized voting methods such as handcounted paper ballots. For the same reason H.R. 811 would also rule out noncomputerized voter assistive devices that provide better accessiblity features at far less cost, while avoiding the unacceptable risks of secret, computerized vote-counting. This unnecessary, unproven, as-yet nonexistent text converter device that H.R. 811 requires is a gift to the E-voting industry and an under-funded federal mandate that will impose huge cost burdens on the states. . . . read more . . . Then PEN Your Letter to Congress, the Press, and Friends--All at Once! [317]       State, County Election Officials Oppose H.R. 811   The nation's election administrators are rising to resist Holt. [326] The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the National Association of Counties (NACo) issued a joint statement opposing H.R. 811 and the Senate companion bill, S. 559. [327] "This legislation would exacerbate, rather than assist states and counties in addressing these challenges which could lead to disastrous unintended consequences in the 2008 presidential election."           Election Defense Alliance is a sponsored project of International Humanities Center, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.       info@electiondefensealliance.org [328] http://electiondefensealliance.org [329] 510.275.5723

 

 

Forward this e-mail to a friend [330] [309] This email was sent to dan@electiondefensealliance.org [331], by info@electiondefensealliance.org [328] Update Profile/Email Address [332] | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe [309]™ | Privacy Policy [333]. Email Marketing [334] by [334] Election Defense Alliance | P. O. Box 75005 | Arlington Hts, MA. 02475

HR 811 Factsheets to Study and Share

Download, read, and circulate these 1- and 2-page briefings on the false promises and dangerous deceptions of the "Increased Voter Confidence and Voting Accessibility Act" otherwise known as HR 811.

---

• Why the Election Assisatance Commission Must Be Abolished [305] by Nancy Tobi

---

 

These issue factsheets created by and published at

VotersUnite.org [369]

Participate in Protecting Our Democracy!

Help Amend HR 811 to prohibit "electronic ballots."

This page lists a variety of materials you can use, and actions you can take, to work toward informing Congress and others of the reasons why electronic ballots must be prohibited in the United States -- NOW. These materials are aimed at amending Congressman Rush Holt's bill ("Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007") to ban electronic ballots.

General Informationfor Congress and Others [370]

Electronic Voting Does Not Serve the Disabilities Community [371]

Electronic Voting Machines Disenfranchise Minority Voters [372]

Take Action Now!
	Email Congress to tell them the Holt bill (HR 811) must be amended to ban DREs [373] Electronic voting machines (DRE) are a failed technology that disenfranchises the very taxpayers who pay for them.
	Call Congress to Ban Electronic Ballots. Let us know who you called. [374] This page lists all the House Members and their phone numbers. We're putting stars by the ones that you let us know you've called.
	Endorse our proposed amendments to HR 811 [375] Urge Congress to require real paper ballots, marked by voters or by non-tabulating ballot-marking devices.
General Information for Congress and Others
	A Call for an Amendment to HR 811 to Prohibit Unverifiable “Electronic Ballots” [376] 10-page combination of several handouts on this page, with an annotated Table of Contents.
	Why the Urgent Need to Ban Electronic Ballots? [377] A bullet list of the many reasons why DREs constitute a new and subtle form of high tech voter suppression. Links to supporting information are included, along with brief excerpts. Printable pdf without links and excerpts [378]
	Election Reform in a High-Tech World [379] - Handout A 2-page standalone explanation of why electronic ballots (electrical charges inside a computer) cannot be safeguarded the way paper ballots can, and how prohibiting the use of electronic ballots will solve practical election problems.
	The Impact of an HR 811 Amendment to Ban Electronic Ballots [380] A one-page list detailing the practical implications of such an amendment - what the amendment will and will not do. Printable pdf handout [381]
	A Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail - Not a Reliable Back Up [382] One-page summarizing some evidence of past failures of voter-verifiable paper audit trails to provide a reliable indication of voter intent.
	Pictorial Handout [383] An illustration of the most important benefit of amending Congressman Holt’s election reform bill to prohibit the use of electronic ballots: rather than counting unverified electronic ballots, voter-verified paper ballots would be counted for the initial tally rather than set aside to be possibly checked only in audits and recounts.
Electronic Voting Does Not Serve the Disabilities Community
	Americans with Disabilities Call for Election Systems Featuring Both Accessibility and Security [384] A statement written by Mr. Noel Runyan, a blind accessibility expert, calling for voting systems that use only paper ballots. As of March 28, signatories include 34 leaders in the disabilities community and more signatures are added every day.
	Pictorial Handout [385] An illustration of the fact that accessibility for people with disabilities can be achieved without the use of electronic ballot systems.
Electronic Voting Machines Disenfranchise Minority Voters
	2004 and 2006 New Mexico Canvass Data Shows Undervote Rates Plummet in Minority Precincts When Paper Ballots are Used [386] A report showing that the undervote rate in minority precincts decreased by as much as 85% when the state switched from electronic ballot systems to paper ballots.
	Electronic Voting Machines: New, High-Tech Ways to Disenfranchise African-Americans [387] 2-pages of evidence that DREs are disproportionately disenfranchising African-American voters.

8/9/06 - Testify in Support of VotePAD at California Certification Hearing, Sacramento

CA Elections Staff Advises Against Non-electronic Voting Alternative for Disabled
Election activists support VotePAD as secure, low-cost, more accessible than electronic voting machines

Date: Wednesday, August 9, 2006

Time: Demonstration and press conference, 9:00 a.m.
State voting system certification hearings, 10:00 a.m.

Place: Secretary of State’s Office at 1500 11th Street, Sacramento, CA

Event: Demonstration and press conference by California Election Protection Network prior to state voting systems certification hearing

Subject: Vote-PAD is the first non-computerized voting assistive device to be proposed for use in California elections to enable persons with disabilities to vote independently at the polls using paper ballots. The VotePAD is being evaluated for possible use as a disability access solution in conjunction with optical scan electronic voting systems by vendors Hart (System 6.2) and Diebold (GEMS-Accu-Vote OS).

Please see VotePAD entry under Press Releases for in-depth background with links to primary source material.
You can also send in written commmentary for the hearing record; see address instructions below.

CAN'T MAKE THE HEARING? SEND IN YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS BY MAIL OR E-MAIL

Members of the public are encouraged to submit written comments on agenda items.

Written comment should be sent by US mail to the address (below) or by email to VotingSystemComment@ss.ca.gov [388].

