Election Nullification Is: Out In Open+Intentional+Signed By Their Lawyers

[kpete]

Court rules against voters supervising elections, attorney tells Raw Story

Miriam Raftery
Published: Wednesday September 6, 2006

A judge has dismissed a challenge filed to California’s hotly contested 50th Congressional race, in which the House seated Republican Brian Bilbray just 7 days after the election -- before the race was certified and before all votes were counted. RAW STORY has followed the case in earlier reports.

For the controversial ruling, Judge Yuri Hofmann relied on arguments brought by attorneys representing Bilbray and San Diego’s Registrar of Voters to dismiss the case, relying on Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution to find that only the House of Representatives has jurisdiction over its members' races.

Now a Nevada court has extended House powers even further, ruling on Friday that citizens and courts have no power to object in a Republican primary election – even though neither candidate is an incumbent currently serving in Congress.

In an exclusive interview with RAW STORY, Paul Lehto, attorney for the voters who filed the CA-50 challenge, reveals why he believes this is a dangerous trend that could be used by legislators to seize and keep power in other races nationwide – starting with the race to fill Tom DeLay’s Congressional seat.

Attorney Paul Lehto does NOT agree that there is nothing anyone can do. Rather, He thinks that the GOP strategy here of weaponizing the Constitution can only be successful if we both accept its legitimacy and genuflect to it based on a sense of powerlessness. The motions to dismiss election contests raised by the GOP defendants in CA and NV and perhaps soon in TX are just the latest species of election nullification, election fraud being another example of election nullification. Only now, the election nullification is out in the open, it is intentional, it is signed by their lawyers, and it can’t be denied. They want to end inquiry into elections by anyone other than the House and Senate themselves IN THE WORST WAY.

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

Snippets from interview

Q: What are your next steps or options? Will you file an appeal, and what are the odds of an appeal succeeding?

A: The general background is that first, on civil appeals the success rate on average is 30% or less… If what we are doing is defending elections against premature terminations, then we are defending democracy and it should not enter into our analysis whether we will win or lose.

If you want to take something up on appeal and litigate the rights of others you have to be extremely serious about what you are doing …At this point we are putting out feelers to see if financially, people are really going to stand behind us or not.

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

Q: What are the most important lessons learned from this case?

A: On the broadest level it’s very obvious that there are people who want to prematurely terminate elections and eliminate the public’s right of access to information about those elections. The case also stands for the fact that California's one-percent audit ends up being useless at best, and recount rights are useless when they are priced too high. And if you have ballot box stuffing, the recount will appear to validate the fraudulent results. If you are evaluating legislation concerning elections, keep in mind that any safeguards or checks and balances that you put in the process that occur after any initial results are reported are reduced in value by something like ninety percent, because you may never get there. As soon as you announce initial results of an early winner or loser, election officials start stonewalling anyone’s results to prove otherwise. You need front-end loading: If you want audits, have them occur before the results are reported.

MUCH MORE AT:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Court_rules_against_votersupervised_elections_attorney_0906.html

[Botany]

1. This why bush & company want to pack the courts w/ their judges .....

.... and why in many cases the elections are just for show but the real work is in
fixing the vote and producing a viable cover story as to why the vote turned out as it
did.

[mod mom]

13. bing, bing, bing! We have a winner!

Hey Botany,
what do you think of Elaine (sp) Boozer filling in for Stephanie? and did you get tickets for TDS in Cols?

[electropop]

2. Lehto's comments are accurate.

This is so freaking scary.

[Dhalgren]

3. My gods, this is unbelievable.

(Paraphrasing) "If there is a meltdown concerning the legitimacy of the elections in November the House and Senate could just make the decisions themselves." You know god damned well that there will be a meltdown this November, we've all been gearing up for it. Now, the fascists will use our very own objections to their skulduggery this fall as the excuse and the reason for naming members themselves! If this happens, what will the voters do? Anything? Nothing? What's on tee vee?

[rumpel]

4. kpete, I think this is so important it should be cross-posted in GD

The only way we can stop this absolute power grab, and clearly an assault of the original intent of the founding fathers, is to go forward with an appeal. a.s.a.p

The People will lose otherwise -
The Nevada case is obviously closed - The CA-50 MUST be fought, even if it is only to illuminate the constitutional absurdity into the public foreground and discussion.

