Election Reform, Fraud & Related News Wednesday August 9, 06 LAMONT WINS!!

[kpete]

Election Reform, Fraud & Related News Wednesday August 9, 06 LAMONT WINS!!!

U.S. Senate - - Dem Primary

748 of 748 Precincts Reporting - 100.00%
Name Party Votes Pct
Lamont, Ned Dem 146,587 51.79
Lieberman, Joe (i) Dem 136,468 48.21

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2006/by_state/CT_Page_0808.html?SITE=CTHARELN&SECTION=POLITICS

"Stay the course -- that's not a winning strategy in Iraq and it's not a winning strategy for America"
Ned Lamont as he accepted the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate from Connecticut.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=109475

Call Senate Dems and demand that they support Lamont, and that Lieberman be removed from every Democratic seat he holds on any committee http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/9/02341/73038

He is a disloyal Republican partisan. He now openly defies the will of the Democratic voters, and would rather risk our party's future, our chance to take back the Congress in the fall, in order to coddle his increasingly-conservative ego.

Fine, Lieberman wants a fight with Democrats, he's got one.

Our voice has to be heard, we need to stand for something. Can't we even stand to agree on who won our own elections? Joe Lieberman doesn't respect the voters, and he doesn't respect the decision of the Democratic Party, plain and simple. So he's no longer welcome in the party.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/on-wednesday-call-senate-dems-and.html

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.

Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.
1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.
2. Post stories using the "Election Fraud and Reform News Sources" listed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...
3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.
4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.
Please

"Recommend"

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

[kpete]

1. Lieberman Conceded-Then He Unconceded-Then He Asked For Ideas & $$$

Lieberman has conceded. But then he unconceded. Then he asked for ideas. Then he asked for money.

Life is a Cabaret

Bye-Bye, mein Lieber Herr.
Farewell, mein Lieber Herr.
It was a fine affair,
But now it's over.
And though I used to care,
I need the open air.
You're better off without me,
Mein Herr.

Lieberman is saying that he will run as an independent because he wants to "unite, not divide."
It's true. He wants to unite...with the Republican party.



“Lamont is going to get even more positive news coverage from his win, and Democrats will likely rally around their party’s candidate,” Mr. Schwartz said. “Lieberman will be viewed differently Wednesday — he will be viewed as the losing candidate.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/08/nyregion/08cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=6e7fe1fab055b2ed&hp=&ex=1155096000&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1155097246-lf8kEenQvvJZV6gNH1RGTA

August 9, 2006
Editorial
Revenge of the Irate Moderates

The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president’s choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration’s contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.

Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person’s right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.

When Mr. Lieberman told The Washington Post, “I haven’t changed. Events around me have changed,” he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the country into a disastrous international crisis and started subverting the nation’s basic traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take a lead in fighting back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/opinion/09wed1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Joementum Ain't Going to Cut It as An "Independent" Candidate



If the poobahs who lead the Democratic Party in D.C. (with the exception of Howard Dean who knows that it's time for a housecleaning) don't get "it" after Ned Lamont beat the Chia Pet Democrat for the Busheviks, they never will.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorial/066

[Peace Patriot]

8. Now THAT's the NYT I used to know and love! 'Irate Moderates.' What a

great phrase!

Lots of irony here, NYT-wise. But I'm willing to leave room for people and war profiteering corporate news monopolies to change. Are they doing a bit of projection maybe? Lieberman wouldn't change, wouldn't listen, wouldn't respond to citizen concerns. Is the NYT now willing to listen to, and start reflecting, the views of the majority of Americans? Do they want to become a proper "newspaper of record" again, and not a "newspaper of lies"? I certainly hope so. But we should never, never forget what they did--and never let THEM forget!

[kpete]

2. Lamont Wins; Lieberman Concedes But Promises November Run

Lamont Wins; Lieberman Concedes But Promises November Run
John Nichols

"Stay the course -- that's not a winning strategy in Iraq and it's not a winning strategy for America," declared anti-war candidate Ned Lamont as he accepted the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate from Connecticut.

The man Lamont beat, Senator Joe Lieberman, conceded defeat in the Senate primary Tuesday night. But the three-term incumbent announced he would go ahead with a sore-loser campaign on a third-party line against the candidate of the party that nominated him for vice president in 2000.