The public comment period extends 30 days past the hearing date (closes Sept. 8, 2006).

Those wishing to provide oral comment at a meeting should complete a speaker’s card upon arrival.
In all cases, the presiding officer reserves the right to impose time limits onpresentations as may be necessary to ensure that the agenda is completed.

Those wishing to provide an extended statement shouldsubmit a request via the email address above
or contact Bruce McDannold at (916) 653-7244 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

* * * *

These are the VotePAD report files you can download and study in preparation for oral or written comments to enter in the hearing record.

Available for download at: http://ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_vs.htm [389]

# Vote-PAD/DESI & Vote-PAD/Hart Systems: Staff Report
# Vote-PAD/DESI & Vote-PAD/Hart Systems: Consultant's Report
# Vote-PAD/DESI & Vote-PAD/Hart Systems Testing: Monitor Procedures
# Vote-PAD/DESI & Vote-PAD/Hart Systems Testing: Monitor Records, Day 1
# Vote-PAD/DESI & Vote-PAD/Hart Systems Testing: Monitor Records, Day 2
# Vote-PAD/DESI & Vote-PAD/Hart Systems Testing: Exit Surveys, Day 1
# Vote-PAD/DESI & Vote-PAD/Hart Systems Testing: Exit Surveys, Day 2
# Vote-PAD/DESI Proposed Use Procedures
# Vote-PAD/Hart Proposed Use Procedures

9/27/06: EMERGENCY PAPER BALLOT LEGISLATION: ACT NOW!

Something exciting is happening! Last week my colleague Brad Friedman of TheBradBlog (www.bradblog.com, this is the blog I've done some guest blogging for) blogged about his idea that Congress pass emergency paper ballot legislation in time for this November's elections. Yesterday, that idea was introduced into the Senate as the Boxer-Dodd bill, AKA The Confidence in Voting Act. This bill would provide funding to states to produce and make available paper ballots for those voters who want to use them and in case of electronic voting machine failures, such as seen around the country in the primary elections.

After this week Congress will be in recess until after the elections. This bill needs swift action in order to pass. It has momentum. It needs your help.

Give it your support here:

http://tinyurl.com/ojd4r [390]

A companion House bill has been introduced by Rush Holt(D-NJ).

Then forward this message to your lists!

Barbara Boxer writes about the Act:

"The American people deserve an elections system that is beyond reproach -- a system where every vote counts and every vote is counted. That's why I've introduced new legislation, co-sponsored by Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), to address this problem -- and I hope you'll urge your Members of Congress to support it.

My 'Confidence in Voting Act' is simple. It urges local jurisdictions to make paper ballots available at every polling place, so any voter who wants one can use one, and so there is a back-up in case electronic voting machines fail. What's more, my legislation defrays the cost by reimbursing local jurisdictions up to $.75 for each of these contingency paper ballots produced.

This is a win-win for local governments and for individual voters. The 'Confidence in Voting Act' will make it easier for states to do the right thing in this November's election -- and it will make the American people more confident about the outcome. Please forward an email to your Members of Congress now -- urge them to support my "Confidence in Voting Act" before Congress adjourns this week!"

Want to do more?

Here are some options:

Make calls and send faxes to your Senators and Congressional Representatives. Find their contact information here:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/index.html [391]

Get paid to watch the polls! Sign up here:
http://www.pollworkersfordemocracy.org> [392]

Contribute to pinpointed election protection efforts here:
http://www.velvetrevolution.us [393]

If you're in California, Support Debra Bowen for Secretary of State! Hold a house party!
http://www.debrabowen.com [394]

Check out additional options to take action here:
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/takeaction [286]

Remember to contact Congress about the Confidence in Voting Act and forward this email.

Thanks for caring about the future of democracy in the U.S.!

Emily Levy, Velvet Revolution

Alameda County, CA: Insist on Voting Machine Security Testing

Call/Write into National Public Radio "Science Friday" and comment on "Voting Systems Update"

FRIDAY Sept. 5 2008
Sorry if you missed the Voting System segment of Science Friday.
That segment of the program was over before the alert could get distributed, and the audio and blog comments for the show are not posted online until several hours after the show is aired.

However, the audio for the program will be available for download later tonight (Fri. 9/5/) at the following link:
http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast.php?id=510221 [397]

Blog comments associated with the show will probably also be updated by that  time, so you will have an opportunity to add in your comments.

TIMES: Friday Sept. 5 at 2-4 pm Eastern, 1-3 pm Central, and 11 am-1 pm Pacific.

This is a bonanza opportunity to access the huge National Public Radio audience to sharpen up the dialogue on computerized voting.

Challenge the myth of "paper trails." Let the rest of the nation know just how serious our corrupted
privatized secret vote counting electoral system really is.

Read How to Get on Talk of the Nation (below) to improve your chances of getting on air.

If the phone lines are busy, listen in while typing and sending in your comments by e-mail.

SCROLL DOWN for phone #s , radio stations, E-mail addresses and directions.

Join the Online Discussion: Blog of the Nation http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/ [399]

====================

Phone-in: (800) 989-8255

Our Screening Policy: Read How to Get on Talk of the Nation, an April 2006 column from NPR's ombudsman.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5363084 [400]

=====================
Listen Live Friday: 2 - 4 pm Eastern \ 1 - 3 pm Central \ 11 am - 12 noon Pacific

Broadcast Radio Stations (to listen by radio)

Click here for a list of stations that carry Science Friday: http://www.sciencefriday.com/about/stations/ [401]

================================

or, Listen via Internet Radio:
Can't get it on the radio? Listen live online. Try your favorite station from these top choices or choose from the full list of stations carrying the program.

KQED, San Francisco [402]
mp3 [403]
| quicktime [404]
| real [405]
| windows [406]

Michigan Radio [407]
windows [408] |
m3u [409] |
real [410]

Texas Public Radio [411] windows [412] mp3 [413] |
real [414] | quicktime [413] | .mp3/.m3u [414]

Wisconsin Ideas Network [415]
real [416] | windows [417] | mp3 (m3u) [418]

WAMU, Washington DC [419] MP3 [420] | Real Player [421] |
Windows Media [422]

KXOT, Seattle [423] Real [424] |
Windows Media [425]

Voting Systems Update

(broadcast Friday, September 5th, 2008)
Segment produced by:  Annette Heist

With the official presidential campaign season now fully underway, we'll get an update on voting machines around the country.

