Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| Author |
Message |
    
suhkara a yahweh`
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Suhkara_a_yahweh
Post Number: 5
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 5:19 pm: | 
|
What do you think of this course of action?
The TS Diebold were used in the May2,06 primary and theTSx will be used in the in the Aug.3,06 election.This election is a historical one,this is the largest ballot in the history of Shelby,County Tenn. Our course of action is as following.(1.)The election Commissioner operation mgr. has received a copy of the 4-3-06 alert and the election Commission adminstrator a request for the serial numbers and other information concerning the Diebold machine.We will make a new request on Monday that will seek more information.(2)We have contacted the Chairperson of the City Council,a State Rep. Election Sub-Committee member,and other State Officials.(3.)Contacted the local union AFSCME 1733 to seek their support.(4.)We are looking for a lawyer to began a number of legal action.Itis our position that the Diebold machine violate the civil and constitional right of the voters and the citizens of Memphis and Shelby County Tenn. Not only does it compomise the intergrity of the Democratic process, most of all it dis-enfranchise the African-American citizen.The Diebold machine denies a citizen the right to a fair,accurate, secure and democratic election and that their vote will be counted.This will be the foundation of our suit.The firmware flaw will be our strongest position due to the fact this present a Homeland Secrity Risk.I am a member of CERT which will allow me to call for an investigation by Homeland Security,F.B.I.,and hopfuly F.E.C.,F.T.C and a violation of the anti-trust law.This suit will be lead by Rome Whithers who is a canidate for the Memphis Charter Commission.The Diebold machine prevents him from exercising his civic duty and has prevented him from being elected before in pass elections where the Diebold TS were used.When Diebold admited to Michael Shamos Pennsylvania voting system examiner they knew about the security vulnerability which was designed into the system,is an admit to guilt.This is a conspiracy to commit fraud,treason,and to deny the citizen of the United States of American their Civil and Constitional Rights.The Diebold Corp. has placed the citizens of the United States in a position where the outcome of an election can be determine by enemies of the United States because the skill needed to exploit the hole is about a weeks planning time and 60 seconds to execute.They knew this and the six identified security vulnerability is enough proof for a Federal case which we will be persuing.We will call upon the Shelby County Election Commission to follow the action of the State of Pennsylvania and sequester all Diebold machines. This will most likely take a court order to acheive.We will make Memphis ,Tenn.the city wher Dr.King was crucified the site where the fight for a fair,accurate,secure and democratic election took place.Operation Election Intergrity Memphis 2006 |
David G. Mills
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Davidgmills
Post Number: 1
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 6:34 pm: |
|
Ihave already filed a suit against the Shelby County Election Commission alleging that paperless voting is unconstituional. The case is on appeal. I filed my brief in the Court of Appels last Monday, May 8, 2006 |
David G. Mills
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Davidgmills
Post Number: 2
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 6:36 pm: |
|
You can read my brief here:
http://dragonflihost.net/Mills_Election_Brief.pdf |
John Dean
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bozosforbush
Post Number: 367
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 6:59 pm: |
|
My sincere thanks guys for your help in this battle! |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2369
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 10:47 pm: |
|
Great to have these updates, Suhkara' and David.
Suhkara', if you have a longer post it's easier to read if it's broken up into shorter paragraphs with a space inbetween. You can experiment and see what you think. |
David G. Mills
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Davidgmills
Post Number: 3
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 6:41 am: |
|
Suhkara:
A bit more information. I did not sue Diebold for a specific reason. I sued to have the statutes which allow for voting machines, like the ones Diebold makes, to be declared unconstitutional. If you merely knock out Diebold, some manufactuer, just as bad, will take Diebold's place. If you correct the legislation, then none of these manufacturers are allowed to sell machines that are not verifiable.
I want a system where if there is a question about who won the election, one of the candidates can file a lawsuit, the judge can subpoena the paper ballots or paper record of the vote, the ballots or paper records can be marked as evidence, and the jury can count them. Only then when an election lawsuit is that simple, will we have verifiable elections again.
Until election lawsuits are simple cases of a jury counting ballots, our elections will be suspect.
Election lawsuits can be very simple cases with paper and very verifable. Without paper they are a farce, a battle of experts, filled with trade secret defenses, multiple parties, and where a jury ultimately must decide which experts it believes. But a battle of experts does nothing to help the public have confidence in the outcome.
