NJ: Sequoia Plans to Take Full "Advantage" of Their Monopoly

[Wilms]

New Jersey: Sequoia Plans to Take Full "Advantage" of Their Monopoly in the State

By Warren Stewart, VoteTrustUSA

March 17, 2006

A court case in New Jersey is challenging the constitutionality of electronic voting. For the moment, the state Appeals court has put the decision about whether direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines are so unreliable they violate the constitutional rights of voters on hold. That question will be taken up again in May.

First they want to determine whether the Sequoia Advantages that most of the state's counties have purchased can actually be retrofitted with printers to meet the state's requirement for a voter verified paper record of every vote in 2008. Hearings yesterday revealed a great deal about Sequoia's plans - and how they're sales pitch, as we've seen in states across the country, is heavily based on promises.

It seems inconprehensible that so many counties would purchase the Advantage, which currently does not have a compatible VVPAT printer, when state law will require one in the next election cycle. This decision essentially locks them into a non-competitive situation in which their only option is to purchase as yet undeveloped equipment from one vendor - Sequoia - that can charge as much as they want for that equipment. And Sequoia apparently plans to take full "advantage" of the situation.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1062&Itemid=113

[New Earth]

1. I hate to be a drag

but this writer needs an editor :blush:

[FogerRox]

2. there looking for one

Also most of the NJ conties that bought the Advantage bought "theres" before HAVA. IIRC 4 counties bought under HAVA. Only about 1500 of the 8000 or so Advantage DREs were bought after the VVPB law was passed in NJ.

The article seems to infer something else. And one might infer something additionally from the spelling mistakes.

Hearings yesterday revealed a great deal about Sequoia's plans - and how they're sales pitch, as we've seen in states across the country, is heavily based on promises.

This was revealed not in the hearings but in County level meetings back in June. I might have been interviewed by the Star Ledger about that meeting.

Maybe I should forward the links to this author- cough-