After a problem-riddled adoption of various electronic voting systems following the 2000 election, many states are now moving towards systems that can provide a voter-verified paper trail to ensure an accurate vote.

In some states, voting machines that are only a few years old are being sold for scrap or auctioned on Ebay.

But are there enough of the new machines to go around -- and are some areas of the country better equipped than others?

And what about ballot design?

We'll talk with Larry Norden, author of "The Machinery of Democracy: Protecting Elections in an Electronic World," about voting technology around the country.

Teachers, find more information about using Science Friday as a classroom resource in the Kids' Connection
http://www.sciencefriday.com/kids/ [426]

Guests

Larry Norden
Project director for the Voting Technology Assessment Project
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/the_machinery_of_democracy... [427]

Author, "The Machinery of Democracy: Protecting Elections in an Electronic World"
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0897335538/sciencefriday/ [428]

Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice http://www.brennancenter.org/ [429]
New York University http://www.nyu.edu [430]
New York, New York

Related Links

* VerifiedVoting.org
http://verifiedvoting.org/ [431]
* Brennan Center: Better Ballots
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/better_ballots/ [432]
* Federal Election Commission
http://www.fec.gov/ [433]
* usa.gov: voting and elections
http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting.shtml [434]
* Voting and the election process
http://uspolitics.america.gov/uspolitics/elections/voting.html [435]

The election season is in full swing, with the 'Super Tuesday' primary just days away. Communities around the country have adopted different types of electronic voting machines in the hopes of avoiding another 'hanging
chad' situation like the one that marred the 2000 presidential race. However, some communities are reconsidering their approach.

Maryland recently announced that it would be moving away from entirely electronic systems to ones in which paper ballots are read by electronic scanners. Florida and California have also turned away from all-electronic 'touch screen' designs. In this segment, we'll check in with computer security expert Avi Rubin about how states are using electronic voting systems.

Guests

Aviel Rubin
Professor, Computer Science [437]
Technical Director, Information
Security Institute [438]
Johns Hopkins University [439]
Baltimore, Maryland

Related Links

• VerifiedVoting.org [190]
• Electronic Frontier Foundation: E-Voting [440]
• NY Times Magazine: Can You Count on Voting Machines? [441]
• Voting and Elections: USA.gov [434]

Segment produced by: Annette Heist

Reverse Mississippi's Deliberate Ballot Design Manipulation

Action of the Day 091708 -- [prepared by the Care2 Petition Site: http://www.care2.com [442] ]

EDA editor's note:
We are reproducing the text of the Care2 Alert verbatim. The facts speak for themselves.

Republican officials in Mississippi in charge of the state's election procedures have deliberately chosen to alter ballot design in violation of state law and common sense, with the predictable result that voters will be disoriented and many will probably error when voting on the U.S. Senate race.

Denouncing the perpetrators of partisan election manipulations like this one is NOT a partisan act on our part. Election fraud, manipulation, and dirty tricks are wrong no matter who the perpetrators are -- and it is a multipartisan civic duty to put a stop to it.

Tell the Mississippi governor:   The purposefully confusing ballot is illegal!
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/0Xto/wRCg/E0DA [175]

The Republican Secretary of State decided to bury the Senate race below all local contests on the ballot.
The race, between interim Senator Roger Wicker -- a Republican temporarily appointed to replace Trent Lott -- and former Democratic Governor Ronnie Musgrove, is expected to be close, making it one of the most important in the state.

Not only does burying this Senate race below all the local ones confuse voters, it's a direct violation of state election law, which clearly states that federal races must be on the top of the ballot!

Tell Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour -- who approved the ballot -- to reverse his decision in order to maintain the integrity of America's electoral process!
Petition action link:   http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/0Xto/wRCg/E0DA [175]

Sign the Request by Voters and Contact Your Representative

Visit the Request by Voters page [290] on this site, where you can read a background briefing and download a copy of the Request by Voters.

You will also find links to sign the online petition, and to send a letter to Rep. Rush Holt that the proposed Voter Confidence Act be amended according to the recommendations in the Request by Voters.

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/request_by_voters_to_amend_the_ho... [443]

7/31/06 - Urge California Legislature to Pass Open Source Voting Law by Aug. 31

Stop the madness of machine-based voting by starting with eliminating secret software. This alert comes from Alan Dechert of OpenVotingConsortium.org:

The California State Legislature will resume business on August 7. The only way we can get our bill signed into law this year will be to inspire Debra Bowen to help "gut-and-amend" another bill. She has rarely supported gut-and-amend bills and this process is understood to be acceptable only in extraordinary circumstances. Assembly Member Jackie Goldberg wants to proceed and has phoned Senator Bowen about this.

We believe this to be an extraordinary case that warrants this dramatic action. Arguments against our bill (by McPherson and registrars) were predicated on a claim that vendors would not comply and would leave the state.

We knew this was nonsense and we have since proved it since Alameda County demanded and obtained Sequoia's agreement to comply (signed June 16th). Also, more revelations are coming out almost daily about problems with the vote counting process. This measure is urgently needed.

Please cut and paste the text below, sign it, and fax it to 916-772-5301.

NOTES:

1) "Gut-and-amend" involves taking some other bill that is still alive, but known to be going nowhere and replacing the text. If we get this done, the revived AB 2097 will take the number of the gutted bill. So, I refer to AB 2097 only to show what the revived bill will say.

2) The text of AB 2097 can be found here (type in "AB 2097"): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html [445]

3) The fax number is good 24 hrs every day. If busy, try again. Late night (after 11 pm Pacific) and early morning (before 8 am Pacific) are least likely to be busy.

DECLARATION ON TRANSPARENCY OF THE VOTE COUNTING PROCESS:

We have the right to know how our votes are counted. We know this intuitively. It is self-evident.

To secure this right, the law must be made clear on this point. Currently, it is too easy for governments and corporations to abridge this right. This right is routinely and systematically violated. California Assembly Member Jackie Goldberg's (D-Los Angeles) AB 2097 would require that all technical details of the inner workings of the voting machines be publicly disclosed. This law, if passed, would be an important step in the right direction and would support, supplement, and enhance other
initiatives to establish voting system transparency nationwide.

Time is of the essence. In what may have seemed like a fiscally prudent move, the bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations committee. Events since this happened more than two months ago have shown this to be a mistake.

We believe Goldberg's bill must be passed now, before August 31st (end of CA legislative session).