"I will not let that result stand," Lieberman said of the decision of Connecticut Democrats to hand their party's nomination to Lamont, a political unknown before his frustration with Lieberman's support of the war in Iraq led him to challenge the Bush administration's favorite Democrat.

"We've just finished the first half, and the Lamont team is ahead," the senator told supporters gathered at a Hartford hotel. But the senator claimed "our team... is going to surge forward to victory in November."

With 97 percent of the state's precincts reporting in the most closely watched Senate primary the nation has seen in years, Lamont had 52 percent, while three-term incumbent Lieberman trailed with 48 percent.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=109475

[Peace Patriot]

3. Notable that CT uses the old, reliable lever voting machines.

Thread about the CT voting method:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1851168

[kpete]

4. Lamont Defeats Lieberman in Primary

Lamont Defeats Lieberman in Primary


By PATRICK HEALY
Published: August 8, 2006

Ned Lamont, a Connecticut millionaire whose candidacy for the United States Senate soared from nowhere on a fierce antiwar message, won a narrow but decisive victory Tuesday night over the storied incumbent, Joseph I. Lieberman, in the race for the Democratic nomination.

But speaking to his cheering supporters Tuesday night, Mr. Lieberman vowed to continue his fight to remain Connecticut’s junior senator by running as an independent in November.

“As I see it in this campaign, we just finished the finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead,’’ he said. “But in the second half, our team — Team Connecticut — is going to surge forward to victory in November.”

He said the he could not let the results stand, “for the sake for our state, my party, and our country.’’ And he added: “But I am not discouraged. I am disappointed not just because I lost but because of all the old politicsof polarization won today.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/08/nyregion/08cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=6e7fe1fab055b2ed&hp=&ex=1155096000&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1155097246-lf8kEenQvvJZV6gNH1RGTA

[kpete]

5. A Referendum on Iraq Policy

News Analysis
A Referendum on Iraq Policy

The victory of Ned Lamont over Joseph I. Lieberman, a three-term senator and former vice presidential candidate, was a vivid demonstration of how the Iraq war is buffeting American politics and of the deep hostility toward President Bush among Democrats. It also suggested there are stiff anti-status-quo winds blowing across the political landscape as the fall elections approach.

Mr. Lamont’s victory marked the first time that liberal political blogs, after playing an increasingly noisy role in Democratic politics, have been associated with a major winning campaign, suggesting a moment of arrival for this new force in political combat. And the outcome will also undoubtedly prod other Democrats who supported the war — albeit with less gusto than Mr. Lieberman — to step farther away from the increasingly unpopular conflict.

But more than that, the results of this most closely watched primary of the year raised red flags for both parties, going into the highly competitive fall elections.

For Democrats, the result — closer than polls suggested and than many Democrats had expected — dramatized the fault lines in the party over the war. And with Mr. Lieberman pledging in a concession speech last night to run as an independent in the general election, with a fierce attack on Mr. Lamont and “partisan” Washington Democrats, national Democrats have been put in an excruciating position.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/nyregion/09assess.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[kpete]

6. Bipartisanship Without Ideology is Pathetic

Bipartisanship Without Ideology is Pathetic
By Nathan Newman

If I think partisanship needs a consistent belief system to be powerful, Lieberman's launch of an independent run for Senate justified almost solely by a whiny call for "bipartisanship" is just a pathetic platform in an age where bipartisanship has meant a disastrous war and logrolling among corporate interests across party lines.

And Lieberman's "bipartisanship" gambit is likely to fail in the end. The problem for Lieberman is that most voters aren't worried about Democrats being too leftwing or partisan.

In fact, a 2005 Democracy Corp poll found that only 27% of Americans thought Democratic leaders "know what they stand for" compared to 55% who see GOP leaders as clearly articulating their positions.

To the extent that Lamont is attacked for having ideas that don't fit the bipartisan deadlock of DC, that will only help Lamont's candidacy. Lieberman's strongest tactic in the primary was saying that he had strong liberal views on a range of areas, so why should Connecticut trade him in over a few political differences? But if Lieberman emphasizes the differences with Lamont, he may be playing to some independents and Republicans but will rapidly lose many of the Democrats who did support him in the primary. Even without Lieberman's new label as primary "loserman", he was running about even with Lamont in general election matchups.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/aug/09/bipartisanship_without_ideology_is_pathetic

[kpete]

7. Joe: Voters Suck - From the Today Show this morning

Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Joe: Voters Suck
Posted by Atrios

From the Today Show this morning:

LAUER: Let me go back to that line in your speech last night. I'll paraphrase it if you don't mind. You said, for the sake of your state, your country and my party, you will not let these results stand. It's a nice line in the speech, but the fact of the matter is there are a lot of Democrats who think that now going forward you are putting your own personal ambitions above the good of the party.