Sorry about the typos in the first post. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 240
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 7:54 am: |
|
David,
Are you sure the Rules of Civil Procedure would ever allow a jury to do any counting?
A much more likely outcome in most states would be that the people who would normally do a recount do it and report to the court.
Don't get too "married to" the idea that a jury would ever count ballots. I hope it's enough that someone does.
BTW, is this a state constitutional issue, or federal, and if it's federal, which cite? |
David G. Mills
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Davidgmills
Post Number: 4
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Kurt;
That is an interesting question. However, I think this is more of an evidentiary question than a procedural question. Certainly the ballots could be marked as exhibits. Juries get to take exhibits back into the jury room and examine the exhibits.
What a jury gets to decide would depend on the special questions which are permitted to a jury. States vary greatly in the questions they ask juries to answer. Some are very general and simple. It could be a simple question like, "Who won?" But many states allow juries to answer very complex questions.
If a jury can answer the simple question of who won, it seems to me that it could also answer, "How many votes do you find each contestant received?" This is not much different than asking the jury in a personal injury case, what amount of money is fair compensation for the Plaintiff's injuries. Both involve math and counting.
Juries are supposed to decide facts. And certainly how many votes each contestant got are facts which need to be determined. (It is not the province of the court to decide facts unless it is a bench trial; if it were a bench trial the judge would have to determine who won or what the count was).
Without knowing for sure, I am willing to bet that about 100 years ago, this was how election contest cases were conducted. I think we have gotten away from something so simple and verifiable. We had to get away from simple cases once paperless machines were introduced into the voting system.
So yes, I think it could be done and I think it should be done. When I bring this up in oral argument, it will be interesting to see what kinds of questions I draw from the judges.
Second question. This is technically a state constitutional issue. However the state constitution states that elections shall be "free and equal." There are no state cases on what it means to have an "equal" election so I am suggesting that our state court adopt the principles of what the federal courts have said constitutes "equal" voting rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. They have to comply with the fourteenth amendment anyway. Might as well "sync" up.
It is a tricky way of using federal law as authority for a state case, but in this case, necessary and highly appropriate.
(Message edited by davidgmills on May 12, 2006) |
David G. Mills
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Davidgmills
Post Number: 5
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 2:27 pm: |
|
One more thing. Do not confuse recount with election contest. They are not the same at all. A recount is something done outside of a court proceeding.
An election contest is a court proceeding. It may be that persons who conducted the recount might be witnesses in an election contest case, but usually an election contest case arises because there is some question about both the original count and the recount.
So I think a jury could hear election officials testify but I do not think that the jury would be obligated to abide by the decision of the election officials. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 245
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 6:56 pm: |
|
David,
Since I used to be a professional election administrator, I am aware of the difference between a recount and a contest, and you've about nailed it. The way it was described to me is this:
A recount alleges that the votes were not counted correctly and asks that to be redone.
A contest alleges that even if the count is correct, that the election was so fundamentally flawed that those correct counts still do not reflect the will of the voters, possibly for reasons other than the accuracy of the count.
In that light, perhaps what happened in Ohio is better called a contest than a recount. The contest also has a very high burden of proof, generally speaking. |
David G. Mills
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Davidgmills
Post Number: 6
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 9:02 pm: |
|
I guess there are really two types of election contest lawsuits now that you mention the more common type we see today. First, the type of contest that seeks to throw the results out and have a new election altogether, and second, the type of contest where each and every ballot could be assessed by a jury to see what they think after they are given instrustions as to what constitutes a valid vote; ie, after they are given instructions on what criteria they should use to determine the will of the voters.
You are talking about the first kind, the kind we normally see today. I am talking about the second kind, the kind I think they might have had before the era of paperless voting and if they did, the kind I want to bring back. But I guess I should try to do some research on some very old election cases to see what happened eons ago. That will be difficult as I do not have easy access to the kind of library I would probably need to research really old cases. |
David G. Mills
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Davidgmills
Post Number: 7
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Just doing some googling -- I found that one definition of an election contest was a court fight over who had actually won. That would be different from the kind of election contest where the claim is that the election was so flawed or that the outcome of the election was so much in doubt that the only just thing would be to have another election. So both types do exist. |
|
|