We call on California State Senator Debra Bowen, chairwoman of the Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee and chairwoman of the newly formed Senate Select Committee on the Integrity of Elections, to use all her powers to get this bill, or a similar bill, on the Governor's desk this year for approval.

7/25/06 - Save the Ballots in Ohio

Efforts to preserve Ohio ballots and other documentation from destruction are proceeding at a rapid pace in the race to beat a deadline in early September.

Go here [446] for a link to a powerpoint presentation on this urgent matter.

Ron Baiman, who is involved in this effort, explains as follows:

"[The powerpoint] includes new evidence just found in Ohio. I haven't yet been able to scan in all of the supporting documentation (mostly the absentee audit and certified vote reports - but have all of this available as backup and will scan this in as soon as I can.) We need funds now to continue gathering data and trying to launch a campaign to save the ballots that will be destroyed in many counties on Sept. 3, 2006. See pictures from Darke County at the end of the spreadsheet."

7/23/06 - Take MoveOn's Election Integrity Action Survey

Take the Survey [447]

Help MoveOn understand the magnitude of the crisis.

7/21/06 - San Diego Protest Rally at RoV Office

A rally is scheduled for 12 noon on Friday, July 21, at the San Diego County Registrar of Voters Office at 5201 Ruffin Rd. in San Diego, CA to protest the electronic voting security issues surrounding the June 6th Primary Election. All concerned citizens are urged to arrive in the parking lot at 11:30am. Participants are urged not to block the flow of traffic and be courteous to people entering and leaving the parking lot.

The rally is being held to protest the use of insecure voting machines and to urge the registrar of voters and local officials to further investigate and consider alternatives.

Voters are concerned because of severe security breaches in the election due to voting machine "sleepovers" and other hardware/software problems. The United States election system continues to be plagued by security issues regarding computer software and chain of custody breakdowns. Further information on this issue will be available at the rally. Please make your voice heard, voter confidence is at stake. Count the votes!

San Diego County Registrar of Voters Office
5201 Ruffin Rd.
San Diego, CA

7/19/06 - Investigate Recent Election in San Diego (CD 50)

WED. JULY 19 Action of the Day: INVESTIGATE THE RECENT ELECTION IN SAN DIEGO!
To California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer:

It is critically important that the recent election in San Diego County be investigated. The election was in the 50th Congressional District and was conducted by the San Diego Registrar of Voters (ROV). San Diego ROV Michael Haas allowed the Diebold electronic voting machines to be taken home by poll workers which is a direct violation of law which automatically decertifies the machines for use in an election.

Haas is refusing to make documents related to the election available to the public in violation of federal and state laws. Haas made the cost of a recount prohibitive by demanding $1.00 per vote in contrast to the Orange County ROV who only charges .14 cents per vote for a recount. Please investigate the many federal and state laws that have been violated by San Diego County ROV Michael Haas.

SAN DIEGO VOTERS AS WELL AS ALL CALIFORNIANS DESERVE TO BE SURE THAT VOTES ARE COUNTED AS CAST!

Please send this message to Attorney General Bill Lockyer at:
Public Inquiry Unit, CA Department of Justice: piu@doj.ca.gov [448]
Also to: bill.lockyer@doj.ca.gov [449]
Tel: 916.444.1755
Fax: 916.444.1757
It is important to include your name and address

7/18/06 Diebold Flipping Votes in Georgia Primary

TODAY TUESDAY July 18, 2006
Press release from the Cynthia McKinney campaign in Georgia:
FOR IMMEDITATE RELEASE July 18, 2006
Contact: Jocco Baccus 678-520-2088

DIEBOLD ELECTRONIC MACHINES MALFUNCTION, VOTE FOR OTHER CANDIDATE
(Decatur, GA) After one hour of voting, the McKinney campaign has received numerous calls that the voting machines are malfunctioning. Voters casting votes for McKinney are reportedly having their votes switched by the machines for Hank Johnson. This is not a new problem with Diebold machines. Lawyers for the campaign have been alerted and said that If this situation is not corrected, Cynthia McKinney for Congress will be forced to take additional measures.

7/18/06 - Attend Hearing to Demand NO DIEBOLD TSx in November in San Diego

URGENT ACTION -- San Diego County, CA: HELP PREVENT THE USE OF DIEBOLD TSx VOTING MACHINES IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN NOVEMBER!

HERE'S HOW: Come to the Board of Supervisors meeting

Tuesday, July 18 at 9:00 am
County Administration Building
Board of Supervisors North Chamber
1600 Pacific Coast Hwy, Room 310, San Diego

9:00 A.M.
Activists will make a presentation. They need you there to show support.

10: 30 A.M.
Jess Durfee, Chair of the San Diego County Democratic Party, will make a public statement for the media in front of the County Administration Building.

MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD!
Let The Board Of Supervisors know that we demand secure elections in San Diego County.

San Diego County Voters: Call your Supervisor
Tell him/her you do not want these “hackable” machines to be used this November.

Find your supervisor at: http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/general/bos.html

SEND DONATIONS
Please send donations to support the "CA 50" citizen group taking on these election problems in San Diego county!

Send online donations to: www.velvetrevolution.us/donate.php

or by postal mail to Velvet Revolution, PO Box 9576, Wash DC 20016

Specify donation "for CA 50."

LEARN MORE
Follow daily news reports and Diebold sleepover chronicle at http://www.BradBlog.com
Visit the CA50 Citizens Action Group webpage at http://www.nosleepovers.org/

The CA50 Action Committee is a special action group formed to deal with the voting integrity issues arising out of the Busby/Bilbray special election. CA50 is composed of a number of concerned California voters.

Among the founding members are:
Barbara Gail Jacobson, hand count requestor
Judy Hess, PDA Metro San Diego Leader
Brad Friedman of Brad Blog
Mimi Kennedy, PDA Board Chair
Emily Levy, California Election Protection Network

Learn the Basics

A very well-organized, neutral, and objective presentation of computerized voting issues, questions, and answers for those new to the subject has been assembled at this website:

http://www.votingmachinesprocon.org/ [491]




VotersUnite.org [492] has consistently produced some of the very best original research and outstanding public education materials of the election integrity movement. Click the link below to visit the VotersUnite downloadable factsheet collection.

Information to Work With [493]

Verified Voting Transparency Project: Election Monitoring Checklists

An election is a complex process that begins several weeks before Election Day and is not fully completed until several weeks after. To assure the integrity of the vote, citizens need to participate in observing all phases of the election process.