How do you respond to that?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I think it's time for somebody to break through the dominance of both parties by the margins of the parties, which happens in primaries. I think it's time for somebody to break through and say, Hey, let's cut out the partisan nonsense.

Yes, I'm a proud Democrat, but I'm more devoted to my state and my country than I am to my party. And the parties today are getting in the way of our government doing for our people what they need their government to do.

So in the end, Matt -- the great thing about America is that the people will have the last word.

...

LAUER: Senator, is there any phone call you could receive? Is there anyone in the Democratic Party who could call you today and ask you to drop out that you would listen to?

LIEBERMAN: Respectfully, no. I am committed to this campaign, to a different kind of politics, to bringing the Democratic Party back from Ned Lamont, Maxine Waters to the mainstream, and for doing something for the people of Connecticut. That's what this is all about: which one of us, Lamont or me, can do more for the future of our people here in Connecticut. And on that basis, I'm going forward with confidence, purpose and some real optimism.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_06_atrios_archive.html#115512862756892842

[kpete]

9. Joementum Ain't Going to Cut It as An "Independent" Candidate

Joementum Ain't Going to Cut It as An "Independent" Candidate
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 08/08/2006 - 8:59pm. Editorials

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

If the poobahs who lead the Democratic Party in D.C. (with the exception of Howard Dean who knows that it's time for a housecleaning) don't get "it" after Ned Lamont beat the Chia Pet Democrat for the Busheviks, they never will.

If Schumer, who heads the Democratic Senate Re-election Campaign, doesn't come out of the gate and endorse Lamont, he will doom the Democratic Party to continuing to be a minority party in Congress.

For six years, we've heard from the smug, failed leadership of Republicans and Democrats alike on Capitol Hill. Now the voters have spoken -- and it's not a message that is going to be well-received by the "don't rock the boat" entrenched status quo Dems on Capitol Hill.

The biggest reason Lieberman was rightfully defeated was that he repeatedly supported policies of failure. The Lamont voters aren't wild-eyed love-in peaceniks. They oppose the Iraq War, for the most part, because it was founded on lies and, more importantly, it's a failure, an utter fiasco. It only persists because no one has the guts or wherewithal to stand up to the lies, thuggishness and bullying of the Bush Administration. We have a continuing war because the people who began it aren't men enough to admit their mistakes.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorial/066

[kpete]

10. Reid & Schumer: We & The Dem Sen Campaign Cmtee FULLY SUPPORT LAMONT!

Reid/Schumer Statement
Posted by Atrios
From email:

Democratic Leader Harry Reid and DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer issued the following joint statement today on the Connecticut Senate race:


“The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken and chosen Ned Lamont as their nominee. Both we and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) fully support Mr. Lamont’s candidacy. Congratulations to Ned on his victory and on a race well run.

“Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic Senator for Connecticut and for America. But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the President more than anything else. The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction.”

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_08_06_atrios_archive.html#115513323803964459

[kpete]

11. "Moving Left" by ??? - Joe Scarborough

"Moving Left" by ??? - Joe Scarborough

The conventional wisdom for tonight's Connecticut primary seems to be that a Joe Leiberman loss will yank the Democratic Party so far left as to make other Democratic candidates unelectable this fall. The logic is laughable and similar to what I heard from Republican leaders in 1994.

That was the election year when the most conservative wing of the GOP took over the party and swept into power in the US Congress. None would have predicted that outcome just two years earlier.

George Bush's loss to Bill Clinton in 1992 had put Republican operatives and strategists in a panic. They feared that Bush had been beaten like a drum because radical conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Phyllis Shaffley and Pat Robertson had hijacked the GOP Convention. So while Bill Clinton spent the next two years moving left, the Republican National Committee desperately sought moderate candidates that would talk, walk and vote like, say, Joe Lieberman. The goal was to blur all differences between Republicans and Democrats.

