More on the Voting Machine looming disaster 2006
Problems Found
With Diebold Voting Machines in Ohio .
Go to Original
California Voters’ Suit to Block Electronic Voting Machines Remanded
Back to State Court
By John Gideon
BradBlog.com
Tuesday 18 July 2006
Just reported by VoterAction.org (1
), the great
group led by attorney Lowell Finley, is that a US District Court Judge has
sent the lawsuit, Holder v. McPherson et. al. back to state court. This is a
victory for the voters of the state of California and is the first giant
step in stopping the use of Diebold touch-screen voting machines in the
state.
Oakland, California - As a first-step to victory in a California voters’
lawsuit against Secretary of State Bruce McPherson to block the State’s use
of Diebold touch-screen electronic voting systems - which have a
well-documented history of security, reliability, and verifiability problems
- the United States District Court in Oakland today entered an order
remanding the voter plaintiffs’ lawsuit to the California Superior Court in
San Francisco, where it was originally filed on March 21, 2006. The Court’s
decision in Holder v. McPherson, et al. rejected an effort by California
Attorney Bill Lockyer, Secretary of State McPherson’s attorney, to transfer
the case from state to federal court.
The Court’s decision was announced today by the law firm of Howard,
Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin in San Francisco and the Law Offices
of Lowell Finley in Berkeley, co-counsels for the California voter
plaintiffs, and Voter Action, which is supporting the legal action in
California. Voter Action is also supporting similar cases in Colorado,
Arizona, and New York. In response to the California voters’ lawsuit,
elections officials in seven California counties have signed affidavits that
they will not use Diebold touch screens for the November elections. Twelve
California counties remain in the suit, as well as Secretary of State
McPherson.
In her written order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to remand their
lawsuit to California Superior Court in San Francisco, Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong of the US District Court for Northern California concluded that
the Attorney General’s attempt to move the case to federal court was
“legally improper”.
“The Court’s decision is a victory for California voters, who need to
know if their right to have their votes recorded and counted accurately will
be protected, and local elections officials who will need time to make
alternative arrangements if the Court agrees that the only way to protect
those rights is to prohibit use of Diebold touch-screen voting machines,”
said Jason Takenouchi, an attorney for the plaintiffs and an associate at of
Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin.
“Had the Secretary of State and Attorney General succeeded, the courts
of their own state would have been stripped of their power to decide whether
California’s constitution and election laws prohibit use of Diebold
touch-screen electronic voting machines, which are vulnerable to hacking,
losing and switching votes, and are difficult if not impossible to audit,”
said Lowell Finley, co-counsel for the California voter plaintiffs,
co-director of Voter Action, and election law expert. “The only thing they
gained was months of delay, leaving voters and county elections officials
uncertain about what voting equipment they will be using in the November
elections”.
“The California voter plaintiffs have a powerful and well-documented
challenge to the Secretary of State’s illegal certification of the Diebold
touch-screens. The Secretary of State is asleep at the switch, and only the
court can prevent a train wreck in the November election,” said Lowell
Finley.
“The Secretary of State has abdicated his duty, as it is impossible to
make electronic voting systems acceptably transparent, accurate and secure
as required by law,” said Holly Jacobson, co-director of Voter Action.
“Optical -scan paper balloting is a much better, less expensive, and more
secure option, which is why it has been selected in New Mexico, Michigan,
and hundreds of counties across the country”.
——–
(1 ). Voter
Action, www.voteraction.org, is a not for profit organization providing
legal, research and logistical support for grassroots efforts to ensure the
integrity of elections in the United States. Voter Action supported
successful litigation in New Mexico to block purchase and use of the types
of voting machines that are most prone to error and most vulnerable to
tampering, and is currently supporting similar efforts in Arizona, Colorado,
and New York. Voter Action is a project of the International Humanities
Center, a 501c3 non-profit organization.
_____
Go to Original
Problems Found With Diebold Voting Machines in Ohio
The Associated Press
Wednesday 19 July 2006
Cleveland - Subtle variations on the paper ballots used in Cuyahoga
County’s May primary election made them unreadable to optical scanners and
caused lengthy delay in tallying the county’s votes, a review found.
It was the county’s first election using Diebold Inc.’s touch-screen and
optical-scan voting systems.
SysTest Labs, a Denver-based company hired by the county to find the
source of the problem, determined that the ballots were similar to the
format recommended by the Ohio secretary of state’s staff.
However, black lines separating sections were thicker than on the
Cuyahoga County ballots than on those used elsewhere in Ohio, where scanners
could read the ballots without problem, and the ovals where voters mark
their choices had slightly different locations.
SysTest also reported Monday that Diebold didn’t warn customers that
using thicker black lines could create problems.
Officials had to order a hand count of more than 18,000 paper ballots
from the primary because of inconsistent tabulations by the optical scan
machines, used for absentee votes or in circumstances when touch-screen
voting was not possible. The final count was delayed for days.
“We’ve been waiting for someone to tell us why the ballots are wrong,”
said Frank Piunno Jr., co-owner of MCR Inc., which printed the ballots
approved by the county Board of Elections.
Mark Radke, spokesman for Diebold, based in North Canton, said it would
be premature to comment until a final report is released.
States have been shifting to electronic voting since the 2002 Help
America Vote Act reworked election standards and encouraged states to
replace old punch-card systems. Manufacturers say the computerized versions
are more reliable than punch card systems, which became infamous for their
hanging chads during Florida’s 2000 president election recount.
Opponents of electronic voting allege that the machines are open to
computer hackers and prone to errors that could assign votes to the wrong
candidate. Lawsuits have been filed over their use in several states.