The "Election Transparency Project" is a set of election monitoring checklists for citizens to use before, during and after the election to assess how open to public verification their local election systems are. "Transparency" is one of six election assessment projects prepared by Verified Voting.org. The other project sets address Election Administration, Election Incidents, State/Local Organizing, Voting Information, and Voting Standards.

To access an index to the entire set of these invaluable election education resources, click here [494].

To download copies of each of the Transparency monitoring checklists, click on the blue hyperlinked titles below,
and check back for the forthcoming titles.

OBSERVATION GUIDELINES AND QUESTIONNAIRES

We are preparing observation guidelines and questionnaires for six different aspects of the electoral process: you can choose those that best match your schedule and interests.

Some aspects of the electoral process can be easily observed by individuals. Others are more suited to a group effort. Both individuals and organizations are invited to participate. Please see the descriptions below for more information.

If you plan to observe but have not yet signed up, please click here to do so. After you register, we'll automatically send you questionnaires as they become available, and later, the webpage address of the online forms so you can submit your questionnaire results.

After you've registered, just download and print the instructions and questionnaires from this web site as they become available. The instructions and questionnaires will make clear exactly what you need to look for.

After observation, you can easily enter your observations and notes into a web-based survey form (we’ll send you the links), or send your hard copy questionnaire to us for entry.

The data you provide will be made publicly available – but not your name or any sensitive information. Data is redacted to prevent disclosure of personally identifying data (such as name or contact information).

If you take photographs or video, we'd love to have electronic copies of photos, video, and other media documentation. Please send all materials to observer@verifiedvoting.org [189] -- if you have questions about what or how to send to us, just send us your question at the same email address. Be sure to tell us exactly what, when and where events occurred so we can properly document your files.

It is important to note that the Election Transparency Project is a non-partisan project designed to improve the electoral process and protect the right to vote. All project volunteers and staff must not disrupt the election process, and must not prevent poll workers or election officials from performing their legal duties. As an observer or volunteer in this project, it's essential that you observe all laws, rules and protocols of observation as required in your state and jurisdiction, and that you are respectful of anyone you encounter in carrying out any part of this project. It is also crucial that you refrain from wearing any buttons, t-shirts, hats or other attire which represent any political or partisan views whatsoever. Appropriate attire is recommended (e.g. business casual).

Additionally, in the course of conducting observation, volunteers may occasionally deal with sensitive personal data, e.g., personally identifiable information of persons who experienced or reported voting problems or irregularities. It is important that every staff member and volunteer adhere to the Election Transparency Project confidentiality statement, found here [see footnote below[1]].

As an observer, you will be asked to indicate when you submit your data that you understand and agree to the Election Transparency Project confidentiality agreement.

1. ELECTION TRANSPARENCY SCORECARD - State [256] / Local [257] Grade your state and/or county’s level of openness and transparency! These questionnaires should be completed now, so that the grades are in before the election begins.

Transparency is an important part of achieving publicly verifiable elections. It’s also necessary for citizen observation, which is a crucial ingredient for free and fair elections. Use these questionnaires to identify obstacles to transparency so that they can be corrected before future elections.

Completing an Election Transparency Scorecard for your state and/or your local voting jurisdiction (county, parish, township) can be done over the course of several days, and can typically be done when your schedule permits, as long as you or someone in your group can make some phone calls to offices during business hours. However, for the project to be most effective, you or someone in your group must complete the Election Transparency Scorecard as soon as possible -- by mid-October at the latest. Participation in the transparency assessment can be undertaken on either an individual or a group basis.

If you enjoy learning more about election-related laws in your state and how they are applied locally, the transparency scorecard may be of particular interest to you.

We encourage everyone who will be observing one of the components listed below to also complete an Election Transparency Scorecard.

2. PRE-ELECTION TESTING QUESTIONNAIRE [495] You can use this questionnaire to collect critical information on the pre-election testing (often referred to as “Logic & Accuracy testing”) of the voting machines in your area! Equipment testing occurs well in advance of the election, so call your election department now to find out the date!

The laws governing such testing differ widely across election jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, observers are permitted and even encouraged to ask questions and make comments. In others, only silent observers of the tests are permitted. Our questionnaire is adaptable to any of these scenarios. Observing pre-election testing may take only a few hours of time, although the testing (and thus the observation) usually occurs during the business day. This questionnaire has two parts: the first part consists of questions you'll ask by phone before you attend the test, and the second part is for the day of the test. This observation can be undertaken on either an individual or a group basis.

If you enjoy the technical side of voting-related issues, then observation of Logic & Accuracy testing may be for you! A technical background is helpful, but not necessary.

Also, we encourage everyone who will be documenting this information to also complete the Election Transparency Scorecard - Local [257] version (described above).

Local: http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/ETScorecardLocal.pdf [257]

State: http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/ETScorecardState.pdf [256]

3. EARLY VOTING / BALLOT ACCOUNTING QUESTIONNAIRE [496]
This questionnaire will assist you in observing the ballot accounting that takes place in some jurisdictions at the close of early voting sites during each day of early voting. At the time the early voting site closed for the day, poll workers should reconcile the number of votes cast with the number of voters checking in to vote.

This observation will take place prior to Election Day, during the period of early voting. Approximately 14 states do not offer early voting of any kind – so this project would not apply to you if you live in: AL, CT, DE, MA, MD, MI, MS, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, SC, WA. Other states may offer either in-person absentee ballot drop-off, or actual early voting in person. For this project, we're interested in the latter. Note: the rules for observing this critical function vary from place to place. We've written an introduction and instructions to help you - read this document first!

One advantage of participating in observation of ballot accounting is that such observation usually takes place after business hours on early voting days, and therefore may be an after-hours commitment. (Note: some locations stagger hours from one day to the next, to maximize voting participation.) This observation is recommended for groups that can cover several (if not all) early voting sites in a county, parish, or township, but individual observation is also welcome. It is important to observe on each day of the early voting period.

This type of observation is not generally technical in nature, and is well-suited to a variety of interests.

Leading citizen groups such as the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition and the Voting Integrity Alliance of Tampa Bay are working hard to plan and implement early voting observation in parts of Florida. The more people that we have participating throughout the country, the more we will be able to compare and contrast various ways of implementing early voting.

Also, we encourage everyone who will be documenting this information to also complete the Election Transparency Scorecard - Local [257] Version (described above).