Because of that logic, I spent most of 1994 fighting Republican bureaucrats on the local, state and federal level who did everything in their power to elect my very moderate opponent in the GOP primary. A week before the primary, the Republican Congressional Committee campaign director let me know that I might as well give up. 1994 would be the year of the Moderate.

Yeah, right.

Within a few months of that conversation, scores of right-wing, knuckle-dragging, spear-carrying conservative barbarians like myself ran through our moderate Democratic opponents like Barry Bonds through a bottle of roids. It was ugly. Darting to the base was the ticket to victory for the Party of Reagan.

Fast forward twelve years and now we find many making the same misguided arguments, except this time they are giving their stupid advice to Democrats generally and Connecticut voters specifically.

Ned Lamont may be a pencil-necked geek, as Imus claims, but he is the type of candidate that will bring out the Democratic base in an off-year election. That is especially true this year because George W. Bush is even more unpopular than Clinton was when the GOP swept into power.

My advice to Democratic voters this year is "Go left, young man!"

There may be hell to pay in 2008, but for now the only thing that should matter to you is seizing control of Congress. Do that for the first time in a decade and then you can start worrying about swing voters in the suburbs.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/19145/77283

[kpete]

12. Lamont's Victory & Lieberman's Insult to Democracy

David Sirota
08.08.2006
Lamont's Victory & Lieberman's Insult to Democracy & the Democratic Party (42 comments )

At the end of every gut-wrenching horror movie, when the hero seems finally to have vanquished the enemy, there is always that last moment where the enemy, lying lifeless on the floor, finds a last gasp to fire off one final round, usually dealing a fatal blow to one of the good guys.

In the incredible story that concluded tonight in Connecticut, Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Ned Lamont was the successful hero, representing the hopes and dreams or ordinary citizens by mounting a truly grassroots campaign against Joe Lieberman's massive warchest of corporate cash and universal support from Washington, D.C.'s cabal of lobbyists, pundits and insiders. Yet, in his last coughing gasps, Lieberman is now saying he will, in fact, fire off that last spiteful round - right into the gut of the Democratic Party.

That's right - Lieberman is announcing he will move forward with plans to abuse loopholes in Connecticut's election laws, ignore Democratic Party voters who voted in our democratic process for change, and mount a Lieberman for Lieberman Independent bid. This, from the guy who went on television after the 2004 presidential race (which was the closer than the Connecticut primary) to declare that "there's no prizes for second place in American politics." Yes, you read that right - the Senator who says there's "no prizes for second place" and who has in the final days of Democratic primary campaigning been running around claiming that he gets the message and realizes he no longer should enable George W. Bush's right-wing agenda now is saying that he will try to rely on hard-core Republican voters and moneymen in a general election contest in a desperate attempt to hold onto power.

Understand how insulting this is - Connecticut taxpayers just spent a large sum of money to hold a democratic primary election in a country founded on small-d democratic principles. An 18-year incumbent who had 100 percent name ID and a $12 million warchest (thanks to, among others, Joe's good friends in the pharmaceutical and financial services industry) was unable to win that election. Now, instead of respecting small-d democracy or the party he has spent the last week pledging his devotion to, he's behaving like a Third World autocrat that ignores democracy, and running to hard-core GOP voters and fundraisers in Connecticut and begging them to help him hold onto his job in the Senate club. This undemocratic chicanery from a man who has long justified his support for the Iraq War by saying he has a supposedly heartfelt devotion to spreading democracy.

Make no mistake about it - be prepared for Lieberman, the Enron lobbyists, corporate lawyers, Establishment pundits and other assorted characters in the Washington brothel to run out immediately and trumpet how incredible it was that Lieberman got so close, insist that Lieberman loss was supposedly the doing of anti-semites, and demand that every god-fearing, terrorist-hating American support Lieberman's selfish independent candidacy or the Republic will not be able to go on. What they want to do is pretend that Lieberman hasn't spent 18 years in the Senate, wasn't have every single advantage, didn't outspend his opponent with a massive corporate-funded warchest, and was, instead, the courageous underdog who supposedly did not arrogantly ignore mainstream public opinion with his stands pushing the Iraq War, Social Security privatization and corporate-written trade deals that sold out American jobs. That storyline provides a convenient excuse to justify Lieberman ignoring Connecticut voters, Connecticut taxpayers who funded the election, and all the democratic principles this country is supposed to be based on. It provides a consultant-packaged excuse for Lieberman to ignore voters and insult the Democratic Party by running as a party of one, and potentially throwing the general election to the Republican Party.

more at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/lamonts-victory-lieber_b_26829.html

[kpete]

13. "Black Box" Voting and Faith-Based Elections"

When Even the Illusion is Gone:

"Black Box" Voting and Faith-Based

Elections

- by Adam Levenstein

"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year." --Walden O'Dell, CEO, Diebold Inc.