We have to go back in history and clarify the "intent" of this article in conjunction with the arguments for and against the formalization of the Bill of Rights. The concern was the rights of the people in each of their respective states be represented, and it was made clear, such rights are not vested in the federal government .

The Constitution lays down the agreement of states to even form a federal government but has never vested the states independent rights to the federal government. Furthermore the people of the states have the sole right and qualifications to form their states legislature.

The GOP argument is grotesque at best to term "as of yet unelected candidates" within a state as "members of the House". The determination of the qualification of a candidate first rest with the people of the state. It looks obvious to me, a lay person, Article 1 Sec 5, was intended to mean after the determination of qualification was decided by the people - congress can determine the qualification of such candidate to be a "member".

The proper forum for such, we only witnessed recently with the Ohio/Boxer revolution. on edit: This is when a state improperly certifies the outcome and fails the will of it's people. In CA-50 the state had not even certified the validity of the election yet.

It is of utmost importance and the only forum for the people to have this addressed now is the case of CA-50.

Has move-on come forward? Has any other organization with the fund raising power come on board yet? And if not why not?

Maybe it is time for all of us who are members of different public interest groups to write for their participation - before it is too late.

[kpete]

5. done - keep it going

People need to know that this is not just about CA 50 - This could lead to the "Federal Seizure" of State Races in Nevada, Texas and beyond...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2072588&mesg_id=2072588

[Land Shark]

6. Remember "inherently inconclusive" election results, invisible evidence,

and all the debates about e-voting, the agreement that it's inscrutable and nontransparent, the limited evidence, the need for expert witnesses, even the DISAGREEMENT of the vendors and elections officials.

ALL OF THE ABOVE FACTORS SHARE AT LEASt ONE THING IN COMMON:

They create "fact issues" or debates or conflicting evidence all of which necessitate TRIALS to resolve in court.

You'll be lucky to have your suit past the filing stage, much less trial, by the time they swear somebody into Congress!

Get it? People serve in Congress at the pleasure of the votecounters and the powerful. They can always say "oh cripes, we just had a major electronic problem here, Houston, I just don't know if these votes are valid!!"

Well, all us activists would be forced to agree. But then the election is invalid, Congress must go on, so they swear in their favorite buds.

GROK THIS: We must have valid elections to displace one party rule.

AND GROK THIS: The Dems likely realize at least THAT, and so don't want to rock the boat of e-voting.

BUT GROK THIS TOO: They can pull the plug on e-voting and admit to inconclusive results at any time. They don't even need to cheat necessarily to do that. Then they abuse their swearing-in power....

Republicans will probably say Dems had quick swearing ins too. That's not the issue the issue is the premature swearing when votes are still being counted combined with the claim of a total lack of jurisdiction. That goes beyond past authorities where the elections and the swearings were not themselves disputed.

[kpete]

7. I Am Throwing My Chair Across The Room As We Speak

"Get it? People serve in Congress at the pleasure of the votecounters and the powerful."

One Party Rule - unless we figure out a way to have "valid elections"

Throwing another chair...

[Land Shark]

8. Throwing chairs=good exercise.

Just make sure they are your chairs, you're wearing safety equipment, and nobody's around except bad guys.

[rumpel]

9. Now just another thought on electronic voting

Anyone who has checked and tried to correct errors in their credit file can appreciate maybe this point:

Credit Report Is Changing: A credit report is not a paper file kept in one place at a credit reporting bureau. This is part of the reason correcting credit errors can be so frustrating. The credit reporting bureaus have all your information saved in a particular format in a big, interconnected data-base. Your information is maintained with everyone else's. When a credit reporting bureau receives information from creditors and others, it all goes into one big "vat" of information or a few different vats owned by affiliated companies. When a business inquires into or "pulls" your credit report, a search program or algorithm pulls information from this vat based on your "personal identifiers" such as your name, address, date of birth and social security number. It is kind of like an internet search engine algorithm, except of course the credit reporting algorithm should be very selective in what it includes. The search algorithm is supposed to filter out obsolete credit information and credit inform that doesn't belong to you. The remaining information is combined into one report. Your credit report isn't something fixed since the information used to create your credit report is constantly changing as creditors pour information into the "vat".