4. POLL CLOSING / BALLOT ACCOUNTING QUESTIONNAIRE: [Available soon.]
This questionnaire is similar to the early voting questionnaire, except that it involves observing ballot accounting (reconciling the number of voters checking in to vote with the number of votes actually cast) at the time of poll closing on Election Day only, rather than at the end of each day of early voting. The rules for observing this critical function vary from place to place.

One advantage of participating in observation of ballot accounting is that such observation takes place after business hours on Election Day, and therefore is a short-term, after-hours commitment. This observation is recommended for groups that can cover several (but not necessarily all) polling places in a county, parish, or township. However, observation by an individual at a single polling place is also useful. If you are planning to serve as a pollworker or election judge, you may be ideally positioned to capture the necessary information.

This type of observation is not generally technical in nature, and is well-suited to a variety of interests.

In 2004, this type of observation by a leading citizen group in Florida, the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition (MDERC), revealed a variety of discrepancies, including that the vote totals of one machine were accidentally uploaded three times into the certified count. MDERC's report, "Get It Right The First Time", was cited by the US Government Accountability Office. This is your opportunity to expand this important work into your local area.

Also, we encourage everyone who will be documenting this information to also complete the Election Transparency Scorecard - Local [257] Version (described above).

5. AUDIT OBSERVATION QUESTIONNAIRE: [Available soon.]
Mandatory random manual audits are essential to protecting the vote. These audits provide a way to verify that the electronic voting systems (either DRE voting machines or optical scan voting systems) are accurately recording and counting the votes. However, there are many unanswered questions about the best ways to implement audits.

If you live in an area that already requires both a voter-verified paper record and routine manual auditing, this is your chance to find out how those important tools are being implemented, and to collect information necessary to formulate best practices for future auditing. And if you live in Kentucky or Pennsylvania, where there is an audit requirement, but not all jurisdictions will have voter-verified paper records to audit, it will be of special interest to learn how audits are conducted.

This observation can be undertaken on either an individual or a group basis.

If you are interested in how the votes are accounted for and checked for accuracy after Election Day, then this is the observation for you!

To find out whether your state requires mandatory manual audits, please visit our [497].

Manual audit requirements in the states: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/downloads/ManualAudits-06-06.pdf [498]

Also, we encourage everyone who will be documenting this information to also complete the Election Transparency
- State [256] and/or Local [257] Version (described above).

6. DISABILITY ACCESS QUESTIONNAIRE: [Available soon.]
Verified Voting seeks to promote electoral reforms that will improve the transparency and accuracy of our voting process for all voters, while still preserving individual voters’ privacy and independence at the polls. One of the primary goals of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was to ensure access to the voting process for persons with disabilities, and much new equipment has been deployed for that purpose.

However, as with transparency, the laws on the books for accessibility do not necessarily tell us how accessible the voting process is in practice. This is particularly true for this November, since for some jurisdictions, this is the first year in which they are using voting equipment which they obtained in order to meet HAVA’s accessibility requirement.

You can help determine the extent to which the voting process has been made accessible for persons with disabilities by filling out this questionnaire. In so doing, you’ll help identify improvements that need to be made for future elections.

Also, we encourage everyone who will be documenting this information to also complete the Election Transparency Scorecard - Local [257] Version (described above).

REMEMBER: In addition to completed questionnaires, Verified Voting welcomes detailed descriptions of unexpected problems and supporting material such as videotapes, photos, and the like. Electronic copy of multimedia documentation can be sent to observer@verifiedvoting.org [189].

After you submit your observations, we hope that you'll let us know what you found useful, confusing, or missing from the Election Transparency Project observation tools, or help us by making other suggestions for improving citizen oversight of our nation's voting systems. If you register as a volunteer, the web address for an online feedback form will automatically be emailed to you at the close of the project.

On the basis of the data that you gather, Verified Voting will produce one or more reports that will feature recommendations for best practices geared toward increasing both the verifiability and accuracy of our elections.

By directly observing the electoral process, and documenting it alongside hundreds or thousands of other people nationwide, you help lay the foundation for a stronger democracy.

Our goal is to support improvement in the administration of our elections, and to create models for effective citizen observation.

Not signed up yet?

Act now! Don’t wait! Sign up here for the Election Transparency Project and build a stronger democracy!

[1] Verified Voting Foundation Election Transparency Project
Confidentiality Agreement

I am participating in this nonpartisan project to improve the electoral process, protect the right to vote, and ensure that every vote counts as intended by the voter. I understand that many individuals who report voting problems and irregularities might not do so if they were not assured that the information they provide will be kept confidential. I understand that project volunteers and staff are expected to keep personally identifiable information in strictest confidence. I agree not to discuss personally identifiable information of persons reporting a voting problem or irregularity with anyone other than appropriate Verified Voting staff and designated volunteers.

Download BlackBoxVoting's Citizen Tool Kits

Note: The 2006 edition, called "Take Back Your Elections," is a year-round guide to election integrity activism.

There is also a 2008 edition [82] of the BBV Citizens' Toolkit that details 5 specific monitoring actions on election day.

Both editions should be downloaded, studied, and applied to the particular purposes each serves.

Citizens are concerned. They want to know what they can do. Here's your chance to get started on meaningful elections reform action that will make a real difference in November.

The above link contains all 20 stand-alone modules in one consolidated document
(make sure you have Adobe Acrobat installed to read the pdf files. You can download it for free. [290]

SIMPLE, EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO TAKE BACK YOUR ELECTIONS:
1. Pick any module.
2. Choose any action within the module.
3. Then just follow through on it.
4. Every action in the Tool Kit starts another pebble rolling down the hill.

NEW MODULE IS UP: Pertains to fundraising for local elections reform people:
ACTIONS FOR HIGH NET WORTH INDIVIDUALS [290]

NEW MODULE IS UP: About ACTIVATING CELEBRITIES [290] in the election oversight issue:

Candidates in three states have already notified us that they are already making use of the module to help CANDIDATES [290] protect their own elections (The toolkit just went up a few days ago!):

It's time for you to recognize your own power. You don't need us. You don't have to find someone to follow. When you use these tools things will happen. Pick any module. Pick a single action in it. See it to its completion. You've just opened the door to an unexpected evolution of citizenship, the likes of which have not been seen for a long, long time.