"It's not he who casts the votes that matters--but he who counts the votes." --Josef Stalin

"There were security holes all over it." --Roxanne Jekot, computer programmer who examined Diebold's voting machines

In the United States, we don't have much in the way of democracy. Every four years, we go to the polls, and select which white man from one of our two corporate-backed parties we want to be President. Then - lest our votes directly go towards the individual in question - faceless electors who our votes actually go to meet and they vote in the actual President.

Beyond that, every two years we select Congressional representatives; sometimes some people of color and women manage to slip in, but it's almost always from the same two parties.

In 2000, everything changed. Recount after recount in Florida yielded differing results, none establishing a clear majority. The nation was riveted; which group of faceless electors was going to vote in the President? Democrat Al Gore's electors, or George W. Bush's electors? Eventually, the Supreme Court stepped in and told Florida to stop counting the votes; the last recount, which showed Bush in the lead by the slimmest of margins. Compelled by the order, life-long Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris faithfully certified the results, with George W. Bush the winner.



http://www.lefthook.org/Politics/Levenstein021204.html

[kpete]

14. GEORGIA: McKINNEY SUFFERS LANDSLIDE DEFEAT.

GEORGIA: McKINNEY SUFFERS LANDSLIDE DEFEAT.

DeKalb County Commissioner Hank Johnson ousted controversial and erratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in the CD-4 Democratic run-off by a surprisingly wide margin. Johnson defeated the volatile and outspoken McKinney by a 59% to 41% vote. McKinney drew national headlines when she punched a Capitol police officer earlier this year, then made a full apology on the House floor in a deal to avoid indictment. This was an astounding second Congressional renomination defeat for McKinney. In a bizarre end to her campaign, McKinney attempted singing the anti-Bush protest song by Pink and the Indigo Girls called "Dear Mr. President" in lieu of any concession speech, then offered just one sentence for gathered reporters and supporters: "I wish the new representative of the 4th Congressional District well." Johnson will only face nominal opposition in the general election. In the race for Lieutenant Governor, former State Representative Jim Martin (D) won the run-off by a wide 22% margin.

http://www.politics1.com/blog-0806.htm#0808

[kpete]

15. CA: Three Interesting Stories From Brad Blog

BREAKING: California Voters File To Stop Use of Electronic Voting Systems

VoterAction Announces The Filing Of a New Motion of Preliminary Injunction In State Court
In a just issued Press Release, VoterAction has announed that California voters are challenging the use of the Diebold TSx touch screen voting system and that they have filed a motion for preliminary injunction in state court.

This announcement follows the July 18 announcement that an attempt by the state to move the original suit from the state courts to federal court had failed.

The press release follows:


California Voters File New Motion of Preliminary Injunction in State Court to Halt Use of Electronic Voting Systems

Hearing to take place in time for November election

San Francisco, CA, August 8, 2006 — California voters challenging the use of Diebold touch screen voting systems today filed a motion for preliminary injunction in San Francisco Superior Court, asking the Court to prohibit purchase or use in California of Diebold Accuvote TSx electronic voting machines for use in the November 2006 general election. A hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction is expected on August 31, 2006. Defendants in the case are Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and elections officials in 11 California counties. Elections officials in eight other California counties have been dismissed from the suit, after they signed affidavits that they will not use Diebold touch screens for the November elections.

“This case will be the first time the California Courts have looked at the evidence on the myriad defects of this touch screen electronic voting system, and its failure to satisfy state law for election security. If the California voter plaintiffs win, the Secretary must immediately decertify the problem-plagued machines, and counties will still have time to find an alternative for use in the November election,” said John Eichhorst, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, and a partner at the law firm of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin in San Francisco.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3199




San Diego Greens Call for Removal of Electronic Voting Machines

THE GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA
www.cagreens.org

GREEN PARTY OF SAN DIEGO, CA
www.sdgreens.org

August 07, 2006
Released Aug 04, 2006

A Resolution of the Green Party of San Diego County, California calling for the removal of electronic voting machines from the County of San Diego.