Not a techie here, but I presume electronic tabulation is also based on algorithm...(?) or some similar code

replace the word "creditors' with the word "precinct" and "credit reporting bureau" with the word "central tabulator" - oy :(

Just checking in -

[Land Shark]

10. Interesting parallels

[Bill Bored]

11. Felonies may have been committed in CA 50. How about a prosecution?

1. CA election law prohibits voting machine keys from being held by anyone before or during an election. This is a felony:

18564. Any person is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment
in a state prison for two, three, or four years who, before or
during an election:
(c) Knowingly, and without authorization, makes or has in his or
her possession a key to a voting machine that has been adopted and
will be used in elections in this state.

2. CA election law prohibits elections from being run on federally uncertified DRE machines:

19250. c) As of January 1, 2006, all direct recording electronic voting
systems in use on that date, regardless of when contracted for or
purchased, shall have received federal qualification and include an
accessible voter verified paper audit trail. If the direct recording
electronic voting system does not already include an accessible voter
verified paper audit trail, the system shall be replaced or modified
to include an accessible voter verified paper audit trail.

The sleepovers nullified FEDERAL (NASED) certification according to the following memo by Sandy Steinbach, Chair of the NASED Voting Systems Board. The Diebold TSx is also illegal due to the fact that its VVPAT is not accessible.

Every memory card requires at least the same level of protection as the ballot boxes and ballots used in the election. To prevent corruption of memory cards NASED hereby adopts an official addendum to the qualification of all voting systems that include a memory card that functions to store and transfer ballot images or tabulation data:

1. Throughout the life of the voting system, the election official shall maintain control of all memory cards and keep a perpetual chain of custody record for all of the memory cards used with the system. Programmed memory cards shall be stored securely at all times with logged accesses and transfers.

2. Immediately after the memory card is installed in the voting station, the card shall be sealed against unauthorized access. The voting station shall not be set into election mode until after the memory card is sealed inside.

3. Use controlled serialized seals that are tamper resistant and resistant to inadvertent breakage along with verifiable seal logs.

4. In post-election mode, print the results report prior to removing the memory card from the optical scanner. If additional reports other than the results report are available, print these as well.

Failure to comply with this addendum negates the voting system’s status
as a NASED-qualified voting system.

Sandra J. Steinbach
Chairperson
NASED Voting Systems Board

<http://www.nased.org/ITA%20Information/NASED%20Memory%20Card%20Report.pdf>

Thus using these machines in an election, especially under these circumstances, violated CA election law. This is NOT the same as violating a regulation or conditional certification issued by the Secretary of State. It's a violation of a state election law.

Find a prosecutor to investigate this case, sue the San Diego Registrar for running an illegal election, and you might just prevent sleepovers this November. Maybe in the whole state!

3. Also, on another related issue, it's actually a violation of CA election law to divulge secret voting machine source code, so it appears that secret vote counting is not only legal in the Golden State, but it's a felony to make the vote counting non-secret!:

18564. Any person is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment
in a state prison for two, three, or four years who, before or
during an election:

(b) Interferes or attempts to interfere with the secrecy of voting
or ballot tally software program source codes.

Of course this only applies to code that's secret in the first place, like Diebold's -- not open source. But still, it does seem to conflict with the anti-secret-vote-counting argument, so maybe this law can be overturned as part of that effort.

[Land Shark]

12. Fly on out here BB, and you can start working the criminal angles

[troubleinwinter]

14. I don't understand this 'response'.

It seems just snotty.

Can you elaborate? BB's points are of interest to me and a comment/opinion would be appreciated.

[Land Shark]

15. Anyone that wants to come out here and work is welcome

I don't mean at all to be snotty, but the folks out here in San Diego need help and not sidetracking. But there might be merit to any of these ideas so I invite you too, troubleinwinter, to come out and work on it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. sidetracking?