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." – Declaration of Independence

You may notice that the order of the Citizen's Tool Kit modules has changed. Select actions from any of the following, depending on your interests and skill sets:

MOBILIZATION MODULES
Module 1: Have a House Party
Module 2: Organize a Town Meeting
Module 3: Give a Speech to a Group

CREATIVE & SPECIALTY MODULES
Module 4: Be the Media
Module 5: Adopt a Public Official
Module 6: Check Out the Money Trail: Who's Getting Paid?
Module 7: Find Out If Officials Following the Rules

HARD CORE EVIDENCE MODULES
Module 8: Get Public Records and Freedom of Information Documents
Module 9: Adopt Part of an Election: Watch the System Testing
Module 10: Adopt Part of an Election: Watch Voter Registration Lists
Module 11: Adopt Part of an Election: Become a Poll Worker or Elections Judge
Module 12: Adopt Part of an Election: Monitor the Voting
Module 13: Adopt Part of an Election: Monitor the Counting
Module 14: Adopt Part of an Election: Watch the Chain of Custody
Module 15: Adopt Part of an Election: Audit for Accuracy
Module 16: Legal Actions

'PLAN B' MODULE
Module 17: Count the Votes Yourself

MODULES FOR CANDIDATES, CELEBRITIES, AND WEALTHY CITIZENS
Module 18: Candidates: How to Protect Your Election
Module 19: For Famous Voices (Action ideas for Celebrities)
Module 20: Actions for High Net Worth Individuals

Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-profile.cgi?action=register [499]

Black Box Voting is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501c(3) elections watchdog group supported entirely by citizen donations. We refuse funds from any vendor or vested interest.

To support Black Box Voting: click to http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html [500] or send to:
Black Box Voting / 330 SW 43rd St Suite K / PMB 547 / Renton WA 98055

Beware These Voter Suppression and Vote-Counting Fraud Tactics

THE DIRTY 30 OF ELECTION FRAUD

30 WAYS TO STEAL AN ELECTION AND DESTROY DEMOCRACY

This series written, produced and hosted by Network of Citizens at http://www.networkofcitizens.org/election/index.htm [501]

(1) Voter Fraud vs. Election Fraud: New Poll Taxes [502]

(2) 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) [503]

(3) Voting Machine Vendors Policing Themselves [504]

(4) Sproul Registration Drives [505]

(5) Voter Rolls Purged I [506]

(6) Voter Rolls Purged II - Accenture [507]

(7) New Laws Discouraging Voter Registration Drives [508]

(8) Secret Software Programs - I [509]

(9) Secret Software Programs - II (Chuck Hagel) [510]

(10) Paperless E-voting Machines (Ney & Abramoff) [511]

(11) Partisan SOS 2000 - Katherine Harris [512]

(12) Partisan SOS 2004 - J. Kenneth Blackwell [513]

(13) Absentee Ballots [514]

(14) Diebold Felons [515]

(15) Provisional Ballots Rejected [516]

(16) Caging Lists [517]

(17) Expatriate Americans [518]

(18) Sleepovers [519]

(19) Mighty Texas Strike Force [520]

(20) Phone Jamming [521]

(21) Voting While Black [522]

(22) Machine Shortages [523]

(23) Spoiled Ballots [524]

(24) Exit Polls [525]

(25) Premature Calling of Election Winners [526]

(26) Rigged Recounts [527]

(27) Judicial Decisions - I (2000 - Supreme Court) [528]

(28) Judicial Decisions - II (Bilbray/Busby; Washoe Co., NV) [529]

(29) Media Blackout [530]

(30) Election Day [531]

(1) Voter Fraud vs. Election Fraud: New Poll Taxes

Voter fraud is fraud perpetrated by individual voters, such as voting by
illegal immigrants and voting more than once, both of which are felonies.
The theory that voter registration drives lead to voter fraud
is false. All sound evidence shows that voter registration drives do
NOT lead to fraud by the voters at the polls. In addition, the notion
that there are widespread occurrences of voter fraud is a myth. Not only is
there a “massive void of evidence”, the existing evidence clearly shows
that it is almost nonexistent, including voting by illegal immigrants.
After all, why would illegal
immigrants take the high risk of publicizing their presence by
registering to vote? Unfortunately, when something is repeated
often enough, even pure propaganda, it can take on the ring of truth.

Furthermore, the great efforts being undertaken to prevent the nonexistent
problem of voter fraud take the focus off of the very real and heavily
documented acts of widespread election fraud that have made a mockery
out of the democratic process of voting in America.



Election fraud ,
is fraud perpetrated by political candidates, parties or others
with a vested interest in the election outcome.
Tactics employed in election fraud include voter supression and
disenfranchisement, stuffing of ballot boxes, and manipulation of the
election results. Such tactics can often be done on a massive scale.

Rather than addressing large-scale election fraud at the national level,
Congress has chosen to focus on developing new laws that would serve to
expand voter suppression and disenfranchisement. An example is the recent
bill in the US House of Representatives, the Federal Election Integrity
Act of 2006 (HR 4844). The voter identifcation requirements imposed by
such legislation serve as a strong reminder of the poll taxes imposed
by many Southern states in the 1950s to prevent poor and black Americans
from voting. [532]

Click here for more News and Articles on this topic...

(2) 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA)



On Oct. 29, 2002, President Bush signed the Help America Vote Act.
The stated intent of HAVA was to correct many of the problems that
occurred in the 2000 election. In the 2004 election, people felt calmed
by the illusion that the problems of the 2000 election were being corrected —
while in fact the opposite was happening. Touch screen voting machines were
touted by the industry and their lobbyists as making voting as easy and reliable
as withdrawing cash from an ATM. Congress, swiftly authorized $3.9 million to
upgrade the nation's election systems, with much of the money devoted to
installing electronic voting machines in each of America's 180,000 precincts.
But as midterm elections approach this November, electronic voting machines
are making things worse instead of better. [533]

Click here for more News and Articles on this topic...

(3) Voting Machine Vendors Policing Themselves




According to Brian Hancock, of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and
Jorge Martinez of the U.S. Election Justice Department, there is NO federal
agency with regulatory authority over the elections industry; there are NO
government standards or restrictions on who can sell or service voting machines
and systems; and there is NO agency or organization that even has a complete
list of voting machine companies in the U.S. In other words, the highly-partisan
voting machine companies are literally policing themselves. [534]

Click here for more News and Articles on this topic...