The Green Party of San Diego County does not endorse the protocols used for obtaining and tabulating votes during the June 6 primary and previous elections.. As we outline below, the process is fundamentally insecure leading to election results that are neither accurate nor verifiable.

Whereas voting machines are known to have gone home overnight with poll workers who had not undergone background checks, and who had unsupervised access to these voting machines, as documented by Pamela Smith, Nationwide Coordinator, www.VerifiedVoting.org and Verified Voting Foundation, and poll workers Terry Olson, Brian C. Baer, Patricia Mack Newton, and others, and admitted to by Registrar of Voters Mikel Haas, who told the Union Tribune, that the practice of sending home voting machines with poll workers "has been followed without incident for about 40 years." (Electronic voting machines have not been in use for 40 years, so the Registrar's statement appears to be inaccurate.)… (1)

Whereas the multiple means of a single individual undetectably "hacking" both optical scan and touch-screen machines have been documented by the Brennan Center Report, the second report of the Irish Commission on Electronic Voting, and the Hursti Reports… (2)

Whereas the Secretary of State has ignored his own technical advisory panel regarding security safeguards submitted in their report on November 8, 2005…(3)

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3193




California Election Officials Defend E-Voting Machine Sleepovers

They Stand By Their Man (Which Turns Out To Be Their Stated Purpose)
Guest Blogged by Emily Levy

Claims that electronic voting equipment sleepovers are just peachy sound mighty defensive in an issue paper titled "Voting Equipment 'Sleepover' Practice" issued July 27, 2006 by the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials (CACEO).

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3195

[kpete]

16. TX: DeLay vows to take name off Texas ballot

DeLay vows to take name off Texas ballot
By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer
Tue Aug 8


WASHINGTON - Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Tuesday he is taking the necessary steps to remove his name from the November ballot, giving his party a chance to field a write-in candidate in hopes of holding the House seat.

Buffeted by scandal, DeLay said his June 9 resignation from Congress was "irrevocable" and maintained that he's no longer a Texan.

"As a Virginia resident, I will take the actions necessary to remove my name from the Texas ballot. To do anything else would be hypocrisy," DeLay said in a statement.

DeLay was forced to act after Republicans lost several court fights to remove his name from the ballot in the Houston-area district and replace him with a GOP-chosen nominee. Republicans ended their legal battles Monday when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused to hear their case, letting the appeals court decision stand.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060808/ap_on_el_ho/delay_s_replacement

[kpete]

17. A psychologist's job: elec voting machines carry double/triple personality

A psychologist's job: elec voting machines carry double/triple personality



A psychologist's job: electroning voting machines carrying double or triple personality



by Roberto Preatoni
Monday, 07 August 2006

Electronic Voting Technology is still a controversial topic: on the one hand there is the need to improve voting operations through an effective method for votes computation, on the other there are some perplexity due to the effective security of this technology.

Diebold's electronic voting technology has been tested for long before being introduced officially, but now, researchers at the Open Voting Foundation have come up with what they call as "the most seriois flaw" in electronic voting technology yet documented.

The Register reported last week that according to the Open Voting, "it's possible to get Diebold's AccuVote TS touchscreen voting machine by toggling a single switch, to boot from an unverified external flash drive instead of the device's built-in firmware , which is stored on a EPROM chip..."

Jeopardizing this technology now, means opening the voting maching and being uncommonly skilled about hardware and programming, but there are plenties of crackers that would like to take this challenge...

To be more precise, the problem seems to reside in the poor design of the motherboard which resembles those motherboard used in the old NeoGeo arcade videogames.

Old school hackers know very well how easy was to tamper that electronic, substituting the Eprom or even mounting a multiple Eprom set.

This kind of tricks seems working fine also on this voting machine; at least three ways to tamper with the machine behaviour have been identified so far. It is basically possible by adding an additional Flash memory to the motherboard; the switches allowing to choose if booting from withing the original Eprom or the new Flash memory are already present, all you need to do is... to switch them.

In this way, the machine would carry a double personality one standard, the second evil. To be more precise, it has been found also the way to add a third personality by implementing an external flash memory.