I don't see how Democratic Underground can possibly afford to accept the principle that certain topics should not be discussed because it might sidetrack the folks in San Diego. I don't even see how we are supposed to descry the list of these inappropriate topics.

[Land Shark]

17. This is a perfect example

You can discuss anything you think within the rules, just don't expect the lawyer for San Diego to answer in full detail each and every question. Particularly criminal stuff which by definition would take that part of the case outside the control of the clients and in the control of the prosecutor.

OTOH you previously posted your recognition that I can't talk or shouldn't talk about strategy. You are correct.

I don't know what the right name is for when someone knows the other person is likely not ethically allowed to answer all questions, yet the same person persists in insisting on answers to questions in this area, but maybe somebody else knows. Anyone?

[mod mom]

18. If you find someone is baiting you, I would suggest a suggestion given to

me from a very wise DUer "The ignore button is your friend". When lively debate becomes harassing then the wisely constructed DU feature is an excellent option. I have only had to use on ~ 5 people (they are the ones who never receive replies) but it has saved me from having my sorry butt kicked off here.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. with due respect, this response is contorted

If you intended to post something along the lines of "I'm sorry, but I can't talk about strategy," then why did you actually post, "the folks out here in San Diego need help and not sidetracking"? That took longer, didn't it?

Of course, it might have seemed incongruous, to the extent that you already have talked about strategy. So how about, "I'm sorry, but I don't have time to answer your questions"? About the same length.

[mod mom]

19. OTOH, DUers, especially those who frequent this forum, are aware of the

legal actions that Paul is undertaking (if not, perhaps a review of previous posts is in order), why you attempt to get him to write something that might disrupt his case, is beyond me. Even if you don't agree with those who are attempting to correct a deficient electoral system, at least allow those who are, to contribute to this forum without harassment. What has Landshark done that upsets you so?

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. mod mom, last I knew, you had me on ignore

Are you even capable of reading my answer to your question?

I didn't harass anyone. In my opinion, Land Shark did.

[troubleinwinter]

29. Thanks so much for your generous welcome...

... however, I don't happen to be a prosecutor in that state or county.

I had never heard of the idea of citizens from out of state working on criminal prosecutions before. Is this something prosecutors encourage? Any examples? I am amazed... I would think there would be prohibitions against such things.

BB's post discusses the idea of "a prosecutor to investigate this case". If a prosecutor were to pursue an investigation of crimes, would that be "sidetracking" in your view?

[silverweb]

20. I understand what is meant.

We have to straighten out the election first, then we can go after the criminal conspiracy behind it. I'm no lawyer, but I see it as the difference between a criminal and a civil case regarding the same matter. They're connected but separate and you have to tackle them separately, focusing on the more urgent case at hand first.

First we have to overturn the initial judge's decision on appeal. Then we'll be free to go after the criminals behind the conspiracy. That's all.

How is that "snotty" or a problem to you?

:shrug:

On edit: Gotta get to work. I'll check back later!

[Bill Bored]

21. That's like saying when someone breaks into your house...

...and steals your stuff, instead of calling the cops, you say it's Unconstitutional because the Constitution is supposed to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. Does that make any sense?

It's even worse than that because in this case, the Constitution says the burglar gets to decide whether or not to return your stuff if s/he gets caught!

The first order of business should be to hold free, fair and LEGAL elections in the State of CA and all the other states. There are already some laws on the books to ensure that. Maybe they're not perfect, but they're a good place to start. And unlike the Constitution, such laws can be changed fairly easily.

Instead what has been done in this case is to challenge the Constitution, which clearly gives Congress the right to decide contested elections involving their members.

If crimes were committed in the conduct of this election, San Diegans should be demanding justice, investigations, prosecutions, etc. -- just like the guy who had his house burglarized.

Congress gets to decide election contests involving their members. If we didn't know that from the get go, we damn well should have, and we know it now. And this case may have just given the enemies of democracy some really clever ideas on how to subvert the will of the voters that they might not have considered before. I can't read their minds, but it's clear that they're now going to use this at the very least in other contested elections. Let's hope the Dems win by a landslide, otherwise we could be totally fucked in Nov.

One thing Land Shark says that makes perfect sense is that audits and recounts need to be done before election results are certified, or perhaps even announced. Maybe that should be the focus of our energies along with the possibility of criminal charges or civil suits against the conduct of illegal elections on uncertified, illegal machines in the state of CA. All the laws I could find about that are cited in post #11. But don't thank me; I'm not a lawyer.

Nor am I a resident of CA-50 or the state of CA. Those who are should think about doing something about this and let the Constitution be, unless they have an in with all the states that would be needed to amend it without giving up any of our Constitutional rights in the process.

If you want to contest something, contest something where the state actually has jurisdiction over the race. Meanwhile, make sure that elections are conducted according to state laws.

[silverweb]

22. Huh?

Who's not making any sense? That bit about unconstitutionality/calling the cops is just absurd and makes NO sense.

This is just about prioritizing temporally.

First you get the cops to stop/catch the guy and get your stuff back (the election).

Then you prosecute the crook's ass (or "crooks' asses," in the current case) and put him (them) in jail (criminal prosecution).

First we get the election fixing thrown out, then we go after the sons of bitches behind the conspiracy to defraud CA50 voters.

LandShark is lead counsel in this case and I'm all for just letting him do his job.

[Bill Bored]

25. You can't get the Election back!

It's over. The term ends in Jan. 2007. In Nov., there's yet ANOTHER election for the same seat and hundreds of others. And if no action is taken against the people who ran this one illegally, the next one will be run under the same unacceptable illegal conditions as this one was. Only next time it's for real -- the full 2-year term. Right up to 2008 when there will be another one. And if the people of California can't stop their election laws from being broken now, they will continue to be broken.

Tell me what the remedy is if you win this appeal. Do they turn back the hands of time and give Busby the seat? Meanwhile, the next election is 2 months away and it will be a repeat of this one unless some action is taken.

[silverweb]

26. It sets a precedent.

And THAT potentially affects every election in the future.

[Bill Bored]

27. Precedents have already been set.

See this thread for previous contests compiled by eomer:
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x447531>

What needs to happen now is to stop these illegally conducted elections -- this November. If that can be done while pursuing the so-called contest, fine. But it's a big mistake to pursue only the contest.

What you have in CA is negligence and perhaps outright abuse of power or fraud by elections officials who disregard state election laws. If you don't stop that, this contest won't mean squat.

Do you think Congress or whoever you appeal to in this case is going to stop "sleepovers" and uncertified Diebold machines that do not conform to state elections law?

Do you know what an Accessible VVPAT is?

Do you know that these machines don't have them?

Do you understand that this a legal requirement in the state of CA?

Do you understand that these DREs are not federally certified once the chain of custody of the memory cards has been broken?

Do you know if keys were included in these sleepovers, which may be punishable by jail time for whoever held or authorized holding of the keys?

Do you want to end the practice of potentially fraudulent elections or do you just want to make a "statement?"

Let's say the Dems win in November by 4% -- same as in this race. And the Pukes contest the election for the same reasons we are. Where will that get us? Do you want them swearing themselves in even though the vote count was NOT in their favor?

What we need is for there to be reason for confidence in the elections to begin with. If there is anything being done that undermines that, it has to be stopped. This contest ain't gonna make that happen. All it will do is inspire more contests. And with the Pukes in charge of Congress, I'm not sure that's where we want to go right now.

[silverweb]

28. I agree it's a multifaceted problem.

But I really do think we have qualified people with different specialized skills who can handle those various facets. You focus on working the aspect that you feel most strongly about and others will do the same. I just don't see the conflict or the need to knock heads with people who have a slightly different approach.

[rumpel]

30. I could imagine, a prosecutor to only step in

when the registrar or anyone in the election office suspects a crime was committed -

However, the registrar - a honcho, in this case is the one who is not doing the job, and is in fact party to the suit.

I have no clue - who has jurisdiction over criminal cases - City Attorney? State AG? Who brings the complaint to them?

But it certainly would be nice to see some one held accountable - perhaps Land Sharks' case will lay the groundwork for such a prosecution ?

just a layperson's 2 cents