(4) Sproul Registration Drives



Sproul & Associates is a Republican consulting firm run by
Nathan Sproul, former head of the Arizona Republican Party and Arizona
Christian Coalition. The firm was hired by the RNC for work in swing
states and elsewhere from September 2004 through election day, to
register new voters. Sproul registration drives were reported in
Pennsylvania, Oregon, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Florida and Nevada.
Tactics reported by former Sproul employees included; recruiting
workers by fraudulently telling applicants that they would be working
for America Votes—a legitimate non-partisan operation; telling workers
that if they brought back a bunch of Democratic cards, they would be
fired; destroying registration forms filled out by Democrats &
Independents; and tricking Democrats & Independents into
registering as Republicans. In total, the RNC paid Sproul &
Associates $8.3 million for their efforts—making it the eighth largest
expenditure of the 2004 campaign.
[535]

Click here for more News and Articles on this topic...

(5) Voter Rolls Purged I



Of all the strategies used in Florida in the 2000 election, the
most notorious was the systematic use of overly inclusive scrub lists,
intending to purge ex-felons from the voter rolls but actually to
disinfranchise as many Democrats—in particular, African-Americans—as
possible. Katherine Harris, through a list compiled by DBT/Choicepoint,
named as felons tens of thousands of Floridians with clean records,
just because they shared a name or and address, with someone who had
done hard time. Harris's office then purged the rolls of all those on
the list, over 90,000 citizens, most of them entirely innocent. Nearly
3 percent of Florida's eligible black voters were listed.
DBT/ChoicePoint's error rate was 97%.
[536]

Click here for more News and Articles on this topic...

(6) Voter Rolls Purged II - Accenture



The issue returned again to prominence in 2004 when Florida
announced another planned purge, again based on a list of felons.
Accenture, a $14 billion company that has made millions doing
government jobs, was supposed to help Florida create a bulletproof
felon voter list. But state elections officials scrapped the list after
newspaper reports reported a flaw that invalidated it.The demise of the
list, which was three years in the making, renews questions about
Accenture's strong Republican ties and its business practices. In fact,
the company's resume is littered with connections to drama that the
nation's Republican leadership would rather forget: Enron, Abu Ghraib
and mysterious Saudi businessmen. The company, once part of Enron's
accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, jettisoned the Andersen name in 2001
to distance itself from scandal.
[536]

Click here for more News and Articles on this topic...

(7) New Laws Discouraging Voter Registration Drives



A number of states are adopting rules that make it hard, and
financially perilous, for nonpartisan groups to register new voters.
The Florida Legislature recently adopted a law imposing fines of $250
for every voter registration form that a group files more than 10 days
after it is collected, and $5,000 for every form that is not submitted,
even if it is because of events beyond anyone's control, like a
hurricane. The Florida League of Women Voters, which is suing to block
the new rules, has decided it cannot afford to keep registering new
voters in the state as it has done for 67 years. If a volunteer lost
just 16 forms in a flood, or handed in a stack of forms a day late, the
group's entire annual budget could be put at risk.
[537]

Click here for more News and Articles on this topic...

(8) Secret Software Programs - I



The United States is one of only a handful of major democracies that allow private, partisan
companies to secretly count and tabulate votes using their own proprietary software. Today, 80
percent of all ballots in the U.S. are tallied by four companies—Diebold, ES&S, Sequioa Voting
Systems and Hart InterCivic. The simple fact is, these machines not only break down regularly,
they are easily compromised—by people inside and outside of the companies.
[538]

Click here for more News and Articles on this topic...

(9) Secret Software Programs - II (Chuck Hagel)



In 1995, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska was the CEO of Election Systems
and Software (ES&S), the voting machine company that would count
the votes in his 1996 bid for the U.S. Senate. He was trailing in the
pre-election polls to his opponent, former Gov. Ben Nelson, 65% to 18%,
yet Hagel amazingly came from behind to win with 56% of the vote. He
was the first Republican Senate winner in the state in 24 years. In
both the 1996 and 2002 elections, ES&S counted 85% of the votes in
Nebraska. Senator Hagel retains a $1 - $5 million ownership in
ES&S’s parent company, McCarthy Group, as he contemplates a run for
the Presidency in 2008.
[539]

Click here for more News and Articles on this topic...

(10) Paperless E-voting Machines (Ney & Abramoff)



According to an April 2006 article in Rolling Stone Magazine,
“Diebold paid some $275,000 to [Jack] Abramoff’s firm, Greenberg
Traurig, with the apparent aim of keeping legislation requiring paper
trails in the voting process from getting into HAVA. Conveniently,
Abramoff pal [Rep.] Bob Ney [R-OH], one of the HAVA architects, blocked
every attempt to put paper trails into law.” Since then, both Ney and
Abramoff have pled guilty to felony charges of corruption.
[540]

Click here for more News and Articles on this topic...

(11) Partisan SOS 2000 - Katherine Harris



Florida SoS Katherine Harris oversaw the 2000 election in Florida
that was awash in purged voter roles, trashed “over-votes,” uncounted
military and absentee ballots, and state financing of republican
campaign efforts. Harris, who also served as co-chair of Bush's Florida
campaign, gleefully purged voter roles of supposed “felons.” Following
Election Day, Harris was instrumental in ensuring that all the Florida
votes were NOT counted.
[541]

Click here for more News and Articles on this topic...

(12) Partisan SOS 2004 - J. Kenneth Blackwell


In 2004, J. Kenneth Blackwell was not only Ohio's SoS, but a leader in the Bush reelection campaign.
Under Blackwell’s guidance, Ohio experienced some of the most egregious and un-addressed election
process failures seen to date in the age of computerized voting. Democratic precincts were severely
underserved by voting machinery, forcing voters to wait in lines of up to 10 hours or more simply
to cast their vote. Adjacent precincts of primarily Republican voters were well served, with
sufficient machinery and no waiting. Blackwell is currently a Republican gubernatorial candidate
and, as Secretary of State, in charge of running elections in Ohio.
[541]

Click here for more News and Articles on this topic...

(13) Absentee Ballots


Mail-in voter registration forms are protected by federal law—absentee ballots are not.
According to Palast, the number of absentee ballots has quintupled in many states,
with the number rejected on technical grounds rising to over a half a million (526,420)
in 2004. In swing states, absentee ballot shredding was pandemic. Absentee Ballots explained [542]
[543]

Click here for more News and Articles on this topic...

(14) Diebold Felons

According
to Bev Harris of Black Box Voting, managers of a subsidiary of Diebold,
one of the country's largest voting equipment vendors, include a
convicted cocaine trafficker, a man who conducted fraudulent stock
transactions, and a softwareprogrammer convicted of falsifying computer
records.
[544]