More details about the full tricks at Opening Voting Foundation's website.

http://www.zone-h.org/content/view/13978/31/

[kpete]

18. Why Diebold DRE’s Have No Valid NASED Numbers

Fraud Vitiates Everything it Touches: Why Diebold DRE’s Have No Valid NASED Numbers
New from Vendors - Diebold
By John Washburn, VoteTrustUSA Voting Technology Task Force
August 09, 2006
The centuries old legal principal, Fraus omnia vitiate, “Fraud vitiates everything” renders the following NASED qualification numbers

N-1-06-12-12-002,
N-1-06-12-12-003,
N-1-06-12-12-007,
N-1-06-12-12-009,
N-1-06-12-22-008,
N-1-06-12-22-010,
N-1-06-22-22-001,
N-1-06-22-22-002,
N-1-06-22-22-003, and
N-1-06-22-22-004
null and void. Thus, for Wisconsin and 37 other states1, these Diebold systems identified by the qualification numbers above are not certified for use in the state because the required2, legally valid NASED qualification number does not exist. In particular, the certifications for systems N-1-06-22-22-001 and N-1-06-22-22-004 are now void in Wisconsin.

On Thursday, August 3, 2006 a three year investigation came to a conclusion and that conclusion is Diebold Election Systems, Incorporated (DESI) committed fraud against Wyle Labs in order to obtain valuable qualification numbers from the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) Voting Systems Board (VSB). DESI and its corporate predecessor, Global Election Systems3, knowing and repeatedly over a period of several years withheld from review source code to the several versions of WinCE (Windows Compact Edition) used in the touch screen DRE’s manufactured by the company. Such source code review is required under both the 1990 and 2002 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines in Section 7.44 and Volume I Section 1.65; respectively.

NASED Qualification Numbers are used to identify specific systems tested by Independent Testing Authorities to indicate the referenced systems conform to the 2002 VVSG6. By committing fraud to obtain these valuable numbers, DESI has vitiated these numbers and these qualifications numbers are null and void.

more at:
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1648&Itemid=51

[kpete]

19. CA: Voters File To Halt Use Of Elec Voting Machines (Hearings By Nov Elec)

California Voters File To Halt Use of Electronic Voting Machines
By VoterAction
August 08, 2006
Hearing to take place in time for November election

California voters challenging the use of Diebold touch screen voting systems today filed a motion for preliminary injunction in San Francisco Superior Court, asking the Court to prohibit
purchase or use in California of Diebold Accuvote TSx electronic voting machines for use in the November 2006 general election. A hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction is expected on August 31, 2006. Defendants in the case are Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and elections officials in 11 California counties. Elections officials in eight other California counties have been dismissed from the suit, after they signed affidavits that they will not use Diebold touch screens for the November elections.

"This case will be the first time the California Courts have looked at the evidence on the myriad defects of this touch screen electronic voting system, and its failure to satisfy state law for election security. If the California voter plaintiffs win, the Secretary must immediately decertify
the problem-plagued machines, and counties will still have time to find an alternative for use in the November election," said John Eichhorst, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, and a partner at the law firm of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin in San Francisco.

"This case is a powerful and well-documented challenge to the Secretary of State's certification of the Diebold touch screen machines, which is illegal because they cannot be made secure, reliable, or verifiable. Unless the Court acts to prevent it, we are headed for a train wreck in the November election," said Lowell Finley, co-counsel for the plaintiffs and co-director
of Voter Action.

The lawsuit, Joseph Holder v. McPherson, et al., No. CPF 06-506171, was originally filed on March 21, 2006. In April, the Secretary of State and counties attempted unsuccessfully to have the case transferred permanently to federal court. United States District Court Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong in Oakland ruled on July 18, 2006 that this "removal" of the case from the state court was "legally improper" and remanded the case to state court.

more at:
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1646&Itemid=113

[robinlynne]

21. This is the best news of the day!!!!!

yes I'm thrilled that lieberman is gone, but the results of this case could lead to profound change.

[kpete]

20. INTERMISSION - Anyone Out There Feel Free To Post

jeebus. we actually fucking won something. from nowhere. against everything.

i can't stop crying, but we won something, right?

are we at the table?

can you hear us now?

from calipendence. http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/08/we-won-something-right.html

[Kurovski]

22. Kick to the top.

Thanks, kpete. :-)

[Kurovski]

23. Nighty-night kick to the top.

:kick: